tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7509937456798174692024-03-13T05:52:37.172+01:00Chivalry and HonourCommentaries on the histories, activities, and future roles of the great Orders of Chivalry and national honours systems, along with reporting of the chivalric underworld where pseudo knights and self-styled Orders assume the mantle of historical legitimacy.Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-25035705924224827362017-04-25T17:56:00.000+02:002017-04-25T17:56:47.471+02:00The Order of Malta - The Council Complete of State and the Election on 29 April
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The events
of the past five months that ultimately led to the resignation of the Grand
Master have led to considerable dissension among members of the Order and
concerns at the reported breaches of the Constitution of the Order. These
events were unprecedented in the modern history of the Order, indeed the last
occasion on which a Grand Master resigned was when Fra Ferdinand von Hompesch,
after the islands of Malta and Gozo were surrendered to the French, abdicated
as Grand Master on 6 July 1799. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Grand
Master’s resignation was offered to and accepted by the Sovereign Council of the
Order on 28 January 2017. Meanwhile the Grand Chancellor, Baron Albrecht von
Boeselager, was reinstated in his office. The Grand Commander automatically
became Lieutenant <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad interim</i>, and duly
called for a meeting of the Council Complete of State to elect a new Grand
Master or Lieutenant of the Grand Master. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The work
of the Order in the service of the Poor and Sick continues however, and this remains
the principle focus of its members, while retaining the traditional structures
which link it to its former role as both a hospitaller and a military body,
dedicated to the Catholic faith. For the Order to succeed in its mission it
must be united in loyalty to the next Head of the Order and its sovereignty
must be protected. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Grand
Master is elected for life by then from among the Professed Knights with at
least ten years in perpetual vows if they are younger than fifty years of age;
in the case of Professed Knights who are older, but who have been members of
the Order for at least ten years, three years in perpetual vows are sufficient.</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> There are provisions for the resignation of the Grand Master in the Constitution - following such resignation he becomes Bailiff Grand Prior, subject in that capacity only to the authority of the Head of the Order. </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Grand
Master and the Lieutenant of the Grand Master must have the nobiliary requisites
prescribed for the category of Knights of Honour and Devotion. These requisites
differ according to the National Association of which the candidate was
admitted. This reduces the number of potential candidates for either office to
just four professed knights. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The
Council Complete of State elects the Grand Master or the Lieutenant of the
Grand Master.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Those who
will be entitled to vote are:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">a) the Lieutenant
<i>ad interim;</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">b) the
members of the Sovereign Council;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">c) the
Prelate ;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">d) the (Grand)
Priors or, in the event of vacancy, their permanent substitutes (Procurators,
Vicars,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span lang="FR" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: FR; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Lieutenants);<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">e) the
Professed Bailiffs ;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">f) two
Professed Knights delegated by each Priory ;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">g) a
Professed Knight and a Knight in Obedience delegated by the Knights in <i>gremio</i>
<i>religionis;</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">h) five
Regents of the Sub-priories, in accordance with the Code;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">i) fifteen
representatives of the Associations, in accordance with the Code.</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Grand
Master’s election requires a majority plus one of those present entitled to
vote.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The
members of the First Class taking part in the Council Complete of State have
the right to propose three candidates. In the event that such a list is not
presented within the first day of the meetings of the Council Complete of State
or if a candidate is not elected from among the proposed list within the first
three ballots, the members of the Council Complete of State have freedom of
choice in successive ballots.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">After the
fifth undecided ballot, the Council Complete of State decides, with the same
majority, whether to proceed to the election of a Lieutenant of the Grand
Master for a maximum period of one year. In the event of a negative result the
balloting to elect the Grand Master resumes. In the event of a positive result
the Lieutenant of the Grand Master is elected by means of a runoff ballot between
the two candidates who received the largest number of votes in the fifth
ballot. The candidate in the runoff ballot who receives the larger number of
votes prevails. Should there be only one candidate, a majority vote of those
present is required. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If
elected, the Lieutenant of the Grand Master must reconvene the Council Complete
of </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">State
before the end of his mandate (which cannot be greater than one year from his
election). </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Immediately
following the election, the Pope must be informed of the name of the new Head
of the Order. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Grand
Master then makes the following solemn oath: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">By this most Holy Wood of the Cross and by God’s Holy Gospels, I, N.N.,
do solemnly promise and swear to observe the Constitution, the Code, the Rule
and the laudable customs of our Order and to administer the affairs of the
Order conscientiously. So help me God, and if I do otherwise, may it be to the
risk of my soul.</i>”</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
It is
anticipated that whoever is elected the new Head of the Order, whether a Grand
Master or a Lieutenant, will call an Extraordinary Chapter-General.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will elect the members of the Sovereign
Council, composed of the Great Officers of the Order (Grand Commander, Grand
Chancellor, Grand Hospitaller and Receiver of the Common Treasure) and the six
councillors. It will also elect the members of the Government Council, which consists of six Councillors from different geographic areas elected from members of any of the three Classes of the Order.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: NewAster; font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: NewAster; font-size: small;"><br />
<div align="LEFT">
</div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
</div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<o:p></o:p> </div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
</div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-23805245350513305862017-01-23T16:54:00.000+01:002017-04-25T17:48:50.381+02:00THE ORDER OF MALTA AND THE HOLY SEE - The Resignation of the Grand Master<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When the Imperial German government decided in the late summer of 1917 to allow </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Vladimir Lenin</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> and key figures in the Bolshevik leadership to have free passage across Germany into Russia, their hope was to undermine the Russian war effort. The imperial high command had no concept of the disaster that Lenin's triumph would unleash upon the world over the next seven decades and, if the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Kaiser</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> himself had even been consulted, he certainly did no intend the brutal deposition and murder of his </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Romanov" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Romanov</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> cousins. When Charles I dispensed with Parliament, leading to a Civil War, he had no idea that what the majority in parliament considered an abuse of his powers would end with his defeat and execution. Those who challenged the power of Louis XVI in 1789 did not imagine that their decisions would lead not only to the execution of the King and Queen and the institution of an atheist republic but, in many cases, their own death on the scaffold. There are always unforeseen consequences of which contemporary actors are often unable to foresee. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The recent crisis in the </span><a href="http://www.orderofmalta.int/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Order of Malta</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> began some two years and a half years ago with the rejection by the Order's Chapter-General of the candidates chosen by the Grand Master for the senior offices of the Order. The Sovereign Council that was elected was without any Italian members for the first time in the history of the Order. The succeeding period led to considerable differences within the Order's government and this led to a break down in relations between its most senior members, whose consequences for the Order, as in 1917, may turn out to be much more far-reaching than its authors ever imagined. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In early December 2016, His Eminence </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Leo_Burke" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Raymond, Cardinal Burke</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">, the Patron of the Order, telephoned the Grand Magistry with a request for an urgent meeting with the Grand Master, </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Festing" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">His Most Eminent Highness Fra Matthew Festing</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">. There is something of a haze over exactly what transpired at this meeting, which led to a request by the Grand Master for the resignation of the Grand Chancellor, Baron Albrecht von Boeselager. As is now well-known, the latter declined to resign, and his refusal was followed by a demand that he do so in obedience to his superior in the Order, as a knight who had made the special promise of Obedience. He again refused and was dismissed; this exchange was witnessed by the Grand Commander, Fra Ludwig Hoffman von Rumerstein. The latter subsequently took legal advice and withdrew his signature from the document disciplining the Grand Chancellor. Baron von Boeselager protested that he considered his dismissal unlawful and stated his decision to take this before the Tribunals of the Order, under the provisions of the Constitution and Code. His dismissal was subsequently voted upon by the Sovereign Council with the election of Fra John Critien, a member of the Sovereign Council, as Grand Chancellor </span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ad interim</span></i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The intervention of the Cardinal Patron of the Order, ostensibly acting in the name of the Holy Father, appeared to be a direct intervention by the </span><a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Holy See</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> in the affairs of the Order. The last time the Holy See had intervened directly was in the early 1950s when the then Grand Master, Fra Ludovico Chigi Albani della Rovere, was threatened with excommunication. The attempt on the part of some within the curia to suppress the Order failed and, ultimately, it arguably emerged re-energised and stronger. Needless to say, however, once anyone within the Order calls upon Apostolic authority to support an action or for intervention by the Holy See, there is a risk to its sovereignty. Some even suggested that this could open a door allowing the Vatican to take control of the Order itself. While this might seem advantageous to some within the corridors of the Papal palace, such an action would destroy the Order's independence and, ultimately, its effectiveness as an international humanitarian organisation and ability to raise funds in the service of the poor and the church. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Unfortunately the decision to post notices of the Grand Chancellor's dismissal on the web site, led to a series of exchanges of widely distributed emails. It also led to a public challenge to the Holy See by the Grand Magistry and a decision by the Cardinal Secretary of State to appoint a commission to investigate and report on the Grand Chancellor's dismissal. An invitation to participate in this commission extended by the Cardinal Secretary of State was bluntly rejected by the Grand Master on the grounds that it undermined the Order's sovereignty. This rejection was then published on the Order's web site, to the surprise of many who felt such an open challenge to the Holy See was unlikely to have a happy outcome. Anyone who questioned the decisions taken by the Grand Master was warned that dissent could lead to expulsion from the Order. </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The promised action by Baron von Boeselagare before the tribunal nonetheless went ahead (although it ultimately became irrelevant) and if the whole matter had been handled with greater discretion, the senior officers would have quietly returned to their homes for the Christmas celebrations to await the outcome of the proceedings in the Order's courts. Instead, the public exchanges that excited the attention of the world's </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">press - who until then had not shown much interest in the Order - led to the subsequent firestorm of publicity that has enveloped the Order and became increasingly tendentious over the succeeding two months. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The Patron of the Order's responsibility is to represent the Holy See to the Order and therefore convey the views of the Holy Father to the Order; he is not an officer of the Order and has no power to direct its actions. The letter which Cardinal Burke delivered at his meeting was given different interpretations by the two sides; the Grand Master apparently considered it implied that the Pope himself was so disturbed by the way Baron von Boeselager had carried out his responsibilities as Grand Hospitaller, the job he had held for some sixteen years before being elected Grand Chancellor, that His Holiness wished Boeselager to be removed from his office. Cardinal Burke has not issued any formal statement about what transpired between him and the Grand Master (although several Catholic journalists have purported to be representing the Cardinal's views of what transpired); it has been revealed that the Cardinal did have a lengthy meeting with His Holiness before visiting the Grand Magistry. Baron von Boeselager has maintained that the letter did not demand or even suggest that he should be dismissed and the Cardinal Secretary of State on behalf of the Pope declared categorically that he had requested anything of the kind. It would appear, therefore, that the interpretation put upon the letter by Cardinal Burke would seem to have been exaggerated. Most members of the Order had admired Baron von Boeselager for his many years of service to the Order as Hospitaller and were therefore taken by surprise at the allegations made against him. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Following the announcement on the Order's website that the "Grand Chancellor's mandate had ended" Baron von Boeselager released the following statement, dated the Feast of the Imamculate Conception (8 December):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">"</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>Today I was suspended from my office as Grand Chancellor by H.M.E.H. the Grand Master. Also, a disciplinary procedure in order to expel me from the Order was opened at the Grand Magistry. These measures were imposed since I refused to resign as Grand Chancellor as requested by the Grand Master. I took advice that an elected officer cannot be asked to re-sign by invoking our vow of Obedience.<br />I refused to resign since there are no grounds to justify such an action. The subsequent act of removing me from office is in violation of the Order’s Constitutional Charter and Code.<br />The suspension is based on Art. 124 Par. 3 of the Code. According to this Article, the Grand Master can “call a case to himself” for just cause once a Superior, in my case the Regent of the German Subpriory of St. Michael, has initiated a Disciplinary Procedure against a member. I am not subject to such a procedure. It is only in such a case that the Grand Master can impose a precautionary suspension.<br />The alternative method of removing a member of the Sovereign Council, as per Art. 169, requires a deliberative vote of the Sovereign Council with two thirds supporting the removal. This step has not been taken. Furthermore, Art. 169 requires that the Grand Master consult the Juridical Council, whose advice must be given in writing. To my knowledge this step has also not been taken.<br />The accusation brought against me portrays me as a liberal Catholic unwilling to accept the teaching of the Church. I consider this allegation untrue and unjust. I have given my life to the Order, and through this to the Church, and I have always clearly affirmed that I am faithful to the Church and its teaching. I do not have to tell you more in this sense, as you know me.<br />It pains me to share with you this situation, and this level of detail, but I cannot stand by and allow untruths, distortions of fact and a failure to follow our own rules as embodied in the Constitutional Charter and Code to pass without challenge</i>."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This letter was followed by an intervention from the Procurator of the Grand Priory of Bohemia, </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suuc8Sftyy8" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Prince Johannes Lobkowicz</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">, the older brother of the President of the German Association, who wrote to the Grand Master stating that:</span></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">"<i>He</i> (Boeselager) </span><i><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">cannot have been suspended by decree of Your Most Eminent Highness, as the validity of such a decree would be dependent on the Grand Chancellors countersignature (Art.153.Code).<br />• The Code does not foresee the suspension of a holder of a high office as such. This is the obvious logic of Constitution and Code, which is anchored in a constitutional balance of power.<br />• But the Grand Chancellor is Member of the Sovereign Council. In order to remove a member of the Sovereign Council from office a two-thirds majority of those voting is required (Art. 169. § 1). This obviously did not happen.<br />• Suspension of a Member from the Order under Art.123 § 1. Code requires a decision of a disciplinary Commission. Such a commission has to be constituted in Each Priory, Sub Priory and Association, not by the Grand Magistry. To my knowledge the Sub Priory of St. Michael in Germany, who's member Albrecht Freiherr von Boeselager is, has not opened disciplinary procedures against him or voted on such a sanction."</span></i><br />
<i><br /></i><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
It should be pointed out that the Regent of the Sub-Priory of St Michael is the brother-in-law of Baron von Boeselager and would have been prohibited under canon law from intervening in any disciplinary actions or otherwise in this case (but that would not have prevented him from standing aside while the Sub-Priory carried out such proceedings). The Constitution and Code states that disciplinary proceedings against a member should be instituted by the association sub-priory or grand priory of which he or she was a member; at the same it does not expressly prohibit disciplinary proceedings from being instituted by the Grand Magistry - this might be something requiring clarification in any future modifications of the Constitution and Code.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;">Prince Lobkowicz continued:</span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;">Therefore "Suspension
as a precautionary measure" (Art. 124. §3.) could be seen to be misuse of
power from side of Your Most Eminent Highness.</span></i><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;">Acts of the Holy See might
possibly override Constitution and Code, even if this seems a very debatable
question. According to Art. 15.2. g. it "pertains to the Grand Master to
execute acts of the Holy See" ... , but such acts obviously would have to
be formalized and given in writing."</span></i><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This latter comment
represents another unusual aspect of this affair, as the next stage in
this saga was a request for "clarification" of the letter from the </span></span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Secretary_of_State"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Cardinal Secretary of State</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;">made in a letter signed by ten
presidents of National Associations of the Order - led by the presidents of the
German, Dutch, French and British Associations. In Great Britain, divisions
among the British members had led to the Grand Prior of England publicly disassociating
himself from the President of the British Association’s decision to question
the legality of the Grand Master's decision. Prince Johannes Lobkowicz, and the
authors of the letter to Cardinal Parolin, however, considered that the
clarification was necessary as the question of the authority of the Pope had
already been opened by Cardinal Burke's initial intervention; this
was itself based on a purported decision by the Holy Father to intervene in the
affairs of the Order. </span> <span style="font-family: "Verdana",sans-serif;">As
this intervention had been accepted by the Grand Master, there had
already arguably been potential derogation of the sovereignty of the
Order. Nonetheless, the commission appointed by the Cardinal Secretary of State
ultimately reported that there had been an abuse of powers and that Baron von
Boeselager's dismissal had not conformed to the requirements of the
Constitution and Code.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The request for clarification was followed by a letter from
His Holiness himself, addressed to the Grand Master, that was distributed by
the secretary of the commission which His Eminence </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Parolin" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Pietro Cardinal Parolin</span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">, the Secretary
of State, announced would be formed at the Pope's request; this read (and was
accompanied in the email by an " unofficial" translation):<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A Sua Altezza
Eminentissima <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Fra' MATTHEW FESTING <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Gran Maestro del Sovrano
Militare Ordine di Malta <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">con lettera a parte, qui
allegata, il Cardinale Segretario di Stato Le trasmette <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">le mie decisioni circa le
dolorose vicende che, nelle scorse settimane, <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">hanno interessato codesto
Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta. <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Prego Vostra Altezza di
accettarle con il medesimo spirito con cui io ho <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ritenuto necessario
prenderle, per il bene della Chiesa, dell'Ordine e delle <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">persone coinvolte. Esse
hanno valore nonostante qualsiasi altra cosa in contrario.<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Mi e grato assicurarLe le
mie preghiere per Lei e per l'Ordine e chiedo di <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">pregare per me e per il
mio ministero, mentre invio a tutti di cuore la <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Benedizione Apostolica,
insieme a un cordiale saluto.<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGyNPSC-wSOuS-6heMKEI6Zj0hfzIQQQHF8LiGkMTbjU1OYcg8gpN4L6KTLFIcR86hpPxr782iY2LxvYnAanQlb-hsfKfbUYtnS8ZzRY9i3I8TqlvTkTfAxZYUBFNq-GnGobfoLSKe7srO/s1600/Popesig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="float: right;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGyNPSC-wSOuS-6heMKEI6Zj0hfzIQQQHF8LiGkMTbjU1OYcg8gpN4L6KTLFIcR86hpPxr782iY2LxvYnAanQlb-hsfKfbUYtnS8ZzRY9i3I8TqlvTkTfAxZYUBFNq-GnGobfoLSKe7srO/s1600/Popesig.jpg"
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGyNPSC-wSOuS-6heMKEI6Zj0hfzIQQQHF8LiGkMTbjU1OYcg8gpN4L6KTLFIcR86hpPxr782iY2LxvYnAanQlb-hsfKfbUYtnS8ZzRY9i3I8TqlvTkTfAxZYUBFNq-GnGobfoLSKe7srO/s1600/Popesig.jpg"
style='width:95.4pt;height:24pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'
o:button="t">
<v:fill o:detectmouseclick="t"/>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"
o:title="Popesig"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img alt="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGyNPSC-wSOuS-6heMKEI6Zj0hfzIQQQHF8LiGkMTbjU1OYcg8gpN4L6KTLFIcR86hpPxr782iY2LxvYnAanQlb-hsfKfbUYtnS8ZzRY9i3I8TqlvTkTfAxZYUBFNq-GnGobfoLSKe7srO/s1600/Popesig.jpg" border="0" height="32" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg" v:shapes="Picture_x0020_1" width="127" /></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
Dal Vaticano, 21 dicembre 2016<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The translation read: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Your Most Eminent Highness, <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">With the enclosed letter, the Cardinal Secretary of State conveys
to you my decisions regarding the painful circumstances of recent weeks
involving the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I ask Your Highness to accept these decisions in the same spirit
with which I deemed it necessary to take them, for the good of the Church, of
the Order and of the persons involved. These decisions hold, anything to the
contrary notwithstanding. <o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div>
<em><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><em>I readily assure you and the Order of my prayers, and I ask you to
pray for me and for my ministry. To all I cordially impart my Apostolic
Blessing, accompanied by my warm good wishes.</em> <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The letter from Cardinal Parolin is given here in its unofficial
translation:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSCyspQ0UM6GeKLEMZTxBLD70zLqNlDTihiQ_bKVtJvPNP25rN2-91-iZs6nDoDyXjLLFWJKdXYmynKxjpjLQDzhFCKm0l48bB-dHVcoRrW_EgQcuXAsafh5tiQczbu785Jw7GNDEFNkPi/s1600/Parolin+letter+21+December+2016.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSCyspQ0UM6GeKLEMZTxBLD70zLqNlDTihiQ_bKVtJvPNP25rN2-91-iZs6nDoDyXjLLFWJKdXYmynKxjpjLQDzhFCKm0l48bB-dHVcoRrW_EgQcuXAsafh5tiQczbu785Jw7GNDEFNkPi/s320/Parolin+letter+21+December+2016.jpg" width="292" /></span></a><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><i><br /></i></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The decision to appoint a commission to investigate this affair came as a surprise to the Grand Magistry, which maintained that the dismissal of Baron von Boeselager was an internal matter, that it is a sovereign institution and therefore that the Holy See had no standing to intervene. Since the last reforms of the code the autonomy and independence of the Order, which has reciprocal diplomatic relations with some one hundred and six states, as well as representation at numerous international organisations, has been confirmed repeatedly. The election of the Grand Master does not require the assent of the Pope, who must be "informed" of the election, there is no appeal from the Order's tribunals to those of the Holy See as in the past, and the Order is listed in the <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_Pontificio" target="_blank">Annuario Pontificio</a></i> not among the religious orders but among the sovereign states with which the Holy See has diplomatic relations.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Following widespread dissemination of the letters from Baron von Boeselager and Prince Lobkowicz, the Order put a statement on its web site recapitulating the events and stating that the dismissal was legal under the code, while not precluding Baron von Boeselager from continuing with his action before the Order's tribunals. The language and tone of this statement has been the subject of some considerable criticism as it did much to heighten the dispute. The Grand Master decreed that any member challenging the decision to dismiss Baron von Boeselager might be subject to disciplinary procedures, which did not prevent those who believed the constitution had not been followed correctly from continuing to voice their concerns publicly. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is worth pointing out </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">that there is another Sovereign State, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra" target="_blank">Co-Principality of Andorra</a>, whose co-Prince is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Princes_of_Andorra" target="_blank">Bishop of Urgell</a>, who is actually appointed by the Holy See as are all Bishops, but nonetheless the Holy See has no standing to intervene in the affairs of the Principality or the Bishop's responsibilities as Co-Prince under the Andorran Constitution. Were the Pope to do so there would no doubt be energetic protests from the Andorran government and the French President. On the other hand, the Order owes its existence to a Papal Bull and, therefore, to some degree it is inextricably tied to the Holy See, under whose "protection" it remains. Furthermore, as a Catholic institution, the senior officers of the Order like its members are bound by Papal authority in all matters of faith and moral teaching. </span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">All this led to an unedifying public spat between the Grand Magistry of the Order and the senior officers which in turn resulted series of articles in the international press that have portrayed this as a struggle between the Order and the Pope. The decision to ask for the intervention of the Holy See in this may prove to have an unintended consequences which could easily have been avoided had discretion prevailed from the outset. Perhaps if consideration to the Constitution of the Order had been given the importance it deserved, none of this might have happened. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">These events ended with the resignation of the Grand Master and the reinstatement of the Grand Chancellor - the Order, meanwhile, has continued its work in the service of the Poor and Sick, in particular dealing with the terrible refugee crisis that is facing Europe as a result of war in the Middle East and poverty and political disorder on the African continent. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-43903920052500379282016-04-20T18:24:00.000+02:002017-01-23T17:04:08.461+01:00The false Duke of Braganza Rosario Poidimani loses his case<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Pia_de_Saxe-Coburgo_e_Bragan%C3%A7a" target="_blank">Rosario Poidimani</a>, the fantasist who has attempted to persuade the gullible that he is HRH the Duke of Braganza" has finally been humiliated. The Italian Court of Appeal in Venice has rejected his claim for damages for defamation against Guy Stair Sainty, who he alleged defamed him for exposing the reality of his imposture. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBfgsKw4Q_SmR06D4NXgC5ODR-rd91LkrR4qmOzh4W8UdAIvo0O5v6rWgUvGmc-MUklcd_LT7D6QnATdFS0tWE0F16WXRYrfbClGc5beWtLyflXtv7bl6XK_aI09IJ3KsZ-sNyW76u4BvR/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBfgsKw4Q_SmR06D4NXgC5ODR-rd91LkrR4qmOzh4W8UdAIvo0O5v6rWgUvGmc-MUklcd_LT7D6QnATdFS0tWE0F16WXRYrfbClGc5beWtLyflXtv7bl6XK_aI09IJ3KsZ-sNyW76u4BvR/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-1.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOkrnjeK3XnyIDaNYVyI5HD6lPWl0YL9RxNzaJl0PoD0L8za-cmKM4qfsFpu3jU6CZlkaA4yNUbYgomLjRq_AHvDL9Frwc1EbeqLL1Lm6u4fkUAqVMLEDwvUEcQv-6n3BOdABdImZEj9UX/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOkrnjeK3XnyIDaNYVyI5HD6lPWl0YL9RxNzaJl0PoD0L8za-cmKM4qfsFpu3jU6CZlkaA4yNUbYgomLjRq_AHvDL9Frwc1EbeqLL1Lm6u4fkUAqVMLEDwvUEcQv-6n3BOdABdImZEj9UX/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-2.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWzp3v9sPsBjG9l8-frGN6n7QzkFmLk2MHyIe1ry05nwAQuOCCXSrGzHTKL44SrVKro6e5hZdaaijwMAmYpezyjhYRb3Ko1ZGm-k7z09fIh9jCCADsl5U3UnZhnyUDqiWKIO6mRTsseocx/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWzp3v9sPsBjG9l8-frGN6n7QzkFmLk2MHyIe1ry05nwAQuOCCXSrGzHTKL44SrVKro6e5hZdaaijwMAmYpezyjhYRb3Ko1ZGm-k7z09fIh9jCCADsl5U3UnZhnyUDqiWKIO6mRTsseocx/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-3.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTLkS3BgdW7YW7Q8z0RQLz21DLvkweioNpACtchPSRKEd3DdW4k7KdsqYpC4jBEmH15TRYAxHxSfObeVH6aOuEcHvEPxYHrurEt8YejHpwhBST5VPdUHe4wucIeELh65wWPsxBLhM30rHQ/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTLkS3BgdW7YW7Q8z0RQLz21DLvkweioNpACtchPSRKEd3DdW4k7KdsqYpC4jBEmH15TRYAxHxSfObeVH6aOuEcHvEPxYHrurEt8YejHpwhBST5VPdUHe4wucIeELh65wWPsxBLhM30rHQ/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-4.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA8kqmYzw5zDu6L3TQXDT5AonwuJUOpnqwqiga-WOJ5JJscQXwzDwqBSf55Q48RQVIKvPsuFahqHM4diqorSXuzHkzZ92eOGJDEwL42MNiyuxdRIQ6tKM6yrSDcvpyDhil-fMdhRDC3-39/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA8kqmYzw5zDu6L3TQXDT5AonwuJUOpnqwqiga-WOJ5JJscQXwzDwqBSf55Q48RQVIKvPsuFahqHM4diqorSXuzHkzZ92eOGJDEwL42MNiyuxdRIQ6tKM6yrSDcvpyDhil-fMdhRDC3-39/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-5.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOW1tQDtfxMozriWJEiUUvxCwsR4u_84lcgye8xCWPdK8SeGhTceRIya0Z-5AXVCtyk9qjEDVBfJbEiCCIM3DURbOVMu4O_wnhYkFNS1rVgOykgHFs1OpGuwRIxrZVXi3ccO6j3F4h8kSO/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOW1tQDtfxMozriWJEiUUvxCwsR4u_84lcgye8xCWPdK8SeGhTceRIya0Z-5AXVCtyk9qjEDVBfJbEiCCIM3DURbOVMu4O_wnhYkFNS1rVgOykgHFs1OpGuwRIxrZVXi3ccO6j3F4h8kSO/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-6.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-1Bb5hOVD_wEuYnmSnpy9lNKM1mMgpEKInXdBxb2lgYxsK4OBxNkP_XZX81c03M0eLqcU71ZFRDnKxOKpLOJzToUIaeWvgG_-PnXk_4gEATn1IhwnQ-n4xYfMekRHOk4owopMqonuVmWJ/s1600/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-1Bb5hOVD_wEuYnmSnpy9lNKM1mMgpEKInXdBxb2lgYxsK4OBxNkP_XZX81c03M0eLqcU71ZFRDnKxOKpLOJzToUIaeWvgG_-PnXk_4gEATn1IhwnQ-n4xYfMekRHOk4owopMqonuVmWJ/s320/False+Braganza-Poidimani+Judgement-7.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-56315647352272246402015-12-30T01:17:00.006+01:002017-01-23T18:09:49.196+01:00DUKE OF OSTUNI (HOSTUNI)<a href="http://www.ostuni-italy.co.uk/"></a>TITLE OF DUKE OF OSTUNI<br />
<br />
The town of <a href="http://www.ostuni-italy.co.uk/" target="_blank">Ostuni</a> was granted for a sum of 84,000 ducats to a Neapolitan Banker of Spanish origin, Juan (Giovanni) Zevallos on 14 December 1639, to whom the crown was a substantial debtor. The latter was created Duke of Ostuni in 1646 (in return for forgiveness of the debts). The Zevallos family were extremely unpopular with the inhabitants of the town who resented (and indeed attempted to burn down) the massive <a href="http://static9.depositphotos.com/1013907/1147/i/950/depositphotos_11474963-Zevallos-ducal-palace.-Ostuni.-Puglia.-Italy..jpg" target="_blank">Palazzo Zevallos</a> built by the first Duke. He was succeeded by his son Francesco in 1657, then in 1694 by the latter’s son Bartolomeo who died in 1762 when he was succeeded in turn by his son Francesco (II). Francesco, IV Duke, ceded the town and duchy to his daughter and heiress Maria Carmela in 1784. Bartolomeo Cevallos, III Duke, was created Prince of Valenzano in 1748, after acquiring the fief from the Crown.<br />
<br />
Maria Carmela Cevallos y Villega, Castillo y Salvador, married Giandomenico Tresca Carducci, Patrician of Bari; in 1804 she was obliged to surrender ownership of the feudatory of Ostuni because of maladministration. The abolition of the feudal system in the kingdom of Naples in 1806 by the new French regime further impoverished the family– she died in 1815.<br />
<br />
She was succeeded by her son Bartolomeo Tresca Carducci as IV Prince of Valenzano and VI Duke of Ostuni, who was in turn succeeded by Giovanni Tresca Carducci, V Prince and VII Duke (1824-1864/66), succeeded by Filippo, VI Prince and VIII Duke (1853-1922), succeeded by Giovanni, VII Prince and IX Duke (1886-1933), who was succeeded by Filippo Trecsa Carducci, VIII Prince and X Duke (1922-20..), who was succeeded by Giovanni Tresca Carducci, born in 1948, IX Prince and XIth Duke of Ostuni.<br />
<br />
Juan (Giovanni) Zevallos has no male line descendants and the sole legal heir to his title of Duke of Ostuni is Rodolfo Tresca Carducci.<br />
<br />
The succession of the Tresca Carducci family was affirmed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_I_of_the_Two_Sicilies" target="_blank">King Ferdinando IV of the Two Sicilies,</a> and the titles of Prince of Valenzano and Duke of Ostuni are recorded in the 1922 Elenco Ufficiale of the Italian Nobility published by the government of the Kingdom of Italy.<br />
<br />
The claim to the title by a Spanish citizen who has obtained an Italian court decision that purportedly recognises him as Duke of Ostuni is therefore without merit. The Italian court was misled as to the facts and the actual succession to this title under the original patent, the confirmation of the King of Naples and Sicily and the inclusion of the title as pertaining to the Tresca family in the Elenco Ufficiale is an absolute bar to a claim by any other person.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-738417705101434142015-12-30T01:11:00.000+01:002017-01-23T18:14:22.557+01:00THE SICILIAN PEER.AGE<br />
THE PEERAGE OF SICILY<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The house of peers of Sicily was conceived by the anglicized government of the kingdom during the dictatorship of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_William_Bentinck" target="_blank">Lord William Bentinck</a>. Although based on the similar British institution, its historical origin was the ancient Norman assembly of notables established at the foundation of the Kingdom. The history of the Sicilian parliament has been discussed elsewhere and this essay is primarily concerned with the house of peers established by the constitution of May 23rd, 1813.<br />
<br />
This constitution had been drawn up by the feudal Sicilian par_liament and, in addition to providing for a house of deputies of one hundred and fifty-five members, it established a house of peers with one hundred and twenty-four noblemen (representing the heirs of feudal titles) and sixty one clerics and their succes_sors in their benefices.<br />
<br />
The constitution of February 10th, 1848, provided for the re-introduction of the house of peers and, on reassembling, this new chamber made certain amendments to the structure. It excluded all holders of peerages who were not Sicilians (thus excluding peerages held by Neapolitans) and, after declaring these peerages vacant, made them provisionally elective with life appointees nominated by the Chamber. Subsequently, by the constitutional statute of July 10th, 1848, it declared itself abolished and was replaced by a Senate, to which holders of peerages could be "elected" provided they had signed the declaration of April 13th, 1848, deposing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_II_of_the_Two_Sicilies" target="_blank">Ferdinand II</a>. <br />
<br />
The peerages were attached to the titles (listed below), which passed by male primogeniture until the extinction of the male line, when they passed to the male heir of the nearest female heiress (ladies could not sit in the Chamber). Certain modern scholars consider that one of the peerages (the princely title of Castelnuovo), was not validly constituted since it was not a feudal but an allodial estate. Precedence was determined first of all by the date of the peerage (the same for all but one peerage), secondly by rank (Prince, Duke, Marquess, Count, Baron), and thirdly by the date of creation of the title.<br />
<br />
The reforms of nobiliary law introduced since Italian unification have modified the succession of Sicilian titles and inheritance, which require the authorization of the Italian Crown to pass to females. Furthermore, there ceased to be any distinction between titles of feudal origin and other titles, while the dignity of peer of Sicily carried no privileges under the new regime. The Chamber of Peers was replaced by a Senate, with its seat even_tually situated in Rome. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy" target="_blank">Italian Republic</a> does not recognize any noble titles or privileges formerly attached to such titles.<br />
<br />
The succession to Sicilian titles has been further complicated by the regulation of noble succession in Spain, where it is possible to "rehabilitate" a dormant title that was created by a king of Spain in his capacity as Sovereign in Italy. Furthermore, it has been possible to obtain recognition of the right to use a foreign title in Spain, and until 1968 this included titles created by the Bourbon kings of the Two Sicilies. Although the Spanish authorities look to the original patents creating these titles, they do not take into consideration the changes introduced since 1860; thus, it is possible for there to be two claimants to the same title, one Italian and one Spanish, both authorized to use it. An example of this is the title of Marchese di Capizzi (see below), inherited legally in Italy by don Benedetto Paternò Castello, but authorization for the use of which has been petitioned by the Condesa de Gibacoa.<br />
<br />
PEERAGES BY ORDER OF PRECEDENCE<br />
<br />
Where peerages have passed through the female line by authorization of the king of Italy, such deviation has been acknowledged here, even when the title has been diverted from the heirs male of the original grantee of the peerage. In the list below we have given the name and (where possible), the birth date of the holder under the law of the Kingdom of Italy. If there is an heir (or heiress) whose right to succeed has not been acknowledged or authorized in Italian law their name is given in parentheses [ ]. When the original terms of the creation have been complicated by a subsequent extension of the original grant by the king of Italy, it is possible that there may be more than one such claimant whose right remains to be adjudicated; if known, such potential heirs' names are also given in parentheses. When such a person has had permission from the Spanish authorities to use the title to which the peerage was attached, their name is indicated with an *; when they have petitioned for such use (and provided there does not appear to be any other identifiable claimant under Italian law), their name is indicated with two**, even if their claim is made under Spanish rather than Italian succession law; when they are claiming a title already authorized in Italy, or which could be legitimately claimed under Italian nobiliary law by another, their name is indicated with three ***.<br />
<br />
If a holder of a Sicilian peerage is generally known under another title, that title is given along with the name. Where a title appears to have become extinct, the family name or full name of the last known holder of the peerage is given, even if that person was a female. With most of the extinct titles, it is almost certain that an heir by inheritance through the female line (or by virtue of an earlier investiture according to pre-1860 succession law) does exist; however, tracing such an heir is not within the scope of this essay. Where the peerage is combined with another, the senior title is given. Under the 1813 Constitu_tion a holder of multiple peerages could enjoy a corresponding number of votes; by the reforms of 1848 the junior peerages were declared provisionally elective and a life nominee was appointed.<br />
<br />
I PARI DI 23 MAGGIO 1813<br />
<br />
The name and rank of the title to which the peerage was attached is underlined; the date of birth of the present heir, if known, is given immediately following the name.<br />
<br />
Principe di Butera don Giuseppe Lanza Branciforte n.1932.<br />
Principe di Castelvetrano Principe don Giuseppe Tagliavia-Aragona-Pignatelli Cortes, Principe di Noia, Duca di Terranova, n. 1931.<br />
Principe di Paternò don Pietro Moncada (d'Aragona), n.1920.<br />
Principe di Castelbuono ? estinto (circa 1920) con donna Giovanna Ventimiglia, Principessa di Buonriposa, figlia di don Francesco Ventimiglia e sorella ed erede di donna Corrada Ventimiglia, moglie di Pietro Mancuso.<br />
Principe di Trabia il Principe di Butera<br />
Principe di Castiglione Principe don Filippo Rospigliosi, n.1942.<br />
Principe di Villafranca Principe don Francesco Alliata, n.1919.<br />
Principe di Paceco [don Luigi Costa Sanseverino, Principe di Bisignano, n.1940].<br />
Principe di Roccafiorita ? estinto con don Antonino Bonanno, Principe di Cattolica, m.1916. [Erede del linea ultragenito don Eduardo Bonanno, dei principi di Cattolica]<br />
Principe di Scaletta Principe don Sigerio Ruffo, n.1919.<br />
Principe di Maletto don Michele Spadafora, Principe di Spadafora, n. 1937. [o discendenti di donna Francsca-Ippolita Monroy, n.1881, sp.1898 Giuseppe Cammarata (Camerata)].<br />
Principe di Pantelleria +don Leopoldo Grifeo, m. ? [suoi figlie; o **Dona Maria-Luisa Truyols e Moragues]<br />
Principe di Palazzolo Principe don Fabrizio Ruffo di Calabria, Principe di Scilla, n.1922.<br />
Principe di Leonforte Principe don Alessandro Borghese, n.1924<br />
Principe di Carini don Antonio Alex La Grua e Talamanca, n. 1905 (o suoi eredi feminile).<br />
Principe di Castelnuovo don Corrado Valguarnera n.1934.<br />
Principe di Campofranco Conte don Pietro Lucchesi-Palli n.1943.<br />
Principe d'Aragona don Francesco Burgio, n.1936.<br />
Principe di Scordia il Principe di Butera<br />
Principe di Valguarnera il Principe di Villafranca<br />
Principe di Resuttano don Francesco di Napoli Rampolla, n.1923<br />
Principe di Partanna don Mauro Turrisi Grifeo, n.1927<br />
Principe di Malvagna ? estinto con don Antonino Migliaccio e Gal_letti, m.dopo 1848.<br />
Principe di Calvaruso don Antonio Trigona, n.1927.<br />
Principe di Monforte don Federico Moncada, n.1904 (o suoi eredi, discendenti di suoi fratelli).<br />
Principe di Palagonia il Principe di Partanna<br />
Principe di Cassaro don Giovanni Angelo Borghese, n.1928.<br />
Principe di Biscari don Giuseppe-Vincenzo Paternò Castello n.1908 (erede don Roberto Paternò Castello, n. 1945).<br />
Principe di Mezzojuso ? estinto con don Francesco-Paolo Corvino, m. dopo 1813; declarato vacante 1848.<br />
Principe di Montevago [donna Rosalia Gravina, n. ]<br />
Principe di Mirto [donna Caterina, nata dei marchesi Salvo Ugo delle Favare, sp.(1) il Barone di Casalgismondo, (2) il Principe di Valdina, Duca di Prato Ameno; erede suo figlio di (1), Rocco Camerata, Barone di Casalgismondo, n.1946]<br />
Principe di Galati don Antonio de Spucches, n.1927.<br />
Principe di Raffadali don Giovanni Tortorici Montaperto, n.1928.<br />
Principe di Militello don Gaetanoo Starrabba, Principe di Giar_dinelli, n.<br />
Principe di Cerami +don Giuseppe Rosso, n. 1894 [al suo figlia Signora donna Elvira Prestifilippo, nata Rosso, n. 1919]<br />
Principe di Campofiorito il Principe di Butera<br />
Principe di Aci S. Antonio e S. Filippo ? estinto con don Giuseppe Reggio, m. 1870 [don Lorenzo Pineyro e Escriva de Romani, Conde de Torralba de Aragon; o il Principe di Butera; o erede di don Paolo Reggio, dei principi d'Aci, m.1943]<br />
Principe di Sciara don Francesco Saverio Notarbartolo n. 1933<br />
Principe di Sant'Antonino don Girolamo Vannucci, n. 1947<br />
Principe di Comitini don Silvano Gravina Cruyllas, n. 1946<br />
Principe di Furnari don Francesco Notarbartolo, n.1928.<br />
Principe di Rosolini don Vettor Galletti, Principe di Fiumesalato, n.1925.<br />
Principe di Spadafora don Michele Spadafora, n.1937.<br />
Principe di Rammacca +don Pietro Gravina, n.1897 (al suo erede maschile).<br />
Principe di San Teodoro Marchese don Gregorio de Gregorio, n. 1923.<br />
Principe di Belmonte don Gaetano Hardouin-Monroy Ventimiglia, n. 1924.<br />
Principe di Ficarazzi ? estinto con don Domenico Giardina, m.dopo 1848.<br />
Principe della Mola [don Ferdinando Stagno Villadicani, dei prin_cipi di Alcontres, n.1939; donna Emanuela Mannamo e Mannamo]. <br />
Principe di Camporeale [don Paolo-Giuseppe Sallier de la Tour, dei principi di Castelcicala, n.1928].<br />
Principe di Castelforte [il Principe di Comitini]<br />
Duca di Bivona [*don Manuel Falco e de Anchorena, Duque de Fernan Nunez, Grande di Spagna, n. 1936; don Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, n. 1934]<br />
Duca di Castrofilippo don Girolamo Fatta del Bosco, Principe di Bel_vedere, Marchese di Alimena, n. 1940<br />
Duca di Palma + don Giuseppe Tommasi, Principe di Lampedusa, m. 1958<br />
Duca di Reitano +don Giovanni-Antonio Colonna (Romano), Duca di Cesaro, n. 1878 [? succede discendente di sua figlie donna Simonetta o di Mita, o del figlia del suo nonno, donna Eleonora n.1807, moglie di Cav. Gioacchino Spinelli, Barone di Scala].<br />
Duca di Montagnareale +don Luigi Vianisi, m.1990 [erede suo figlia, donna Anna Maria Vianisi, n. 1944] <br />
Duca di Piraino [+don Alberto Denti-Amari, Principe di Castel_lazzo, n.1886].<br />
Duca di Serradifalco don Alberico Lo Faso, n.1935.<br />
Duca di Sperlinga ? estinto con don Giuseppe Oneto, Principe di San Bartolomeo, m. dopo 1848 [a lasciato due figlie, Aloisa e Marianna, morte s.p.]<br />
Duca di Gualtieri Duca don Giuseppe Avarna, n.1916.<br />
Duca di Misterbianco don Alberto Trigona, n.1928.<br />
Duca di Cesaro il Duca di Reitano<br />
Duca di Carcaci Duca don Gaetano Paternò Castello, n.1923.<br />
Duca di Castelluzzo ? estinto con don Francesco Agraz e Termine, m. dopo 1848.<br />
Duca d'Acquaviva don Luigi Oliveri, riconosciuto 1934.<br />
Duca di San Giacomo Villarosa don Gian-Francesco Notarbartolo n.1932.<br />
Duca di Sorrentino don Antonio de Gregorio, Principe di S. Teodoro, n.1923 [**Dona Dulce-Maria Chacon e Jorge, Condesa de Gibacoa].<br />
Duca di Vatticani ? estinto con don Ferdinando Termine, m. dopo 1859<br />
Duca di Bronte Rt.Hon. Alexander Nelson Hood, Visconte Bridport, Pari del Regno Unito di Gran Bretagna, n.1948.<br />
Marchese di Marineo [Carlo Ruggero Pilo-Baci, Conte di Capaci, n. 1951].<br />
Marchese di Giarratana ? estinto con don Girolamo Settimo, Principe di Fitalia, n. 1846, m. dopo 1910 [? succede sua sorella donna Maria-Felice][il Principe di Spadafora].<br />
Marchese di Sambuca il Principe di Camporeale<br />
Marchese di Montemaggiore con Biscardo don Biagio Licata, Principe di Baucino, n.1947.<br />
Marchese di Santa Croce ? estinto con donna Marianna Celestri e Gravina, Baronessa d'Alia, m. 1866.<br />
Marchese di Sortino [Signora Elena Monteforte, nata Specchi 1922].<br />
Marchese di Motta d'Affermo Ven. Bali Fra don Gabriele Ortolani, Principe di Torremuzza, n. 1907.[***Dona Dulce-Maria Chacon e Jorge, Condesa de Gibacoa]. <br />
Marchese di Tortorici-Li Graniti +donna Isabella del Castillo, marchesa di San Isidoro, m. dopo 1849; al sua sorella donna Rosa, sp. 1849 Filippo de Cordova e Curti.<br />
Marchese di Roccalumera don Alberto Stagno, Principe di Alcontres<br />
Marchese di San Cataldo il Principe di Rosolini [Principe di Fiumesalato]<br />
Marchese di Ogliastro ? estinto con don Antonio Parisi, Principe di Torrebruna, m.1848<br />
Marchese di Lucca don Alessandro Mastrogiovanni-Tasca, Principe di Cuto (n.1906)<br />
Marchese di Capizzi don Benedetto Paternò Castello, n.1930 [***Dona Dulce-Maria Chacon e Jorge, Condesa di Gibacoa]<br />
Marchese di Mongiuffi-Mella e Kaggi +don Vincenzo Loffredo-Calcagno, Duca di Ossada, n.1860 m. .<br />
Marchese di Camporotondo ? estinto con don Ignazio Lucchesi Palli, m. dopo 1848.<br />
Marchese d'Alimena [don Girolamo Fatta del Bosco, Duca di Castrofilippo, Principe di Belvedere]<br />
Marchese di Murata la Cerda +don Fulco Santostefano, n.1898 [erede Nobile Luisa Lequio di Assaba, n.1926]<br />
Marchese delli Bagni don Giuseppe Daniele,n. 1879<br />
Marchese di San Ferdinando ? estinto con don Pietro-Antonio Ros_tagni, m.dopo 1848.<br />
Marchese di Marianopoli seu delli Manchi di Bilici don Giuseppe Paternò-Alessi, n.1925.<br />
Conte di Modica [Dona Maria del Rosaro Fitzjames Stuart e Silva, Duchessa di Alba de Tormes, Grande di Spagna; o Don Jacopo Fitzjames Stuart e Gomez, Duca di Penaranda de Duero, Grande di Spagna]<br />
Conte di Naso ? estinto con don Bernardo Joppolo, m. dopo 1813, declarato vacante 1848.<br />
Barone della Ficarra +don Salvatore Mosto (Musto), Marchese di Lungarini, n.1878, con discendenti.<br />
Barone di Castania il Principe di Monforte<br />
Barone di Santo Stefano di Mistretta [+donna Maria-Carolina Trigona, dei principi di S.Elia, n.1896; o Pier Marino Albanese, figlio di donna Giovanna Albanese, nata Trigona].<br />
Barone di Tripi don Giuseppe Merlo, Marchese di S. Elisabetta, n. 1929.<br />
Barone di Longi il Marchese di Mongiuffi-Melia e Kaggi<br />
Barone di Pettineo don Vincenzo Paternò-Ventimiglia-Lanza-Filingeri-Vanni, Marchese di Regiovanni, n.1923<br />
Barone di Prizzi il Principe di Roccafiorita<br />
Barone delli Martini don Francesco Sabatini, Principe di Santa Margherita, n.1931.<br />
Barone di Rocca +donna Casimira Valdina in Attanasio (Atenasio), m. dopo 1848; [Francisco de'Francisco Furno Valguarnera, Barone di Caruso, n.1914]<br />
Barone di Godrano don Ruggero d'Ondes, Duca dell'Isola, n. 1914<br />
Barone di Casalnuovo Balì Conte don Carlo Marullo di Condojanni, n.1947 (con titolo di Principe, creato di Re Umberto II 1977).<br />
Barone di Vita don Vito Sicomo,n.1939.<br />
Barone di Tusa ? estinto con don Orazio La Torre, m. dopo 1848.<br />
Barone di Piana di San Carlo don Onofrio Maccagnone, Principe di Granatelli, n. .<br />
Barone di Vallelunga don Francesco Paolo Papè, Principe di Valdina, n.1942.<br />
Barone di Kaggi [il Principe di Galati]<br />
Barone di Baucina ? estinto con don Matteo Calderone, m. dopo 1848.<br />
Barone di Ferla ? estinto con don Francesco Tarallo, Duca di Miraglia, m. dopo 1848<br />
Signore di Gallidoro il Principe di Paternò<br />
Barone di Riesi seu Altaviva +Principe don Lodovico Pignatelli-Gonzaga-Aragona-Cortes, Conte di Fuentes & Grande di Spagna, n.1878, m. ; [don Antonio Pignatellli de Aragon e Burgos, Conte di Fuentes e Grande di Spagna]<br />
Barone di Mancipe e Passarello o Villadoro ? estinto con don Gesualdo d'Onofrio, m. dopo 1848 [o ? succede rappresentante dal linea ultragenito Nobile Italo d'Onofrio, n.1923]<br />
Barone di Campobello +donna Marianna Sammartino, duchessa di Mon_talbo, n.1847, sp.Nicolo Filippo Mule, figlio di Giovanni [al sua figlia Chiara, Signora di Balatazzi, n.1868, sp. ...... Alu; o erede sua sorella donna Maria Felicia, n.1854, sposata Giovan Battista Chianello, erede suo figlio Stefano Chianello Di Maria Zappino, cambiato a Boscogrande, con figlii,]<br />
Barone di Melinventre seu Catenanuova [il Principe di Aci; o il Principe di Butera].<br />
Barone di Villasmundo [Marchese don Consalvo Paternò Asmundo delle Sciare, n.1943]<br />
Barone di Castelnormando [il Principe di Campofranco]<br />
Barone di Giardinelli [il Principe di Castelnuovo]<br />
Barone di Pachino il Principe di Militello<br />
Barone di San Pietro don Mario Clarenza, Principe di Santa Domenica,n. 1902 [? erede suoi sorelle Lucia, Concettina, Giovanna, Amelia ].<br />
Barone d'Aliminusa +don Angelo Milone, n. 1883.<br />
Barone di Villalba don Stefano Palmeri, Marchese di Villalba n. 1929.<br />
Barone di S. Cono don Salvatore Trigona, n.1939.<br />
Barone di S.Giuseppe-Villaurea ? estinto con don Francesco de Michele, m. dopo 1848.<br />
Barone di Santo Stefano di Briga il Principe di Galati<br />
Barone di Belvedere o Carancino +don Placido Bonanno e Bonanno, Barone di Rosabia, m. dopo 1848.<br />
<br />
PARIA DI 12 LUGLIO 1814<br />
<br />
Barone di Priolo don Gioacchino Gargallo, Marchese di Castel Len_tini, n.1923.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-76798568761649727402015-12-30T01:03:00.003+01:002015-12-30T01:03:45.903+01:00DUCAL CONFUSIONSDUCAL TITLES OF THE SAME NAME AND RANK HELD BY DIFFERENT FAMILIES<br />
<br />
Those marked with an * derive from the same creation, but have become two titles because of the different Italian and Spanish succession rules.<br />
<br />
ABRANTES – Duke, Spanish title of the Zuleta family; French title granted to Marshal Junot.<br />
<br />
BERWICK – English 1687, then created as a Spanish dukedom in 1707 – the former today is held by the Duke of Penaranda de Duero, the latter by the Duchess of Alba.<br />
<br />
*BIVONA – Duke, Sicilian title granted to D. Pedro de Luna, inherited by the Moncada; from the Moncada it was claimed by two different families – the first, the Neapolitan Jose Alvarez de Toledo, who obtained recognition of the succession from the King of the Two Sicilies in 1854 and was held by this branch of the family until the 1940s when there was no King to confirm the succession; meanwhile the title was also confirmed for the Spanish Jose Maria Alvarez de Toledo, Conde de Xiquena, as a Grandeeship in 1865 and this title has now passed to the duke of Fernan Nuñez. Thus there were two dukes of Bivona from the same creation. In a sense this is almost a parallel situation, yet it would be hard to argue that one was “legitimate” and the other not.<br />
<br />
*CASTIGLIONE – Prince, Sicily 1602 – the Italian Princely title is today held by Prince Rospigliosi, as heirs of the Gioeni, heirs of Cardona; meanwhile the same title has been rehabilitated in Spain by another heir of the Cardona, as a Marques, for Maria del Pilar Colón de Carvajal (mother of Julio Prado, Conde de la Conquista and now held by his son).<br />
<br />
*FERNANDINA - Duke, Spanish title and Grandeeship of 1573; held by the same Alvarez de Toledo family, but recognized by the King of Italy for D. Giuseppe Alvarez de Toledo and then passed to his heirs, but meanwhile rehabilitated in Spain in 1993 for D. Maria Gonzalez de Gregorio y Alvarez de Toledo, of the Spanish branch of the family.<br />
<br />
*FRANCAVILLA – Prince, originally one creation in 1555, the title remains a Princely title of the Caracciolo family, but was then recognized as having passed to the Imperiali under the original patent by the Conuslta Araldica in 1942; however, it was also converted into a Spanish ducal title, when rehabilitated in 1921 by D. Inigo de Arteaga.<br />
<br />
*SANTA CRISTINA – Duke, Spain 1830, created for Prince Ruffo di Calabria and today confirmed in Italy for the Torrigiani (Elenco Ufficiale) and now held by Marchese D. Raffaelle Torrigiani, as cognatic heir of that branch of the Ruffo di Calabria; the same title also rehabilitated in Spain in 1923 for D. Maria de la Concepion Alvarez de Toledo and today held by her heir Jose Doquin Marquez y Alvarez de Toledo, succ 1975.<br />
<br />
TERRANOVA – Duke, Spanish 1502, for the Gran Capitan Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba and now held by D. Gonzalo de la Cierva, Grandee of Spain; also the same title created as a Neapolitan duchy held by Prince Pignatelli Aragona Cortes, and by the last Serra, Principe di Gerace, who died in 1947.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-79262016724179457462015-12-30T01:02:00.004+01:002015-12-30T01:02:43.566+01:00The historic French family of Béthune and a present day Count de BéthuneBÉTHUNE AND BÉTHUNE-HESDIGNEUL<br />
<br />
Baudoin I, grand forestier of Flanders carried off Judith (widow of Atelulf, King of the English), daughter of Charles the Bald, King of France in 862, who apparently welcomed the elopement, but was forgiven by his father-in-law who made him Count the next year. Their son Baudoin II married the sister of Alfred the Great, King of the English, and their descendants in the sixth generation included Baudoin VI, his brother and successor as Count Robert I and their sister Mahaud, who married in 1053 William (later William I the Conqueror), Duke of Normandy. Roberto I’s grandson Baudoin VII died without male heirs in 1119, whereupon the County passed to Charles of Denmark, son of Robert I’s daughter Adele by King Canute (Knud) III of Denmark (she married 2ndly Robert of Hauteville, another Norman raider, Duke of Apulia and Calabria). Charles of Denmark, Count of Flanders, died s.p. in 1127 leaving a widow Marguerite of Clermont –Louis VI the Fat of France arranged that a grandson of William I (the Conqueror and Mahaud of Flanders, William of Normandy (William Clinton) should succeed and helped him defeat his cousin Thierry of Alsace, who also claimed the County, but William died in 1128 after a brief reign. Thierry was a younger son of Thierry I, Duke of Lorraine and Gertrude of Flanders, next younger (to Adele, Queen of Denmark) daughter of Count Robert I, and married his cousin Count Charles’s widow, Marguerite, and was able to take unchallenged possession in 1128. He went on the 2nd crusade with Louis VII and died in 1168 after 40 years as Duke. His eldest surviving son and successor, Philippe, was the first to be a Peer of France (in 1179), but died sp on the 3rd Crusade at the siege of Acre in 1191.<br />
<br />
His sister Marguerite succeeded to the County; she had married Baudouin, Count of Hainaut, but died in 1194 when her eldest son Baudouin IX succeeded. He has become notorious as the man who sacked Constantinople on the fourth Crusade and his name has become anathema to the Greeks. He had in fact been a supporter of the legitimate Emperor Isaac and was outraged first at his blinding and imprisonment in 1203 by his younger brother Alexis and then, after the young Alexis IV (Isacc’s son) was murdered by Alexis Ducas (who proclaimed himself Emperor), he sacked the city and proclaimed himself Emperor (without any right at all, however, other than the support he managed to get from the other Crusader leaders). Needless to say the Greeks were unhappy about the destruction of their city and having a Latin ruler, so rose up against him and helped by the Bulgarians defeated and imprisoned him; he died in 1206. A strange episode happened 20 years later when a hermit, Bertrand de Rains, suddenly appeared claiming to be Count Baudouin, and briefly managed to get a few to support him, but he was handed over to his purported daughter who had him tried, and he was hanged in 1226.<br />
<br />
Baudouin’s daughters Jeanne (who died in a convent in 1244, after a series of adventures, had a daughter who predeceased her) and then Marguerite succeeded, the latter in 1244. Marguerite married Guillaume de Dampierre in 1223, which was quite an elevation for this young man (although his father had married well, to Mahaud, Lady and heiress of Bourbon). Their grandson Robert III de Dampierre, Count of Flanders, was known as de Béthune, after his mother Mahaud de Béthune, daughter of Robert VII, Seigneur de Béthune, and it is thus that the confusion arose. Robert of Flanders’ father had died a French prisoner and to insure his succession he had to make substantial concessions to the French. Even so much of his estates were sequestered and only restored eventually to his grandson, Louis II, who took possession as Count of Flanders in 1320. The latter’s son Louis III was the last Dampierre Counts of Flanders; at his death his only daughter Marguerite succeeded; she had married first the last duke of Burgundy of the old line, and on his death was married off to the new Duke of the second line, uniting Flanders with Burgundy.<br />
<br />
The Béthune family was the most important noble family of Artois and owned substantial territories in Flanders. Their earliest recorded ancestor was Robert, who in 932 styled himself “par la grace de Dieu Seigneur de Béthune” in a charter. Robert VII de Béthune was the 2nd and eldest surviving son of Guillaume, Sgr de Béthune etc, and father of Mahaud, wife of the Count of Flanders, had a younger brother Guillaume, who inherited part of Bethune and many other territories and married a rich heiress who brought him the Barony of Pontrohart. He is the ancestor of the later lines of the family. These included the line of Dukes of Sully, who became sovereign princes of Henrichemont (the dukedom of Sully had an extraordinary history with endless law cases between cousins) extinct in 1807; Marquis de Chabris and Béthune, extinct in 1833; and the dukes of Charost (extinct in 1800).<br />
<br />
The question that is uncertain is whether the Princes de Béthune-Hesdigneul are even male line Béthunes. They certainly claimed to be, although their real name was Desplanques, or des Planques, but claiming despite this name to be Béthune descendants. Even if they are, they were separated by seven generations from the ancestor of Robert VII de Béthune, whose daughter married the Count of Flanders. There is some justice in the claim that the reason they did not have the name Béthune was because it was the practice for younger sons to take the name of their own seigneurie, and there are several instances where younger sons took secondary names. In fact the second line of Dukes of Sully had taken the name Orval, after their own seigneurie (later erected into a duché en brevet). This family claim that they descend from the second son of the founder of the family, Robert I Seigneur de Béthune in the 10th century, whose name is unknown but was the father of Elbert, Seigneur de Carency, whose grandson Elberft II supposedly had a youngest son Hugues de Carency, Seigneur des Planques, which soon substituted des Planques for the name Carency.<br />
<br />
There are various citations of des Planques over the succeeding 2 centuries, and in 1339 Huges, son of Huon des Planques, was using the arms of Béthune. A judgment was obtained in the Arras court to the effect that the des Planques were Béthune descendants in 1461. Michel des Planques (living in the 1520s) made a very opportune marriage to Antoinette des Bours, sister of the Bishop Duke of Laon, and this brought opportunities including the acquisition of the Seigneurie of Hesdigneul. The family now entered the Spanish service and assumed the title of Marquis de Hesdigneul in the mid-17th century. In 1720 Eugene, styled Marquis de Hesdigneul, obtained a judgment affirming his Béthune descent in the Arras Court, but when his son Joseph applied for admission to the carriages of the King (for which 400 years of nobility was required) in 1778, the genealogist Chérin, refused as he could not prove this descent to Chérin’s satisfaction. His son Eugène assumed the name de Béthune, and it was such that he was created by Joseph II (not as Emperor, but as Sovereign of the Netherlands), Prince de Hesdigneul in 1781 (despite this the Netherlands only recognized him as a Count in 1816, and for the son of the latter, in 1848, the title of Marquis, and then in 1888 the King of the Belgians first recognized the title of Prince, and again in 1932 for Count Albert-Ferdinand, a cadet who inherited on the death of his cousin; with the title of Count granted to an uncle of Prince Albert-Ferdinand). Eugène was made a French Lieutenant-General in 1816 and in 1818 was allowed to establish a majorat as hereditary prince. The 9th Prince de Béthune-Hesdigneul adopted as heir the son of his wife’s first marriage, a M. Petit-Jacques, who assumed the name Béthune-Hesdigneul. The succession to the title, however, passed to a cousin Henry (born 1945) and there are male heirs.<br />
<br />
By a strange twist, the widow of the penultimate (mother of the last, who died within weeks of his father) duke of Sully, adopted as her universal heir a cadet of the Béthune-Hesdigneul family, Emile Eugène de Béthune, who was allowed to assume the name Béthune-Sully in 1816. This line became extinct in 1902 when Count Maximilien de Béthune-Sully died of arsenic poisoning (his elder daughter had also died tragically, poisoned by something she ate as a baby).<br />
<br />
Meanwhile another Belgian family, also calling itself de Béthune (represented by Félix-Antoine Joseph (de) Béthune, Burgomeister of Courtrai, was ennobled in 1845 and created a Baron in 1855 (extended to all his descendants in 1871). In 1866 this same Félix obtained the Papal title of Count, but this has never been recognized in Belgium. By the device of having himself adopted by shop-girl, a Mlle Gabrielle Sully, Baron Etienne de Béthune was able to add the name Sully. Thus emerged the present Béthune-Sully family, which has no connection at all with the ancient family of that name.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-82917511126368715012015-12-30T00:59:00.002+01:002015-12-30T00:59:36.468+01:00The surviving prerogatives and titles of the Grand Ducal House of TuscanyThe surviving prerogatives and titles of the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany<br />
<br />
©Guy Stair Sainty<br />
<br />
The survival of the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany, a branch of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, whose members also enjoys the titles, rank and privileges of Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia, was of little interest to the citizens of Florence and the surrounding region until relatively recently. The history of Tuscany has been viewed through the distorted perspective imposed by four generations of historians wedded to the view that Italian unification was of benefit to all, and that the pre-unitarian states were merely the puppets of the great powers. While this is not the place to displace these myths, the continuing fascination with the Medici and their successors has encouraged a revival of the institutions associated with the dynasty and increased interest in the representatives of the family which ruled the Grand Duchy. Foremost among these institutions are the Orders of Santo Stefano and of San Giuseppe. The Grand Magistery of these two Orders of Knighthood is the dynastic prerogative of the Head of the Grand Ducal House, presently His Imperial and Royal Highness the Grand Duke Sigismondo, Archduke of Austria and Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia.<br />
<br />
The rise of the Medici to hereditary power in Florence was consolidated thanks to the support of the Emperor Karl V, who, following the surrender of the city on 12 August 1530, forced the Florentines to accept that the Emperor could dictate the form of the new government. In 1531 Alessandro de’ Medici was nominated by the Emperor “Republicae Florentinae Dux,” for himself and his agnatic heirs, an appointment comparable to the position of Doge of Venice or Genoa, but was assassinated by his own cousin Lorenzo, in 1535, without leaving an immediate heir. The Florentine senate acknowledged the legality of the Imperial grant by electing a distant cousin, Cosimo I de’ Medici, and the Emperor confirmed the election in 1537._ Cosimo had enjoyed a successful military career and his conquest of Siena and absorption into the territories of Florence firmly established him as the dominant military figure of the Republic.<br />
<br />
Despite the Imperial claim of the right of confirmation of the title of Republicae Florentinae Dux, the Florentines refused to accept that their city was an Imperial fief; nonetheless, their recognition of the Imperial title and its concession to the Medici marked a diminution of their claims to complete independence. Siena and the Florentine territories in the Lunigiana, were indisputably Imperial fiefs, even though the right of immediate investiture of Siena had been ceded by the Emperor to Spain. The Pope, determined to maintain his own claims to supremacy, at least in Italy, now intervened and conferred upon Cosimo the title of Grand Duke, a wholly novel invention, in the Bull Romanus Pontifex in excelso militantis Ecclesiae Throno disponente, of 27 August 1569. This Bull recited the authority by which previous Popes had conferred the title of King and Prince on Europe’s sovereigns, and created Cosimo de Medici and his successors as Dukes of Florence (following the same succession as the Imperial designation of this title), “Magnos Duces, & Principes Provinciae Etruriae.”_<br />
<br />
This further elevation of the Medici was greeted with anger by the Emperor, who had not been consulted and he made an official protest to the Pope. The important role played by the galleys of the Order of Santo Stefano at Lepanto, however, earned the new Grand Duke, Francesco I, the Imperial gratitude, and the Emperor himself confirmed the Grand Ducal title in 1575. Thus were the Republics of Florence and Siena converted into the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, a state whose precise ranking, nonetheless, remained contested. The Grand Duke, who assumed the title of Royal Highness (a style that remained in contention with some other sovereigns), claimed for his Ambassadors precedence immediately after the Ambassadors of Kings, but when the Envoy of the Grand Master of the Order of Saint John disputed this in 1653, claiming precedence at the Court of Madrid before the Envoy of the Grand Duke, the Grand Master’s claim was accepted. France, for example, continued to receive a permanent Ambassador Extraordinary from the Religion de Malta and the Republic of Venice, while accepting only an Envoy Extraordinary from the Grand Duke._<br />
<br />
Cosimo’s most long-lasting achievement was his foundation, with Papal support, of the “Sacred_ Military Order of Santo Stefano” on 15 March 1561, to commemorate his victory over the French, led by Marshal Strozzi, at the battle of Marciano, on Santo Stefano's day, 2 August 1554. Duke Cosimo was authorized to proceed with the organization of the Order by a Brief of Pope Pius IV (Eximiae devotionis) of 1 October 1561,_ and hold the Grand Magistery for him and "postreorum tuorum decus, et honorem"; this was confirmed in the Bull His, quae pro Religionis propagatione of 1 February 1562, putting it under the Rule of Saint Benedict._ The privileges of the knights and prerogatives of the Grand Master were further detailed in the Bull Altitudo divinae providentiae of 5 June 1562. Limited to Catholics of legitimate birth, the knights were obliged to defend the shipping of Christian nations against pirates, liberate Christians from the slavery of the Turks and, above all, defend the Church and the Catholic Faith. Its statutes were confirmed by Pope Pius V in a further Bull of the following year, in which Cosimo and his successors were declared Grand Masters of the Order in perpetuity, and the seat of the Order established at Pisa, where Cosimo established two Conventual Houses for the knights. Thus the Order was a Religious foundation of the Holy Roman Church, independent of secular jurisdiction and incapable of abolition by a secular authority without the consent and authorization of the Holy See. The Order of Santo Stefano provided an important focus for the nobility of the Grand Duchy and helped insure the loyalty of families who had hitherto been pillars of the Republic towards their new Monarchy.<br />
<br />
The decline of the Medici dynasty began with the death of the first Grand Duke. While the Medici continued to distinguish themselves as collectors and patrons of the arts (although Florence was replaced by Rome, Bologna and Naples as centers of Italian art in the 17th century), their physical and moral decline was matched by the diminishing influence of Tuscany in Italian affairs. The penultimate Grand Duke Cosimo III’s younger brother was the Cardinal Francesco Maria de’ Medici,_ an important figure who held the difficult but profitable position of “Protector of Austria and Spain”, presenting him with an irreconcilable conflict on the death of Carlos II of Spain in 1700. Cosimo decided to recognize the succession of Felipe V, thus placing him in the French, and therefore anti-Austrian camp, but although Cosimo obtained the investiture of Siena and Portoferraio as fiefs of the Spanish Crown, he nonetheless failed to persuade Felipe V to recognize the title of “Royal Highness” for his eldest son and heir, Prince Ferdinando. The Hereditary Grand Prince, described as “a martyr to Venus and disciple of the Graces” was distinguished for having excelled even his immediate antecedents in decadence and incompetence. The latter’s death in 1713 without leaving an heir by his unfortunate wife, Princess Violante of Bavaria, left in his stead only Cosimo’s younger son, Gian Gastone, as eventual male heir to Tuscany.<br />
<br />
Gian Gastone was a debauchee of considerable experience, generally uninterested in statecraft until its responsibilities were forced upon him, but pretending to some expertise in antiquarian studies and botany. He had been married off to Princess Anna Maria Francesca of Saxe-Lauenburg, already a widow (of another Bavarian Prince, Count Palatine Felipe of Neuberg) by whom she had had a daughter. Cosimo had been reassured by her evident fertility, but had ignored her lack of physical charms – she was the same age as Gian Gastone, and like him a colossus of bosom and belly. She also proved unwilling to leave her Bohemian estates and made it clear that she hated cities, courts and society and much preferred the solid charms of her horses and farm animals. One can but sympathize with the unfortunate Gian Gastone, who described his wife “apart from her ill-humour … a German woman, which signifies more than a woman. I have used such finesses and blandishments to propitiate her as nobody else in my position would tolerate. I demand nothing from her, though my claims are ratified by the pacts that were signed at my marriage. I suffer her to call me a thief in public with inimitable patience…”_ The marriage, unsurprisingly, was a disaster and childless.<br />
<br />
Without a male heir the Medici dynasty was doomed to extinction. As both his sons were childless Cosimo III had been faced with the threat of the Emperor seizing the Grand Duchy, on the pretext that it was an Imperial fief without an heir. Cosimo’s council had persuaded him that as it had been the people of Florence who had first chosen the Medici to lead them, he should bequeath sovereignty back to his subjects, the citizens of Florence. Unfortunately this solution, while certainly to the advantage of the Grand Duke’s councillors whose powers would have been enlarged thereby, would have lost Siena and the other imperial fiefs that had been gradually aggregated to the original Florentine territories. Cosimo was persuaded that to restore the Republic and lose the Imperial fiefs, would weaken the much reduced state to the disadvantage of the Florentines. The Grand Duke then modified this quasi-democratic impulse and decided that on the death of the survivor of himself or his sons, his daughter Anna Maria, Electress Palatine, would succeed and that only upon her death Tuscany would revert to the citizens of Florence. It was hoped that some accommodation could have been made with the Emperor, which would have permitted the Imperial fiefs to remain attached to Florence. There were also proposals to allow the succession of the most junior line but it was considered inappropriate for this branch, which while noble was of insufficient estate and prominence to be considered as possible sovereigns of the Grand Duchy. This branch of the family had settled in the Kingdom of Naples and its closest connection to the reigning line went back to the 13th century, long before the Medici had been established as a reigning house.<br />
<br />
The Archduke Karl, the Habsburg rival of Felipe V for the Spanish Crown, had succeeded his brother as Emperor Karl VI in 1711. Imperial troops had already established Austrian rule in the former Spanish possessions in Italy and the Netherlands and Karl hoped to include Tuscany with his other Italian territories, giving him control of much of the peninsular. Since Anna Maria was childless the Emperor agreed to her eventual succession, but only provided he or his heirs should inherit the entire Grand Duchy on her death. Cosimo decided to ignore the Emperor and on 26th November 1713 issued a decree that his daughter would succeed if he and his son predeceased her; the next day the decree was presented to the Florentine Senate which greeted the proposal with “joyous acclamations.”_ The Emperor was outraged, writing to Anna Maria’s husband on 25th May 1714 that the Grand Duke had no right to make such a provision, and claiming the entire Grand Duchy, aside from the small parts that remained fiefs of the Pope, as an Imperial fief.<br />
<br />
Cosimo’s decision to admit the right of his daughter to the succession opened up the claims of other female line heiresses. If Maria Anna could inherit the Grand Duchy, as a Medici princess, surely others could do so should she die without heirs? The betrothal, and then marriage, of Felipe V of Spain to Elisabetta Farnese, eventual heiress of Parma, angered the Emperor even more. Spain and the Empire were still at war, although peace had been signed between Karl and France at Rastadt (Baden). France had consented to the Imperial demands that Felipe V should lose all his Italian possessions, but Spain had not. This marriage not only promised to give the Spanish King a foothold in the Farnese duchies of Parma and Piacenza, but as Elisabetta was the great-granddaughter of Margherita de’ Medici, sister of Ferdinando II, and the Farnese male line would become extinct in 1731, it would allow Felipe V to claim Tuscany as well as Parma for the first born son of this marriage.<br />
<br />
The alliances that had combined to defeat France in the War of the Spanish Succession had begun to fracture; Great Britain was troubled by the increasing power of the Emperor and with her substantial trading interests in Italy, notably Livorno, did not want Tuscany to lose its independence. The Emperor himself was confronted with the problem of his own succession; he was the father only of two daughters and the last twenty-five years of his reign were to be dedicated to insuring the succession of the elder, Maria Teresa, to the Habsburg hereditary estates. Brandenburg-Prussia and Bavaria, on the other hand, saw the Imperial succession problem as an opportunity to enlarge their own power. The Emperor, understanding Cosimo’s venality now offered to enlarge the Grand Duchy if he would take steps to exclude the Infante don Carlos and instead name as successor someone independent of Spain and Austria. Cosimo demanded Piombino and the Presidii_ but this demand seemed excessive to the Emperor. After some delay, Cosimo agreed to nominate the Duke of Modena as heir, but the Emperor still refused to grant him Piombino and the Presidii and then announced that neither would he agree to Tuscany’s union with Modena.<br />
<br />
Events now passed from the Emperor’s control; his old allies, Britain and the Netherlands had joined up with France in the Triple Alliance, to which Austria was forced to accede in the Treaty of London to buy French support in his struggle to assure the succession of his daughter. The Powers now agreed that Elisabetta Farnese’s eldest son, the Infante don Carlos, should succeed to Parma, without however consulting the Pope, who claimed to be its feudal superior and enjoy the right of investiture (a right also claimed by the Emperor), while determining that the Emperor could dispose of Tuscany as he wished. Neither Cosimo nor Felipe V was consulted, although the former tried to play off Austria and Spain against each other through devious manoeuvrings by his Ambassadors in Madrid and Vienna. The Spanish King ignored the dispositions by the other Powers and decided to attempt to recover his possessions in southern Italy, landing troops in Palermo. Although the Sicilians welcomed them, Austrian rule being extremely unpopular (even when nominally administered through the proxy King, the Duke of Savoy),_ the Spanish suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of Admiral Byng on 11th August 1718.<br />
<br />
The Quadruple Alliance immediately imposed a new settlement; Sicily would be given to the Emperor, reuniting it with Naples, and Spain would lose Sardinia to the Duke of Savoy in return for the Infante don Carlos de Borbón y Farnese being confirmed as heir to Tuscany and Parma. The Emperor in turn would renounce his claim to Spain and the Indies while Felipe would confirm the renunciation of his French rights included in the Treaties of Utrecht. Although he delayed consenting, Felipe V eventually acceded to the Quadruple Alliance at the Treaty of London 26th January 1720, which, nonetheless, referred the various issues remaining in dispute to the Congress of Cambrai. Much relieved at a settlement which would at least insure that his beloved Tuscany would retain its independence, even without the additions of Piombino and the Presidii, Cosimo III now added San Giuseppe to San Giovanni Battista and San Zenobio as the heavenly protectors of the Grand Duchy, a decision ratified by the Senate in December 1719._<br />
<br />
Although the succession seemed settled, the Emperor continued to claim the Grand Duchy as an imperial fief, while the Florentines asserted their independence; rival academic treatises were issued fiercely arguing each case. The Powers paid little attention, realpolitik being a stronger motive for settlement than the arguments of scholars, except when these arguments could be used to support one or other opposing political view. Meanwhile the eventual claim of the dowager Electress Maria Anna was being ignored by all and, when Cosimo III died on 31st October 1723, the security of the succession first of Maria Anna and then the Infante was still not assured. The new Grand Duke Gian Gastone, to the surprise of many, exhibited occasional astuteness as ruler, even though he spent most of his time in bed, too lazy to make the most elementary decisions. The Grand Duke attempted some modest social reforms, abolishing some of the more onerous taxes and founded a workhouse for the homeless and many beggars who plagued the city. As a statesman the new Grand Duke was less successful, trying to play Austria against Spain, wishing to resist the imposition of a Spanish garrison (whose cost would inevitably be born by the Tuscan exchequer) but not submit to Austrian suzerainship. Gian Gastone did not anticipate the short-lived rapprochement between the two rival powers which led to the Treaty of Vienna of 1725, allowing for Imperial Investiture of the Grand Duchy in the person of Infante Don Carlos and thus seemingly deciding the status of Tuscany as an Imperial fief.<br />
<br />
The Emperor, meanwhile, doubting the merits of the Spanish rapprochement, continued to insist on his right to control the succession and arranged a marriage for Elisabetta Farnese’s uncle, Antonio, last reigning Duke of Parma of the Farnese dynasty; any issue of that marriage would have had a superior claim to both Parma and Tuscany to that of the Spanish Queen. Like the marriage of the unfortunate Cardinal Francesco Maria de’ Medici, this attempt to produce an heir failed and Antonio expired in January 1731, leaving his widow feigning a pregnancy that, finally, in September was announced as having been founded in her imagination.<br />
<br />
Upon Antonio’s death Karl VI promptly sent Imperial troops into the duchy, to supposedly secure it for the Infante Don Carlos; the Spanish were naturally sceptical of Austria’s intentions and with the arrival of Spanish forces in October the Austrians withdrew. Gian Gastone and the Spanish Ambassador agreed secretly that the Infante would be proclaimed Hereditary Grand Prince with no mention of Imperial suzerainty (nor of the rights of his sister the Electress_), while the Grand Duke and the widowed Duchess of Parma would remain his guardians. Don Carlos arrived at Livorno on 27th December but, to everyone’s horror, caught smallpox soon afterwards – the scourge of his French cousins –thankfully he recovered fully with minimal scarring. On 9th March 1732 Don Carlos made his formal entry into Florence to the acclaim of the citizenry and nobility, much relieved at the solution that guaranteed the support of both Spain and France and the eventual succession of a young and healthy prince.<br />
<br />
Gian Gastone, meanwhile, continued to ignore the Emperor and, on 24th June 1732, the new Hereditary Grand Prince received the homage of the Tuscan provinces over repeated protests by the Emperor. The difficulty of the Parmese investiture also remained an issue, however, as the Spanish demanded that the Emperor agree to invest D. Carlos immediately as Duke, rather than wait until he reached his majority. The Emperor required that if Don Carlos was to receive immediate Imperial investiture he must forego the use of the title of Hereditary Grand Prince of Tuscany. The Pope had to be persuaded to agree to a solution that recognized the Imperial right of investiture of Parma._<br />
<br />
None of these problems were settled when, on 1st February 1733, Augustus II of Poland died, leaving open the important question of the Polish succession. Louis XV wanted his father-in-law, the exiled Stanislas Leczinski restored and as this proposal would directly oppose Austria’s wishes was sufficient to gain the support of Savoy-Sardinia and Spain. The treaties of Turin (September 1733) and the Escorial (7th November following) between France and Sardinia and France and Spain planned a new division of Italy: Spain would recover Naples and Sicily in the person of Infante don Carlos, while his younger brother Felipe (Filippo) would succeed in Parma_ and Tuscany; the King of Sardinia would keep his island state but enlarge his power with the addition of the Duchy of Milan; in exchange for which France would gain the old Duchy of Savoy._<br />
<br />
The alliance was fragile, however, and once the Spanish had defeated Austria in Naples and proclaimed Don Carlos King, the King of Sardinia, seeing Austria undefeated in Milan, wavered; the war ended in a new treaty whose preliminaries were signed on 3rd October 1735. These were concluded in the Treaty of Vienna of 19th November 1735_ in which the Emperor recognized Don Carlos as King of Naples and Sicily, in exchange for possession of Parma and Piacenza under an imperial governor; Don Carlos was permitted to retain possession of the Farnese allodial fiefs and enjoy his uninhibited governance of the Constantinian Order. This treaty also instituted the Neapolitan “secondogeniture” which required that if the Crowns of Spain and Naples be united in one person, the Italian sovereignties should be transferred to the second prince in line. Austria gained a considerable advantage in making these concessions, which had already been established de facto by force of arms; Don Carlos was required to surrender his rights to Tuscany, which were transferred to Francis, Duke of Lorraine – the entire possessions of the House of Lorraine in exchange being given to Stanislas Leczinski, with the reversion to France upon his death (which occurred in 1766).<br />
<br />
The dispositions by the great powers were not particularly welcome to those whom they most affected. The Duke of Lorraine, although promised the hand of Archduchess Maria Teresa and the eventual election as Emperor, was reluctant to abandon the ancient capital that had been his family’s seat for some seven hundred years. Gian Gastone, who had come to see the Infante as a surrogate son, was despondent at the prospect of the hated Germans, whom recalling his dreadful wife he considered uncouth and boorish, occupying his beloved Florence. Gian Gastone was unsuccessful in continuing to dispute the Imperial claim to investiture of the entire Grand Duchy, but managed to secure a small but significant victory; insisting that if Francis became Emperor the Grand Duchy should be settled on a second son and never afterward united with the Imperial Crown. Thus was established the principle of “secondogeniture” for Austria and Tuscany that would also regulate the successions to Austria and Modena and to Spain and the Two Sicilies.<br />
<br />
The last days of Gian Gastone led to a reconciliation with his unfortunate sister and, more important, with the Church; having been notably negligent in his religious obligations to the point of being accused of abandoning his faith altogether, the Grand Duke with great humility confessed and received the sacraments for the first time for many years on 10th July 1737. His sincerity moved all who witnessed it and was followed by his investiture with the insignia of a knight, and regalia of Grand Master of the Order of Santo Stefano, thus insuring he would benefit from the various indulgences and privileges granted to members of the Order by the Pope. The next day he was anointed with Holy Oil and received the Papal Nuncio (he gave him benediction and Papal absolution), the Archbishop of Florence (who recommended the salvation of his soul), and the Bishop of Fiesole. On 11th July he died with his sister at his side,_ surrounded by his councillors and courtiers. Immediately the Prince de Beauvau-Craon_ took possession of the Grand Duchy in his master’s name; the next day, 12th July, the Senate and the Council of Two Hundred swore solemn fealty to their new sovereign. The citizenry had to wait another eighteen months before greeting the new Grand Duke Francesco, who was commanding Imperial forces in the Balkans; he finally entered the Grand Duchy on 20th January 1739.<br />
<br />
The succession of the new Grand Duke had already been assured by his investiture, in anticipation, on 24th January 1737. The original appointment of the Medici as Dukes of the Florentine Republic had been limited to the agnatic succession; the grant of the title of Grand Duke had to been to Cosimo I as Duke and his heirs and successors as such._ The recognition of the rights of succession of women had never been formally accepted by the Emperor in the form of investiture, even though it had been acknowledged by the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna of 1735. The Grand Duke had claimed the right to name his daughter as heiress on the grounds that as ruler of Florence, which he had insisted was not an Imperial fief, he could dispose of the non-feudal territories as he wished, with the necessary consent of the Florentine Senate. The new investiture was in compensation for the loss of the nominal Imperial fief of Lorraine, and thus required that all those who would have enjoyed a right of succession to that Duchy would also be in line of succession to Tuscany. The Emperor took the opportunity to substitute the system of “semi-salic” law for that of ordinary mixed succession, which, while it had governed Lorraine for centuries, had nonetheless in practice assured the succession to the agnatic line by arranging marriages between the daughters of reigning Dukes lacking sons to their Lorraine cousins.<br />
<br />
The Italian text of the investiture reads in its essential elements: “Dipoi vicendevolmente, che per indennizzare la prefata Serenissima casa di Lorena dei Ducati per l'addietro posseduti, appartenga alla medesima dopo la morte del presente Possessore, il Gran Ducato di Toscano. In oltre che tutte le Potenze, che avessero avuto parte alla Pace, prendano sopra di se il mantenimento, e la garanzia di quest’eventuale Successione in favore della soprammentovata Casa: che le Truppe Spagnole siano ritirate dalle Piazze, e Fortezze del Gran Ducato di Toscana …<br />
<br />
“Dipoi per singolare favore del Cielo, che sempre più andava beneficando i pacifici sentimenti di Noi, e del Re Cristianissimo, segui, che gli stati del sacro Romano Imperio legittimamente adunati nella Dieta di Ratisbona non solamente acconsentirono ai predetti Articoli Preliminari, ed a tutto ciò che in loro si contiene, ma trasferirono altresì in Noi la piena, e totale facoltà di trattare, di conchiudere, e di fare norma degli medesimi, non solo in proprio nome, ma ancore in nome dell'Imperio tutte quelle cose, che restavano da trattarsi, e da compirsi per por fine alla salutare opera della Pace; e quantunque pel tenero affetto, che portava e che di presente ancora porta ai Popoli suoi sudditi il Serenissimo Duca di Lorena e di Bar Francesco III. Nostro carissimo Genero esitasse da principio a mandarne in proprio nome, e degli suoi successori, …che negli poco fa citati Articoli Preliminari, e nella convenzione dell'esecuzione sottoscritta, e firmata il di 11 del passato Aprile poste si ritrovano, ma altresì a quelle, che dipoi furono stabilite concernenti un'altra Epoca della Cessione del Ducato di Lorena diversa da quella, che da principio piacque, sotto clausure, e condizioni, de quali fu insieme convenuto.<br />
<br />
“Le quali cose cosi essendo, non solamente la giustizia, e l'equità, ma altresì la stessa buona fede evidentissimamente richiedono, che ne sia indennizzato non solo il sopramemorato Serenissimo Duca di Lorena, e di Bar, e li suoi Discendenti, ma ancora tutti quanti gli altri Eredi, e successori, ai quale senza la sopradetta Cessione sarebbe toccato il diritto di succedere nei Ducati fin qui posseduti dalla casa di Lorena.<br />
Per la qual cosa Noi di certa nostra scienza con maturo consiglio, e colla nostra Imperiale Potestà, ed in vigore ancora del consenso datoci dal Sacro Imperio Romano Germanico in Nome Nostro, e dei Nostri legittimi Successori nella Corona Imperiale Imperatori, e Re dei Romani, al sopradetto Serenissimo Duca di Lorena, e di Bar Francesco III, Nostro Carissima Genero, ed ai suoi Discendenti Maschi, in infinito, e questi (che Iddio non permetta) mancando, al Principe Carlo Fratello del sopraddetto Duca, ed ai suoi Discendenti Maschi parimente, in infinito, osservando sempre l'ordine di Primogenitura, che è sempre stato osservato in riguardo alla successione nel Gran Ducato di Toscana, e se ancora questi Discendenti Maschi, dei quali abbiamo in ultimo luogo parlato, verrebbero del tutto a mancare, agli altri Principi maschi procedenti per stirpe mascolina della Serenissima Casa di Lorena parimente secondo l'ordine di Primogenitura, e finalmente estinta affatto la stirpe mascolina della Casa di Lorena, e non rimanendo più alcun Principe maschio, o della linea presentemente Regnante, o delle linee collaterali, ancora Principesse femmine nate della Serenissima Casa di Lorena altresì secondo l'ordine di Primogenitura, che come s'è detto, si dee in perpetuo osservare, l'eventuale diritto si succedere nel Gran Ducato di Toscana…”_<br />
<br />
The Imperial investiture of 1737 replaced the designation of the Medici and their agnatic successors as Republicae Florentinae Duces, and the effects of the Papal Bull of 1569 creating the title of Grand Duke of Tuscany for the Medici Dukes and the subsequent Imperial Bull of 1575. While Karl VI’s investiture of the Grand Duchy did not execute Gian Gastone’s wish for the establishment of the “secondogeniture” when Francis became Emperor, this was later laid out in an Imperial decree, made with the consent of the Emperor’s eldest son, Archduke Joseph, future Emperor Joseph II, on 14 July 1763. This act named the Emperor’s second son Archduke (Peter) Leopold of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia,_ as Grand Duke of Tuscany, on the occasion of the Archduke’s marriage to the Infanta Doña Maria Luisa of Spain, daughter of the former Hereditary Grand Prince of Tuscany, Carlos III._ It read “We wish that as Head of the Family and Grand Duke of Tuscany, for Us, Our Heirs and Successors … we constitute in the said Grand Duchy of Tuscany a ‘secondogeniture’ in favor of Our forenamed Son Archduke Leopold…”. The act continued by providing that should the Archduke die without legitimate issue or descendants that the succession to the Grand Duchy would return to the line of the eldest son, but that if the eldest son, Archduke Joseph, died without male heirs, the Grand Duchy would pass to the second in line, and failing this to the other heirs of Lorraine as provided in the investiture of 24th January 1737. _ This act emphasized once again the status of the Grand Duchy as an Imperial fief and was followed by an act of confirmation and abdication of rights by the Archduke Joseph, on the same day, 14th July 1763.<br />
<br />
Leopoldo proved to be one of the more successful rulers in the history of Tuscany, introducing important social reforms, simplifying taxation and encouraging the expansion of trade. At the same time he was less than supportive of the Order of Santo Stefano and its costly galleys, leading to the eventual resignation of the Order’s admiral, Sir John Acton (who left to join the Neapolitan service) and the sale of the remaining fleet. Florence, however, became one of the principal attractions for noblemen on the Grand Tour and the marvels of the Grand Ducal collections in the Uffizi and the Palazzo Pitti one of the wonders of the age. With Emperor Joseph II’s death without surviving issue, in 1790, the Grand Duke Leopoldo succeeded as Emperor Leopold II and his family sorrowfully transferred their residence from the delights of Florence to the dour charms of Vienna. In accordance with the requirement of the “secondogeniture”, Leopold abdicated the succession to the Grand Duchy to his second son, Ferdinando, with the consent of his eldest son, the future Emperor Francis I of Austria, on 21st July 1790._<br />
<br />
The new Grand Duke inherited the throne at a difficult moment. The throne of his aunt, the unfortunate Queen Marie-Antoinette was in grave danger and Europe was shortly to be plunged into a devastating war, which would transform its systems of governments and laws forever. French troops had occupied the Grand Duchy in 1799 and, although Ferdinando remained in power, his position was tenuous. By the Treaty of Lunéville of 9th February 1801, between the Emperor and First Consul of the French Republic, Grand Duke Ferdinando was dispossessed of the Grand Duchy in favour of the Duke of Parma, whose wife was the daughter of Charles IV of Spain, a temporary ally of the French, while the Duke of Parma in turn renounced his duchies to the French Republic (article 1 of the Treaty of Aranjuez of 21st February 1801). Tuscany was now converted into the Kingdom of Etruria for the Duke of Parma, under the terms of the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso of 1st October 1800 between Spain and France. France was untroubled by the niceties of Imperial investiture and the Emperor himself, not wishing to accord his blessing to this illegal usurpation of his brother’s rights, merely acknowledged “HRH the Infant of Spain who is in possession of the grand-duchy of Tuscany" as "King of Etruria” (Article 1 of the Convention of Paris, 26 December 1802)._ The Grand Duke was offered compensation with the territories of the Archbishop of Salzburg, which were erected into a new Electorate of the Empire on 27th February 1803; these were exchanged with his brother the Emperor for the territories of the former Archbishop of Wurzburg, to which the Electoral dignity was attached, by the Treaty of Pressburg of 26th December 1805. With the dissolution of the Empire, Archduke Ferdinando joined the Confederation of the Rhine taking the title of Grand Duke, on 25th September 1806.<br />
<br />
No longer in control of the Order of Santo Stefano, whose Grand Magistery had been usurped by the King of Etruria (the French administration purported to suppress the Order on 9th April 1809), on 9th March 1807 the Grand Duke founded a new Order, the Civil and Military Order of Merit under the title of San Giuseppe, dedicated to the last of the Patrons of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Modelled closely on the Two Sicilies Order of San Ferdinando e del Merito and the French Legion d’Honneur, this Order was divided initially into three ranks, Grand Cross, Commander, and Knight. Its badge closely resembled that of the Legion of Honor, with six instead of five arms of two points emanating from a central medallion, surmounted by a Crown.<br />
<br />
The collapse of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy and the withdrawal of French troops once again changed the course of Tuscan history. The Grand Duke’s assumption of the Tuscan throne was effected on 30 May 1814 (he had been proclaimed Grand Duke at Bologna on 25 April 1814), and the first Treaty of Vienna following the Congress, of 9th June 1815 provided that, in respect of the:<br />
<br />
« Possessions du Grand duc de Toscane<br />
100. S.A.I. l'archiduc Ferdinand d'Autriche est rétabli, tant pour lui que pour ses héritiers et successeurs, dans tous les droits de souveraineté et propriété sur le grand-duché de Toscane et ses dépendances, ainsi que S.A.I. les a possédés antérieurement au traité de Lunéville. Les stipulations de l'article 2 du traité de Vienne du 3 octobre 1735, entre l'Empereur Charles VI et le Roi de France, auxquelles accédèrent les autres puissances, sont pleinement rétablies en faveur de S.A.I. et R. le grand-duc Ferdinand et ses héritiers et descendants, 1. L'État des Présides; 2. La partie de l'île d'Elbe et de ses appartenances qui était sous la suzeraineté de S.M. le roi des Deux-Siciles avant l'année 1801; 3. La suzeraineté et souveraineté de la principauté de Piombino_ et ses dépendances ; 4. Les ci-devant fiefs impériaux de Vernio, Ontanto et Monte-Santa-Maria, enclavés dans les États Toscane.<br />
<br />
Duché de Lucques_<br />
101. La principauté de Lucques sera possédée en toute souveraineté par S.M. l'infante Marie-Louise et ses descendants en ligne directe et masculine. Cette principauté est érigé en duché, et conservera une forme de gouvernement basée sur les principes de celle qu'elle avait reçue en 1805. Il sera ajouté aux revenus de la principauté de Lucques, une rente de cinq cent mille francs que S.M. l'empereur d'Autriche et S.A.I. le grand-duc de Toscane s'engagent à payer régulièrement, aussi longtemps que les circonstances ne permettront pas de procurer à S.M. l'Infante Marie-Louise, et à son fils et ses descendants, un autre établissement. Cette rente sera spécialement hypothéqué sur les seigneuries de bohême, connues sous le nom de bavaro-palatines, qui, dans le cas de réversion du duché de Lucques au grand-duché de Toscane, seront affranchies de cette charge, et rentreront dans le domaine particulier de S.M.I. et R.A.<br />
<br />
Réversibilité du duché de Lucques<br />
102. Le duché de Lucques sera réversible au grand-duc de Toscane, soit dans le cas qu'il devint vacant par la mort de S.M. l'Infante Marie-Louise, ou de son fils don Carlos et de leurs descendants mâles et directs, soit dans celui que l'infante Marie-Louise ou ses héritiers directs obtinssent un autre établissement ou succédassent à une autre branche de leur dynastie. Toutefois le cas de réversion échéant, le grand-duc de Toscane s'engage à céder, dès qu'il entrera en possession de la principauté de Lucques, au duc de Modène, les territoires suivants: 1. Les districts toscans de Fivizano, Pietra-Santa et Barga; 2. Les districts lucquois de Castiglione et Gallicano, enclavés dans les États de Modène, ainsi que ceux de Minucciano et Monte-Ignose, contigus au pays de Massa. »<br />
<br />
The Grand Duke Ferdinando was now an absolute sovereign of an independent state, free of any external control. Austria could no longer lay claim to any over-lordship and the authority of the Austrian Emperor over the family of the Grand Duke was limited to the right of succession to the Austrian hereditary estates and titles. The Grand Dukes, of course, were sensible to the traditions of the House of Habsburg and, as eventual heirs to Austria in the event of the extinction of the male line of Franz I, conformed to the laws of the House in respect of marriage. The succession to Tuscany, however, could no longer be dictated by Austria, even though the senior line of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen remained next in line should the Grand Ducal line become extinct in the male line.<br />
<br />
The Grand Duchy retained many of the reforms introduced in the Napoleonic period, including the Civil Code, but also restored the old nobility and some of the ancien régime institutions. By a decree dated 15 August 1815 the Ripristinazione dell'Ordine dei Cavalieri di S. Stefano was proclaimed, announcing that a new Constitution and Statutes of the Order were being prepared, authorizing all the members of the Order before its suppression to reassume their previous rank and appointing five deputies, at Florence, Pisa, Siena, Arezzo and Pistoia, as a temporary government. The new Constitution and Statutes were proclaimed on 22 December 1817, restoring the Order to the position it had enjoyed before 24 March 1799 and re-enforcing all the earlier statutes and the amendments thereto. Article III stated that the Grand Duke "assuming, and retaining for Us, and for Our Successors to the Throne the Dignity, and Grade of Grand Master",_ restored the Council of the Order whose members would be nominated by him. On 18th March 1817 the Grand Duke announced the transfer to Tuscany of the Civil and Military Order of San Giuseppe, confirmed with the publication of new statutes on 1st August 1817.<br />
<br />
In 1824 Grand Duke Ferdinando III was succeeded in 1824 by his only son, Leopoldo II. The new ruler was a popular and enlightened monarch, well-known to his subjects, being accustomed to walk freely among them and, like King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies, was a supporter of scientific advances and new industrial technology. Although he reluctantly granted his state a Constitution in 1848,_ and had argued against sending troops to join Sardinian in her conflict with Austria (nonetheless earning him the condemnation of his Viennese cousins), his liberal tendencies were unappreciated by those who wished for even greater reforms. Like his fellow sovereigns elsewhere in Italy, he was unable to contain the political chaos which followed these concessions, and he was forced to flee for safety in Gaeta (courtesy of his brother-in-law King Ferdinando II, where he shared his exile with Pius IX). Austria’s intervention succeeded in restoring the Grand Duke to his throne, but was managed in a heavy-handed fashion that placed the Grand Duke in the unfortunate position of being obliged to the Imperial forces. The Austrian commander, Acting Field Marshal Baron von d’Aspre demanded that the Grand Duke appear in an Austrian uniform,_ but Leopoldo refused and wore the uniform of the Tuscan National Guard. His restoration was followed by a referendum in late 1849, in favour the restoration of the Grand Ducal government, and Leopoldo willingly accepted the Constitution he had promulgated earlier. Continuing unrest fomented by the machinations of Garibaldi and other radical leaders, required the continued occupation of the Grand Duchy by Austria, who demanded the suppression of the Constitution in 1852, to which the Grand Duke was forced to agree.<br />
<br />
The 1849 Constitution is a useful guide to the prerogatives of the Grand Duke, even though, after its suppression, as an absolute monarch he was constrained only by precedence and tradition. “Title II, the Fundamental Principles of the Tuscan Government,” conferred upon him all executive power, as supreme head of the State (art. 13). He sanctioned and promulgated all laws (art. 15); but these did not have effect unless signed by the responsible minister (art. 16); the legislative power was collectively exercised by the Grand Duke and the Assembly and the Grand Duke could dismiss the general Council but must summon a new one in three months (art. 18); justice derives from the Grand Duke (art 19), who nominates the judges (art. 20). The surviving prerogatives of the Grand Duke were regulated by “Title IV, General Dispositions:” the creation of new nobles pertained to the Grand Duke (art. 70); the Order of Santo Stefano conserved its prerogatives, properties and statutes (art. 71); the Order of Merit under the Title of San Giuseppe conserved its statutes (art. 72); and the Grand Duke had the right to institute new Orders and in the decree the Statutes thereof (art.73)._<br />
<br />
The Concordat with the Holy See signed on 25th April 1851 was an important milestone because it marked the recognition by the Holy See that the title of Grand Duke continued to pertain to Tuscany’s rulers, even though the original Papal Bull had limited its succession to the agnates of Cosimo III. The Pope thus recognized the investiture of 1737 and its consequent replacement of the original Bull._ Using the pretext that Tuscany had refused to join Sardinia in the latter's second war against Austria, the Sardinian forces invaded the Grand Duchy where they found conspirators ready to assist them overthrow the ruling dynasty. The speed with which Sardinia and her assorted republican, radicals and romantic supporters had managed to take over the north-Italian duchies was surprising to many; over-reliance by Tuscany, Parma and Modena on Austrian troops, noted for their less than competent generals and unpopular with the local populations, was partially responsible. The Grand Ducal family was forced to leave the Grand Duchy, amid the Addios of the populace, on 27th April 1859 and removed to Germany. The family was already doomed to exile, even though the Treaty of Villafranca of 11th July 1859 between France and Austria had provided for the re-establishment of the Grand Duke._ Leopoldo’s abdication as Grand Duke and Grand Master of the Orders of Santo Stefano was forced in favour of his eldest son, who succeeded as Ferdinando IV, on 21 July 1859, but he never returned to Florence.<br />
<br />
The provisional government of Baron Bettino Ricasoli, of a family that had profited singularly from Grand Ducal favours, rejected the possible return of the Grand Duke outright, knowing that its own grab for power would be immediately frustrated. The new government, ignoring the Treaty of Villafranca, declared the dynasty deposed on 16th August 1859, without bothering to seek the views of the Tuscan population. The Peace of Zurich, which brought a temporary peace, also reserved the rights of the Grand Duke and the Duke of Modena, since they had not been engaged in the war and the powers continued to recognize their rights. This too was ignored by the provisional government, and with a gesture towards democracy a referendum on the future of the Grand Duchy was announced for 11th March 1860. The open ballot, and the overt determination with which the new government advertised its hostility to continued Tuscan independence did not deter all the supporters of the Grand Duke. The voters supposedly gave a 95% majority for union with Sardinia, and this event, like the referendum that in Giuseppe di Lampedusa’s Donnafugata took place a year later, marked the birth pains of the new Italy._ The 5% which did not vote in favor was in reality multiplied several times by the many Don Ciccio Tumeos, whose votes were ignored, but the time of the Sovereign Grand Dukes had passed forever. On the 22nd March the unification with Sardinia was proclaimed in Florence; the Grand Duke’s formal protest to Sardinia on 26th March was ignored by the Powers, the new Italian government and all but a handful of Tuscan loyalists. Despite the purported abolition of the Order of Santo Stefano by the Provisional Government on 15 November 1859, this act had no effect on the validity of the Papal Bull which had granted it to the Medici Dukes of Florence and their heirs. The last reigning Grand Duke could not stomach exile in Austria, and removed to Rome, where he died on 29th January 1870, just a few months before the Eternal City also fell to Sardinian troops. There his funeral in the Basilica of the Santi Apostoli followed the protocol of a reigning sovereign, and was attended by his cousin and fellow-exile, King Francesco II of the Two Sicilies, Pope Pius IX and all the Cardinals assembled in Rome.<br />
<br />
The government of the newly founded Kingdom of Italy, despite the confidence that such purportedly widespread public support should have inspired (if it had been genuine), remained nervous and uncertain. Austria still controlled part of the North and had declined to recognize the newly proclaimed Kingdom. The Duke of Modena had been put to flight and the Duke of Parma, still a child, also. The last King of the Two Sicilies had made a brave stand at the fortress island of Gaeta, but had to withdraw in February 1861 for the comforts of the Palazzo Farnese and the protection of the Pope. Although Sardinian troops had encroached well into the Papal States, the Pope showed no sign of surrendering his temporal claims. It was Austria’s defeat by Prussia rather than Italian generalship which brought Franz Josef to the bargaining table at the Treaty of Vienna of 1866. Indeed Vittorio-Emanuele’s conduct of the war with Austria was so incompetent that, but for Bismarck, Italy would not even have recovered Venice, which the Austrian Emperor now regarded as an expensive luxury, and which was ultimately granted to Italy thanks to the intervention of Napoleon III._ Austria promised Italy that she would recognize Italian unity and withdraw all recognition from the Archdukes who had ruled there. Franz Josef at first demanded that the Grand Duke abandon his title, to which the Grand Duke Ferdinando IV, initially a guest of the King of Bavaria, refused. Franz Josef duly modified his request and, while allowing the Grand Duke to retain his title ad personam, provided he abandoned his claim to the former Grand Duchy, decided that his successors must forego it. Austria, however, could not legally dispose of the sovereignty of Tuscany as if it was some Austrian province; neither could the Emperor declare the dynasty deprived of their dynastic rights and claims, whatever the dictates of political self-interest.<br />
<br />
Italy’s capital was first proclaimed in the Sardinian capital of Torino, before being established in Florence, with the crude and vulgar Vittorio Emanuele II installed in the splendours of the Palazzo Pitti. The successful invasion of Rome enabled the new capital to be established there in 1870 and the Italian King moved to the large and sprawling Palazzo Quirinale. Italy was unable to bully the Pope into submission, however, and the Lateran Treaty of 1929 guaranteed forever Papal sovereignty and independence. Today Papal sovereignty over the Vatican City State remains the sole vestige of pre-unitarian Italy.<br />
<br />
Even if there was support for the Grand Duke in Tuscany, there was little prospect of him exploiting it since those upon whom he should have been able to rely most, the leaders of the Florentine nobility, had rushed to seek favours from the new regime (and often recognition of their titles). His status in Austria depended on the favour of the Emperor, who soon granted him a substantial residence in Salzburg, which, while preferable to the constraints of residing in stuffy and formal Vienna, was but a poor substitute for Florence. The editors of the Almanach de Gotha, which had retained a separate entry for Tuscany until 1865, reflected the changing political landscape; in the following year the family was included at the end of the entry under Austria, as “Branches non-régnante de la Maison d’Habsbourg-Lorraine. 1) Toscane.”_ After the fall of the Austrian Empire, the senior line appeared as “I. Ligne: d’Autriche-Hongrie” and the House of Tuscany as “II. Ligne: de Toscane,” thus acknowledging their equivalency as once sovereign families now deprived of its exercise.<br />
<br />
The Grand Duke Ferdinando IV married twice; by his first marriage to Princess Anne of Saxony he had an on only daughter; his wife died shortly before the family was forced into exile, on 10th February 1859, the last member of the reigning dynasty to die in Florence. He remarried, in 1868, to Princes Alicia of Bourbon-Parma and by her had a large and sometimes unruly family. The eldest son, Leopoldo (1838-1935), who should have enjoyed the title of Hereditary Grand Prince, was born in 1868 but abandoned his titles, rank and name in 1902 to assume the humble identity of Leopold Wölfling (and was eliminated from the Gotha from 1905 onwards)._ He married unequally, leaving issue. The next child was a daughter, Luise, whose marriage to the last reigning King of Saxony proved an unmitigated disaster. Luise, in personality, bore a distinct resemblance to the late Diana, Princess of Wales, anxious to assert her own popularity with the citizens of Dresden, she made much of trivial issues such as the king’s refusal to allow her to ride her bicycle around the city, which he considered undignified. After she abandoned her husband and children, and was later briefly married to an Italian musician, her name, like that of her elder brother, was removed from the Tuscany entry in the Gotha in 1914._<br />
<br />
Ferdinand IV continued to award the Tuscan Orders in exile, but sparingly, although the last “professed” knight, accorded membership at the end of the century, did not die until 1928._ The Grand Duke made approximately one hundred awards of San Giuseppe, to leading figures in Tuscan society._ At his death in 1908 he was succeeded by his second son, the Archduke Giuseppe (Joseph Ferdinand), who was not accorded the Grand Ducal title in the Gotha, but when awarding the Tuscan Orders_ and in granting certain titles of nobility, did so as Grand Duke of Tuscany._ He was also addressed as such in communications with the Pope, as when he wrote to offer his condolences on the death of Pope Pius X. Giuseppe married relatively late in life, at the age of forty-nine, to a widow just a few years his junior. This marriage ended in divorce, and he remarried civilly (again unequally) before the death of his first wife, to a young noblewoman, Gertraud Tomanek Edler v. Beyerfels. The son and daughter of this second marriage were born subsequent to the death of his first wife, but were nonetheless canonically illegitimate._ These marriages did not conform to the traditions of the House, and the Grand Duke Giuseppe himself considered them unequal, conferring upon his children new titles of Prince and Princess of Florence.<br />
<br />
In 1913 Giuseppe proposed to Count Guelfo Guelfi that the Order of Santo Stefano be restructured on the lines of the Constantinian Order, which had recently been the object of several manifestations of papal support - unfortunately the onset of the First World War made further progress impossible. The idea of reviving it was again put forward in 1937 by some Tuscan nobles, but the occupation of Austria by Hitler (who hated the Habsburgs) put the Archduke in a difficult position and the idea was abandoned. In the same year a group of Italians led by Barone (later Count) Pompeo Aloisi proposed re-establishing the Order as an Italian State Order of Merit to be awarded for distinguished service in the Italian navy, but this came to nothing._<br />
<br />
The end of World War I had seen the end of the Habsburg Empire, and the humiliation of becoming citizens of a petty and truncated republic, which promptly confiscated the property of all those members of the Imperial House who refused to swear loyalty. The Grand Duke and his brother, always loyal to the Head of the dynasty, refused and suffered the loss of their personal property in an act of vengeance which remains to the shame of Austria._ while the Tuscan junior line descended from Ferdinand IV’s younger brother, Archduke Carl Salvator, accepted the republic and retained their property (although they later proved unwilling to come to the aid of the unfortunate Emperor, who died in impoverished exile in the Canary Islands, leaving his large family to the care of the redoubtable Empress Zita).<br />
<br />
Grand Duke Giuseppe (Joseph Ferdinand) died in 1942 and was succeeded as Grand Duke by his next brother,_ Archduke Pietro (Peter Ferdinand), who had married equally in 1900 to his cousin, Princess Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies, a daughter of the Count of Caserta, by whom he had two sons. Pietro Ferdinando acted as Regent for his brother in certain dealings with the Italian government in the late 1930s over the Order of Santo Stefano. The proposal to revive the Order as an Italian state award would have been illegal and the Grand Dukes Giuseppe and then Pietro remained de jure Grand Masters. The elder of Pietro’s two sons, Goffredo, born in 1902, succeeded him in 1948 as Grand Duke Goffredo I and Grand Master of the Order of Santo Stefano; Goffredo had married in 1938 Princess Dorothea of Bavaria. Goffredo took a closer interest in his Tuscan inheritance than his father and made a handful of awards of the Orders of Santo Stefano and San Giuseppe. When he died in 1984 he was succeeded by his only son, Archduke Leopoldo, born in 1942, who had married in 1965 Mlle Laetitia de Belzunce d’Arenberg, the daughter of Henri de Belzunce_ and Marie-Thérèse de la Poëze d’Harambure, and adopted daughter of Eric-Engelbert, Duke of Arenberg._ The new Grand Duke Leopoldo III presided over the reorganization of both the Orders of Santo Stefano (23 January 1993)_ and San Giuseppe (1st January 1990 and 15 January 1992), and became the first Head of the Dynasty for one hundred and thirty years to visit Florence regularly. Grand Duke Leopoldo abdicated as Grand Duke and Grand Master of the Orders of Santo Stefano and San Giuseppe on 18 June 1993,_ in favour of his eldest son, the Archduke Sigismondo.<br />
<br />
The Grand Duke Sigismondo has further extended the membership of both dynastic Orders since his succession. The statutes of Order of Santo Stefano have been revised again, as have those of San Giuseppe (introducing the grades of Grand Officer between Grand Cross and Commander, and that of Officer between Commander and Knight, although no more conferrals of these ranks are to be made). He has visited Florence regularly and has taken a considerable interest in the cultural life of Tuscany. On 11th September 1999 he was married at the London Oratory to Miss Elyssa Edmonstone,_ in a ceremony witnessed by many members of Europe’s royal families and the Tuscan nobility._<br />
<br />
The Tuscan secondogeniture is one of two such dynastic arrangements in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen; the other being the secondogeniture established in respect of the succession to the Duchy of Modena._ Modena, like Tuscany, had achieved sovereign independence by the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 and when it became clear by the early 1860s that the would be no male heirs in the direct line, Austria claimed the considerable Este inheritance for the nearest Archduke to the Emperor, who would succeed under the Austrian interpretation of the terms of the original secondogeniture. The next heirs were firstly the Archduke Maximilian, short-lived Emperor of Mexico (executed 1867), then the Archduke Karl-Ludwig (died 1896) and then the latter’s son, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Francis V the last reigning Duke of Modena, however, by then in exile, considered that as the investiture of 1771 did not restrict the succession to males (females being admitted under the ancient succession laws both to Modena, and the Cibo Malaspina inheritance of Massa and Carrara), that his niece was eligible to succeed. As Modena had been entirely independent since 1815 the Duke considered he could dispose of the throne as he wished, in accordance with the historic laws of succession. Francis V’s decision to name his niece as eventual heiress was most unwelcome in Vienna, however, where the Imperial family was keen to acquire the Duke’s considerable fortune as well as his claims to Modena. Eventually the Duke was persuaded to name the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, provided the Archduke assumed the name Austria-Este; the Duke agreed, but also required that, if he declined, the inheritance would pass first to the latter’s brothers Otto and Ferdinand, and failing them, out of the House of Habsburg altogether to the Bourbon Dukes of Madrid and of San Jaime (both of them later Carlist claimants to the throne of Spain)._<br />
<br />
Franz Ferdinand, unsurprisingly, did not decline this enormous legacy, and on the Duke’s death duly inherited. But with the death (by suicide) of Crown Prince Rudolf, Franz Ferdinand became Austrian Heir Presumptive and the Este name and inheritance was passed to his nephew, Archduke Karl, son of his dissolute brother Otto. When Franz Ferdinand_ was assassinated at Sarajevo and Karl became Heir Presumptive in turn, this succession was designated to pass to his second son, and in 1917, by which time he had succeeded as Emperor, Karl duly named his second son, the Archduke Robert, as Este heir. As such Robert became by right Head of a new ex-regnant branch, of Modena, and successor as titular Duke, with jurisdiction over his descendants, all of whom would be entitled to the title of Prince of Modena, although he did not in fact assume this title or the associated prerogatives._ He has since been succeeded as Archduke of Austria-Este (and de jure Duke of Modena) by his eldest son, Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, Prince of Belgium.<br />
<br />
The Modenese succession cannot be compared precisely. Even though the requirements of the secondogeniture were followed in practice (but for the omission of Archduke Karl Ludwig, Franz Ferdinand’s father, and Archduke Otto, Emperor Karl’s father), the procedure by which this happened, the testament of the last Duke, allowed for the possibility of an alternative (the succession of the Bourbon Dukes of Madrid and San Jaime as co-heirs to the Este estates) not envisaged in the original Imperial investiture. The succession, excluding the immediate heir, was accepted by all, however, as the eventual successors were in each case the ultimate legitimate representatives and the present Este representative, Archduke Lorenz, is the proper heir under 1815 treaty. The situation of Modena as an independent state following the dissolution of the Empire in 1806 was comparable to that of Tuscany but, unlike Tuscany, the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 had specifically re-enforced the 1753 convention on Modena and the 1771 investiture with the secondogeniture arrangement. Thus this effectively became enforced even after Modena achieved absolute sovereignty and independence.<br />
<br />
There are several other dynasties of which there are multiple reigning branches; but over which the head of the particular House has only limited rights over the other reigning, or formerly reigning branches. The House of Bourbon-Spain, for example, is divided into the branches of Spain, the Two Sicilies and Parma; the latter two both enjoy rights to the Spanish throne under the Constitution of 1876, whose provisions in respect of the members of the dynasty appear to have been revalidated by the recognition of Juan Carlos as “legitimate heir of the ancient dynasty” in the Spanish Constitution of 1978._<br />
<br />
The designation of the system of succession to Spain and the Two Sicilies was first made in the Pragmatic Decree of Carlos III (that same Infante Don Carlos who had been heir to Tuscany) as King of both, in 1759 – this required that the two Crowns never be united and that if the King of the Two Sicilies succeeded to the Spanish Crown, he must abdicate the Italian Sovereignty to the next son who was not heir to Spain. The decree of 1759 was reinforced in the Two Sicilies Constitutions of 1820, 1848 and 1860 (in force when the dynasty was deposed). When there was a dispute over the succession in the dynasty of the Two Sicilies, over the precise interpretation of the 1759 decree, the King of Spain as successor of Carlos III, in 1983 ordered a detailed investigation by the highest organs of the Spanish state, which concluded in favor of the senior male heir of the Two Sicilies branch._ Carlos III of Spain had not acted in 1759 simply as investor of the Two Sicilies Crown, but as actual inheritor of both the Two Sicilies and Spanish thrones when he laid down the system of succession, and King Juan Carlos was his undoubted representative. In 1759, as in 1983, the King had consulted with the highest organs and officials of the state in determining the succession; this could not be an arbitrary act. This contrasts with the position of the heads of the Imperial House of Austria, whose Monarchy was founded in 1804, and who, because of the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, lost any claim to invest the Grand Duchy of Tuscany or Duchy of Modena. The Imperial investiture of Tuscany in 1763, was made by the Emperor and Grand Duke Franz (Francesco), in his capacity as Emperor but not as ruler of Austria or Grand Duke._ When the Empire ceased to exist, so did all the prerogatives associated with the exercise of the Imperial title.<br />
<br />
The limitation of the rights of the heads of dynasties with multiple reigning or formerly reigning branches, however, is demonstrated in 1923, when the Count of Caserta authorized the marriage of his son Ranieri to Countess Carolina Zamoyska._ This authorization was in accordance with the Two Sicilies law of 1829, which imposed upon the head of the House the duty to maintain the “splendor and purity” of the House, but did not conform to the requirements of the Spanish Pragmatic Decree of 1776 requiring equal marriage. Alfonso XIII of Spain’s jurisdiction was limited to the rights of Prince Ranieri to Spain, and his determination that the issue of this marriage would not be considered Spanish dynasts could not affect the right to the royal styles and titles or the succession rights of the issue of this marriage to the Two Sicilies succession. The successive Dukes of Parma, the third line of the House of Bourbon, had continued to accept from the Kings of Spain the title of Infant of Spain; the last reigning Duke, also an Infante, died in 1907. As a result of the marriage of the King of Etruria to a sister of Ferdinand VII, this line also enjoyed Spanish rights under the 1876 Constitution. Thus the Parmesan princes were similarly subject to Spanish rules in respect of their Spanish rights, but not their Parmesan – and indeed the present Duke of Parma was the issue of a marriage that was unrecognized by Alfonso XIII and the Count of Barcelona for Spanish succession purposes.<br />
<br />
The House of Saxe-Coburg at the time of the promulgation of its House Laws in 1855, had provided the Consorts of the Queens of Great Britain and Ireland and of Portugal, and the King of the Belgians; it was later to provide the Monarchs of Great Britain and of Portugal, and the Kings of Bulgaria. The effects of these House laws were limited to the succession to the Duchy, and could not affect the succession rights of members of the royal houses of Great Britain (one of whose princes ultimately succeeded as Coburg Duke), Portugal, Belgium or Bulgaria, whose marriages and individual succession rights were regulated solely by the Heads of those individual royal houses. Similarly the House of Schleswig-Holstein has provided the reigning dynasties of Denmark and Norway and the former reigning Houses of Greece, Russia and Oldenburg; the senior male of the House, however, does not enjoy any jurisdiction over the marriages of these lines.<br />
<br />
The members of the Royal House of Hannover use the title of Prince of Great Britain and Ireland even though King George V of Great Britain in 1917 limited the succession of this title to the grandchildren in the male line of the sovereign._ This designation may be regarded as a legal title of the Duchy of Brunswick (the last state over which this line ruled, until 1918) and Hannover, even if it is irrelevant in the context of the British succession. Nonetheless it is accorded to them by every major genealogical work of reference and is still used by members of the family. Similarly, all Princes of Greece are also styled Princes of Denmark, even though Denmark has instituted female line succession and the members of the Greek branch do not have any rights to the Danish throne._<br />
<br />
The Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria instituted new laws of the House of Habsburg, the “Familienstatut,” on 3 February 1839._ This recognized the autonomy of the sovereign branches of the House in Title III, article 22,_ which read as follows (Translation): “In the branches of the "Erzhaus" (the House of Habsburg) which possess sovereignty of their own, the heads of such branches shall exercise the rights of the supreme head of the joint family in the matter of the marriages of their own members. It can be expected with confidence that, taking due consideration to the joint rights of all family members and the ties uniting all branches of the family as a whole, the uniform principles and the joint family interests which have always existed in the "Erzhaus" (the House of Habsburg) will not be disregarded in any of those branches.”<br />
<br />
The Familienstatut has since been revised recently by the Archduke Otto, allowing any marriage to a member of the nobility_ to be considered dynastic, but the revision could not extend to revising the rights of the other sovereign branches of the Imperial House over the members of their own dynasty and dynastic rights, in respect of succession to the Headships of these sovereign branches._ Nor could such revision revoke the principles of autonomy of the other reigning branches, now non-reigning, laid out in article 22 of the Familienstatut. One may observe, therefore, that the Grand Duke of Tuscany enjoys the same authority over members of the Tuscan branch of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, in respect of their Tuscan rights and titles as the Head of the senior line, the Archduke Otto, over the members of the different branches of the House of Austria not descended from the Grand Duke Ferdinand III._ The Grand Duke also continues to enjoy all the prerogatives of his predecessors as Grand Master of the Orders of Santo Stefano and of Merit under the Title of San Giuseppe. Naturally the head of the Grand Ducal line is required under article 22 of the Familienstatut to respect the traditions of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen in regard to marriages of members of the dynasty, and he will not impose any regulations of marriages arbitrarily or inequitably.<br />
<br />
The editors of the various genealogical publications, which have followed the pre-1944 Almanachs de Gotha in denying the title of Grand Duke to the heads of this House (limiting his titles to those of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia), perhaps because of the pre-First World War political interests of the House of Austria, have erred, since the House of Tuscany is no less independent from Austria than the Grand Ducal House of Oldenburg from the dictates of the senior primogeniture heir, the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksberg, or the Royal Houses of Bulgaria, Brunswick-Hannover, and Belgium, from regulation by the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The Heads of Europe’s non-reigning royal houses each use titles associated with their dynasty; what is significant about the title of Grand Duke is that it was invested in Francis of Lorraine and his successors, then Archduke Ferdinand and his, and this investiture has never been revoked._ It is hoped that this error will be corrected by the editors of the Genealogisches Hansbuch des Adels: Furstliche Hauser, published by Starke Verlag, in future editions.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, the Archduke Otto as Head of the Imperial House of Austria has respected the autonomy of the Tuscan line, and it is worth noting that the latter’s successor as Sovereign of the Order of the Golden Fleece has done likewise. Hence the complete roll of members of the Order published in 2002 under authority of Archduke Karl, among the nominations made by Archduke Otto as Sovereign of the Order in the promotion of 30th November 1932, number 1211, names “Godefroi Archiduc d’Autriche” as “ensuite Grand-Duc de Toscane”. Any suggestion, therefore, that the Head of the Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg-Lothringen does not acknowledge the titles of the Head of the Tuscan branch is clearly mistaken. Good relations between the different branches of the family must be based on mutual respect, and one may hope that the House of Habsburg-Lothringen will not be divided by the kind of disputes which have bedevilled so many royal houses.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-90713690540703524472015-12-30T00:50:00.000+01:002017-04-25T18:04:14.816+02:00SPANISH NOBILIARY REGULATIONS - AN OUTLINESPANISH NOBILIARY REGULATIONS<br />
<br />
The Grandees of Spain are represented by the Deputation of Grandees and Titled Nobles of the Kingdom (Diputación de Grandes y Titulos del Reino), a body incorporated by the Crown and regulated by several laws - most notably a series of statutes in 1927._ This has eight members who are Grandees and eight titled noblemen who are not Grandees, with a President who must be both a Grandee and possess a title without the Grandeeship (presently the Duke of San Carlos). One of the privileges of the Deputation is to be informed directly of any new creations of titles.<br />
<br />
The children of Infantes of Spain are styled Exc.mo Sr with the lifetime treatment and honors of Grandee but without the title. Aside from the title of Príncipe de las Asturias, and Príncipe de la Casa Real de España which may be granted personally by the Sovereign, the only titles recognized in Spain are Duke (Duque), Marquess (Marqués), Count (Conde), Viscount (Visconde), Baron (Barón) and Lord (Señor). The titles of Prince granted to Spaniards by the Kings of Spain by virtue of the Sovereignty of a foreign state may be converted to Dukedoms, but this privilege only extends to the direct descendants and not a collateral heir. All new Grandeeships must be united with a title. The creation of a new title must be approved by the Council of Ministers and the announcement published in the Official Bulletin of the State (Boletín Oficial del Estado), formerly the Gaceta de Madrid.<br />
<br />
The decree of 1927 stated that all jurisdictional Senores (Lordships, the equivalent of Lords of the Manor, but granted on an hereditary basis), would be considered as Titles of the Kingdom. Lordships in the Kingdom of Castille were to be of equal or greater importance than Baronies in the Kingdom of Aragon, and the holder could petition for their conversion into a Barony with the same place name. Lordships or Baronies that were acquired by purchase, as opposed to royal grant, would not be considered Titles of the Kingdom. The title of Señor must have been held by the descendant of the original grantee without interruption.<br />
<br />
The eldest sons of Titled Nobles or Grandees of the Kingdom ranking higher than Count or above who do not have any other title may use the title of Visconde with the place name of his parent’s title until his succession.<br />
<br />
Grandees of Spain are entitled to the style of “Most Excellent Lord (or Lady)”, or “His or Her Excellency”; Marquesses and Counts who are not Grandees are “Most Illustrious Lord (or Lady)”. Viscounts, Barons and Señors are styled Lord or Lady (Señor or Señora).<br />
<br />
On the death of the holder of a title his or her immediate heir must petition the Ministry of Justice for succession within one year. When two years have passed without such petition being made, the right to petition for succession is open to other heirs after an announcement in the Boletín Oficial of the Province in which the last title holder died. Until the recent reforms (see below) fees payable on succession rose according to the distance of the heir from the previous holder, or the number of generations (three being considered for each century) between the petitioner and the previous holder.<br />
<br />
Those petitioning for the succession to a title who are not the children, grandchildren, brothers or sisters of the last holder must provide the necessary documentation proving their succession and proof of the existence of the title. In the case of those petitioning to use a title granted by the Spanish Kings as Sovereigns of other states, the actual letters patent of creation must be produced as well.<br />
<br />
The succession to Grandeeships or Titles passes according to the terms of creation in the original patent; failing any specific remainder the succession follows the same system as the succession to the Crown.<br />
<br />
The petitioner for succession to a Grandeeships who is not the son, grandson, or direct male line descendant of a Grandee or Titled family, or who does not belong to one of the four Military Orders, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, to one of the five Maestranzas, or the Real Cuerpo Colegiado de Hijosdalgo de la Nobleza de Madrid, must demonstrate that his paternal and maternal families are recognized as Noble by the Consejo Nobiliario. The petitioner for succession to a Title of the Kingdom must belong to one of those specific categories or must demonstrate nobility in the male line only.<br />
<br />
The petitioners must also swear an oath before a Judge of the First Instance, witnessed by at least eight persons of high social standing, that he/she is honorable, dignified, and socially independent without exercising a demeaning profession. A provision for demonstrating a certain minimum income was also included in this regulation.<br />
<br />
Grandees and Titled Nobles of the Kingdom can renounce their title but may not prejudice the rights of those eligible to succeed or designate any other person than the immediate heir.<br />
<br />
Possessors of Grandeeships or Titles of the Kingdom can distribute their Grandeeships or Titles among their various children provided the principle title is reserved for the immediate heir, being the eldest son or daughter.<br />
<br />
POST 1931 REGULATIONS<br />
<br />
By a law of 4 May 1948 the head of State, General Francisco Franco, validated all the titles created by the Carlist titular Kings. The record of most of these titles was maintained in the archives of the Duke of Madrid collated by his nephew the Archduke Carlos (who was the leading Carlist claimant in the 1940s). Unfortunately many of the records had been destroyed by the widow of Carlos VII, Berthe de Rohan so there may have been some titles created of which there is no written record today. Indeed, of the surviving records proof was accepted in several cases with only minimal evidence, in one case a post card on which a title was apparently accorded to the recipient and in several cases the precise date of creation was unknown. These archives did not include record of the titles created by Don Jaime (d. 1931), Don Alfonso Carlos (d. 1936) or Don Xavier de Bourbon-Parma.<br />
<br />
The succession of Carlist Kings_ was as follows: Carlos V (1833-abdicated 1845, d. 1855), who used the titles of Duke of Elizondo 1834, and Count of Molina 1834-55; Carlos VI (1845-1861), Prince of the Asturias 1833-1845, Count of Montemolin 1845); Juan III (1861-abdicated 1868, d. 1887), Count of Montizon; Carlos VII (1868-1909), Count of la Alcarria until 1868; Duke of Madrid 1868-1909, Count of Breu in 1887 (while in South America); Jaime III (1909-1931), Prince of the Asturias 1870-1909 or Duke of Chalvet 1868-1909, Duke of Madrid 1909-1931; Alfonso Carlos I (1931-1936), Duke of San Jaime; Carlos VIII (de Absburgo-Lorena y Borbón, 1944-1953), Duke of Madrid; Xavier I (de Borbón-Parma y La Rochefoucauld, 1950-1975, d. 1977), Prince of the Asturias 1957, Count of Molina 1961-._<br />
<br />
Both Carlos V and Carlos VII were briefly de facto Sovereigns of part of Spain during the 1st and 2nd Carlist Wars. Both of them issued coins, paper money, and passports, and passed laws, as well as conferring Orders, granting Arms and creating titles. The Carlist Kings created a total of 171 titles: 4 Dukes, 41 Marquesses, 78 Counts, 15 Viscounts, 32 Barons and one Grandeeship attached to an existing Title of the Kingdom._<br />
<br />
General Franco’s law, given legal validity from 14 April 1931, marks a major departure in nobiliary legal history. It was the first regime to accord legitimacy to the nobiliary creations of an exiled claimant and provides an interesting precedent. General Franco in enacting this provision was effectively claiming the mantle of Carlism, as well as that of the Isabeline Monarchy. The Republic had repealed all nobiliary legislation by a Decree of 1 June 1931, ratified by the Cortes in a law of 30 December 1931; the law of 4 May 1948 repealed the Decree and Law of 1931, reinstating all the earlier laws. It also conferred on the Head of State (Franco) the prerogative of creating noble titles, under the same regulations which formerly governed creations by the Crown.<br />
<br />
A further law of 4 June 1948 established that titles granted by the Spanish Crown as Sovereigns in territories under their rule would be regulated by the norms established for the Titles of Castille. This meant that titles granted by the Viceroys of the Netherlands which were regulated by male succession, were suddenly transformed into titles passing by mixed succession even though they were also regulated by Belgian law. Thus a single creation could effectively become two separate titles.<br />
<br />
The use of titles to which the user had no claim , or of invented titles, was prohibited under section 322 and following of the Penal Code (this provision still stands).<br />
<br />
These two laws also conferred on the Head of State the right to deprive an indivudal temporarily or for life of a Title of the Kingdom or Grandeeship, if that individual had acted in a way which demeaned the status of the title (one example being conviction of a felony).<br />
<br />
The regulations regarding petitions for use of foreign titles were amended in 1968. Subsequently it has been required of those petitioning for such use that the State (or successor State) under whose legislation the title was originally conferred must state in writing to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the petitioner is indeed the heir of that title. Since the majority of such titles are of Italian origin, and since the Republic of Italy does not recognize a national nobiliary jurisdiction, this imposes a considerable limitation on the number of such petitions.<br />
<br />
By a law of 21 March 1980 the right to rehabilitate titles was limited to the following:<br />
<br />
Direct descendants, brothers or sister and direct descendants of brothers or sisters of the last legal possessor of the title.<br />
<br />
Collaterals to the fourth degree of the last legal holder;<br />
<br />
Direct descendants of anyone who can legitimately claim this dignity.<br />
<br />
In the case of (1) provided the petition was made within three years of the death of the last holder, the extra fees for rehabilitation would be waived. In the case of (2) and (3) the petitioner was required to demonstrate his or her position and profession and services to the community.<br />
<br />
By a further law of 11 March 1988, the requirements for rehabilitation were further restricted. Not only was stricter documentation required, which had to be examined by the Deputation of Grandezas and the Council of State, but any title which had been in abeyance for more than one hundred years or more could be rehabilitated.<br />
<br />
Because of a scandal involving several well-known figures accused of responsibility for the provision of questionable documentation, the process of rehabilitation has now been halted, at least temporarily, except for those whose petitions were made before 1993.<br />
<br />
By regulations published by the Cortes on 1 October 1996, the scale of fees was revised as follows:<br />
<br />
For direct succession to a Grandeeship: 336,000 pesetas;<br />
For transverse succession to a Grandeeship: 837,000 pesetas;<br />
For rehabilitation of Grandeeships or foreign titles of Grandee rank: 2,007,000 pesetas;<br />
For direct succesion to an untitled Grandeeship: 239,000 pesetas;<br />
For transverse succession to an untitled Grandeeship: 598,000 pesetas;<br />
For rehabilitation or recognition of a foreign grant of Grandeeship: 1,433,000 pesetas;<br />
For direct succession to a title without Grandeeship: 95,000 pesetas;<br />
For transverse succession to a title without Grandeeship: 239,000 pesetas;<br />
For rehabilitation or recognition of foreign titles: 574,000 pesetas.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-40168853883238689072015-12-30T00:47:00.002+01:002015-12-30T00:47:34.935+01:00Les Traités d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712 et la succession à la tête de la Maison de FranceLes Traités d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712 et la succession à la tête de la Maison de France<br />
<br />
Avant-propos<br />
<br />
Cet essai a pour objet d'évaluer les conséquences des Traités d'Utrecht et des actes de Renonciation aux Trônes de France et d'Espagne, dans une période s'étendant de 1700 à 1847 - la question de leur validité étant alors au cœur des relations internationales. On procédera, dans un premier temps, à l'exposé des événements ; puis, on se livrera à une analyse détaillée de moments essentiels : le Testament de Charles II, les négociations aboutissant à la signature des Traités, les Renonciations elles-mêmes et les traités auxquels elles furent annexées. On s'efforcera ensuite de brosser un tableau des relations entre les deux dynasties au cours du XVIIIe siècle, en retraçant en détail les différents traités et accords passés entre elles, les différentes analyses officielles de ces traités, et le dénouement qu'ils trouvent dans la Révolution française et la rédaction de la première Constitution. À la suite de la Restauration (1813-1814), l'abolition de la loi semi-salique en Espagne, ainsi que les réactions des gouvernements respectifs seront examinées en détail. Enfin, on portera une attention particulière à la crise internationale provoquée par les mariages d'Isabelle II et de sa sœur, ainsi qu'aux nouvelles modalités d'échange qui s'établissent désormais entre la France, l'Espagne et la Grande-Bretagne. Cet essai s'achèvera par un bref exposé des conséquences historiques de ces événements. Les références et les citations apparaîtront soit dans le corps du texte, soit en appendice à la version électronique de cet essai en anglais.<br />
<br />
<br />
Première partie : Introduction<br />
<br />
Lorsque Charles II, dernier des Habsbourg à régner sur l'Espagne, meurt le premier novembre 1700, l'Europe est précipitée dans la crise. L'Empire d'Espagne comprenait alors non seulement les Royaumes de Castille et d'Aragon, ainsi que les autres Royaumes Ibériques (bien que le Portugal eût obtenu son indépendance en 1640), mais également le Royaume des Deux-Siciles (soit Naples et la Sicile), le Duché de Milan, les Provinces Catholiques des Pays-Bas (correspondant à l'actuelle Belgique), ainsi que de vastes dépendances américaines. La refonte éventuelle de ces suzerainetés, soit dans le Royaume de France, soit au sein des possessions héréditaires autrichiennes, aurait bouleversé le fragile équilibre des rapports de force en Europe, tel qu'il avait été institué en 1648 par le Traité de Westphalie. Ces interrogations sont au cœur des relations diplomatiques européennes pour les deux siècles et demi à venir.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La réunion des Royaumes d'Espagne (et plus tard, de celui des Indes, comme on nommait les possessions américaines) avec les Provinces-Unies des Pays-Bas avait été la conséquence du mariage de Jeanne la Folle, fille de Ferdinand d'Aragon et d'Isabelle-la-Catholique, avec l'Archiduc Philippe le Beau, fils de l'Empereur Maximilien Ier de Habsbourg en 1496. Leur fils, Charles Ier (Charles-Quint, 1500-1558) avait étendu son Royaume grâce au rattachement de Naples et de la Sicile, possessions héréditaires d'Aragon, et à la prise du Duché de Milan. Il avait en outre hérité de son grand-père l'Archiduché d'Autriche ainsi que les Etats qui en dépendaient. En 1556 il abdiqua la Couronne espagnole en faveur de son fils unique Philippe II, qui fonda la branche espagnole des Habsbourg, tandis que les possessions allemandes et autrichiennes revenaient à son frère cadet, Ferdinand, roi de Bohême, qui fut élu Empereur deux ans plus tard et prit la tête de la branche cadette autrichienne.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les règles de succession en Espagne étaient déterminées par les lois II, III et V du titre XV de la Partida II de 1263, les lois XL et XLV du Toro de 1505, la loi VI du titre I du Livre II et les lois IV, V et VIII du titre VII du livre V de la Recopilaciòn de 1567. En vertu des ces textes, la Couronne des Royaumes d'Espagne et des Indes se transmettait selon la primogéniture, les femmes étant exclues de la succession tant qu'il restait des héritiers mâles. Charles II n'ayant pas de descendance, sa succession posait problème : la généalogie désignait en effet comme héritier le Dauphin, fils de sa défunte sœur aînée Marie-Thérèse, épouse de Louis XIV. Prévoyant l'inquiétude que ne manquerait pas de susciter un accroissement de la puissance française, cela dans le contexte d'une détérioration des relations franco-espagnoles au cours des années 1690, Charles envisagea d'abord une solution qui ne favorisait ni la France ni l'Autriche, probables candidates au Trône, et désigna un héritier plus jeune à sa succession. Il s'agissait du Duc Joseph-Ferdinand de Bavière (1692-1699), dernier petit-fils de la plus jeune sœur de son défunt père, l'Infante Marguerite-que les célèbres tableaux de Velázquez nous ont rendue familière; il fut désigné héritier et élevé au rang de Prince des Asturies. Toutefois, Joseph-Ferdinand mourut avant son grand-oncle et sans descendance : la crise de succession devenait inévitable. Charles II s'était entre temps rangé à l'avis que la Couronne devait être transmise en concordance avec les lois séculaires régissant la succession.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Dauphin étant l'héritier de la Couronne de France, il fut sagement décidé que l'Espagne reviendrait à son second fils, Philippe, duc d'Anjou. Cette solution garantissait l'indépendance réciproque des Royaumes français et espagnol, laquelle avait déjà fait l'objet, quelques années plus tôt, de deux Traités, ainsi que de la Renonciation de l'Infante Marie-Thérèse et de sa tante, l'Infante Anne, à leurs propres droits héréditaires. Outre le Dauphin et ses descendants, les suivants dans l'ordre de la succession étaient Louis XIV lui-même, puisqu'il était le fils de l'infante Anne, puis son frère Philippe, duc d'Orléans (il mourut six mois plus tard ; son fils Philippe, duc de Chartres puis duc d'Orléans, succéda à ses titres et prérogatives). L'Empereur Léopold I (1640-1705) qui contesta immédiatement les droits du duc d’Anjou à la succession, était le dernier fils survivant de l'Infante Marie-Anne, la plus jeune sœur de Philippe IV et d'Anne, Reine de France. Il refusa de reconnaître la validité du Testament de Charles II, exigeant qu'on prît acte de la Renonciation des Infantes Marie-Thérèse et Anne à leurs droits sur la Couronne d'Espagne, renonciations qui faisaient de lui le premier dans l'ordre de la succession. Il fut ainsi à l'origine d'un conflit long de quatorze ans, la Guerre de Succession d'Espagne.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Charles II avait indiqué clairement dans son Testament que, d'après son interprétation, les règles de la succession au Trône d'Espagne exigeaient son rattachement à la Maison de France, un point de vue que défendaient ses principaux conseillers. Toutefois, les rivaux européens de la France, emmenés par la Grande-Bretagne (dont le souverain effectif était également Stathouder des Provinces-Unies, elles-mêmes objet des convoitises territoriales de la France), ainsi que par l'Empereur, considéraient l'accession du duc d’Anjou au Trône comme une menace contre leur propre sécurité. Le conflit qui en résulta fut un désastre pour la France et, si Philippe put être maintenu sur le Trône d'Espagne, les autres possessions européennes espagnoles furent perdues ; le coût exorbitant de la guerre greva les finances françaises, entravant à long terme le développement économique du pays.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le succès quasi immédiat de l'alliance conclue entre l'Autriche, la Grande-Bretagne et les Pays-Bas, incita l'Empereur à désigner son fils cadet, l'Archiduc Charles, comme Roi d'Espagne sous le nom de Charles III le 12 septembre 1703. En portant son choix sur Charles, l'Empereur adoptait la même solution que le défunt Roi d'Espagne, laissant ainsi son fils aîné régner sur le Saint-Empire Romain, ainsi que sur les terres héréditaires des Habsbourg. Cette tentative de maintien d'un équilibre entre les puissances échoua pourtant lors de l'accession de l’Archiduc-Roi au titre de Roi des Romains, à la mort de son frère aîné, disparu sans descendance mâle en 1711. Lorsqu'il mourut lui-même, en 1740, il était le dernier représentant mâle de la Maison de Habsbourg.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les belligérants conclurent une série de six Traités en vue du règlement des différentes revendications territoriales résultant du conflit : le Traité d'Utrecht comprenant des accords entre la France et la Grande-Bretagne, l'Espagne et La Grande-Bretagne, les Pays-Bas et la France, signé en 1713, puis étendu à un accord entre l'Espagne et les Pays-Bas en 1714 ; le Traité de Bade-Rastatt entre la France et l'Empereur en 1714 ; le Traité de La Haye entre la France, la Grande-Bretagne et les Provinces-Unies des Pays-Bas en 1714 ; le Traité, ou Quadruple Alliance de Londres, passé entre la France, la Grande-Bretagne, L'Empire et la Savoie (en remplacement des Provinces-Unies qui s'étaient retirées au dernier moment) en 1718 ; le Traité de La Haye entre l'Espagne et l'Empire, en 1720 ; enfin le Traité de Vienne entre l'Espagne et l'Empire, en 1725. Tous ces Traités comprenaient des clauses par lesquelles les différentes parties renonçaient à leurs revendications sur certains territoires ainsi qu'à leurs droits dans les successions dynastiques à venir ; la plupart de ces articles furent plus tard enfreints.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La validité des Renonciations réciproques des Royaumes français et espagnol, exigées par la Grande-Bretagne, et rattachées au Traité d'Utrecht, fut contestée d'emblée, et avant même leur signature, par le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de Louis XIV ; leur légitimité fut en outre mise en doute par le Parlement français, chargé de les enregistrer. L'un des éléments essentiels de ces nouvelles réglementations dynastiques consistait en la Renonciation simultanée de l'Empereur à ses droits sur le Trône d'Espagne : le manquement à son exécution rendait toute ratification de ces règlements “temporaire", voire "discutable", quand bien même on aurait pu établir que la France fût légalement liée par ses engagements, ce que réfutent la plupart des constitutionalistes. Le manquement ultérieur à ces Traités que constituaient des mariages entre souverains français et espagnols, exclus de jure de la succession, du fait de la Renonciation de leurs ascendants, montre bien que l’exclusion des membres de l'une des deux lignées à la succession de l'autre n'avait jamais compté parmi les objectifs de ces Traités. Les points fondamentaux de ces Traités avaient été ignorés d'emblée, comme le montrent les violations répétées des articles organisant la répartition des territoires : ils étaient le plus souvent transgressés quelques mois à peine après leur signature.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les lois de la succession, proclamées par l'Assemblée Nationale de 1789, et réintégrées en termes légèrement modifiés dans la Constitution de 1789, posaient que les différents actes de Renonciation dynastique n'avaient pas valeur de contrainte absolue—la question de leur validité aux yeux des législateurs de 1789 et 1791 demeure donc ouverte. Ceux d'entre eux qui avaient été chargés de rédiger cette clause, ainsi que les membres de l'Assemblée Nationale dans son ensemble, étaient ainsi parfaitement conscients de ses implications en regard des droits potentiels de la branche espagnole. Les commentaires de l'Ambassadeur d'Espagne comme de Louis-Philippe, futur Roi des Français, démontrent qu'ils l'interprétaient, personnellement, comme la confirmation de la validité des droits de la branche espagnole, l'emportant ainsi sur la branche Orléans. L'abolition de la loi semi-salique en Espagne en 1830 autorisa les pouvoirs de l'époque, dans leur ensemble, à inférer la caducité de la clause garantissant aux descendants de Philippe V la succession au Trône d'Espagne. La nature contraignante des termes des diverses Renonciations fut contestée expressément par les Gouvernements de France et d'Espagne, en réponse aux protestations britanniques lors du mariage de l'héritière désignée du Trône d'Espagne avec un Prince de la Maison de France en 1846. Les réponses des deux gouvernements, en réaction à la position britannique, stipulaient que les Traités n'assuraient ni l'impossibilité de la réunion des deux Royaumes, ni l'accession automatique des descendants de Philippe V à la Couronne.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La branche aînée de la Maison de Bourbon, descendante directe de Louis XV, s'éteignit avec le souverain légitime, Henri V, Comte de Chambord, en 1883 ; toutefois cette branche avait cessé de régner depuis l'abdication de son grand-père Charles X en 1830. La monarchie orléaniste qui lui avait succédé fut renversée en 1848, de sorte que la nature contraignante de la Renonciation de Philippe ne fut jamais mise à l'épreuve d'une revendication effective de la branche aînée (Bourbon) sur la souveraineté exercée par la branche cadette (Orléans). Les aînés des héritiers mâles de Philippe V prirent la tête de la Maison de France, arguant de ce que son acte de Renonciation n'était ni recevable ni contraignant. Arguant l'inverse, les aînés des descendants du Duc d'Orléans firent de même. Aujourd'hui, alors que la Monarchie en France n'est plus qu'un souvenir, la question de la valeur légale de ces Renonciations n'a plus de conséquences politiques. On s'efforcera néanmoins, dans cet essai, de retracer les implications des différents accords passés, et d'identifier, en ces termes, le représentant légitime de l'ancienne Monarchie Française.<br />
<br />
************************<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Les Traités d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712 et la succession à la tête de la Maison de France<br />
<br />
<br />
Deuxième partie : le Testament, les Traités et les Renonciations<br />
<br />
Charles II d'Espagne, dans son Testament du 2 octobre 1700 affirmait : « Considérant, en accord avec les divers avis proférés par Nos Ministres d’Etat et Nos Magistrats jugeant que les Renonciations à leurs droits respectifs sur nos Royaumes, consenties par les Dames Anne et Marie-Thérèse, toutes deux Reines de France, Notre tante et Notre sœur, n’avaient d’autre motif que leur crainte des conséquences pour l’Espagne d’une réunion avec le Royaume de France ; et considérant que bien que cette inquiétude n’ait plus de fondement, le droit du collatéral le plus proche à succéder au trône demeure en vigueur selon les lois de ces Royaumes ; et considérant que ce droit peut-être revendiqué à présent par le second fils du Dauphin ; par la présente, et en concordance avec ces lois, Nous désignons comme Notre successeur (si Dieu devait Nous rappeler à Lui tel que Nous sommes, sans descendance) le duc d’Anjou, second fils du Dauphin, et Nous le nommons héritier de tous nos Royaumes et Domaines sans exception aucune (…). Soucieux de préserver la paix de la Chrétienté et de toute l’Europe, soucieux du bien-être de Nos Royaumes, Notre intention est que cette Couronne qui est Nôtre et celle de France demeurent à jamais séparées, et à cette fin Nous déclarons solennellement, en Nous référant aux stipulations susdites, que si le dit duc d’Anjou venait à mourir avant que Nous fussions Nous-même rappelé à Dieu, ou s’il devait accéder au Trône de France et préférer cette Couronne à la Nôtre, lors ladite Couronne passerait au duc de Berry, Son frère, et troisième fils dudit Dauphin, et que dans cette éventualité les conditions susdites demeureraient en vigueur. Et que, si le duc de Berry venait à mourir avant que Nous fussions Nous-même appelé, ou s’Il devait accéder au trône de France, Nous déclarons que Notre volonté est de voir passer la Couronne à l’Archiduc, second fils de Notre oncle l’Empereur, par préférence, pour les mêmes raisons que Nous avons données plus haut—et en vertu du même souci que Nous avons exprimé plus haut pour le bien commun—au premier-né de l’Empereur Notre oncle. Et si l’Archiduc venait à mourir avant que Nous fussions appelé à la Vie Eternelle, Nous déclarons que Notre volonté est de voir passer la Couronne au Duc de Savoie et à ses héritiers. »_ Ce testament passait manifestement sous silence les droits évidents de la branche Orléans. Le duc d'Orléans en conçut une certaine rancœur : il l’exprima en faisant promulguer le Décret Pragmatique de 1703, au moyen duquel il réaffirmait ses droits. Charles II mourut le 1er novembre 1700 et son Testament parvint à Fontainebleau le 9 novembre. Le Marquis de Torcy, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, fit immédiatement parvenir aux Ambassadeurs des Pays-Bas et de Grande-Bretagne une note stipulant que si le Roi approuvait le Testament, les monarchies de France et d'Espagne demeureraient distinctes.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Aux yeux des contemporains, il allait de soi que les Renonciations de 1612, 1615, 1619, 1659 et 1660, mentionnées par le Testament, de même que les Renonciations de1712-1713, avaient pour but d'empêcher l'union des Couronnes de France et d'Espagne sur la même tête, et de préserver à la fois l'indépendance espagnole et l'équilibre des forces en Europe. N’en déplût à Louis XIV ("Il n'y a plus de Pyrénées") l'union des deux pays ne fut jamais à l'ordre du jour. De fait, l'histoire même de ces mariages et de ces Renonciations en chaîne tend à prouver que leur objectif était de prévenir toute union franco-espagnole, non de priver les membres de chacune des deux branches de la Maison de France de leurs droits à la succession de l'un ou l'autre Trône. Telle était la raison avancée lors des Renonciations signées par les Infantes Anne et Marie-Thérèse, tout comme lors des Renonciations de Philippe V et des Ducs de Berry et d'Orléans. La même logique sous-tendait les différents Traités d'Utrecht et les Traités qui suivirent dans le quart de siècle suivant.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La formulation du Traité d'Utrecht contrastait avec les conditions que les puissances alliées cherchèrent, dans un premier temps, à imposer à la France et à l'Espagne dans les "Préliminaires" de La Haye en 1709 et 1710, et représentait un assouplissement de leurs termes. Les premières propositions, datées du 29 mai 1709 et signées, pour la Grande-Bretagne, par le Duc de Marlborough et pour l'Empereur, par le Prince Eugène, scandalisèrent le Marquis de Torcy, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, à son arrivée à La Haye. La Grande-Bretagne et ses alliés exigeaient une capitulation complète de la France et de l'Espagne, aux termes de laquelle la France reconnaîtrait l'Archiduc comme Charles III, souverain d'Espagne et de toutes ses possessions. Elle cèderait également Strasbourg, Brisach, Landau et l'Alsace à l'Empereur d'une part, puis Cassel, Lille, Tournai, Condé et d'autres villes de la Flandre française aux Pays-Bas d'autre part. L'article VI des préliminaires stipulait que « La Monarchie d’Espagne, dans son intégrité, doit demeurer au sein de la Maison d’Autriche, et aucune des parties ne saurait la démembrer, ni ladite Monarchie ou aucune partie de celle-ci être réunie à celle de France, ni être sujette au même Roi, ni aucun Prince de France en devenir le souverain, en aucune manière par testaments, actes, succession, convention, mariage, présent, vente, contrat ou quelque autre moyen, car nul Prince appelé à régner en France, ni aucun Prince de la Maison de France, ne saurait jamais régner sur l’Espagne, ni acquérir, aux fins d’obtenir ladite Monarchie, aucune place forte, contrée ou province en aucun pays, principalement aux Pays-Bas, en vertu d’aucun présent, contrat de vente, échange, contrat de mariage, héritage, appel, succession par testament ou intestat, d’aucune manière possible ni pour lui-même, ni pour les Princes ses fils et ses frères, leurs héritiers et descendants. »L'article IV laissait au "duc d'Anjou", c'est-à-dire à Philippe V, deux mois pour quitter toutes les possessions espagnoles ; les Français devaient dans le même intervalle retirer toutes leurs troupes des villes et des lieux stratégiques qu'ils détenaient encore (ce qui était impossible en seulement deux mois), faute de quoi les hostilités reprendraient. Enfin le texte stipulait qu'en cas de refus de la part du Roi d'Espagne, la France devait s'unir à la Grande-Bretagne et à l'Empire pour le démettre.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ces exigences débordaient largement le cadre d'une simple séparation des deux Couronnes, ainsi que de quelconques précautions prises contre l’avènement d'un souverain espagnol au Trône de France et vice versa. Elles interdisaient à tout membre de la Maison de France de régner sur l'Espagne, ou sur une possession de la Couronne espagnole, et exigeaient de Louis XIV qu'il s'engageât dans un conflit contre son propre petit-fils. Puisque les Renonciations signées par les Infantes mariées aux Rois de France, étaient considérées comme nulles et non avenues, ces préliminaires auraient empêché toute union entre un membre de la Maison de France et un quelconque représentant de la dynastie qui serait à l'avenir appelée à régner sur l'Espagne. Les préliminaires s'en prenaient ainsi à toute la Maison de France, y compris à la branche de Condé qui ne descendait pas des Infantes Anne et Marie-Thérèse par les hommes. Bien que les Français aient refusé ces termes, la défaite qu'ils subirent à la bataille de Malplaquet les força à revenir à la table des négociations, à Gertruydenberg en 1710. Louis XIV fut contraint de donner son accord à un cessez-le-feu espagnol, et de persuader son petit-fils de renoncer à la Couronne. Il consentit que les deux monarchies ne fussent jamais réunies et en vint presque à accepter les conditions extrêmement sévères que lui imposaient les alliés, exigeant qu'aucun membre de sa Maison ne puisse régner sur l'Espagne. Toutefois la perspective de devoir déclarer la guerre à son propre petit-fils était si inacceptable à ses yeux que les hostilités reprirent.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Pour la première fois depuis un certain nombre d'années, la situation semblait tourner à l'avantage de la France. L'Empereur mourut à trente-trois ans en ne laissant que deux filles, et l'Archiduc Charles fut couronné Roi des Romains. La Grande-Bretagne était peu enthousiaste à l'idée de voir se reformer l'Empire de Charles-Quint, et bien qu'il lui fût difficile de revenir sur sa promesse de reconnaître en Charles le souverain d'Espagne, elle était prête à se dédire afin de ramener la paix. La Grande-Bretagne entama les négociations avec la France en janvier 1712, sans consulter ni l'Autriche ni les Pays-Bas (la dignité de Stadhouder ayant été dissociée de la Couronne Britannique en 1702), et donna son accord au maintien de Philippe V sur le Trône, sans autre condition. La mort soudaine de plusieurs Princes du Sang, augmentant les chances d'accession de Philippe V au Trône de France, et d’une réunion des deux Royaumes, conduisit à des pourparlers sur le moyen d'éviter cette situation.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La Grande-Bretagne considérait qu'une séparation perpétuelle ne pouvait résulter que d'une Renonciation définitive de Philippe V à ses droits sur le Trône de France. Torcy, dans un mémoire transmis au nom du Roi au ministre Britannique, le Comte d'Oxford, le 18 mars 1712, avertit : "La France ne peut jamais consentir à devenir province de l'Espagne, et l'Espagne pensera de même à l'égard de la France. Il est donc question de prendre des mesures solides pour empêcher l'union des deux monarchies ; mais on s'écarterait absolument du but qu'on se propose (…) si l'on contrevenait aux lois fondamentales du Royaume. Suivant ces lois, le Prince le plus proche de la Couronne en est héritier nécessaire (…) il succède, non comme héritier mais comme le maître du Royaume don la seigneurie lui appartient, non par choix, mais par le seul droit de sa naissance. Il n'est redevable de la Couronne ni au Testament de son prédécesseur, ni à aucun édit, ni à aucun décret, ni enfin à la libéralité de personne, mais à la loi. Cette loi est regardée comme l'ouvrage de Celui qui a établi toutes les monarchies, et nous sommes persuadés, en France, que Dieu seul la peut abolir. Nulle Renonciation ne peut donc la détruire, et si le Roi d'Espagne donnait la sienne, pour le bien de la paix et par obéissance pour le Roi son grand-père, on se tromperait en la recevant comme un expédient suffisant pour prévenir le mal que l'on se propose d'éviter."_ La Chambre des Pairs de Grande-Bretagne se rallia à ce point de vue, estimant, dans le cadre d'une motion adressée à la Reine Anne, que le Duc d'Anjou ne pouvait se voir privé d'un droit qui "lui avait été donné par le droit de sa naissance, et qu'avec le consentement du peuple français, il devait demeurer inviolable, en accord avec la loi fondamentale du Royaume"_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Torcy dénonçait ce qu’il percevait comme une illusion : la séparation définitive des deux Couronnes ne saurait être garantie par une simple Renonciation, même si le Roi d'Espagne y était contraint par son grand-père ; cette chimère mènerait à de plus grands périls encore. Mais Torcy ne fut pas entendu. La clarté de ce jugement, qui faisait écho à l'opinion unanime des constitutionalistes français de l'époque, montre bien qu’on décida de faire jouer les Renonciations en vue de satisfaire les demandes des alliés, et non dans la conviction sincère qu'elles pourraient effectivement priver un prince français de ses droits héréditaires. Les Britanniques avaient mal compris les fonctions et les attributions du Parlement de Paris, et pensaient qu'elles étaient les mêmes que celles du parlement de Westminster, investi, lui, du pouvoir de légiférer. Or le Parlement de Paris, bien qu'il fût le premier des Parlements, n'avait pas l'initiative des lois ; il s'agissait avant tout d'une Cour, chargée d'enregistrer les différents arrêts royaux ; cette procédure leur donnait alors force de loi. C'est pourquoi le simple enregistrement d'un arrêt royal ne pouvait modifier un élément constitutionnel aussi important que la succession au Trône, contrairement à ce que permettait le système juridique en Grande-Bretagne où le Parlement Britannique avait pu déclarer l'abdication de Jacques II en 1689, ou établir en 1701 la règle d'une succession protestante par l'Act of Settlement.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les seconds préliminaires aux Traités d'Utrecht, ouverts le 15 mars 1712, comprenaient une demande faite à Torcy, ministre français des Affaires Etrangères : Philippe V devait renoncer solennellement au Trône de France, pour lui et pour ses héritiers. Louis XIV, le 9 avril 1712, écrivit à la Princesse des Ursins (qui exerçait alors une grande influence sur le Roi d'Espagne et avait obtenu grâce à lui une principauté souveraine à La Roche-sur-Yon), « Je n’ai ni la compétence ni la force suffisantes pour lui _Philippe V_ être de bon conseil. Un habile politique lui conseillerait de tout promettre pour faire sa paix, parce qu’une Renonciation se révèlera illégale et ne pourrait pas subsister ; mais je ne sais si ce conseil serait à son goût. » _ Cependant, le brillant Marlborough avait dû quitter ses fonctions pour des raisons de politique intérieure ; il fut remplacé à son poste par le Duc d'Ormonde, politicien médiocre. Les alliés de la Grande-Bretagne étaient peu enclins à laisser leurs troupes sous le commandement d'un chef inexpérimenté, et les Britanniques, à l'inverse, renâclaient à confier le commandement suprême au Prince Eugène. Les Français, désireux de semer la discorde entre la Grande-Bretagne et ses alliés, se montrèrent déterminés à trouver un compromis. Le 28 mai, Louis XIV proposa à Philippe de simplement renoncer à l'Espagne s'il devait accéder au Trône de France, mais le Roi d'Espagne s'y refusa d'abord, arguant que ses droits étaient garantis par les lois fondamentales, et que Louis XIV lui-même avait écrit des lettres patentes allant dans ce sens. La France convainquit cependant la Grande-Bretagne de poursuivre les négociations, et une trêve fut signée le 21 juin. Philippe V, sous la pression croissante de son aïeul, annonça le 3 juillet 1712 qu'il se résoudrait à signer cet acte de Renonciation, aux fins de ramener la paix, et à la condition « que la succession au Trône d'Espagne fût garantie à ses descendants »_. Cet objectif majeur demeurait un élément essentiel des négociations ; Philippe V ne trouvait pas avantage à renoncer à ses droits si ses descendants ne se voyaient pas maintenus au Trône d'Espagne.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La France et la Grande-Bretagne reconnurent en outre, par une convention signée le 21 août 1712, sans l'accord de l'Autriche, que si Philippe mourait sans descendance, la Couronne espagnole passerait au Duc de Savoie, bien que sa famille n'eût pas la préséance sur les descendants des sœurs de Philippe III (soient le Duc d'Orléans, contraint de signer la Renonciation, et l'Empereur qui s'y était refusé). La lignée de Savoie persista à faire valoir ses droits à la succession au Trône d'Espagne, et en 1830, le Roi de Sardaigne protesta contre l'abolition de la loi salique, laquelle annulait ses droits proclamés par le Traité. La cession de ces revendications potentielles, selon les termes du changement ultérieur des règles de succession au Trône d'Espagne, désignait clairement comme héritiers les descendants mâles du Duc de Savoie, puis la lignée de Savoie-Carignan, bientôt représentée par le Prince Héritier Victor-Emmanuel, Duc de Savoie.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Maréchal de Villars l'emporta sur l'armée impériale à Denain, en juillet 1712 et, faisant ainsi échouer les tentatives du Prince Eugène, redonna de l'ardeur à la France. La Grande-Bretagne, cependant, entreprenait vainement de gagner ses alliés aux termes du nouveau Traité de paix ; les Pays-Bas acceptèrent toutefois de rejoindre la table des négociations en 1712, et signèrent des Traités séparés avec la France et l'Espagne l'année suivante.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le texte du premier Traité d'Utrecht (signé par la Grande-Bretagne et la France), daté du 31 mars 1713, prenait acte de ces Renonciations et rappelait leurs tenants, dans l'intention de garantir que : "Art. VI. Attendu que le feu dévastateur de la Guerre, que cette Paix doit éteindre, se nourrissait de la menace faite à la Sûreté et aux Libertés de l'Europe par l'union des Royaumes de France et d'Espagne sous une seule et même Couronne; et attendu qu'avec la Faveur de la Divine Providence, ainsi que sur les instances ferventes de Sa Majesté de la Grande-Bretagne, ainsi qu'avec le consentement tant du Roi Très-Chrétien que du Roi Catholique, il est désormais convenu que ce mal doit être empêché pour les temps à venir, au moyen de Renonciations rédigées sous la meilleure Forme, et exécutées de la Manière la plus solennelle, dont la Teneur est comme suit. Attendu que la Renonciation précédente (devant toujours avoir force de loi pragmatique, fondamentale et inviolable) prévoyait et assurait qu'en aucun cas, jamais ni le Roi Catholique, ni aucun de sa lignée, ne chercherait à obtenir la Couronne de France, ou à monter sur ce Trône; et que part des Renonciations réciproques de la France et par les Règlements de la Succession héréditaire, tendant vers le même dessein, les Couronnes de France et d'Espagne sont tellement distinctes et séparées l'une de l'autre, que les Renonciations susnommées et autres Transactions y afférant, demeurant en pratique, et fidèlement observées, elles ne peuvent jamais être réunies : ce pourquoi la sérénissime Reine de la Grande-Bretagne, et le sérénissime Roi très Chrétien, s'engagent solennellement l'un envers l'autre, et sur leur Parole Royale, qu'il ne sera rien fait de leur part, ou de celle de leurs Descendants et Successeurs, et qu'aucune autorisation ne sera donnée par eux à quiconque, de faire quoique ce soit empêchant les Renonciations susnommées et les Transactions susmentionnées de demeurer effectives ; mais bien au contraire, que leurs Royales Majestés, d'un commun accord, et mettant leurs forces en commun, auront toujours le soin sincère, et prendront les mesures appropriées, pour que les dits Fondements de la Sécurité publique demeurent inébranlables et préservés intacts à jamais"_. Les Renonciations elles-mêmes furent inclues dans ce Traité, non pas comme en faisant partie intégrante, mais portées en "documents annexes", puisque les Princes qui les prononçaient n'étaient pas des parties ou des signataires du Traité Anglo-Français.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le deuxième Traité d'Utrecht (concernant la France et les Provinces-Unies des Pays-Bas), daté du 11 avril 1713, posait à l'article 31 : "Puisque l'on convient qu'il est absolument nécessaire d'empêcher que les Couronnes de France et d'Espagne ne puissent jamais être unies sur la tête d'un même Roi, et de pourvoir par ce moyen à la sûreté et à la liberté de l'Europe, et que, sur les instances de la Reine de la Grande-Bretagne, et du consentement tant du Roi très-chrétien que du Roi catholique, ont été trouvés les moyens d'empêcher cette union par des Renonciations…"Et puisque, par les dites Renonciations et déclarations (…) il a été arrêté que ni le Roi catholique lui-même ni aucun de ses descendants puisse à l'avenir prétendre à la Couronne(…) de France(…) "Et d'autant que par des Renonciations réciproques de la part de la France (…) qui tendent au même but; les deux Couronnes d'Espagne et de France sont tellement séparées, etc."<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le troisième Traité d'Utrecht (concernant l'Espagne et la Grande-Bretagne), daté du 10 juillet 1713, fut signé après la modification engagée par Philippe V des règles de la succession d'Espagne, établissant une loi semi-salique. Ce changement était considéré de part et d'autre comme faisant partie des arrangements dictés par le Traité (la nouvelle loi fut du reste rattachée au Traité, ainsi que d'autres textes relatifs à la succession). L'article II était ainsi formulé: "Afin que toute inquiétude autour de la réunion des Royaumes de France et d'Espagne sous une même Couronne soit apaisée, et que la paix consentie entre les deux Puissances soit fermement établie, le juste équilibre entre les forces garanti, et la paix ainsi assurée, Sa Majesté catholique réitère et réaffirme par la présente l'abdication de tous Ses droits sur la Couronne de France. A cela s'ajoutent l'Acte d'Abdication, la résolution des Cortes, le Décret Royal désignant la Maison de Savoie héritière légale de la succession au Trône d'Espagne, les Actes de Renonciation signés par la Famille Royale de France et portant sur leurs revendications et droits au Trône d'Espagne, ainsi que la lettre de Sa Très-Chrétienne Majesté"_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>L'article 37 du quatrième Traité d'Utrecht du 20 juin 1714, entre l'Espagne et les Pays-Bas, porté en annexe au Traité d'Utrecht de 1713, déclare : "puisque l'heureuse perpétuation de la paix, garante de la paix et la sûreté de l'Europe, dépend entre autres principes de l'indépendance réciproque des deux Couronnes d'Espagne et de France, et de l'impossibilité de leur réunion sur la tête d'un seul et même Roi, Sa Majesté catholique a, dans ce dessein, renoncé. Et c'est pourquoi, d'autre part, les Princes de la Maison Royale de France ont également renoncé, pour eux-mêmes et pour leurs successeurs et héritiers, dans les termes les plus définitifs, à aucun droit, titre ou revendication sur la Couronne d'Espagne. Et c'est pourquoi aussi les deux Couronnes d'Espagne et de France demeureront à jamais séparées, et n'obtiendront jamais d'être réunies sur une seule et même personne"_. Les Hollandais redoutaient que la France prenne possession des Pays-Bas, ce qui aurait constitué une menace contre leur sécurité, et la succession d'un Prince français à la Couronne d'Espagne faisait craindre une tentative de réaffirmation des revendications espagnoles sur les Pays-Bas.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Dans chacun de ces Traités, l'objectif des articles des Renonciations est clairement donné : séparer à jamais les deux Couronnes et empêcher leur union sur une seule et même tête. L'intention n'était pas, comme on se le proposait au cours des négociations avortées de 1709-1710, d'empêcher définitivement l'accession au Trône d'Espagne d'un membre de la Maison de France. Les Renonciations à l'Espagne avaient été formulées en termes similaires par deux fois, au cours du siècle précédent. Lorsque l'Infante Anne d'Autriche, fille de Philippe III, s'était unie à Louis XIII, on avait exigé d'elle qu'elle renonçât à la succession au Trône d'Espagne pour elle-même et pour ses descendants, dans une annexe à son contrat de mariage du 22 août 1612. Cette exigence fut renouvelée peu de temps avant son mariage, le 18 octobre 1615. Une fois de plus, l'objectif était d'empêcher l'union des deux Couronnes : "et d'empêcher que lesdits Royaumes soient réunis, et en aucune occasion où ils pourraient l'être (…) la Sérénissime Infante Anne ni les enfants nés d'elle, soit mâles ou femelles, ni leurs descendants en quelque degré qu'ils se puissent trouver, ne puissent succéder aux Royaumes, états et seigneuries appartenant à Sa Majesté catholique." Comme elle était alors mineure, elle renouvela cette Renonciation en 1619. Cet engagement prit force de loi en Espagne en vertu du Décret Pragmatique du 3 juin 1619, et fut inclus au titre de la Loi XII du Titre VII du Livre V de la Nueva Recopilaciòn de las leyes de Castilla de 1640 (puis à nouveau, curieusement, en tant que Loi IV du Titre I de Livre III de la Novisima Recopilaciòn de 1803)_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le contrat de mariage établi le 7 novembre 1659, entre Louis XIV et sa cousine germaine, l'Infante Marie-Thérèse, contenait une clause semblable, dont l'objectif explicite était de prévenir l'union des deux Couronnes. Il est fait référence, tant dans ce contrat que dans celui de l'Infante Anne, aux intérêts des Etats européens et à la "dignité de l'Espagne", métaphore désignant son indépendance. Marie-Thérèse était l'aînée des enfants survivants de Philippe IV, et avait deux frères cadets, dont la santé était fragile. Don Luis de Haro, qui négocia le contrat au nom du Roi d'Espagne, déclara à M. de Lionne, en 1659 que "si la Couronne d'Espagne devait perdre les deux jeunes Infants qui vivaient encore, il ne se trouverait nul par un sujet de la monarchie qui, nonobstant les Renonciations qui seraient faites par l'Infante, ne verrait en elle sa véritable Reine (…) parce que le simple article d'un Traité ne saurait détruire les grandes lois fondamentales d'une monarchie(…)"_. Le contrat de mariage fut inclus dans le Traité des Pyrénées du 7 novembre 1659 (enregistré par le Parlement de Paris) et le 2 juin 1660 Marie-Thérèse, en exécution de son contrat de mariage, signa une Renonciation solennelle "afin d'empêcher l'union des deux Couronnes"_. Philippe IV, dans son Testament, confirma par écrit les Renonciations de sa sœur et de sa fille, toutes deux ayant eu pour but d'empêcher l'union des deux Couronnes, mais expliquant leurs actes par des raisons de "convention"_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les Ducs de Berry et d'Orléans bénéficièrent tous deux directement de la Renonciation de Philippe, puisqu'ils s'en trouvaient mieux placés dans l'ordre de la succession. Cependant le Prince de Condé, à la tête de la lignée suivante dans l'ordre de la succession, et qui en bénéficiait également, protesta dans une lettre au Roi que "les droits de succession à la Couronne dépendaient de Dieu seul, que personne ne pouvait les infléchir, ni aucune puissance sur la terre, (…) et revenaient successivement aux Princes de La Maison Royale de France, chacun suivant l'ordre et le rang de sa naissance." Charles Giraud, dans un texte rédigé en réponse à une demande de Louis-Philippe, Roi des Français, et chef de la Maison d'Orléans, apporta une réfutation cinglante de la validité de ces Renonciations, n'obligeant que les Princes qui les signaient, mais certainement pas leurs descendants qui avaient hérité ces droits de leurs ancêtres. Il poursuivait en affirmant qu'il n'appartenait à aucun souverain, dans les monarchies modernes, de transmettre la Couronne à un fils cadet aux dépens de son aîné._<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Mais la nécessité de prévenir l'union des deux Couronnes imposait qu’on prît des accommodements avec cette règle absolue. Bien qu'en 1700, l’héritier immédiat de Charles II d'Espagne fût le Dauphin, suivi de son fils aîné le Duc de Bourgogne, ils se trouvaient l'un et l'autre au même rang dans la succession au Trône de France. De fait, ni l'un ni l'autre ne fut couronné: tous deux moururent tragiquement avant leur père et grand-père Louis XIV ; sa succession revint finalement à son arrière petit-fils, Louis XV. Les lois régissant la succession en France étaient simples ; le Trône devait passer par les hommes, nés d'unions légitimes, dans l'ordre de primogéniture. Les lois de succession espagnoles (ou du moins celles qui avaient cours lors des négociations préliminaires au Traité d'Utrecht) exigeaient que les fils du Roi succèdent à la Couronne selon la primogéniture, et par préférence à leurs sœurs ; si le Roi ne laissait que des filles, l'aînée lui succèderait selon la primogéniture et par préférence à ses oncles (ainsi qu'aux branches mâles plus éloignées). Afin d'assurer ses droits et ceux de ses descendants, Philippe V décida de garantir à sa famille les mêmes droits que ceux qu'il avait sur le Trône de France. La loi qui fut alors promulguée instituait une succession semi-salique, aux termes de laquelle l'accession au Trône était limitée à la descendance mâle de Philippe. En cas d’extinction de la descendance mâle, la Couronne reviendrait à l'héritière du dernier survivant mâle ; seule l'absence d'une héritière entraînerait la transmission de la Couronne à la descendance du Duc de Savoie. Cette loi fut portée en annexe au volet anglo-espagnol du Traité d'Utrecht, qui fut signé le mois de juillet suivant_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les Renonciations réciproques de Philippe V, Roi d'Espagne, au Trône de France, et de deux Princes de la Maison de France au Trône d'Espagne, avaient pour but de maintenir l'équilibre des forces en Europe, en séparant définitivement les Couronnes française et espagnole. La réciprocité de ces engagements signifiait que tout manquement à leurs termes, commis par l'une quelconque des deux parties, dégageait l'autre de ses obligations. Les intentions et les ambitions des différentes parties des Traités auxquelles ces Renonciations furent portées en annexe étaient irréconciliables. La France souhaitait mettre fin à un conflit désastreux, mais cherchait également à retrouver son influence en Europe, sans limitation des pouvoirs monarchiques, tout en s'assurant qu'une dynastie amie s'établissait de l'autre côté des Pyrénées. La Grande-Bretagne voulait mettre un frein définitif à la puissance française en Europe, et espérait acquérir les possessions françaises et espagnoles du Continent Nord-Américain et des Caraïbes, ainsi que les colonies indiennes de la France. Sans la participation de l'Autriche à ce règlement, il était évident que le Trône de Philippe V ne serait pas fermement assuré. L'Espagne ne participait pas au Traité signé entre la France et la Grande-Bretagne, et avait signé une paix séparée avec la Reine. La Renonciation du Roi d'Espagne à ses droits français ne fut pas faite en sa qualité de Duc d'Anjou mais de Roi d'Espagne, et ne constituait qu’une annexe au Traité franco-anglais, dont le deuxième article contenait une Renonciation plus explicite que celle qui était incluse dans le Traité anglo-espagnol. En consentant à cette Renonciation, le Roi d'Espagne pouvait légitimement espérer rétablir la paix, et obtenir des gages fermes, prenant la forme d'une reconnaissance internationale de son droit incontesté à régner sur l'Espagne et sur son Empire. Il espérait alors encore conserver les possessions italiennes de l'Espagne, et bien qu'il fût forcé de s'en séparer par les Traités de 1713, resta déterminé à les recouvrer. Ni lui ni ses successeurs n'abandonnèrent l'espoir d'expulser les Anglais hors de Gibraltar, qu'il avait été forcé de céder à la Grande-Bretagne par le Traité de 1713. Malgré des tentatives répétées de la part des Espagnols pour reprendre le Rocher, il reste encore aujourd’hui possession britannique.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les Provinces-Unies des Pays-Bas désiraient se prémunir contre les menaces d'incursions françaises, et se protéger contre les ambitions territoriales de l’Espagne ou de l’Empire. L'Empereur, qui se retira des préliminaires et refusa de rejoindre la paix d'Utrecht, voulait s'assurer que les frontières orientales de la France étaient fermement fixées, et obtenir la plus grande part possible des territoires de l'ancienne monarchie espagnole des Habsbourg. Il maintint ses revendications sur l'Espagne et son Empire, et les faisait encore valoir alors même qu’il prétendait y renoncer dans le cadre de la Quadruple Alliance de 1718.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La Renonciation de Philippe V, le 5 novembre 1713 faisait clairement état de son intention de séparer les deux Couronnes, ainsi que de la nature réciproque de sa Renonciation. "Philippe, par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de Castille, d'Aragon, des Deux-Siciles etc. Soit notoire et manifeste aux Rois, Princes, Potentats, Républiques, Communautés et personnes particulières qui sont et qui seront dans les siècles à venir, que l’un des principaux fondements des traités de paix à faire entre la couronne d’Espagne et celle de France d’une part et celle d’Angleterre de l’autre pour parvenir à la paix générale, étant d’assurer pour toujours le bien et le repos universel de l’Europe (…) il a été proposé et fait instance par l’Angleterre, et il a été convenu de ma part et de celle du Roi mon grand-père, que, pour éviter, en quelque temps que ce soit, l’union de cette monarchie à celle de France, et pour empêcher qu’elle ne puisse arriver en aucun cas, il se fit des renonciations réciproques pour moi et tous mes descendants à la succession de la monarchie de France(…). Prenant aussi des mesures, suivant la maxime fondamentale et perpétuelle de l’équilibre des puissances de l’Europe afin que l’on évite, en tous les cas imaginables, l’union de la monarchie d’Espagne avec celle de la France, et que l’on prévienne l’inconvénient qui arriverait, si, au défaut de ma descendance, le cas advenait que la monarchie d’Espagne pût retomber à la Maison d’Autriche, dont les Etats et leur dépendances, même sans l’union de l’Empire, la rendraient formidable : motif qui a donné lieu avec raison en d’autres temps, à la séparation des Etats héréditaires de la Maison d’Autriche du corps de la monarchie espagnole. Pour cet effet il a été convenu et accordé par l’Angleterre, avec moi et avec le Roi mon grand-père, qu’à mon défaut et à celui de mes descendants, le Duc de Savoie serait appelé à la succession de cette monarchie, lui ses enfants et descendants (…).<br />
De mon propre mouvement, de ma libre, franche et pure volonté, moi Don Philippe, par la grâce de Dieu Roi de Castille et Léon…etc. etc. je renonce par le présent acte, pour toujours et à jamais, pour moi-même et pour mes héritiers et successeurs, à toutes prétentions, droits et titres que moi ou quelques autres de mes descendants que ce soit aient dès à présent, ou puissent avoir en quelque autre temps que ce puisse être à l’avenir, à la succession de la couronne de France. Je les abandonne et m’en désiste, pour moi et pour eux, et je me déclare et me tiens pour exclu et séparé, moi et mes enfants, héritiers et descendants, perpétuellement (…) du droit de succéder à la Couronne de France. Je veux et consens pour moi-même et pour mes descendants, que dès à présent comme alors, ce droit soit regardé et considéré comme passé et transféré au Duc de Berry mon frère, à ses enfants et descendants mâles, nés en légitime mariage ; et successivement à tous les Princes du sang de France, leurs enfants et descendants mâles, pour toujours et à jamais, selon le rang et l’ordre dans lesquels ils seront appelés à la couronne par le droit de leur naissance.<br />
Je me dépouille et me désiste spécialement des droits qui pourraient m’appartenir par les lettres patentes ou actes par lesquels le Roi mon grand-père me conserve le droit de succession à la couronne de France. Lesquelles lettres patentes furent données à Versailles au mois de décembre de l’année 1700, et enregistrées au Parlement. Je veux qu’elles ne me puissent servi de fondement pour les effets qui y sont prévus. Je les rejette et y renonce, et les regarde comme nulles, d’aucune valeur, comme si elles n’avaient jamais été données.<br />
Je promets et m’oblige en foi et parole de Roi que, de ma part et de celle de mes dits enfants et descendants, nés et à naître, je procurerai l’observation et l’accomplissement de cet acte, sans permettre ni consentir qu’il y soit contrevenu directement, en tout ou en partie. »_<br />
Cet acte fut enregistré par les Cortes espagnoles, garanti par Louis XIV dans les lettres patentes du 15 mai 1713, enregistré par le Parlement de Paris, et inscrit en annexe au Traité franco-britannique d'Utrecht, ainsi qu'au Traité hispano-britannique.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La Renonciation de Charles, Duc de Berry, avait été signée à Marly le 24 novembre 1712,: "le Roy, notre très-honoré seigneur et ayeul, et le Roy d'Espagne, nostre très cher frère, sont convenus et demeurent d'accord avec la Reine de la Grande-Bretagne, qu'il sera fait des Renonciations réciproques pour tous les Princes et futurs héritiers de ladite Couronne de France et de celle d'Espagne, à tous droits qui peuvent appartenir à chacun d'eux sur la succession de l'un et l'autre Royaume, en établissant un droit habituel à la succession de la Couronne d'Espagne, dans la ligne qui sera habilitée et déclarée immédiate à celle du Roy Philippe V nostre frère (…) ; que de nostre costé, nous renoncerons aussi, pour nous et pour nos descendants, à la Couronne d'Espagne; que le Duc d'Orléans, nostre très-cher oncle, fera la même chose; de sorte que toutes les lignes de France et d'Espagne, respectivement et relativement, seront exclues pour toujours et en toutes manières de tous les droits que les lignes de France pourraient avoir à la Couronne d'Espagne, et les lignes d'Espagne à la Couronne de France; et enfin que l'on empêchera que, sous prétexte des dites Renonciations, ny sous quelque autre prétexte que ce soit, la Maison d'Autriche n'exerce les prétentions qu'elle pourrait avoir à la succession de la monarchie d'Espagne, d'autant qu'ne unissant cette monarchie aux pays et Estats héréditaires de cette Maison, elle serait formidable, même dans l'union de l'Empire aux autres puissances qui sont entre deux, et se trouveraient comme enveloppées, ce qui détruirait l'égalité qu'on établit aujourd'hui pour assurer et affermir plus parfaitement la paix de la chrétienté (…)"<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Duc de Berry ayant rappelé la nécessité de séparer et d'exclure de la succession espagnole tant ses propres descendants que ceux de la Maison d'Autriche, s’exprimait ainsi : "nous ratifions les clauses de leurs _Anne d'Autriche, épouse de Louis XIII, et Marie-Thérèse, épouse de Louis XIV_ Testaments et les Renonciations faites par lesdites dames nos ayeule et bizayeule ; nous renonçons pareillement au droit qui nous peut appartenir et à nos enfants et descendants, en vertu du Testament du Roy Charles II, qui nonobstant ce qui est rapporté ci-dessus, nous appelle à la Couronne d'Espagne (…)"_. Cette dernière clause annulait les effets de la loi soumise par Philippe V en 1703 à l'approbation des Cortes, et qui invalidait les Renonciations des deux Infantes. La Renonciation du Duc de Berry, et celle de son cousin Orléans, furent enregistrées en bonne et due forme par les Cortes. On voit ici que c'est non seulement la nature réciproque de ces Renonciations qui est soulignée, mais également l'intention de garantir la Couronne espagnole aux descendants de Philippe V, et d'empêcher la Maison d'Autriche de revendiquer le Trône d'Espagne. Etant donné que l'Empereur refusait de renoncer à ses revendications, il s'ensuivait que cette Renonciation demeurait conditionnelle.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Duc d'Orléans tenait ses droits de sa grand-mère, Anne d’Autriche, épouse de Louis XIII, mais son nom avait été omis de la liste établie dans le Testament de Charles II et répertoriant tous ses héritiers potentiels. Le Duc avait en conséquence demandé à Philippe V, son cousin, d’en attester. A cet effet, Philippe V fit instaurer la loi de 1703, rétablissant les descendants d’Anne dans leurs droits. La Renonciation réciproque du Duc d'Orléans était formulée en termes semblables à celle de son cousin Berry, et commençait également par l'affirmation que sa motivation principale était de ramener la paix et de séparer les deux Couronnes de France et d'Espagne. Dans ce but, « il seroit fait des renonciations réciproques ; savoir, par le Roi Catholique Philippe V nostre neveu, pour lui et pour tous ses descendants à la succession de la couronne de France, comme aussi par le Duc de Berry, nostre très-cher neveu, et par nous, pour nous et pour tous nos déscendants, à la couronne d'Espagne; à condition aussi que la maison d'Autriche, ny aucun de ses déscendants, ne pourront succéder à la couronne d'Espagne, parce que cette maison, même sans l'union de l'Empire, seroit formidable, si elle ajoutoit une nouvelle puissance à ses anciens domaines; et, par conséquent, cet équilibre qu'on veut établir, pour le bien de tous les Princes et les États de l'Europe, cesseroit (…) Nous avons résolu de faire ce désistement, cette abdication et cette renonciation de tous nos droits, pour nous et au nom de tous nos successeurs et déscendants. Et pour l'accomplissement de cette résolution, que nous avons prise de notre pure, libre et franche volonté, nous déclarons et nous tenons dès à-présent, nous, nos enfants et déscendants pour exclus, inhabiles, absolument et à jamais, et sans limitation , ny distinction de personnes, de degrés et de sexe, de toute action, de tout droit à la succession de la couronne d'Espagne. Nous voulons et consentons pour nous et nos déscendants que, dès maintenant et pour toujours, on nous tienne, nous et les nostres, pour exclus, inhabiles et incapables, en quelque degrez que nous nous trouvions, et de quelque manière que la succession puisse arriver à nostre ligne, et àtoutes les autres, soit de la maison de France, soit de celle d'Autriche, et tous les déscendants de l'une et de l'autre maison , qui, comme il est dit et supposé, doivent aussi se tenir pour retranchées et exclues (…). » _ Non seulement le Duc d'Orléans insistait-il sur la nature réciproque de sa Renonciation, mais il la reliait explicitement à la condition que la Maison d'Autriche fût exclue de la succession d'Espagne.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Louis XIV, par lettres patentes en date des 1er et 10 mars 1713, entérinait les Renonciations réciproques des Ducs de Berry et d'Orléans, confirmant en outre que ces Renonciations engageaient tous leurs descendants, les hommes comme les femmes : « comme aussi la renonciation de notre petit-fils le Duc de Berry, celle de notre dit neveu le Duc d’Orléans, sont réciproques et relatives à leurs droits à la Couronne d’Espagne, pour eux-mêmes et pour leurs descendants mâles et femelles (…) Nous désirons confirmer que par ladite renonciation de notre dit frère et petit-fils le Roi d’Espagne, il sera désormais reconnu et considéré comme exclu de notre succession, que ses héritiers, successeurs et descendants seront exclus en perpétuité et considérés inhabiles à recouvrer ces droits. » De toute évidence, ces textes ont été rédigés dans le dessein de satisfaire les adversaires de la France, désireux de garantir la nature irrévocable et définitive des Renonciations. Les termes de détail de ces Renonciations, où l’on semble avoir voulu parer à toute éventualité, ne peuvent faire l'objet d'une lecture sélective. Leur caractère de réciprocité est évident : l'invalidation des Renonciations de l’une des parties dégagerait immédiatement l'autre de ses obligations. Tout aussi évident est leur principe commun : l’exclusion définitive de la Maison d'Autriche de la succession. Enfin on ne pourrait négliger la portée de ces Renonciations, excluant perpétuellement de la succession tant les hommes que les femmes (ces dernières étant, en tout état de cause, exclues de la succession française et incapables de transmettre aucun droit). Ainsi, tout individu né d'une union entre un descendant de Philippe V et un membre de la branche Orléans serait évincé de la succession espagnole : cette exclusion aurait pu concerner les descendants mâles et légitimes de Philippe V, pour la succession aux deux Trônes. De la même manière, les descendants d'une union entre un Prince du Sang et une Infante d’Espagne seraient exclus par l’effet combiné des trois Renonciations. Si ces Renonciations écartaient de la succession certains des descendants de ces Princes, elles devaient les écarter tous ; si elles ne devaient exclure que certains de ces descendants, alors elles n’en devaient exclure aucun.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Des événements qu’on ne pouvait prévoir en 1713, rendirent bientôt ces arrangements caduques. De fait, tout au long de leur histoire, la seule constante des relations entre les deux peuples français et espagnol fut leur désir commun de rester indépendants et de se gouverner eux-mêmes (dans les limites imposées plus tard par l'Union Européenne). Aucune des deux nations n'aurait toléré de se voir réunies sous la même Couronne : si l'on avait compris ce point, et conclu des compromis à cette seule fin, l'arrangement qui en aurait résulté aurait sans doute été viable. Tel était l'objectif implicite de tous les Traités gouvernant les relations entre ces Etats dans les trente premières années du XVIIIe siècle.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Au-delà de l'examen des textes de ces Renonciations, ajoutons que les commentateurs de l'époque considéraient que la Renonciation à des droits futurs sur un Trône était irrecevable en droit, puisque la succession était régie par des lois fondamentales, bien connues et inaltérables. Ces lois fondamentales dictaient que la succession de la Couronne de France se fît selon l'ordre de la primogéniture mâle ; l'héritier de la Couronne devait être catholique et français, bien que ces conditions pussent être remplies par conversion ou naturalisation (comme ce fut le cas en 1589-1594 lors de l'avènement d'Henri IV). C'est pourquoi Torcy écrivait (voir ci-dessus) que si le Roi d'Espagne signait une telle Renonciation, cet acte seul ne pouvait atteindre l'objectif souhaité, dans la mesure où il n'engageait pas ses héritiers.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Louis XIV n'avait jamais considéré que les Renonciations de sa mère ou de sa femme l'engageaient, et Charles II, dernier Habsbourg à régner sur l'Espagne, n’avait consenti à des Renonciations que dans le dessein de séparer à jamais les deux Couronnes. Chacune des deux Renonciations antérieures avait été enregistrée par les Cortes espagnoles et par le parlement de Paris, condition essentielle en France pour donner force de loi à un édit royal. En 1712, lorsque les pairs demandèrent à Saint-Simon d'adresser au Roi une recommandation sur la forme de l'acte de Renonciation que devrait signer Philippe V, celui-ci écrivit qu'un tel procédé était impropre à entériner une Renonciation dynastique, puisque les deux Renonciations précédentes, avaient été invalidées, malgré leur enregistrement par les Cortes et le Parlement. Saint-Simon soumit lui-même des propositions complexes en vue de la validation des Renonciations ultérieures ; elles restèrent lettre morte. La question demeurait posée de savoir pourquoi des textes considérés comme nuls et non-avenus lorsqu'il s'était agi d'enregistrer les Renonciations espagnoles de 1612-1619 et 1659-1660 devenaient recevables lorsqu'ils étaient rédigés sous la même forme en 1713. De fait, les droits mêmes de Philippe V sur le Trône avaient été acquis en dépit des Renonciations solennelles effectuées par sa grand-mère et son arrière grand-mère, et aux termes desquelles une telle succession était impossible. Saint-Simon décrivait ainsi ce qui s'ensuivit :<br />
« On a dit sur cette matière tout ce dont, à peu près, elle se trouve susceptible, et la matière est encore plus éclaircie parmi les pièces. Ce serait donc répéter inutilement que vouloir représenter de nouveau ce que peuvent être des renonciations à la couronne de France d’un prince et d’une branche aînée en faveur de ses cadets, contre l’odre constant et jamais interrompu depuis Hugues Capet, sans que la France l’accepte par une loi nouvelle, dérogeante à celle de tous les siècles, et par une loi revêtue des formes et de la liberté qui puissent lui acquérir la force et la solidité nécessaire à un acte si important ; et la renonciation à leur droit à la couronne d’Espagne, uniquement fondée sur celle au droit à la France et sur l’accession plus prochaine par le retranchement de toute une branche en faveur de deux princes et de la leur, et des autres des princes de sang après, suivant leur aînesse, qui, soumis au roi le plus absolu et le plus jaloux de l’être qui ait jamais régné, grand-père de l’un, oncle et beau-père de l’autre, grand-père encore d’une autre façon des deux princes du sang, sont forcés d’assister avec les pairs à la lecture et à l’enregistrement de ces actes, sans qu’avec leur lecture, on ait auparavant exposé, moins encore traité la matière, ni, après, que personne ait été interpellé d’opiner, ni que, si on l’avait été, personne eût osé dire un seul mot que de simple approbation. C’est néanmoins tout ce qui fut fait, comme on le va voir, pour opérer ce grand acte destiné à régler, d’une manière jusqu’alors inouïe en France, un ordre nouveau d’y succéder à la couronne, d’en consolider un autre guère moins étrange de succéder à la monarchie d’Espagne, et assurer par là le repos à toute l’Europe, qui ne l’avait pu trouver à l’égard de l’Espagne seule dans la solennité des renonciations du traité des Pyrénées et des contrats de mariage de Louis XIII et de Louis XIV, tous enregistrés au Parlement, et le traité des Pyrénées et le contrat de mariage de Louis XIV avec ses plus expresses renonciations, faits et signés aux frontières par les deux premiers ministres de France et d’Espagne en personne, et jurés solennellement par les deux rois en présence l’un de l’autre, au milieu des deux cours. On ne sent que trop l’extrême différence de ce qui se passa alors avec ce qui vient d’être présenté, et qui va être raconté, et si, lors de la paix des Pyrénées et du mariage du Roi, il ne s’agissait pas d’intervertir l’ordre de succession à la couronne de Franc, et d’y en établir un dont tous les siècles n’avaient jamais ouï parler.<br />
<br />
Ce culte suprême dont le Roi était si jaloux pour son autorité, parce que son établissement solide avait été le soin le plus cher et le plus suivi de toute sa longue vie, ne put donc recevoir la moindre atteinte ni par la nouveauté du fait, ni par l’excès de son importance pour le dedans, pour le dehors, pour sa propre maison, ni par la considération de sa plus intime famille, ni par celle que cette idole, à qui il sacrifiait tout, allait bientôt lui échapper à son âge, et le laisser paraître nu devant Dieu comme le dernier de ses sujets. Tout ce qu’on put obtenir pour rendre la chose plus solennelle, fut l’assistance des pairs. Encore sa délicatesse fut-elle si grande, qu’il se voulait contenter de dire en général qu’il désirait que les pairs se trouvassent au Parlement pour les Renonciations. Je le sus quatre jours auparavant ; je parlai à plusieurs et je dis à M. le duc d’Orléans que, si le Roi se contentait de s’expliquer de la sorte, il pouvait compter qu’aucun pair n’irait au Parlement, et que c’était à lui à voir ce qui lui convenait là-dessus pour tirer d’une méchante paye ce qu’il serait possible ; mais que, si les pairs n’étaient pas invités de sa part, chacun par le grand maître des cérémonies, ainsi qu’il s’est toujours pratiqué, pas un seul ne se trouverait au Parlement. Cet avis ferme, et qui eût été suivi de l’effet comme on a vu qu’il était arrivé sur le service de Monseigneur à Saint-Denis, réussit. M.le duc d’Orléans et M. le duc de Berry en parlèrent au Roi, et insistèrent : de manière que Dreux alla lui-même chez tous les pairs qui logeaient au château à Versailles, et, à ceux qu’il ne trouva point, leur laissa le bille t qui se trouvera dans les Pièces, portant que M. le duc tel est averti de la part du Roi qu’il se traitera tel jour au Parlement de matières très importantes, auxquelles Sa Majesté désire qu’il assiste. Signé : DREUX, et daté. A ceux qui étaient à Paris, il se contenta de leur envoyer le billet ; pour les princes du sang et légitimés, il fallut qu’il les trouvât : ainsi, ils n’eurent point de billet. Les Anglais enfin, n’ayant pu obtenir mieux, et pressés au dernier point, comme on l’a dit, de finir, voulurent bien se persuader que<br />
c’était tout ce qui se pouvait faire. » _.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A l'époque de ces Renonciations, la succession en Espagne était toujours régie par le système mixte de succession par les hommes et par les femmes, établi définitivement à la fin du XIIIè siècle. Philippe décida de limiter la succession espagnole d'abord à la seule branche mâle, puis par défaut aux femmes, afin de garantir le trône à ses descendants. Cette exigence fait l’objet d’une condition de sa Renonciation, clairement indiquée à ses alliés durant les négociations préliminaires au Traité d'Utrecht. De fait l'Espagne et la Grande-Bretagne attendirent que ce problème ait été résolu avant de conclure leur paix par le second Traité d'Utrecht (où la nouvelle loi fut portée en annexe). S'il n'avait pas insisté sur ce point, Philippe aurait risqué de voir sa branche, à une ou deux générations de distance, privée de ses droits à la fois sur le Trône de France et sur le Trône d’Espagne. Telle était la raison pour laquelle Philippe V introduisit le nouveau système de succession en Espagne le 17 mai 1713 : un système semi-salique, qui donnait priorité à sa descendance mâle, tout en prévoyant que, dans l'éventualité de l'extinction de cette branche, le Trône passerait à la femme la plus proche. Les Cortes refusèrent d'abord d'enregistrer ce décret qui contrevenait si évidemment à des siècles de tradition dynastique en Espagne. Le Roi présenta donc une deuxième fois son décret au Conseil de Castille, qui, dans un premier temps, le rejeta également. Philippe V ne put, en dernier lieu, obtenir l'enregistrement de cet acte qu'en demandant individuellement aux membres du Conseil de donner leur accord, manœuvre qui aboutit enfin. Il n'apparaissait toutefois pas clairement que cette modification Constitutionnelle était conforme à la loi espagnole, tant elle introduisait un de bouleversements considérables dans la succession. _VOIR NOTE 14_. Néanmoins, la nouvelle loi fut incluse dans toutes les compilations ultérieures des lois espagnoles ; elle fut ainsi ratifiée par la Couronne et les Cortes, jusqu'à la Novisima Recopilaciòn de 1803, publiée après le Décret de Charles IV de 1789 (voir ci-dessous).<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le nouveau principe de succession semi-salique signifiait que la réunion des deux Royaumes, par un mariage entre les deux branches, ne pouvait avoir lieu que dans la seule éventualité d'une extinction de la branche mâle descendant de Philippe V. Cette loi fut abolie en 1830-1833, au moyen de la validation d'un décret pragmatique de Charles IV promulgué en 1789, et approuvé unanimement par les Cortes réunies en session secrète. Cette loi n'avait pas été mise en application, car la Reine avait donné naissance à plusieurs autres fils ; la loi ne fut pas non plus incluse dans les compilations ultérieures de la loi espagnole. La réintroduction du principe de succession antérieur s’accordait avec les traditions juridique et dynastique d’Espagne bien qu'elle différât de la loi salique française et de la loi semi-salique introduite dans les Deux-Siciles ; cette loi privait également la Maison de Bourbon de la succession automatique au Trône d'Espagne, un point qui avait été au centre des Traités de 1713-1725.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les règles de la succession reposaient sur la primogéniture mâle—les constitutionalistes français s'accordent tous sur ce point. Il fallait donc qu'un appareil législatif assurât l’exclusion définitive de la branche espagnole. D’aucuns estiment que les Traités d'Utrecht et les Renonciations y ont réussi : mais c’est oublier que les Renonciations similaires de 1612-1619 et 1659-1660, également garanties par un Traité, auraient dû interdire aux deux Infantes de transmettre leurs droits espagnols à leurs descendants. Les procédés employés au XVIIe siècle, pour mettre en application les premières Renonciations, avaient été insuffisants à modifier les lois fondamentales. Comment seraient-ils devenus efficaces cinquante ans plus tard ? Les deux Renonciations antérieures, ainsi que le Traité des Pyrénées et le Testament de Philippe IV, furent déclarés nuls et non avenus en 1700. Les Renonciations des Ducs de Berry et d'Orléans consistaient également en une abdication de leurs droits à la succession espagnole ; elles avaient la même solennité et le même poids juridique, et entretenaient un lien de réciprocité avec la Renonciation de Philippe V. Si les premières n'étaient pas recevables, comment les suivantes, également définies par leur réciprocité, auraient-elles pu avoir force de loi ? Si elles étaient elles-mêmes nulles, quelles conséquences leur nullité avait-elle sur la Renonciation réciproque de Philippe V ? La Renonciation de 1659-1660 avait été garantie par un Traité entre les deux Etats directement concernés. Or aucun Traité passé entre la France et l'Espagne ne vint entériner les Renonciations de 1712—les Traités d'Utrecht avaient été signés avec la Grande-Bretagne et les Pays-Bas, nations qui ne prenaient aucun intérêt direct ni justifié aux successions.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Un éminent constitutionaliste français contemporain écrit à ce propos : « la première des lois fondamentales est la loi salique“gravée dans le cœur des Français“ , confirmée par l’arrêt Lemaistre, rendu par le Parlement de Paris le 28 juin 1593 (…). Cette loi est imposée au Roi. Elle ne dépend pas de sa volonté. De plus, le droit royal et le pouvoir royal dépendent de l’autorité de la Loi du Royaume (…). C’est une loi constitutionnelle, antérieure aux lois ordinaires, s’imposant au respect du pouvoir législatif, qui ne peut être ni abrogée ni modifiée(…). Au Traité d’Utrecht de 1713, les Anglais forcèrent l’ancien Duc d’Anjou, Philippe V Roi d’Espagne, à renoncer à la Couronne de France. Mais cette renonciation était nulle, puisque nul héritier éventuel ne peut renoncer à ses doits, car ils sont fixés par le droit coutumier du Royaume. Philippe V et ses descendants conservent tous leurs droits à la Couronne de France. »_. Dans un texte plus récent, le même Constitutionaliste affirme : « De fait, la renonciation du duc d’Anjou, fils du Grand Dauphin, qui est devenu Roi d’Espagne, au trône de France, est nulle selon la loi ; en vertu du droit coutumier français,, un fils de France ne peut pas renoncer à ses droits à la Couronne. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les Renonciations posaient un autre problème : celui des revendications autrichiennes. Le présupposé des Renonciations et des Traités était que Philippe V, en renonçant ou en déclarant renoncer à ses droits français, acquérait des droits fermes sur le Trône d'Espagne pour lui et pour ses descendants, en compensation. Toutefois, tant que l'Autriche maintenait ses revendications sur l'Espagne, cette Renonciation était (selon les termes de Ledran, fonctionnaire du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères de la France, voir plus loin) transitoires et douteux. Qui plus est, si cette garantie devait être abrogée, comme elle le fut par un décret unilatéral des Cortes espagnoles de 1811-1812, et par la Sanction Pragmatique de 1832-1833 (voir plus loin), un point crucial de la justification de la modification de la loi fondamentale serait infirmé.<br />
<br />
***********************************<br />
<br />
<br />
Les Traités d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712 et la succession à la tête de la Maison de France<br />
<br />
Troisième partie : la portée des Traités et les conséquences sur les relations entre les puissances au XVIIIe siècle<br />
<br />
Guy Stair Sainty<br />
(Trans. Arnaud Odier)<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>À la mort de Louis XIV, la seule personne qui s’interposait entre Philippe V et la Couronne de France était le jeune Louis XV. Âgé de cinq ans, l'arrière petit-fils du Roi avait perdu son père trois ans plus tôt. On cherchait alors à lui trouver une épouse, et lorsqu’il tomba gravement malade en 1723, l'inquiétude grandit. Si le Roi avait dû mourir, la question de la validité des Renonciations se serait immédiatement posée ; de fait, les Archives Nationales conservent un ensemble de commentaires et de correspondance portant sur les conséquences de la mort éventuelle du jeune Roi_. Le Maréchal Duc de Villars estimait que les Renonciations contrevenaient aux lois du Royaume, qui assuraient à jamais la succession à la branche aînée de la Maison de France. Le Régent, Duc de Bourbon, craignait qu’une guerre civile n’éclatât, étant donnés les droits incontestables de Philippe V. Un mémoire anonyme laissait entendre que le Duc de Bourbon souhaitait ardemment marier le Roi : s'il venait à mourir, la Reine pourrait se déclarer enceinte, laissant à Philippe V assez de temps pour rentrer en France et consolider sa position avant que le Duc d'Orléans ne se proclame Roi à sa place_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>On pourrait se demander ce qui se serait passé si Louis XV était mort en 1723. Le Testament de Charles II en 1700 stipulait que si le Duc d'Anjou venait à mourir, ou succédait au Trône de France, il serait suivi du Duc de Berry, puis de l'Archiduc Charles et enfin du Duc de Savoie. La nouvelle loi de succession introduite en 1713 et ratifiée par le Traité d'Utrecht (mais non par l'Empereur qui ne l'approuva, à contrecœur, qu'en 1718-1720), évinçait le Duc de Berry et l'Archiduc Charles, stipulant que la Couronne reviendrait au Duc de Savoie. Le Duc de Berry, entre temps, était mort sans descendance, et l'Archiduc était devenu Empereur. Philippe avait alors plusieurs fils, et il semble vraisemblable que le Trône d'Espagne aurait été dévolu à un fils cadet, comme cela avait été le cas lorsque le Dauphin, Duc de Bourgogne et frère aîné de Philippe, avait été dépossédé au profit de Philippe en 1700. Dès lors, Philippe serait probablement rentré en France, suivi de son fils aîné, Luis, et c’est son deuxième fils, Ferdinand qui serait devenu Roi d'Espagne. Luis mourut un an plus tard en 1724 ; sa disparition aurait entraîné un nouvel ajustement, Ferdinand devenant Dauphin, et le fils aîné du second mariage de Philippe, l'Infant Don Carlos, accédant au Trône d'Espagne. Ferdinand mourut sans descendance en 1759 ; Charles aurait pu devenir Roi de France, suivi de son fils aîné (déficient mental, il mourut avant son père) puis de son fils cadet le futur Charles IV, tandis que l'Infant Don Ferdinand (qui devint Roi des Deux-Siciles en 1759, succédant à son père) serait devenu Roi d'Espagne. Inutile de spéculer plus avant, puisqu'il est peu probable que le même réseau de mariages et d'alliances s’en serait suivi, mais peut-être Charles (connu sous le nom de Charles III en Espagne, il aurait pris le nom de Charles X en France), souverain brillant et capable, aurait-il su empêcher la Révolution…<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>On peut juger de l’opinion du successeur de Louis XIV, à propos de l'Edit de 1717 sur les droits et les titres des bâtards légitimés, atteinte manifeste à la loi fondamentale. Un édit royal de juillet 1714 (enregistré par dit de justice le 2 août 1714) et une déclaration du 23 mai 1715 avaient conféré aux bâtards de Louis XIV les droits, titres et privilèges des Princes du Sang, nantis d’un droit de succession dans l'éventualité d'une extinction des descendants des autres Princes du Sang. Cette infraction manifeste aux lois fondamentales avait soulevé une violente opposition, bien que personne ne se fût élevé clairement contre l’absolutisme de Louis XIV. Après sa mort en 1715, l'abolition de ces clauses était une priorité pour les Princes du Sang : non qu'il y eût un risque immédiat de voir l’un des bâtards accéder au Trône ; en revanche ils avaient acquis un grand nombre de privilèges directs, jusqu'à présent réservés aux Princes du Sang. Cet édit représentait un danger extrême, dans la mesure où il constituait un précédent, autorisant le Roi à changer les règles de succession comme bon lui semblait. Les Renonciations offraient moins de sujets d’inquiétude. Il n’était guère utile de les faire révoquer, tant que les circonstances n’exigeaient pas qu’elles prissent effet ; mais, si la France s’y était hasardée, les nombreux désordres qui s’en seraient immanquablement suivis auraient fait peser une menace considérable sur la paix entre les nations.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Une solution fut trouvée. Le nouveau Roi (agissant en tant que mineur sur avis du Régent) accordait aux Bâtards, par un décret enregistré le 8 juillet 1717, la même préséance à la cour que les Princes légitimes, mais n’étaient plus reconnus Princes du Sang, "comme aussi sans qu'ils puissent se dire et qualifier Princes de nostre Sang ny que ladite qualité puisse leur estre donnée". Ce décret venait révoquer l’édit de Louis XIV, et énonçait que les lois fondamentales du Royaume interdisaient au défunt Roi de disposer de la Couronne selon son bon vouloir. Louis XV soulignait son désir de préserver les règles de succession dynastique, « gardant entre eux l'ordre de succession et préfèr_a_nt toujours la branche aînée à la cadette » ce qui signifiait que la branche espagnole venait après le Roi lui-même_. Le principe selon lequel les Princes du Sang devaient être nés de l'épouse légitime du Roi ou d'autres Princes du Sang (principe énoncé par le Chancelier à la suite du Traité de Montmartre du 6 février 1662, alors que Louis XIV tentait de donner ce rang aux Princes de Lorraine) fut confirmé par ce décret. Le principe selon lequel un tel rang était inaliénable était de même solidement démontré_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Parmi les commentaires des contemporains sur l’effet des Renonciations de 1712 (du moins parmi ceux qui sont parvenus jusqu’à nous) aucun n’évoque explicitement l’union éventuelle de descendants de Philippe V et de Princes français. Ils diffèrent en cela des Préliminaires de La Haye de 1709, qui comprenaient l’interdiction de mariages entre souverains français et espagnols. Le principal enjeu des débats à Utrecht avait été l'équilibre des puissances, la séparation perpétuelle des deux Couronnes et des souverainetés, et la répartition des territoires. Le Roi d’Espagne avait renoncé à ses droits français, dans l'assurance d'une garantie de ses droits espagnols… Mais en l’absence de l'Empereur, et de sa renonciation à l'Espagne, aucune assurance ne put être donnée à Philippe V. Non seulement l'Empereur refusa de renoncer, mais par son Décret Pragmatique du 19 août 1713, publié en 1719 dans le dessein d'établir les droits de sa fille, l'Archiduchesse Marie-Thérèse, à la succession, il maintint ses revendications territoriales sur l'Espagne. Lors de la reprise des négociations entre la France et l'Empire, Louis XIV avait exigé, dans ses recommandations à ses plénipotentiaires, qu'ils débattissent avec les Ministres de l'Empire les termes d'un accord sur l'Espagne. Ces derniers refusèrent cependant d'évoquer la moindre Renonciation de leur souverain à ses droits sur le Trône d'Espagne. Le Traité de paix signé le 6 Mars 1714 avec la France à Baden-Rastadt, cédait donc à l'Empire la possession des Pays-Bas, sans la participation ni le consentement de l'Espagne. C'est pourquoi Philippe V refusa de rendre les possessions territoriales confisquées par les partisans de l'Empereur, tant que ce dernier n'abandonnait pas ses revendications. A la même époque, un certain nombre de Princes Italiens, alliés de longue date de l'Espagne, firent savoir qu’ils refusaient de reconnaître l'Empereur comme suzerain.<br />
<br />
Les Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères à Paris conservent un important mémoire intitulé : " Historique sur l'Union ou Pacte de Famille entre les Couronnes de France et d'Espagne depuis le commencement du XVIIIe siècle, jusqu'au Pacte de Famille conclu en novembre 1733 entre le Roi de France Louis XV et le Roi d'Espagne Philippe V, comme chefs des deux branches Royales de la Maison de Bourbon / Union entre la France et l'Espagne de 1700 à 1733". Ce mémoire a pour auteur M. Ledran, du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, et fait figure de recommandation au ministre pour les négociations du premier Pacte de Famille de 1733_.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Dans son récit de l'enregistrement des lettres patentes entérinant la Renonciation de Philippe V, Ledran écrit (p 29) que Philippe V avait "compté que les Royaumes et Etats de la Monarchie espagnole lui seraient assurés sans démembrement" mais qu'il fut forcé d'accepter la perte des Etats italiens pour être reconnu Roi des Etats espagnols restants. Puis Ledran continue (p 31) : "Des politiques en France et ailleurs paraissaient alors douter, que la possession de l'Espagne et des Indes par le Roi Philippe V dût être regardée comme lui étant assurée assez solidement, tant que l'Empereur Charles VI paraîtrait vouloir conserver les droits qu'il avait fait valoir à main armée sur la Monarchie d'Espagne, et auxquels il avait refusé formellement de renoncer; en effet, dans cette incertitude, la Renonciation de Sa Majesté Catholique pour lui et pour sa descendance à ses droits sur la succession à la Couronne de France, pouvait être regardée seulement comme provisionnelle, et conséquemment douteuse, puisqu'il pouvait arriver que cet Empereur ou ses hoirs et ayant cause renouvellent la guerre, fissent la conquête de l'Espagne. De sorte qu'en le cas, le Roi Catholique Philippe V ou ses hoirs et ayant cause pourraient prétendre de rentrer dans tous leurs droits sur la Couronne de France, droits imprescriptibles selon les lois fondamentales du Royaume; dans ce doute des choses à venir, le Duc d'Orléans Régent jugea devoir rechercher l'alliance des deux Puissances qui avaient le plus contribué durant le Congrès d'Utrecht à établir la paix générale de l'Europe sur le fondement des Renonciations réciproques entre les deux branches de la Maison de Bourbon établies en France et en Espagne._"<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La rupture qui s’ensuivit entre la France et l'Espagne donna lieu à la Triple Alliance, conclue le 4 janvier 1717 entre la France, la Grande-Bretagne et les Pays-Bas. Peu de temps après, l'Espagne envahit la Sardaigne (qui avait été cédée à l'Empereur) et la Sicile (donnée au Duc de Savoie), en violation des termes des Traités d'Utrecht. La France dut envahir l'Espagne, en vertu des termes de la Triple Alliance, pour ramener de force son ancienne alliée à la table des négociations. Les troupes françaises étaient placées sous commandement du Duc de Berwick, Maréchal de France, ancien Commandant en Chef des armées à qui Philippe V devait de régner sur l'Espagne. Les Français l'emportèrent en peu de temps. La France et la Grande-Bretagne étaient à nouveau contraintes de s'allier, afin de ramener la paix entre l'Espagne et l'Empereur, à l’origine selon eux du conflit international. Au sein de la Quadruple Alliance, par le Traité de Londres du 2 août 1718, les trois puissances de l'ancienne Triple Alliance (les Pays-Bas se retirèrent à la dernière minute et furent remplacés par la Savoie) auxquelles venait s’ajouter l'Empereur, parvinrent à un nouvel accord, mais sans consulter l'Espagne qui refusait de participer. L'Article I de cet accord stipulait : "comme ainsi soit que l'unique moyen qu'on a pu trouver pour établir un équilibre durable en Europe, a paru être qu'on établît pour règle que les Royaumes d'Espagne et de France ne pussent en aucun temps être réunis sur la tête d'une seule et même personne, ni remises en un seul corps à une seule et même lignée régnante, et que ces deux monarchies doivent rester perpétuellement séparées; pour confirmer cette règle si nécessaire à la tranquillité publique, les Princes auxquels la prérogative de la naissance pouvait donner le droit de succéder dans l'une et l'autre Royaume ont renoncé à l'un des deux ordres pour eux et pour leur postérité, tellement que la séparation des deux monarchies a passé en loi fondamentale des deux Etats. " Dans le cas où la Renonciation de Philippe V était reconnue effective, le Duc d'Orléans devenait l'héritier direct du petit Roi de sept ans ; d’autre part, les puissances alliées connaissaient les objections françaises aux Renonciations, en tant qu’elles enfreignaient à la loi fondamentale. Le Duc d’Orléans et les dirigeants de ces nations étaient donc très soucieux d'affirmer qu'une nouvelle loi fondamentale avait été promulguée. Une lecture attentive de ces textes révèle cependant que c'est la séparation des deux Couronnes qui était entrée dans la loi fondamentale, et non l'exclusion réciproque des deux branches.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Traité poursuit ( dans le même article) : "Sa Majesté Impériale, voulant donner le dernier complément à une loi si salutaire et si nécessaire, et soulever tout prétexte de sinistre soupçon de sa part, déclare accepter les articles réglés et convenus à Utrecht touchant l'ordre de succession aux Trônes d'Espagne et de France, et renonce tant pour lui que pour ses descendants et successeurs de tout sexe, à tous les droits et prétentions universellement quelconques qu'elle pourrait avoir sur les provinces de la domination espagnole, dont par le Traité d'Utrecht le Roi Catholique a été reconnu légitime souverain et possesseur ; Sa Majesté Impériale promet ici conséquemment d'en rédiger acte de Renonciation solennelle, et d'en délivrer instrument en forme tant à Sa Majesté Catholique qu'aux parties contractantes". Article 2. "En exécution de ladite Renonciation que Sa Majesté Impériale a faite par attachement pour la sécurité générale de l'Europe, et aussi en considération de ce que M. le Duc d'Orléans a renoncé, pour lui et pour ses descendants, à ses droits et actions sur le Royaume d'Espagne (JURIBUS ET RATIONIBUS SUIS), sous la condition que l'Empereur ni aucun de ses descendants ne pût jamais succéder en Espagne; Sa Majesté Impériale reconnaît pour Roi légitime d'Espagne Philippe V, et promet à lui et à sa descendance masculine et féminine, la paisible possession de la monarchie espagnole."<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Toutefois le Roi d'Espagne, qui ne comptait pas parmi les signataires du Traité, ne consentit pas à ses termes, bien que le Duc d'Orléans lui eût affirmé que les Britanniques promettaient de se retirer de Gibraltar s'il s'exécutait. Les Britanniques refusaient que cette clause fût incluse dans le Traité et Philippe concevait, à raison, des doutes sur leurs intentions réelles. L'Empereur fit rédiger une version préparatoire de la Renonciation tant attendue ; d’après le Duc d’Orléans, Philippe en accepta les termes, mais elle ne fut jamais rendue publique. De plus, le Duc d’Orléans avait permis à l’Empereur d’omettre le terme « perpétuelle » de la partie consacrée à la Renonciation proprement dite, lui assurant par ce moyen un prétexte d’annulation supplémentaire, en cas de modification de la situation_. L’Empereur affirmait qu’il ne renoncerait jamais aux titres de Roi d’Espagne et des Indes, mais que cela ne devait pas, de son point de vue, empêcher qu’on s’entende sur une paix définitive. Puis l’Empereur réaffirma bien vite ses droits sur l’Espagne en faisant republier le Décret Pragmatique de 1713.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les troupes de Philippe V furent rejetées hors de la Sardaigne et de la Sicile peu de temps après. Par le Traité de La Haye des 16 et 17 janvier 1720, ratifiant le précédent Traité de Londres, il accepta de rendre la Sicile à l’Empereur_. Les deux souverains échangèrent par la suite leurs Renonciations, l’Empereur remettant la sienne en 1718, et Philippe V en 1720 à La Haye. Tout comme l’Empereur, Philippe biaisa: il omit le terme de « perpétuelle » de sa Renonciation ; c’est, comme on peut le supposer, non sans cynisme qu’il fit profession de reconnaître à l’Empereur la possession de la Sicile, alors qu’il avait auparavant déjà fait une promesse semblable et l’avait rompue moins de six ans plus tard. En reportant la discussion de ses droits à un Congrès où la France et la Grande-Bretagne joueraient le rôle de médiateurs, il affirmait plus clairement encore qu’il considérait qu’aucune de ces questions n’était définitivement résolue_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cet accord fragile et au final insatisfaisant entre l’Espagne et l’Empereur ne devait être que temporaire, comme le prouvait la décision de soumettre ses différents points à un Congrès. La réconciliation de la France et de l’Espagne qui s’ensuivit, conduisit à un pacte de protection mutuelle auquel la Grande-Bretagne souscrivit également—cette dernière, refusant toujours de céder Gibraltar. Ce pacte était dirigé contre l’Empereur, et garantissait la succession des descendants de la Reine d’Espagne à ses Duchés héréditaires de Parme et de Plaisance_. La possession des Duchés Farnèse avait à l’origine été accordée par le Pape et confirmée par l’Empereur, mais la question était de savoir si leur transmission se limitait à la descendance mâle des Farnèse, auquel cas ils reviendraient à l’Empereur (ou au Pape) à la mort de l’oncle de la Reine, Antonio, Duc de Parme. Si leur transmission n’était pas limitée aux mâles, comme l’affirmaient l’Espagne et ses nouvelles alliées la France et la Grande-Bretagne, alors la Reine d’Espagne Isabelle Farnèse était de fait leur héritière, et avait le droit, le cas échéant, de les recouvrer. La Reine Isabelle était également héritière du Grand Duché de Toscane, mais la question fut de nouveau posée de savoir si les textes d’origine, établis par l’Empereur, limitaient la succession à la descendance mâle, ou si le Grand Duché pouvait passer en vertu d’une loi semi-salique, qui les aurait donnés à une femme après l’extinction de la branche mâle. Ainsi l’Empereur gardait en main des atouts importants, comme de donner ou non son accord à la transmission de deux Etats italiens prospères à la Reine d’Espagne et à ses héritiers—un point sur lequel il refusa longtemps de s’engager.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cette situation inspira le projet d’une double union matrimoniale : le Prince des Asturies épouserait Mademoiselle de Montpensier (la fille du Régent), et l’Infante Marie épouserait Louis XV-ce qui constituait déjà une rupture potentielle des termes des Renonciations de 1713. On imagina d’aller plus loin encore en donnant à l’Infant Carlos la main de Mademoiselle de Beaujolais, seconde fille du Régent. Le Congrès de Cambrai, qui devait régler les relations entre l’Empereur et l’Espagne, fut retardé par la mort du Régent, auquel succédait le Duc de Bourbon-le Congrès s’ouvrit enfin le 26 janvier 1724. Entre temps, Philippe avait abdiqué la Couronne Espagnole, et son fils aîné lui avait succédé sous le nom de Luis Ier, le 10 janvier 1724_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Officiellement, Philippe V abdiquait en raison de son désir de quitter l’exercice pénible du pouvoir et de trouver une retraite paisible—de fait, il avait bel et bien souffert, au cours de sa vie, d’accès de dépression aiguë qui d’après les contemporains, le laissaient incapable de s’exprimer de manière cohérente. D’autres historiens suggèrent que Philippe V abdiquait pour mieux monter sur le Trône de France, au cas où le jeune Louis XV venait à être emporté par une de ces affections si courantes au début du XVIIe siècle. Quoi qu’il en soit, la mort soudaine du jeune Roi Luis Ier, le 31 août 1724, contraignit Philippe à reprendre son titre de Roi d’Espagne. L’abdication de Philippe avait été définitive et sans conditions, mais l’instruction qui s’ensuivit détermina qu’il pouvait légitimement reprendre la Couronne_. Le Congrès de Cambrai fut suspendu en raison de la crise du mariage de Louis XV, et les délégués ajournèrent les débats sine die.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Duc de Bourbon, devenu Premier Ministre, s’inquiétait de ce que le jeune Louis XV « témoignait à l’âge de quinze ans d’un tempérament vigoureux » (Ledran, op.cit.) , euphémisme désignant sa grande précocité sexuelle. Le Duc de Bourbon résolut de lui trouver une épouse nubile en lieu et place de sa promise actuelle, l’Infante, qui n’avait que sept ans. Cette décision provoqua de vives protestations de la part de l’Espagne humiliée. On procéda à un échange lamentable à la frontière : la jeune Reine d’Espagne, désormais veuve, et Mademoiselle de Beaujolais revenaient en France, tandis que l’Infante Marie retournait à Madrid. Cette nouvelle brouille avec la France entraîna un rappel des Ambassadeurs et un rapprochement entre l’Espagne et l’Empire. Par le Traité de Vienne du 30 avril 1725, les clauses des Traités d’Utrecht et de Baden concernant les Pays-Bas et l’Italie furent confirmées et ratifiées par Philippe, tandis que l’Empereur, par la ratification du 26 janvier 1726, confirmait sa reconnaissance officielle de Philippe comme Roi d’Espagne. L’Empereur n’en continua pas moins à se parer de ses titres espagnols, et à ignorer les protestations de son nouvel allié, Philippe V. En signe de sa volonté de rapprochement avec l’Espagne, l’Empereur offrit la main de sa fille de huit ans, l’Archiduchesse Marie-Thérèse, à l’Infant Carlos, encourageant cette alliance entre l’Espagne et les Etats héréditaires autrichiens, qui avait tant alarmé la France, treize ans auparavant. Charles venait en second dans l’ordre de succession à la Couronne d’Espagne, après son frère Ferdinand qui n’avait pas d’enfant ; une telle union aurait sapé l’objectif principal des Renonciations de 1712 et des Traités qui s’ensuivirent.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La France, irritée par cette nouvelle alliance dont l’esprit violait les termes des différents Traités antérieurs, réclama des compensations financières pour les dépenses qu’elle avait engagées dans la Guerre de Succession d’Espagne. L’Espagne d’autre part se montrait belliqueuse ; exigeant une fois de plus que les Britanniques se retirent de Gibraltar, les armées de Philippe V tentèrent une prise du Rocher. L’Espagne entreprit également de soutenir et de restaurer l’héritier Stuart sur le trône Britannique, sous le nom du Roi Jacques III ; cette dernière manœuvre constituait une violation de sa promesse, au volet Anglo-Espagnol du Traité d’Utrecht, de reconnaître les droits de la Reine Anne et de ses successeurs.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les relations franco-espagnoles s’améliorèrent grâce au Traité de Pau du 31 mai 1727, mais l’Espagne se lança à nouveau dans une action unilatérale en violation des Traités antérieurs : elle envoya des troupes en Italie pour assurer la succession de l’Infant Carlos aux Duchés de Parme et de Toscane, sans avoir obtenu le consentement de l’Empereur. L’Espagne, de toute évidence, s’était alors détachée du camp impérial, et obtint le soutien de la Grande-Bretagne et de la France par le Traité de Séville du 9 novembre 1729 pour ses revendications italiennes. L’Empereur, revenant sur ses entreprises antérieures, réaffirma le Décret Pragmatique de 1713, par lequel il posait les revendications Habsbourg sur tous les anciens Etats héréditaires, y compris l’Espagne. L’avènement futur de sa fille, en Bohême et dans les Etats héréditaires allemands, autrichiens, silésiens, et hongrois fut garanti par la France, de l’Espagne et de la Grande-Bretagne ; en échange l’Empereur promettait de reconnaître l’Infant Carlos et d’abandonner ses revendications perpétuelles sur le Trône d’Espagne. La promulgation, devant la Diète Impériale, de la Sanction Pragmatique, qui confirmait son décret de 1713 et avalisait la succession à venir de l’Archiduchesse aux Etats héréditaires, suscita les vives protestations des seuls Electeurs du Palatinat, de Bavière et de Saxe. Ces trois Princes refusaient d’entériner la succession de la fille de l’Empereur sans leur consentement individuel, et formulèrent des exigences multiples auxquelles l’Empereur finit, de mauvaise grâce, par se plier. Difficulté supplémentaire, alors que l’Empereur éprouvait désormais le besoin de trouver un allié puissant, la proposition du mariage entre l’Infant Carlos et Marie-Thérèse fut renouvelée, aboutissant à de nouvelles protestations françaises (formulées par le Garde des Sceaux au Comte de Rottembourg). Selon la France en effet, tout le sang versé afin de prévenir l’union de l’Espagne et de l’Autriche aurait été versé en vain.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>En conséquence de ces renversements d’alliance, un vif débat s’engagea entre la France et l’Espagne au sujet de la nullité de tous les Traités antérieurs, étant donné qu’ils avaient été violés à de multiples reprises, et qu’ils étaient incompatibles sur un trop grand nombre de points. L'intégration éventuelle de l’Espagne dans les Etats héréditaires des Habsbourg par le mariage de l’Infant Carlos et l’Archiduchesse Marie-Thérèse rendait caduques les Traités d’Utrecht, Baden et La Haye, et aurait eu pour conséquence un renversement spectaculaire de l’équilibre des pouvoirs. Les disputes entre la France, l’Espagne, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Empire étaient encore avivées par la crise de la succession polonaise, et par l’avancée de la Russie vers l’Ouest, qui faisait du Roi de Prusse, dont la puissance grandissait sans cesse, une des composantes de l’équation. Les débats aboutirent au premier pacte de famille des Bourbon, le Traité de l’Escurial du 7 novembre 1733. Dans ce texte, les deux souverains de France et d’Espagne promettaient (article 7), « d’agir de parfait concert dans tous leurs intérêts communs » et à l’article suivant, continuaient : « en conséquence Leurs Majestés ayant reconnu que la garantie du décret pragmatique autrichien, proclamé sans leur consentement et aux termes duquel l’Empereur et ses successeurs pouvaient intervenir contre la sécurité de la Maison de Bourbon ainsi que l’élection prochaine voire effective au titre de Roi des Romains d’un Duc de Lorraine qui épousera l’aînée des Archiduchesses, filles de l’Empereur régnant, et formeront des engagements contraires à la sécurité de la Maison de Bourbon et à la paix en Europe, Elles ont jugé qu’il était digne de leurs intérêts et de leur discernement d’agir ensemble en toute matière qui leur serait d’intérêt. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le dernier Farnèse Duc de Parme mourut le 21 janvier 1731, et, conformément au Traité de Vienne du 22 juillet 1731, l’Infant Charles de Borbòn y Farnese reçut l’investiture comme Duc. En décembre 1731, Charles obtint finalement la possession de Parme et Plaisance ; il s’établit dans Florence, capitale des Médicis, soutenu par des troupes espagnoles, et fut investi Grand Duc Héréditaire le 24 juin 1732. L’Espagne était également déterminée à recouvrer Naples et la Sicile, bien qu’elle eût renoncé à ces deux Royaumes par les Traités d’Utrecht en 1713, La Haye en 1720 et Vienne en 1725. Elle envahit alors l’Italie, procédant à des envois de troupe considérables, sous commandement nominal du jeune Duc de Parme. L’armée espagnole défit rapidement l’armée impériale à la bataille de Bitonto en 1734. L’Infant Charles fut proclamé Roi de Naples et de Sicile le 15 mars 1734, mais comme ce dernier était désormais à une grande distance de Florence et de Parme, les maigres garnisons espagnoles restées sur place en furent aisément chassées. L’Empereur fut néanmoins forcé de reconnaître Charles comme Roi, en vertu des termes de l’article 2 des préliminaires au Traité de Vienne entre l’Espagne et l’Empereur, du 3 octobre 1735. S’ensuivit sa Renonciation à Parme, Piacenza et à ses droits sur la Toscane (bien qu’il en gardât les titres). Le Traité de Vienne du 18 novembre 1738 confirmait que la Toscane reviendrait à François, Duc de Lorraine, alors fiancé à l’Archiduchesse Marie-Thérèse. La Lorraine et Bar-Le-Duc seraient données à l’ancien Roi de Pologne, Stanislas Lecszynski (dont la fille était mariée à Louis XV), puis reviendraient par rétrocession à la France. Ces transferts et échanges furent effectués à Versailles le 21 avril 1739 dans le cadre d’un document signé par l’Espagne, qui invalidait les Renonciations aux territoires italiens annexées aux Traités d’Utrecht et au Traité de Vienne de 1725, ainsi que par les Renonciations personnelles de Philippe V en 1720.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>L’Europe avait radicalement changé depuis 1713 : un Electeur du Saint-Empire régnait désormais sur la Grande-Bretagne, l’Espagne devenait une grande puissance et l’Empire Habsbourg était sur le déclin… De tels bouleversements incitèrent les Français à réexaminer le statut des Renonciations de 1713. Cette attitude se reflète dans un mémoire anonyme des Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, datant de 1741 et intitulé : «Des renonciations françaises à la succession : mémoire sur les effets produits par la rupture du Traité d’Utrecht relativement aux renonciations des Princes français à la Couronne d’Espagne et de Philippe V à la Couronne de France ». L’auteur de ce mémoire affirmait : « La circonstance en Europe aujourd’hui et l’agitation persistante depuis la mort de l’Empereur Charles VI donnent à penser que le Traité d’Utrecht a fait long feu (…) attendu qu’il entrait en conflit avec les lois fondamentales des deux Royaumes et en particulier avec la Loi Salique. » Plus loin, on peut lire : « les Princes français ne peuvent être taxés de “pérégrinisme“, en d’autres termes ils ne peuvent perdre leurs droits éventuels au trône à cause de leur nationalité étrangère. »_ Ce commentaire trouve un écho chez Saint-Simon, estimant que le Roi est français « dès lors qu’il devient le Roi de France, reconnu et légitime. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Comme il devenait douteux que le Prince des Asturies, futur Ferdinand VI, eût un jour une descendance, on convint qu’en cas d’avènement du nouveau Roi des Deux-Siciles au Trône d’Espagne, ses Royaumes seraient cédés à un fils cadet. Toutefois la mort de l’Empereur, le 20 octobre 1740, offrit à l’Espagne l’occasion de revenir sur ses Renonciations aux Duchés des Farnèse ; en vertu du Pacte de Famille signé entre la France et l’Espagne le 25 octobre 1743, il fut admis que l’Espagne recouvrerait ces Duchés, y jouirait d’une pleine souveraineté, et que ces possessions reviendraient à l’Infant Philippe. Les troupes espagnoles envahirent Plaisance le 5 septembre 1745 puis Parme le 16 septembre suivant, au nom de la Reine leur Duchesse. Ces bataillons furent promptement repoussées par les Autrichiens. L’accord final d’Aix-La-Chapelle, le 18 octobre 1748, octroyait les deux Duchés à l’Infant Philippe, ainsi que l’ancien Duché des Gonzague à Guastalla, en souveraineté pleine et entière. L’accord fut ratifié à Nice le 4 décembre 1748.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le second Pacte deFamille (le Traité de Fontainebleau du 25 octobre 1743, qui faisait également l’objet du mémorandum de 1741), stipulait à l’article 14 que le Roi de France, agissant dans « l’intérêt commun de la Maison de Bourbon », serait obligé de garantir les Royaumes de Naples et de la Sicile à l’Infant Charles, et de la même manière (article 6) les Duchés de Parme et de Guastalla, et leurs Etats dépendants à l’Infant Philippe. L’article 16 affirmait ensuite que les deux Souverains considéraient ce Traité comme une garantie de l’avantage commun des deux Couronnes, et plus encore de la Maison de Bourbon. Ainsi ces textes reconnaissaient que, malgré la séparation des deux Couronnes, chacune ayant ses propres responsabilités, privilèges et intérêts, il y avait bien une Maison commune, dont les intérêts étaient supérieurs à ceux de chacune des deux branches prise individuellement_. Le troisième Pacte Familial, daté du 15 août 1761 (jour de la Saint Louis), obligea l’Espagne à se ranger aux côtés de la France lors de la Guerre de Sept Ans, et aboutit à une cuisante défaite ; la Grande-Bretagne s’empara de La Havane, que l’Espagne ne put recouvrer qu’en échange de la Floride (la France donna néanmoins la Louisiane à l’Espagne). Le Roi d’Espagne, Charles III (qui sous le nom d’Infant Charles avait d’abord été Duc de Parme, puis Roi des Deux-Siciles) prit les mêmes mesures en faveur de son second fils Ferdinand IV et III de Naples et de Sicile ; ce dernier se trouvait redevable des mêmes obligations et de la même protection, tout comme son frère Philippe, Duc de Parme.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le troisième Pacte s’ouvrait sur une reconnaissance des « liens de sang qui unissent les monarques régnant sur la France et l’Espagne » les amenant à «conclure entre elles un traité d’amitié et d’union, sous le nom de Pacte de famille, et dont le principal dessein est de rendre permanents et indissolubles, à la fois pour les deux Majestés et leurs descendants et successeurs, les devoirs qui procèdent naturellement de leur parenté et de leur amitié. L’intention de Sa Majesté Très-Chrétienne et de Sa Majesté Catholique en contractant les engagements qu’Elles prennent dans ce Traité est de perpétuer pour la postérité les sentiments de Louis XIV, de glorieuse mémoire, leur auguste aïeul commun, et de maintenir à jamais un monument solennel à l’intérêt réciproque qui sera au fondement de leurs vœux sincères pour la prospérité de leurs royales familles. » L’article 20 poursuivait sur ce thème, affirmant que les deux Rois maintiendraient en tout point « la dignité et les droits de leur Maison, dont tous les Princes ayant l’honneur de provenir du même sang peuvent être assurés en toute occasion de la protection, de l’assurance et de l’assistance, qui est celle des trois Couronnes. » À l’article 21 : « le présent Traité doit être considéré, comme il a été également énoncé au préambule, comme un Pacte Familial entre les branches de l’Auguste Maison de Bourbon, auquel aucune puissance n’appartenant pas à cette Maison ne saurait être invitée ou admise à participer. » La version préparatoire du Traité, également reprise dans les Mémoires politiques du Duc de Choiseul, qui en tant que Premier Ministre de la France avait négocié le pacte, emploie le terme de « Maison de France », plutôt que de Maison de Bourbon, qui fut la dénomination retenue dans la version ratifiée en Espagne (le texte de la ratification française disparut sous la Révolution)_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>En outre, les deux Maisons conclurent plusieurs accords. Le plus important de ceux-ci est la Convention d’Aranjuez du 15 juillet 1760, concernant l’admission des Princes du Sang français à l’ordre de la Toison d’Or, et l’admission des Infants d’Espagne aux Ordres du Roi (Ordres du Saint-Esprit et de Saint-Michel). Ce document désigne les Princes français comme « Princes du Sang de France » et les Infants d’Espagne comme « Princes du Sang d’Espagne » —titre en usage en France, mais inconnu en Espagne. L’égalité de rang concédée aux régnants des deux branches (ainsi qu’aux lignées cadettes des Deux-Siciles et de Parme), et qui ne fut jamais accordée aux représentants de dynasties étrangères, ainsi que la multiplication des allusions aux différentes lignées comme membres d’une même Maison, sont particulièrement significatives. Si, fait rarissime, l’attribution de tels privilèges à une Maison supposée étrangère et séparée ne permet pas d’établir les droits de la branche espagnole sur le Trône de France, un tel procédé n’en demeurait pas moins unique.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Sous l’Ancien Régime, la validité des Renonciations ne fut pas débattue en public. A la Révolution cependant, l’Assemblée Nationale se pencha sur cette question lors d’une session de trois jours qui s’ouvrit le 15 septembre 1789. Au terme de longs débats, l’Assemblée vota un texte définitif sur la succession à la Couronne. Celui-ci stipulait : «La couronne se transmet de manière héréditaire de mâle en mâle, par ordre de primogéniture, à l’exclusion absolue des femmes et de leurs descendants, sans préjugé de l’effet des Renonciations. »_. L’Ambassadeur d’Espagne, le Comte de Fernan Nuñez écrivit au Premier Ministre Espagnol, le Comte de Floridablanca, le même jour : « le Clergé à l’unanimité et la majorité de la Noblesse ainsi que du Tiers Etat se sont prononcés en faveur de la résolution favorable à la Maison d’Espagne (…) Par 698 voix contre 265, la majorité a conclu la question dans un sens à nouveau très avantageux pour nous, ce qui n’était pas le cas auparavant, car ce vote expose désormais au pays tout entier une renonciation douteuse et sujette à révision, autrefois considérée comme complète et irrévocable. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Deux ans plus tard, l’Assemblée Nationale acheva la rédaction d’une Constitution écrite, entérinée par le Roi, et qui eut cours pendant la dernière année de la monarchie. Pour la première fois, il devenait nécessaire de définir formellement et en conformité avec la Constitution, les règles de succession ainsi que les titres, privilèges et prérogatives de la Couronne. Le Moniteur Universel reproduisit les débats portant sur la clause de succession de la Constitution. L’intégralité de ces textes du Moniteur fut réimprimée en 1847. Grâce à ces débats sur la succession, l’approche contemporaine de ses règles fut clairement énoncée. Voilà qui dément les affirmations de certains Orléanistes, selon laquelle les revendications de la branche espagnole auraient été une invention récente, destinée à satisfaire les ambitions de Princes privés d’autres prérogatives. Aussi est-il patent que la question des droits de la branche espagnole sur la Couronne de France était un enjeu Constitutionnel majeur.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Lorsque la question des droits de la branche espagnole fut posée, l’Assemblée vota un amendement à l’article portant sur la succession, dans le dessein implicite de garantir ses droits. Cette intention se donne manifestement à voir dans la clause suivante, extraite de l’article I, Chapitre II, Titre III : « La Royauté est indivisible, et déléguée héréditairement à la race régnante de mâle en mâle, par ordre de primogéniture, à l’exclusion perpétuelle des femmes et de leur descendance. (Rien n’est préjugé sur l’effet des Renonciations dans la race actuellement régnante)_ ».<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Madame Elizabeth (sœur du Roi), dans une lettre à la Marquise de Bombelles, datée du 15 septembre 1792, écrivait que des députés de l’Assemblée Nationale avaient voulu exclure la branche espagnole, et que les séances avaient été si houleuses, que deux journées avaient été perdues. Louis-Philippe lui-même évoqua ce point dans les Mémoires qu’il avait fait publier en 1803 (douze ans avant la restauration) : « Ce n’est pas seulement comme Français que je prends un vif intérêt à cette question, c’est aussi comme père. Dans le cas, en effet (ce qui n’arrivera jamais de mon temps) où nous aurions le malheur de perdre M. le duc de Bordeaux sans qu’il laissât d’enfant, la Couronne reviendra à mon fils aîné, pourvu que la loi salique soit maintenue en Espagne ; car, si elle ne l’était pas, la Renonciation de Philippe V au Trône de France, en son nom et au nom de ses descendants mâles, serait frappée de nullité, puisque ce n’est qu’en acte de cette Renonciation que les descendants de ce Prince ont acquis un droit incontestable à la Couronne d’Espagne ; mais si ce droit leur est enlevé, ils peuvent réclamer celui que leur donne la loi salique française à l’héritage de Louis XIV. Or, comme petits-fils de Louis XIV, ils passent avant mes enfants. »_ Il est à noter qu’alors qu’aux yeux de Madame Elizabeth le débat ressortissait à une tentative avortée de priver la branche espagnole de ses droits ; pour le Duc d’Orléans, il s’agissait en revanche d’une spoliation de ses descendants. Les deux interprétations ne laissent aucun doute que l’enjeu des Renonciations, leur nature contraignante ainsi que la détermination des droits de la branche d’Espagne, étaient de la plus haute importance.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>L’Assemblée Nationale était une émanation des anciens Etats Généraux, constitués désormais en corps législatif à part entière, chargé de définir la Constitution de la Nation. Cette Assemblée avait été élue, d’abord aux fins d’engager les réformes fiscales qui étaient devenues nécessaires ; mais un grand nombre de ses membres souhaitaient ardemment modifier les institutions de la France. Des voix discordantes s’élevaient entre les députés, dont six-cent provenaient du Tiers Etat, et une moindre proportion du clergé et de la noblesse. D’où l’absence de propositions cohérentes avant les élections. En revanche, des centaines de cahiers de doléances convergeaient vers les Etats, les collectivités locales, voire de simples associations d’électeurs. Il est certain que le mandat donné à l’Assemblée Nationale ne s’étendait pas à une révision des lois fondamentales, laquelle demeurait hors de son domaine de compétence. Les réformes qui en émanèrent furent imposées au Roi, n’ayant alors pas d’autre choix que de capituler. Les partisans de la Révolution et de ses fins n’écoutèrent pas les protestations royales, et cautionnèrent la légitimité des agissements de l’Assemblée Nationale, ambitionnant de remplacer une Monarchie vieille de plusieurs siècles par une autre, inféodée au pouvoir de la nouvelle Assemblée. Louis XV lui-même, en son édit de 1717, affirmait que le destin de la Couronne (en cas d’extinction de la Maison Royale), était aux mains du peuple, « Mais si la Nation françoise éprouvoit jamais ce malheur, ce seroit à la Nation mesme qu’il appartiens droit de le réparer par la sagesse de son choix ; et puisque les Loix fondamentales de notre Royaume Nous mettent dans une heureuse impuissance d’aliéner le Domaine de Nostre Couronne (voir Note 23). En ce cas précis, les Députés prirent su eux d’engager des changements sans en référer au peuple, entre autres parce qu’à ce moment inédit dans l’histoire, la notion de suffrage universel n’en était qu’à ses premiers balbutiements. L’un des modèles de cette monarchie nouvelle avait été la Grande-Bretagne, mais les institutions Constitutionnelles britanniques, ainsi que les droits et privilèges, étaient le résultat de siècles d’évolution. C’est pourquoi, si l’Assemblée Nationale pouvait légitimement définir et compiler les lois fondamentales, elle n’était pas fondée à les changer.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Néanmoins, la Constitution engagea bien un bouleversement de l’équilibre ancien entre la Couronne et le peuple, puisque la Monarchie était forcée d’accepter des limitations considérables de son pouvoir, ses décisions devant désormais être ratifiées par un vote populaire. Le 12 octobre 1789, Louis XVI écrivait au Roi Charles IV : « Je me dois à moi même, je dois à mes enfants, je dois à ma famille et à toute ma Maison de ne pas souffrir la dégradation du pouvoir qui est parvenu entre mes mains, la dignité royale qui a été confiée à ma dynastie au cours des siècles (…) J’ai choisi de remettre entre les mains de V.M., en tant que chef de la branche puînée, la protestation solennelle que j’ai formulée contre tous ces actes contraires à l’autorité royale (…) » _<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La circonstance de la fuite et du retour du Roi le 20 juin 1791 avait soulevé la question d’une possible Régence ; on s’interrogeait également sur la nature de la Monarchie, dont l’existence même était à présent en danger. Nicolas Ruault écrivait dans son journal, le 22 juin, « Le trône est vacant depuis hier matin. Quelle opportunité pour le Duc d’Orléans, s’il était aimé et estimé ! On ne pourrait croire qu’il pourrait combler le vide laissé par Louis XVI. Il en est indigne. Son fils aîné pourrait être le bon»_. Le Duc d’Orléans craignait de paraître trop ouvertement ambitieux, et se déclara prêt à servir sa patrie, « sur terre, sur mer, dans la carrière diplomatique, en un mot dans tous les postes qui n'exigeront que du zèle et un dévouement sans bornes au bien public ; mais que s'il est question de régence, je renonce dans ce moment et pour toujours au droit que la constitution m'y donne (…)il ne m'est plus permis de sortir de la classe du simple citoyen où je me suis placé qu'avec la ferme intention d'y rester toujours, et que l'ambition serait en moi une inconséquence inexcusable ! » Ce texte était signé L. P. d’Orléans, et daté du 26 juin 1791_. D’après Castillon, op. cit., cette lettre fut dictée mot par mot au Duc par le gouvernement. Le Duc d’Orléans s’efforçait par ailleurs de garder de bonnes relations avec les Jacobins, qui ne lui avaient jamais fait confiance, tandis que ses agents s’employaient activement à pousser ses propres intérêts, afin de le voir accéder au pouvoir. Il avait alors bien compris que la Monarchie était condamnée, et ses ambitions ne sauraient se satisfaire d’une Régence bancale.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A l’Assemblée Nationale, le 25 août, le débat fit rage de savoir si le Roi devait se retirer pour céder sa place à une Régence, et si le Régent devait appartenir à la famille royale. Un aspect secondaire du débat portait sur les titres des membres de la famille royale à qui Robespierre et les Jacobins refusaient de donner les titres de Prince. Le député Lanjuinais formulait l’enjeu de manière plus directe : la vraie question était pour lui de savoir s’il fallait ou non maintenir le statut de la noblesse. Il était tout aussi important de déterminer si les membres de la famille royale pouvaient siéger au corps législatif, en violation manifeste de la séparation des pouvoirs (les membres de la famille royale appartenaient en principe à l’exécutif). Cet argument finit par l’emporter. Le girondin Goupil, ancien membre du Tiers Etat, ouvrit la deuxième session par un long discours sur les responsabilités publiques, et les devoirs des membres de la famille royale : « Quelle est la véritable vocation des membres de la famille royale ? ils ne peuvent abandonner la cause du pouvoir qui est le leur pour siéger parmi les membres du corps législatif. Ils sont faits pour être les défenseurs, les auxiliaires et les conseillers du pouvoir exécutif (…). Un profond auteur anglais a dit que lorsqu’une nation libre s’est donné une monarchie héréditaire, la famille royale ne se consacre jamais qu’à la seule indépendance de la Maison. Et l’on croit que cette obligation peut être abolie par une déclaration que je me refuse à qualifier de renonciation ! Eh bien, que l’on comprenne que cette renonciation ne peut pas être faite, parce que l’on ne saurait, en droit public, renoncer à un droit qui n’est pas ouvert. Toute renonciation de la sorte, quand bein même elle ne serait pas impossible, serait immorale. ».<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Duc d’Orléans, qui se fit bientôt appeler Philippe-Egalité, s’opposa farouchement à cette mesure, car il espérait obtenir une fonction élective élevée dans le nouvel Etat Constitutionnel ; il offrit donc de « faire la déposition de _sa_ renonciation solennelle à _ses_ droits comme membre de la dynastie régnante » si la clause initiale, définissant les droits des membres de la famille royale n’était pas rejetée. Lorsqu’un autre député, Dupont, remarqua que la Constitution avait mis en doute la validité de telles renonciations, Philippe-Egalité répondit : « une renonciation personnelle est toujours bonne», laissant par là entendre qu’il estimait qu’une Renonciation s’étendant à la descendance n’était pas recevable_. Un vote décida finalement de la capacité des membres de la famille royale à se faire élire ou désigner par le peuple à une quelconque fonction ou emploi. Par 267 voix contre 180, il fut arrêté qu’ils n’étaient pas éligibles_. La version finale de la section III, article 5 de la nouvelle Constitution stipulait que « Les membres de la famille royale jouiront des droits de citoyen actif. Les membres de la famille royale ne seront point éligibles aux places et emplois qui sont à la nomination du peuple. »<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Duc d’Orléans réaffirma son désir de ne plus être considéré comme membre de la famille royale, écrivant le 9 décembre 1792, « que dans le cas où Louis XVI ne serait plus, je suis placé derrière le rideau pour mettre mon fils, ou moi, à la tête de gouvernment ….. je declare que je déposerai sur le bureau ma renonciation formelle aux droits de membre de la dynastie régnante, pour m’en tenir à ceux de citoyen français. Mes enfans sont prêts à signer de leur sang qu’ils sont dans les mêmes sentiments que moi. Signé L.P.J. Egalité._ » La Monarchie avait alors été remplacée par la République, et Philippe-Egalité craignait en réalité que sa naissance le disqualifiât. Ses déclarations furent publiées par le Moniteur Universel, le 11 décembre 1792 ; le texte se présentait comme une lettre de L.P.J. Egalité à ses concitoyens. Par une manœuvre particulièrement insultante pour sa mère et ses frères et sœurs, Philippe-Egalité fit distribuer dans les Clubs une généalogie fantaisiste, où il affirmait lui-même être « le fils d’un cocher ; que par conséquent on devait le regarder comme un vrai sans-culotte ».<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Si un Prince pouvait légalement renoncer à ses droits de succession à la Couronne, les démarches de Philippe-Egalité auraient pu être recevables, à défaut d’engager ses descendants qui, nonobstant les déclarations provocatrices de sa seconde Renonciation, n’avaient rien signé de leur sang. Ces provocations offrent un aperçu de l’opportunisme flagrant de Philippe-Egalité—qui n’hésita pas, cinq semaines après sa seconde Renonciation, à voter en faveur de l’exécution du Roi son cousin. Elles ne modifiaient toutefois en rien les droits de la lignée Orléans, puisque nulle Renonciation ne saurait engager des héritiers à naître, selon la loi dynastique française.<br />
<br />
************<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Le Traité d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712, et la succession à la tête de la Maison royale de France.<br />
<br />
L’abolition de la loi semi-salique en Espagne et ses conséquences<br />
Guy Stair Sainty<br />
(Trans. Arnaud Odier)<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>En 1808, Charles IV avait abdiqué en faveur de Ferdinand VII qui avait par la suite été emprisonné par Napoléon. Après la défaite des armées françaises face à Wellington dans la Péninsule, Napoléon consentit, par le Traité de Valençay du 11 décembre 1813, au retour de Ferdinand en Espagne. Napoléon n’étant en rien progressiste, il estimait qu’une restauration pouvait être le moyen nécessaire de contrecarrer les aspirations républicaines naissantes en Espagne, et qui risquaient de se propager en France. La Constitution du 22 septembre 1812 avait été proclamée au terme d’une session extraordinaire des Cortes, et n’avait pas de valeur légale aux yeux de Ferdinand : les Cortes avaient exclu un certain nombre de membres y siégeant de droit ; ni Ferdinand ni le Conseil de la Régence n’avaient été consultés, et ils n’avaient pas donné leur accord aux mesures qui avaient été prises. Pendant ce temps, l’empire américain du Royaume d’Espagne se désintégrait, les colonies d’outre-mer ayant refusé de reconnaître l’autorité du régime bonapartiste. Le Mexique avait acquis son indépendance en 1811, suivi de l’Argentine, du Chili et du Venezuela, puis de la Nouvelle-Grenade (Colombie actuelle) et du Pérou, qui obtinrent leur indépendance au cours de la décennie suivante.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Après la Restauration, le camp progressiste se divisait entre sympathisants des mouvements d’indépendance américains, et partisans d’un renforcement de la puissance de l’Empire espagnol, dans le cadre d’une monarchie Constitutionnelle. Par le Décret de Valence du 4 mai 1814, Ferdinand, après avoir réaffirmé sa haine de l’absolutisme, abolit la Constitution et dissout les Cortes ; il fit archiver les documents et les minutes, et élargir tous ceux qui avaient été emprisonnés sur ordre des Cortes pour leur opposition à la Constitution. Le Roi était déterminé à empêcher l’effondrement de son Empire, et peu disposé à accepter une Constitution qu’il n’avait pas contribué à élaborer. Ses armées se montrèrent cependant incapables de contrer efficacement les rebelles américains, soutenus à la fois par la Grande-Bretagne et les Etats-Unis, soucieux d’assurer leur emprise sur la région. La défaite américaine porta un coup considérable au régime, et alimenta les dissensions intérieures.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les germes de la rébellion avaient été semés dès les premières heures des Cortes de la pré-Restauration, et le 1er avril 1820, l’armée se déclara en faveur d’un retour à la Constitution de 1812. Ferdinand était plutôt enclin à un régime autocratique, tempéré par des réformes occasionnelles ; il consentit toutefois à reconnaître la Constitution, malgré les limites rigoureuses qu’elle imposait au pouvoir de la Couronne. Un conseil de gouvernement provisoire fut institué, présidé par l’oncle du Roi, Luis de Borbòn, Cardinal Archevêque de Tolède. Cependant, Ferdinand ne se ralliait qu’avec réticence au progressisme, et les divisions entre partisans de la réforme et nostalgiques de l’ancienne monarchie s’accentuèrent. En 1822, le ministère du Cardinal de Borbòn fut remplacé par un gouvernement plus radical ; il signa une paix humiliante avec Simon Bolivar dont ce dernier s’empressa de violer les termes, ce qui conduisit à une défaite désastreuse pour l’Espagne. Les Cortes d’avant la Restauration avaient aboli l’Inquisition en 1813, et bien que cette abolition fût entérinée, le nouveau gouvernement prit des mesures encore plus drastiques en vue d’affaiblir l’influence de l’Eglise. Ces agissements conduisirent à une tentative, du côté de la Couronne, de réaffirmer son pouvoir. La lutte s’intensifia et une guerre ouverte éclata dans les rues des villes principales, entraînant la marginalisation de Ferdinand. Le gouvernement continua cependant d’agir en son nom.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Les puissances européennes, emmenées par l’Autriche et la France, tinrent en 1822 un nouveau congrès à Vérone, avec le soutien de la Russie et de la Prusse. Ce congrès résolut d’agir pour « rendre la Péninsule à son Etat antérieur à la Révolution de Cadix (de 1820) » et la France fut chargée de la responsabilité de restaurer le gouvernement royal. La Grande-Bretagne objecta fortement, alléguant son soutien aux Constitutionnalistes ; ses motivations tenaient en réalité aux avantages commerciaux qu’elle espérait obtenir de la chute de l’Empire et de son soutien à un gouvernement Constitutionnaliste isolé. Un détachement français, placé sous le commandement du Duc d’Angoulême (futur Dauphin, puis Louis XIX s’il avait régné), envahit l’Espagne; les armées rebelles espagnoles furent défaites et Ferdinand recouvra son Trône. Ferdinand, désormais Roi par la grâce des baïonnettes françaises, abolit rapidement la Constitution et toutes ses lois par un décret en date du 23 octobre 1823. Bien que les Cortes eussent certainement abusé de leur pouvoir, l’intransigeance de Ferdinand, entouré de conseillers médiocres et cupides, lui aliéna le soutien de ceux qui, par ailleurs, désapprouvaient les points les plus jusqu’auboutistes de la Constitution.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ferdinand s’était marié quatre fois. Ses trois premières épouses étaient mortes sans lui laisser de descendance ; le 11 décembre 1829, il épousa la Princesse Marie-Christine, 23 ans, fille du Roi François Ier des Deux-Siciles. Les radicaux désespéraient d’obtenir la moindre réforme, l’héritier présomptif du Roi étant son frère cadet, l’Infant Don Carlos, dont le goût pour l’autocratie et l’hostilité à la Constitution étaient plus extrêmes encore. Ferdinand, quant à lui, avait dû satisfaire certaines des revendications de l’opposition : lorsque la nouvelle de la grossesse de la Reine fut révélée en mars 1830, les réformistes comprirent qu’ils tenaient leur chance. Prenant avantage de la brouille entre les deux frères, ils proposèrent, avec le soutien de la Reine, que le Roi promulgue à nouveau un décret de Charles IV qui n’avait jamais été publié : ce texte remplaçait le système semi-salique établi sous Philippe V par l’ancien système de succession mixte prévalant avant l’avènement des Bourbons. Le Roi édicta alors la Sanction Pragmatique du 29 mars 1830, ratifiant le décret de 1789 (voir plus haut)_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le retour à l’ancien système de succession dynastique avait fait l’objet d’une première tentative, dans le cadre d’un projet de loi élaboré par les Cortes d’avant la Restauration, le 16 octobre 1811, projet de loi qui fut inclus dans le texte définitif de la Constitution de 1812. L’article 180 déclarait que dans le cas de la disparition de Don Ferdinand VII de Borbòn, ses héritiers mâles et femelles accéderaient à la Couronne. Dans le cas de leur disparition, le trône reviendrait à ses frères et sœurs ou ses oncles et tantes, frères et sœurs de son père, et leurs descendants légitimes, selon le principe de la préférence accordée à la branche la plus proche. Cette modification de la succession, qui ne s’appuyait pas sur l’application du décret de Charles IV de 1789, fut décidée sans consultation préalable du Roi ; le Décret de Valence de 1814 l’invalida. Ce projet de modification avait également provoqué la colère du Roi des Deux-Siciles, qui était alors en troisième position dans l’ordre de la succession au Trône d’Espagne : il émit des protestations véhémentes contre le projet de modification le 18 mars 1812. L’avis général était que les Cortes n’avaient pas le pouvoir d’invalider unilatéralement l’application solennelle du Décret Pragmatique de 1713_. En 1820, lors du débat sur la remise en application de la Constitution de 1812, ce problème ne fut pas évoqué et la clause de succession fut considérée comme caduque.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La promulgation de la sanction pragmatique de 1830 entraîna des réactions immédiates, la grossesse de la Reine étant désormais officielle. Le Prince Jules de Polignac, Ministre français des Affaires Etrangères, doutait de la validité de la nouvelle loi. Il écrivit ainsi à l’Ambassadeur de France, le Vicomte de Saint-Priest, le 28 avril 1830, que d’après lui l’omission du décret de 1789 de Charles IV et l’inclusion de celui de 1713 étaient « la preuve de l’abandon d’une loi qu’il avait lui-même _Charles IV_ présentée aux Cortes, et à laquelle il n’avait pas donné depuis de sanction légale ». Saint-Priest, dans sa réponse à Polignac datée du 17 mai 1830, déclarait qu’on soupçonnait communément le premier Décret Pragmatique de 1789 de n’être qu’un faux (il n’existe qu’en copies, l’original ayant disparu) ; toute cette agitation n’était que manœuvres de la part des réformistes, dans le but d’empêcher l’avènement de Don Carlos_. Les Deux-Siciles émirent la première protestation par une dépêche du Prince de Cassaro, Ambassadeur de Naples à Madrid, adressée au Secrétaire d’Etat espagnol le 29 mars 1830. L’Ambassadeur évoquait tout le sang versé pour assurer la succession aux descendants de Philippe V par la branche mâle, et rappelait que les Puissances, dans les préliminaires du Traité d’Utrecht, étaient convenues de changer le système de succession aux fins d’éviter une nouvelle et désastreuse Guerre de Succession d’Espagne_. En tout état de cause, la modification de la loi avait été rattachée en document annexe au volet anglo-espagnol du Traité d’Utrecht.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Roi des Deux-Siciles était directement concerné par ce décret, puisqu’en 1830, en vertu de la loi semi-salique, il était neuvième dans l’ordre de succession au Trône d’Espagne (puis huitième, à compter du 22 octobre 1830) ; il se retrouvait soudain rétrogradé, venant désormais après la nombreuse descendance des filles de Charles IV. Ses enfants tenaient un droit à la succession de leur mère, l’Infante Isabelle ; mais après la naissance de la seconde fille de Ferdinand VII, le Duc de Calabre (bientôt Ferdinand II) se retrouvait en vingt-huitième position, selon les termes d’une succession mixte. Cette situation donna lieu à une série d’échanges entre Naples et Madrid. Dans une lettre de protestation adressée personnellement au Roi Ferdinand et datée du 10 septembre 1830 (un mois exactement avant la naissance de la future Isabelle II, dont le sexe était évidemment encore indéterminé), le Roi arguait que les droits de ses descendants, conférés par la loi de Philippe V, avaient été annulés_. Quatre jours plus tard, le Chargé d’Affaires de Naples à Madrid remit au Secrétariat d’Etat espagnol une protestation encore plus longue, et qui commençait par un rappel : Philippe V avait renoncé au Trône de France dans le dessein de conserver le Trône d’Espagne à sa descendance. Il poursuivait en déclarant que la décision de révoquer cette loi priverait par voie de conséquence ses descendants des droits qui avaient été garantis en compensation de cette concession et que Philippe V avait souhaité montrer au monde entier que « la dite loi de succession par la branche mâle au Trône d’Espagne…bien que non incluse dans les articles du Traité d’Utrecht, serait néanmoins considérée comme inhérente à la Renonciation, et serait partie intégrante des obligations alors contractées ». Il achevait par la ferme déclaration que son maître, le Roi, se réservait ses droits pour lui et pour sa descendance, refusant par là de reconnaître cette modification de la loi_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La naissance d’une fille attisa la controverse et, bien qu’à cette date Charles X eût été déposé et le Duc d’Orléans proclamé Roi des Français, la subordination réciproque des Renonciations aux différents arrêts qui leur étaient liés, restait en vigueur. Ferdinand restait ferme dans sa décision de changer la succession : le 13 octobre 1830, Isabelle fut déclarée Princesse des Asturies. François Ier des Deux-Siciles mourut le 8 novembre 1830 et son jeune fils et héritier, François II, fut immédiatement plongé au cœur de la crise. Les relations diplomatiques entre l’Espagne et les Deux-Siciles se dégradèrent, avec un rappel des Ambassadeurs et des protestations conjointes émises par le Duc de Lucques et le Roi de Sardaigne (dont les droits sur la succession d’Espagne, bien que minces, avaient cependant été confirmés par la loi de 1713). Le 30 juin 1832, la Reine donna naissance à un second enfant, l’Infante Luisa Fernanda, et le 4 avril, l’Infante Isabelle fut présentée aux Cortes comme l’héritière du Trône. François II des Deux-Siciles résolut alors d’énoncer une protestation solennelle et publique, en date du 18 mai 1833, qu’il fit publier et distribuer aux cours d’Europe. Ce document rappelait une fois de plus que la Renonciation de Philippe V et sa ratification du volet anglo-espagnol du Traité d’Utrecht étaient subordonnées à l’assurance que le Trône d’Espagne reviendrait à ses descendants mâles. Le Roi poursuivait en déclarant que le nouvel « ordre de succession, organisé avec l’accord et la garantie des puissances européennes et reconnu non seulement par la nation espagnole, mais encore prescrit par de nombreux autres Traités entre les dites puissances, était devenu, pour toutes ces raisons, obligatoire et intangible, et avait établi ces droits pour toute la descendance mâle de Philippe V le fondateur, pour toujours… Nous avons également la certitude, dans le même temps, que dès lors que cette loi avait été adoptée, il n’est au pouvoir de quiconque, selon les principes de la loi universelle, d’y apporter une innovation ou une modification pour quelque raison ou prétexte que ce soit ». Le Roi de Naples achevait sa protestation par une affirmation et une revendication de tous ses droits et de ceux de ses descendants, prononcées, selon ses termes « devant les Souverains légitimes de toutes les Nations »_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Ferdinand VII s’inquiétait alors beaucoup des désordres entraînés par sa décision. Tombé gravement malade, il résolut de révoquer son décret : par un arrêt du 18 septembre 1832, il rétablit la loi de 1713. Cette décision apaisa les cours étrangères et les partisans d’un retour à l’absolutisme via l’avènement de l’Infant Carlos, mais irritait la Reine et ses sympathisants—cette dernière en effet aurait été nommée régente en cas de décès de son mari. Lorsque le Roi se rétablit, elle le persuada de proclamer à nouveau sa Sanction Pragmatique , ce qu’il fit par décret royal le 31 décembre 1832. Quelques jours plus tard, le Roi tomba à nouveau gravement malade et la Reine fut nommée Reina Gubernadora (Régente) par le décret royal du 4 janvier 1833 : en pratique la Reine était co-souveraine jusqu’à la mort de son mari le 29 septembre 1833. Leur fille fut immédiatement proclamée Reine sous le nom d’Isabelle II, sous la Régence de sa mère (laquelle dissimula, avec la complicité du gouvernement progressiste, le mariage secret qu’elle avait contracté le 28 décembre 1833 avec Fernando Muñoz). Isabelle fut immédiatement reconnue Reine par la France et la Grande-Bretagne, mais les Deux-Siciles ne la reconnurent qu’en 1844, le Pape en 1848, et l’Autriche, la Russie et la Prusse en 1856 seulement. La Reine-Mère fut contrainte de renoncer à la Régence le 12 octobre 1840 et remplacée par un ministre progressiste, le Général Esparto—puis Isabelle II fut déclarée majeure par anticipation, à l’âge de treize ans, le 10 novembre 1843.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Mais l’amendement avait causé une irritation toute aussi grande du côté français. Saint-Priest, Ambassadeur de France à Madrid, adressa une première communication officielle au Secrétaire d’Etat espagnol, Gonzalez Salmòn, le 29 mars 1830. Il y indiquait clairement que la loi semi-salique avait assuré le prestige et la puissance des « trois branches de l’Auguste Maison de Bourbon », et qu’elle avait été promulguée aux fins « d’assurer à l’Auguste Maison de Bourbon la possession d’un Trône acheté par tant de sacrifices »_. Polignac, dans ses instructions à Saint-Priest, écrivait le 28 avril : « En la qualité de Roi de France, le Roi ne se croit pas appelé à prononcer sur la validité d’une loi espagnole, mais comme Chef de la Maison, il peut intervenir dans tout ce qui en lèse les intérêts et il doit sa protection à tous les membres qui la composent. Vingt Princes du Sang de Louis XIV se trouvent par la loi de Ferdinand VII privés des droits qu’ils tenaient de leur naissance ; et dix d’entre eux placés hier sur les premiers degrés du Trône sont menacés de se voir confondre dans la foule des simples gentilshommes espagnols. La question est trop grave pour que Sa Majesté n’y donne pas une sérieuse attention (…). Elle est décidée à soutenir les droits qui se pourraient trouver lésés avec toute la fermeté de son caractère et le sentiment de dignité qu’il appartient au Chef des Bourbons de porter dans les questions où il s’agit de l’intérêt et de l’honneur de Sa Maison (…). »_ L’Ambassadeur d’Espagne à Paris, le Comte d’Ofalia, dans une lettre datée du 24 avril 1830, rapporta au Secrétaire des Affaires Etrangères espagnol la substance d’une conversation qu’il avait eue quelques jours plus tôt avec Polignac : « Polignac m’a affirmé que la Pragmatique était en contradiction avec les Renonciations faites par Philippe V pour lui-même et pour ses descendants à la succession au Trône de France, (…) si le Duc de Bordeaux venait à disparaître, les Renonciations de Philippe V n’aurait d’autre validité que celle qu’elles pourraient recevoir de la force ou des circonstances… »_. Ces textes reflètent la position française de l’époque sur la situation dynastique de la branche espagnole. Le Roi de France considérait qu’il était fondé à intervenir, en vertu de ce qu’il était Chef de la Maison, et avait le devoir de protéger les intérêts des Princes du Sang (statut propre à la France), frappés par la nouvelle loi espagnole.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Saint-Priest répondit à Polignac, le 1er juin 1830, qu’il avait tenté de convaincre les Espagnols d’introduire une clause interdisant tout mariage amenant la Couronne à passer hors de la Maison de Bourbon, mais que sa requête avait échoué_. On se proposa de formuler une protestation conjointe avec le Royaume des Deux-Siciles, et une lettre fut rédigée en français, dans l’intention de l’envoyer au Roi des Deux-Siciles, le 28 juin 1830—cette missive ne fut ni signée ni envoyée, en raison de la Révolution de Juillet. On pouvait y lire : « La Pragmatique publiée dernièrement à Madrid sur la succession au Trône d’Espagne n’est pas un acte dont le Gouvernement français se borne à déplorer les dangers, sans essayer de les prévenir ; ces dangers ne touchent pas seulement l’Espagne : la puissance de la Maison de Bourbon, la tranquillité de l’Europe sont également menacées par la disposition qui, en appelant les femmes au Trône des Castilles, de préférence aux mâles plus éloignés, peut avoir pour résultat de transférer tôt ou tard le Royaume à une autre dynastie(…) »_. Il fut également décidé que le Roi enverrait une protestation personnelle au Roi espagnol, et dans une note (d’une main inconnue) portée en exergue du texte de cette lettre, on peut lire : « Le projet ci-joint, d’une lettre du Roi Charles X à Ferdinand VII, n’a jamais eu de suite. Il avait été résolu que les chefs des deux branches de la Maison de Bourbon, de France et de Naples, adresseraient—simultanément—des représentations au Roi d’Espagne au sujet de la remise en vigueur de la Pragmatique de Charles IV. Le Cabinet Napolitain avait demandé à celui des Tuileries un projet de lettre, qui fut rédigé en même temps que le projet ci-joint, et envoyé à Naples après le voyage du Roi des Deux-Siciles à Paris, par conséquent, dans les derniers_ jours de la Restauration—mais les événements de juillet survinrent, qui modifièrent la politique de la France, ci-aucun de ces deux projets de lettre ne reçut d’instruction. »<br />
<br />
La lettre commence ainsi : « Monsieur Mon Frère, Je croirais manquer à mes devoirs comme Roi, comme Parent de V.M., comme chef d’un Gouvernement uni à l’Espagne, par les liens d’une étRoite alliance, si j’hésitais plus longtemps à vous entretenir d’une question qui intéresse, à la fois, l’avenir de l’Espagne, la tranquillité générale de l’Europe et la grandeur de la Maison de Bourbon. _Ici, une note en marge : « Charles X, ayant une bonne opinion de ce projet (…) substitue l’expression Maison de France à celle de Maison de Bourbon. »_ »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>L’Ambassadeur d’Espagne auprès du Royaume de Sardaigne (qui conservait lui-même des droits sur la Couronne espagnole en vertu du Traité d’Utrecht), en commentaire aux conséquences de la révocation de la loi semi-salique, écrivait le 16 février 1833 (deux ans et demi après l’avènement de la monarchie orléaniste) : « avec l’abolition de la loi salique en Espagne, attendu que Philippe V avait renoncé à ses droits et à ses ceux de ses successeurs sur la Couronne de France à la condition que ses descendants lui succéderaient de mâle en mâle à la Couronne d’Espagne, et attendu que cette condition fait à présent défaut, ses successeurs recouvrent leur droit sur la Couronne de Saint Louis, puisque l’Infant Carlos a aussi préséance sur la Maison d’Orléans. Deux adversaires s’opposent à présent aux Orléans : le Duc de Bordeaux et l’Infant Don Carlos. »_. L’Ambassadeur et légat espagnol, le Marquis de Miraflores, qui passa quelques mois à faire le va-et-vient entre Paris et Madrid, en 1845 et1846, avait la mission délicate d’à la fois conseiller son gouvernement et faire des recommandations à Louis-Philippe. Il interpréta plus tard la validité du Traité d’Utrecht, estimant que bien que le Traité lui-même soit devenu caduque du fait de Traités ultérieurs, certaines clauses concernant la succession d’Espagne restaient en vigueur. Ces dernières se ramenaient à la prohibition absolue de l’unification du Trône d’Espagne avec ceux de la France ou de l’Autriche_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le point de vue des contemporains sur les conséquences de cet amendement sur la succession à la Maison de France présente à cet égard un intérêt singulier; le plus intéressant étant certainement celui du Duc d’Orléans, futur Louis-Philippe, Roi des Français. Dans ses Etudes Historiques, Politiques et Morales, le Prince Jules de Polignac rapporte une conversation qu’il avait eue avec le Duc d’Orléans, au cours de laquelle celui-ci affirmait : « ce n’est pas seulement comme Français que je prends un vif intérêt à ces questions, c’est aussi comme père. Dans le cas, en effet (ce qui n’arrivera jamais de mon temps) où nous aurions le malheur de perdre M. le Duc de Bordeaux sans qu’il laissât d’enfant, la Couronne reviendra à mon fils aîné, pourvu que la loi salique soit maintenue en Espagne ; car, si elle ne l’était pas, la Renonciation de Philippe V au Trône de rance, en son nom et au nom de ses descendants mâles, serait frappée de nullité, puisque ce n’est qu’en acte de cette Renonciation que les descendants de ce Prince ont acquis un droit incontestable à la Couronne d’Espagne ; mais, si ce droit leur est enlevé, ils peuvent réclamer celui que leur donne la loi salique française à l’héritage de Louis XIV. Or, comme petits-fils de Louis XIV, ils passent avant mes enfants. »_<br />
<br />
******<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Le Traité d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712, et la succession à la tête de la Maison royale de France.<br />
<br />
La crise des mariages en Espagne<br />
Guy Stair Sainty<br />
(Trans. Arnaud Odier)<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le choix d’un époux pour la Reine Isabelle II et pour sa sœur, enjeu épineux, provoqua une crise inévitable. Les Deux-Siciles avaient renoué des relations diplomatiques avec l’Espagne en 1844, dans l’espoir que le fils cadet du Roi, le Comte de Trapani, devînt l’époux de la jeune souveraine. Ce choix n’avait cependant pas la faveur de l’opinion réformiste, la cour des Deux-Siciles ayant toujours marqué une hostilité notoire au principe d’une Monarchie Constitutionnelle. Le gouvernement réformiste voyait d’un bon œil une alliance avec un descendant espagnol de Philippe V, ou d’une dynastie plus favorable au Constitutionnalisme. On pensa un temps mettre un terme à la désastreuse rupture d’avec la branche mâle en donnant la main de la Reine au Comte de Montemolin, fils aîné et héritier présomptif de l’Infant Don Carlos. Ceux qui craignaient un retour à l’autocratie par ce biais s’y opposaient (Montemolin, ainsi que son père et son frère, furent de toute façon exclus du choix par la Constitution de 1834)—bien que ce choix eût pu apporter une solution pacifique à la querelle dynastique. La Grande-Bretagne plaidait la cause de Prince Léopold de Saxe-Cobourg et de Gotha, frère cadet du Prince-Consort du Portugal, neveu du Roi des Belges, et dont deux des frères et sœurs avaient épousé des enfants de Louis-Philippe. Les Français, désireux de conserver leur influence en Espagne et de contrer la Grande-Bretagne, se déclaraient partisans d’une union avec un descendant de Philippe V, tout en espérant un mariage avec le Duc de Montpensier, fils de Louis-Philippe. La Grande-Bretagne comme la France assuraient que leur principal souci était le bonheur de la Reine et l’assentiment du peuple espagnol.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Prince Léopold passait généralement pour être le candidat britannique : son frère avait été déjà fortement soutenu pour devenir l’époux de la souveraine du Portugal et la Reine Victoria elle-même avait épousé un Prince de Saxe-Cobourg. Louis-Philippe de son côté avait de grandes espérances pour son fils aîné, Antoine, Duc de Montpensier. En février 1846, le Secrétaire aux Affaires Etrangères britannique, le Comte d’Aberdeen, fut reçu par Louis-Philippe au Château d’Eu, et la question fut débattue avec Guizot, Premier Ministre, en présence du Roi. Lord Aberdeen rapporta ensuite à son gouvernement que Louis-Philippe avait fait état du désir de la France de voir la Reine épouser un descendant de Philippe V, et que tant qu’elle s’y plierait, on ne chercherait pas à pousser un mariage avec le Duc de Montpensier. Aberdeen rapporta en outre que si la Reine épousait un Infant d’Espagne (l’Infant Francisco de Asìs et l’Infant Enrique étant les seuls candidats vraisemblables), Louis-Philippe s’engageait à ne pas encourager à une union entre son propre fils avec l’Infante Luisa Fernanda tant que la Reine n’aurait pas donné naissance à un ou plusieurs héritiers. Les Français déclarèrent par la suite qu’ils n’avaient donné aucune assurance de cette nature, et avaient seulement consenti à ne pas pousser à une union de la Reine avec le Duc de Montpensier, si la Grande-Bretagne s’engageait à en user de même avec le Prince Léopold. Mieux encore, les Français soutenaient qu’une version de cet accord avait été consignée dans un mémoire écrit qu’ils avaient soumis à l’approbation de Lord Aberdeen ; mais ce document semblait avoir été perdu par le Foreign Office ; Lord Palmerston confirma effectivement qu’on n’avait pu le retrouver dans les archives.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le gouvernement Tory de Sir Edward Peel fut remplacé par l’administration libérale de Lord John Russel à la fin juin 1846 et Lord Palmerston succéda à Aberdeen aux Affaires Etrangères. Le nouveau ministre n’ayant semble-t-il pas eu connaissance des entretiens d’Eu, il plaida à nouveau la cause du Prince Léopold. Les Français estimèrent que les Britanniques avaient rompu l’accord d’Eu : leurs démarches visant à un mariage entre le Duc de Montpensier et l’Infante Louise Fernande ne les engageaient donc plus. Après avoir persuadé la Reine Isabelle de choisir son cousin, l’Infant Francisco de Asìs plutôt que l’Infant Enrique ou le Prince Léopold, tous deux libéraux suspects d’anglophilie, la France obtint l’accord de la Reine pour un mariage entre sa sœur et le Duc de Montpensier. Un double mariage eut lieu à Madrid le jour du seizième anniversaire de la Reine, le 10 octobre 1846. D’aucuns pensaient, à tort comme le prouva la suite des événements, que l’Infant Francisco de Asìs était impuissant, et la France s’attendait peut-être à ce que le Trône d’Espagne passât à l’Infante Luisa Fernanda ou à ses descendants, à la mort de la Reine.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>L’annonce du mariage provoqua une nouvelle crise des relations internationales. La Grande-Bretagne fit part de ses protestation à la France le 22 septembre 1846, par une lettre du Secrétaire d’Etat aux Affaires Etrangères, Lord Palmerston, à l’Ambassadeur de Grande-Bretagne à Paris, à remettre à Guizot, Premier Ministre. En voici un extrait : « Car il apparaît clairement qu’en vertu de la Renonciation faite à Utrecht par le Duc d’Orléans d’alors, tous ses descendants mâles et femelles de l’époque, à compter de ce temps et pour toujours, sont exclus, invalidés et révoqués de la succession au Trône d’Espagne, de quelque manière que la succession pût revenir à leur branche, et c’est pourquoi les enfants et descendants du Duc de Montpensier seraient, en conséquence, exclus de la succession à la Couronne d’Espagne. Mais quelques clairs qu’en soient ses termes, et quelque bénéfique que soit l’effet de cette Renonciation, les enfants ou descendants de cette union pourraient arguer des droits qu’ils auraient hérités de l’Infante, et ainsi, à moins que le moindre doute à ce sujet ne soit une fois pour toute levé par quelque geste légal de la part de l’Infante elle-même et au nom de ses descendants, les stipulations du Traité d’Utrecht pourraient être détournées par une volte-face, et la paix en Europe troublée par une nouvelle guerre de succession d’Espagne. Mais ces considérations pourraient également donner lieu à une question d’application plus immédiatement pratique ; car on pourrait trouver un fondement à cette affirmation qui a cours en Espagne, selon laquelle l’exclusion de la branche Orléans par le Traité d’Utrecht rendrait illégal et inconstitutionnel un mariage entre l’Infante et le Duc de Montpensier. » _<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Guizot répondit le 5 octobre, rejetant avec vigueur l’interprétation britannique des événements et affirmant : « Aussi le gouvernement anglais (sic) invoque-t-il, comme fondement de sa protestation, le Traité d’Utrecht et les règles qu’il a instituées pour la succession à la Couronne d’Espagne, dans l’intérêt de la paix et de l’équilibre européen. Le Gouvernement du Roi pense que le Traité d’Utrecht n’autorise, en aucune façon, une prétention semblable. Après la longue et sanglante guerre de succession, et pour rétablir la paix de l’Europe, le double but, hautement proclamé et reconnu de ce Traité fut : 1° D’assurer la Couronne d’Espagne à Philippe V, et à ses descendants ; 2° D’empêcher que l’union des Couronnes de France et d’Espagne sur la même tête fût jamais possible. Il suffit de se rappeler les négociations qui ont amené le Traité d’Utrecht et d’en lire le texte même (art. IV) pour demeurer convaincu que tels en sont la pensée et le sens. Par le mariage de l’Infante avec M. le Duc de Montpensier, la Couronne d’Espagne est assurée de ne point sortir de la Maison de Bourbon et des descendants de Philippe V ; et en même temps, les empêchements établis contre toute union possible des deux Couronnes de France et d’Espagne demeurent en pleine vigueur. La double intention du Traité d’Utrecht est toujours accomplie. Il serait étrange qu’on prétendît invoquer, contre nous, celle des dispositions de ce Traité qui tendent à empêcher l’union des deux Couronnes, et qu’on écartât celles qui assurent la Couronne d’Espagne à Philippe V et à ses descendants. Tel serait cependant le résultat de l’interprétation que, dans sa dépêche du 21 septembre, Lord Palmerston voudrait donner de ce Traité. Jamais une telle interprétation n’a été, jusqu’à ce jour, je ne dirais pas admise, mais seulement conçue et présentée. Les fiats la repoussent aussi hautement que les textes. Jamais le Traité d’Utrecht n’a été considéré ni invoqué comme faisant obstacle aux mariages entre les diverses branches de la Maison des Bourbons de France et les diverses branches de la Maison des Bourbons d’Espagne. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>En prolongement à cette lettre, Guizot écrivait le 11 octobre 1846 ; « Une pareille protestation, présentée en vertu du Traité d’Utrecht et des Renonciations qui y sont annexées, ou plus spécialement en vertu de la Renonciation du Duc d’Orléans (1712) à ses droits éventuels au Trône d’Espagne est, à notre avis, dépourvue de tout fondement. Je vous ai dit, dans ma dépêche du 5 de ce mois, quel était le véritable caractère du Traité d’Utrecht et quel double but s’étaient proposé ses auteurs en rédigeant les clauses relatives à la succession espagnole. On voulait, d’une part, assurer le Trône aux descendants de Philippe V, de l’autre, prévenir la réunion sur une même tête des Couronnes de France et d’Espagne. Ce fut là l’objet des Renonciations demandées d’une part de Philippe V, de l’autre, aux Ducs de Berry et d’Orléans. C’est là, par conséquent, ce qui détermine le vrai sens et la portée légitime de ces Renonciations. Elles contiennent ce qui est nécessaire pour atteindre le but du Traité d’Utrecht ; mais elles ne sauraient s’étendre et ne s’étendent point, en effet, au delà de ce but.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>« D’après ce principe incontestable en soi, et qui d’ailleurs se concilie parfaitement avec le texte du document dont il s’agit, la Renonciation du Duc d’Orléans signifie que, dans le cas où le Trône d’Espagne viendrait à vaquer par l’extinction de la descendance de Philippe V à laquelle il est assuré par le Traité d’Utrecht, les descendants du Duc d’Orléans ne pourraient en aucune manière réclamer ce Trône, car en échange de l’abandon fait par Philippe V, pour lui et ses descendants de ses droits éventuels à la Couronne de France, le Duc d’Orléans a abandonné ses droits éventuels à la Couronne d’Espagne, voulant conserver les droits également éventuels que sa naissance lui donnait aussi sur la Couronne de France et que, dans un intérêt Européen, on avait jugés incompatibles avec les premiers. C’est là le sens réel et raisonnable de la Renonciation.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>« S’ensuit-il que les descendants de Philippe V auxquels la Couronne d’Espagne arriverait naturellement, légitimement, en vertu de leurs propres droits fondés sur les clauses mêmes du Traité d’Utrecht, dussent en être exclus, eux ou leur postérité, parce qu’il se trouveraient, ou parce que leurs ancêtres se seraient trouvés, mariés à des descendants du Duc d’Orléans ? En d’autres termes, le droit certain, incontestable, des descendants de Philippe V au Trône d’Espagne, devrait-il périr par ce qu’ils se seraient alliés à une famille qui aurait renoncé aux siens ? »_ Bien que Guizot se livre à une analyse exacte de la visée du Traité et des Renonciations, il est moins convaincant lorsqu’il évoque la possibilité pour un descendant du Duc d’Orléans de succéder à la Couronne, en vertu d’une alliance avec un descendant de Philippe V, et non pas dans le cas où ses droits reposeraient sur la revendication de la branche la plus proche en cas d’extinction des descendants de Philippe V. Ce cas de figure n’est pas évoqué dans la Renonciation du Duc d’Orléans, et tous les descendants du Duc sont exclus de manière égale, quelque soit la manière dont ils aient pu acquérir le droit à succéder. Dans le même temps, Guizot a raison de noter qu’il serait absurde d’exclure un Prince espagnol au prétexte qu’il aurait épousé un Orléans, et que les alliés avaient ignoré les nombreux mariages contractés avant l’abolition de la loi semi-salique. Le seul enjeu significatif, dans le cas d’une extinction de la descendance de Philippe V, était de savoir si les deux Couronnes ne deviendraient de ce fait plus qu’une. Si la branche aînée de la Maison de France, écartée de la succession espagnole en 1700, avait continué à régner, et si la descendance mâle et femelle de Philippe V s’était éteinte, la branche généalogique suivante aurait en effet été celle d’Orléans, mais les Trônes n’auraient toujours pas été réunis en un seul.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>De deux choses l’une : ou bien les trois Renonciations sont contraignantes dans la mesure exacte des conditions qu’elles posent, ou bien elles n’engagent personne : on ne saurait opérer de choix entre leurs termes dans le dessein d’obtenir tel ou tel résultat. Il apparaît clairement que la Grande-Bretagne et ses alliés avaient résolu de ne pas les interpréter comme des Renonciations définitives et aboutissant à l’exclusion de descendants au cours du XVIIIe siècle, puisque, comme le souligne Guizot, ces nations n’ont pas protesté contre les alliances inter-dynastiques qui en auraient violé les termes. Louis XV avait été fiancé à l’Infante Marie (alors quatrième dans l’ordre de la succession) le 25 novembre 1721, le Dauphin Louis, fils de Louis XV, avait épousé l’Infante Marie-Thérèse, fille cadette de Philippe V et sixième dans l’ordre de la succession, en 1744 (elle mourut sans descendance). Le Comte de Provence, futur Louis XVIII épousa en 1771 la Princesse Joséphine de Savoie, fille de l’Infante Maria Antonia—son frère Charles X avait épousé sa sœur en 1773. Le Duc d’Orléans, futur Louis-Philippe, avait épousé la Princesse Marie-Amélie des Deux-Siciles en 1816 ; Henri d’Orléans, Duc d’Aumale, épousa la Princesse Marie-Caroline des Deux-Siciles en 1844 ; Philippe, Comte de Paris épousa sa cousine Orléans, l’Infante Isabelle, fille du Duc de Montpensier, en 1864—cette dernière était Infante d’Espagne par sa mère, l’Infante Luisa Fernanda. Seul le mariage de 1846, entre le Duc de Montpensier et l’Infante Luisa Fernanda, alors héritière présomptive de la Couronne, donna lieu à des protestations. Chacune de ces Princesses était Infante, et de ce fait conférait à sa descendance des droits sur la succession d’Espagne ; toutefois, selon les termes des Renonciations de 1713, les enfants nés de ces alliances, en tant que descendants de Philippe V, auraient dû être exclus de la succession à la Couronne de France.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>De la même manière, les descendants des mariages contractés entre Princes descendant de Philippe V et descendantes de Louis XV ou du Duc d’Orléans auraient dû être exclus de la succession espagnole. Il y eut néanmoins plusieurs mariages entre descendants mâles de Philippe V et descendantes du Roi de France et du Duc d’Orléans. En 1721-1722 en effet, Louise-Elizabeth d’Orléans, Mademoiselle de Montpensier, fille de Philippe, Duc d’Orléans, épousa Louis Ier, Roi d’Espagne (mais mourut sans laisser d’enfant). En 1739, la fille aînée de Louis XV, Elizabeth, épousa Philippe, Duc de Parme ; en 1907, la Princesse Louise d’Orléans épousa l’Infant Charles, Prince des Deux-Siciles—leur petit-fils devint Roi d’Espagne en 1975, malgré la Renonciation de son ancêtre. Une interprétation littérale de ces Renonciations aurait exclu la succession d’Isabelle II et de ses descendants au Trône d’Espagne, ainsi que de ceux de Charles X et de Louis-Philippe au Trône de France. La Grande-Bretagne n’objecta jamais contre les clauses de succession des Constitutions espagnoles de 1812, ni contre l’article 53 du titre 7 de celle de1837, ni contre l’article 52 du titre 7 de celle de 1845, dont les termes affectaient une ou plusieurs des stipulations des Renonciations et du Traité d’Utrecht. La Grande-Bretagne ignora également les contradictions patentes des unions sus-citées avec les termes des Renonciations de 1713.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Lord Palmerston rejeta complètement ces arguments dans sa réponse à Guizot en date du 31 octobre 1846, affirmant qu ’’ à ces exemples, le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté répondrait que même s’il s’agissait bien de cas où les stipulations d’Utrecht avaient été ignorées, la négligence des gouvernants du siècle précédent ne justifie pas que les gouvernants de ce siècle n’y fassent pas référence, pour autant que ces stipulations soient claires, évidentes et indiscutables. Des stipulations équivoques peuvent être interprétées à la lumière de précédents, mais un Traité aussi clair et précis ne peut être invalidé que par un acte formel de nature semblable. Une loi ne saurait être abrogée pour quelqu’un, au prétexte que quelqu’un d’autre aurait négligé de demander son application, et un Traité ne saurait être annulé pour une génération, au prétexte que la génération précédente, dans des circonstances fondamentalement différentes, ait pu laisser ses stipulations à l’état latent. Mais les cas cités par M. Guizot sont de nature très différente de celui du mariage de M. le Duc de Montpensier.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>« Dans tous ces cas, la loi Salique était en vigueur en France et en Espagne ; les Princesses en question, au lieu d’être héritières directes de la Couronne de leurs pays respectifs, étaient, pour les deux premières, exclues de la succession en vertu de la loi française et pour la troisième, par la loi espagnole puisqu’il subsistait une branche mâle. Il est évident que, tant que la loi Salique avait cours dans les deux pays, la stricte application des stipulations d’Utrecht en ce qui concernait les filles avait alors une moindre importance, ce qui n’est plus le cas depuis le changement de la loi espagnole. Mais en regard des cas cités, on peut observer, en ce qui concerne le premier qu’après ce mariage, le Traité conclu entre la France et l’Autriche en 1725 confirmait encore et inscrivait l’exclusion de tous les Princes français et de leur descendance du Trône d’Espagne. » Les Renonciations avaient toutefois été rédigées avant l’introduction de la loi semi-salique, et avaient été annexées au volet anglo-espagnol du Traité d’Utrecht en même temps que le décret établissant la loi semi-salique du 10 juillet 1713. Les formulations des Renonciations ne furent pas modifiées après l’introduction de la loi semi-salique, de sorte que si elles étaient bien efficaces en tant que Renonciations dynastiques, il importait peu de savoir quel système de succession prévalait. Si un droit ou un privilège accordé par un traité est ignoré pour une longue période, plus d’un siècle dans le cas qui nous intéresse, il y a matière à considérer qu’il a été abandonné. Tel était le point de vue de la France et de l’Espagne non seulement à propos du Traité d’Utrecht mais également des pactes familiaux qui avaient été dénaturés par l’alliance entre Napoléon et Charles IV. Les Britanniques citaient également le Traité de 1725 à l’appui de leur argument : bien que la Grande-Bretagne ne l’ait pas signé, les termes de ce Traité, et les Renonciations qui y avaient été portées en annexe avaient été violés par les deux pays signataires de manière patente. Il est douteux qu’en droit international, un pays tiers puisse revendiquer le moindre privilège en vertu d’un Traité qu’il n’a pas signé, et que les deux pays signataires ont choisi de ne pas respecter par la suite.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Lord Palmerston poursuivait : « Le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté a la surprise de constater qu’après de telles Renonciations, de telles stipulations et de tels engagements, le Gouvernement français s’entête à vouloir prouver, comme M. Guizot le laisse entendre dans sa dépêche, que les descendants de M. le Duc de Montpensier pourraient être affranchis de l’exclusion évidente et perpétuelle dont ils font l’objet depuis les transactions d’Utrecht, au prétexte qu’ils recevraient leurs droits de l’Infante Luisa Fernanda. Il est manifeste qu’aucun droit qui leur serait transmis par l’Infante ne pourrait annuler ou écarter la disqualification évidente qu’ils hériteraient de M. le Duc de Montpensier. Il va de soi que la disqualification dont les enfants héritent d’un ascendant l’emporte sur les droits qu’il hériteraient de l’autre (…). Le Gouvernement français a le choix entre admettre que les descendants de M. le Duc de Montpensier sont exclus en vertu des Renonciations du Traité d’Utrecht, ou reconnaître qu’il a enfreint les termes de l’engagement contenu dans ce Traité. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La Grande-Bretagne, après avoir protesté contre la France, adressa une nouvelle protestation à l’Espagne, en date du 5 octobre 1846 ; Henry Bulwer-Lytton, l’Ambassadeur britannique posait que « la postérité et la descendance de M. le Duc de Montpensier et de l’Infante Luisa Fernanda, si ce mariage devait avoir lieu, serait à jamais exclue de la succession à la Couronne d’Espagne, dans le cas où il viabilité à manquer une descendance à Sa Majesté présente, la Reine Isabelle ; nul droit ni capacité que ladite descendance de M. le Duc de Montpensier et de l’Infante ne saurait non plus l’emporter sur la disqualification et l’exclusion évidentes qui les touchent en tant que descendants du Duc d’Orléans de 1712. Le Gouvernement britannique estime de son devoir de déclarer publiquement et solennellement l’Incapacité, l’Inaptitude et l’Exclusion de la succession au Trône d’Espagne qui viendrait toucher toute postérité ou descendance d’un mariage entre l’Infante et M. le Duc de Montpensier, si ce mariage devait tout de même avoir lieu, au mépris des admonestations et des protestations de la Grande-Bretagne ; de sorte que si, à l’avenir, le moindre conflit au sujet de la succession au Trône dût en découler, et si la Grande-Bretagne, dans un tel cas, s’estimait fondée à y prendre part, aux fins d’appuyer les principes énoncés par la présente note, il ne sera possible à aucune des parties concernées de prétendre que le Gouvernement britannique n’avait pas fait état, bien avant l’heure, de ses sentiments et de ses vues. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>L’Espagne avait répondu à la première protestation adressée à la France dans une lettre du 29 septembre 1846 : une telle action ressortissait à une interférence directe dans les Affaires Intérieures de l’Espagne, contrevenant aux principes de l’indépendance espagnole, et qui ne dépendait en rien de l’approbation de puissances étrangères. Dans ses instructions à l’Ambassadeur d’Espagne à Paris, datées du 15 novembre 1846, le Ministre espagnol des Affaires Etrangères écrivait que : « la modification des territoires des différents Etats, les infractions par ces Etats à d’autres conditions des Traités depuis Utrecht jusqu’à nos jours, les changements des dynasties et des institutions (…) signifiaient que ces Traités devaient être considérés comme ayant perdu toute leur force d’application d’origine, (…) et que ces Traités avaient perdu toute validité. »_ Il poursuivait en répertoriant les différents mariages entre les Maisons de France et d’Espagne, qui avaient eu lieu sans que quiconque protestât, bien que la jouissance de droits de succession par leurs descendances représentât une infraction théorique, ainsi que les clauses des précédentes Constitutions espagnoles, qui de la même manière enfreignaient aux Traités.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Bien que la Grande-Bretagne n’eût pas adressé de nouvelle protestation à l’Espagne, les échanges entre Guizot et Lord Palmerston se poursuivirent l’année suivante. Le 8 janvier 1847, le Secrétaire aux Affaires Etrangères britannique reprit la plume pour déplorer les manœuvres françaises, déclarant: « la position du Gouvernement de Sa Majesté est claire, simple et irréfutable. Le Duc d’Orléans de 1712 a renoncé pour lui-même et pour ses descendants à toute revendication ou droit sur la succession au Trône d’Espagne, et s’est déclaré lui-même, ainsi que tous ses descendants, inaptes et exclus de ladite succession, quelle que soit la raison (mariage inclus) pour laquelle la succession leur reviendrait. Cette Renonciation a été incorporée au Traité d’Utrecht, engageant par là la France ; elle fit dès lors partie du droit public européen, et fut en outre incluse dans les droits français et espagnol. Le Duc de Montpensier est, comme le seront ses enfants après lui, de la descendance du Duc d’Orléans de 1712 et M. le Duc de Montpensier et ses enfants sont de ce fait inaptes à succéder au Trône d’Espagne, « quelle que soit la raison pour laquelle la succession leur reviendrait ». Telle est la position du Gouvernement de Sa Majesté. Elle est fondée sur la formulation claire et évidente des Traités et des lois, et ne peut-être ébranlée par l’invocation de mariages qui ont eu lieu un siècle auparavant. Aucun de ces cas n’était semblable à celui qui fait l’objet de la présente discussion, car aucun ne concernait un mariage entre un Prince français et l’héritière putative du Trône d’Espagne. Dans chacun de ces cas, la loi Salique était en vigueur en France et en Espagne ; et lorsque l’Infante Marie-Thérèse épousa le Dauphin en 1745, il se trouvait plusieurs héritiers mâles de la Couronne d’Espagne…C’est sur les « conditions définitives de cette paix » que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté, dans cette discussion, a pris position. Et c’est « la lettre et l’esprit » de ce Traité dont ils s’estiment fondés à réclamer la stricte observance. »_ Les enfants de l’Infante Luisa-Fernanda étant considérés comme dynastes en Espagne, l’interprétation britannique des Renonciations et des Traités était que les engagements contractés par le Duc d’Orléans en 1712 avaient été rompus. Puisque ces engagements avaient fait partie d’un échange réciproque, la validité de la Renonciation de Philippe V était annulée par cette infraction à la réciprocité.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La réponse de Guizot, bien qu’elle n’apportât évidemment pas satisfaction à la Grande-Bretagne, constituait la position finale du Gouvernement français à ce sujet. « L’intention du Traité d’Utrecht, je le répète, était de prévenir l’union des Couronnes de France et d’Espagne sur une même tête. S’il devait advenir, comme le suggère Lord Palmerston dans sa présente hypothèse, que les doits à l’une et l’autre Couronne se trouveraient réunis sur la tête d’un seul et même Prince, je n’hésiterai pas à reconnaître qu’il ne pourrait pas détenir les deux. _ » Le gouvernement confia à un éminent historien français, Charles Giraud, de l’Institut, de se pencher sur la question. Ses conclusions (Le Traité d’Utrecht), publiées à Paris en 1847, rejettent fermement le point de vue britannique, et soutiennent que le seul objectif des Renonciations était de prévenir l’union des deux Couronnes, et d’assurer la Couronne d’Espagne aux descendants de Philippe V. En soutenant que les Renonciations ne pouvaient pas invalider les droits des descendants de l’individu ayant renoncé à la succession, dans le cas présent le Duc d’Orléans renonçant au Trône d’Espagne, Giraud ne se penchait pas directement sur une conséquence parallèle, qui était que la Renonciation de Philippe V n’était plus efficace, en ce qui concernait l’exclusion de ses descendants au Trône de France. Le même raisonnement doit être cependant appliqué ; ces Renonciations étaient réciproques, et ainsi interdépendantes, si la Renonciation du Duc d’Orléans était insuffisante à empêcher ses descendants de succéder au Trône d’Espagne, celle de Philippe V ne pouvait exclure ses descendants de la succession au Trône de France.<br />
<br />
<br />
*******<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Le Traité d'Utrecht, les Renonciations de 1712, et la succession à la tête de la Maison royale de France.<br />
<br />
Sixième Partie : Conséquences historiques<br />
<br />
Guy Stair Sainty<br />
(Trans. Arnaud Odier)<br />
<br />
La rupture avec la Grande-Bretagne contraignit Louis-Philippe à une adhésion plus étroite aux menées du gouvernement conservateur de Guizot ; il dut prendre ses distances avec l’opposition libérale, favorable à l’alliance britannique. Le gouvernement de Guizot, affaibli par des scandales politiques et financiers, se montra incapable de gérer la crise économique dans laquelle fut plongée la France, puis le reste de l’Europe en 1847. François Guizot démissionna de son poste de Premier Ministre le 23 février 1848, et le soulèvement qui en découla conduisit à la chute de la Monarchie. Louis-Philippe abdiqua le lendemain en faveur de son petit-fils, le Comte de Paris, en vain : il fut forcé de fuir en Angleterre, où il mourut le 26 août 1850 sur ses terres de Claremont, dans le Surrey. Il était le dernier des descendants d’Hugues Capet à régner sur la France. Aujourd’hui son descendant Henri, Comte de Paris, revendique non seulement son affiliation à la Monarchie libérale de 1830-1848, mais également des droits hérités de ses ancêtres Louis XIV et Charles X. Se justifiant d’avoir pris la tête de la Maison Royale de France, le Comte de Paris, à l’image de son défunt père, allègue la validité des Renonciations de 1712, et la nationalité étrangère de différents représentants mâles de la branche aînée après la mort d’Henri V, Comte de Chambord.<br />
<br />
Isabelle II, à la surprise de ses contemporains, eut onze enfants de l’Infant Francisco de Asìs, dont quatre seulement atteignirent l’âge adulte—l’Infante Eulalie, dernière survivante, mourut à San Sebastian en 1958 à l’âge de quatre-vingt-quatorze ans, quelque 112 ans après la crise des mariages. La Reine avait été déposée par la révolution du 30 septembre 1868 ; elle abdiqua en faveur de son fils aîné le 25 juin 1870 (ce dernier ne put lui succéder que le 29 décembre 1870) ; Isabelle avait obtenu une séparation officielle d’avec son mari le 8 avril 1870. Elle mourut à Paris, en son Palais de Castille, le 9 avril 1904, deux ans seulement après son mari, qui mourut au Château d’Epinay le 17 avril 1902. La sœur d’Isabelle, Luisa Fernanda mourut au Palais de Séville le 1er février 1897. Son mari, qui reçut le titre d’Infant d’Espagne en 1859, était mort à Cadix le 4 février 1890, après lui avoir donné dix enfants. Leur fille aînée Isabelle épousa le Comte de Paris, et leur fils, Duc d’Orléans, avait alors une chance raisonnable de succéder au Trône_. La seule de leurs filles qui survécut, Mercedes, épousa Alphonse XII, mais mourut sans lui laisser d’enfant. Parmi les descendants de Luisa Fernanda et d’Antoine, Duc de Montpensier, figurent le Roi d’Espagne et le Comte de Paris actuels, dont l’un et l’autre auraient dû être exclus de la succession si l’interprétation britannique du Traité d’Utrecht avait été retenue.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le frère de l’Infant Don Francisco de Asìs, l’Infant Don Enrique, ancien candidat britannique à la main de la Reine Isabelle, fit plus tard un mariage en mésalliance, sans la permission de la Reine, et fut alors privé de tous ses titres royaux en 1848. Ces titres lui furent rendus ad personam six ans plus tard, mais sans aucun droit dynastique pour ses descendants ; ils lui furent retirés à nouveau en 1867 pour faits d’opposition politique. Trois ans plus tard, le 12 mars 1870, l’Infant Don Enrique fut tué d’une balle lors d’un duel avec son cousin, l’Infant Don Antoine, Duc de Montpensier. Son petit-fils, Francisco de Paul de Borbòn se proclama lui-même Roi de France le 30 juillet 1894, prenant le titre de Duc d’Anjou au motif qu’il était le plus âgé des Bourbons régnants à ne pas revendiquer également le Trône d’Espagne. Au terme d’un procès que le Duc d’Orléans engagea contre lui, la justice française lui ordonna de cesser d’utiliser les armes pleines de France. Ses héritiers n’ont pas relevé ses revendications, mais Don Francisco de Borbòn, Duc de Séville jure uxoris (il avait épousé sa cousine germaine), se distingua pendant la Guerre Civile, où il servait parmi les forces nationalistes. Le Prince Léopold de Saxe-Cobourg, autre candidat malheureux à la main de la Reine, fit lui aussi une mésalliance en 1861 ; son fils unique mourut sans descendance.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Charles X de France et de Navarre avait été déposé par la Révolution de Juillet 1830, s’exilant d’abord en Angleterre puis pour Goritz en Illyrie, dans l’Empire Austro-Hongrois, où il mourut le 6 novembre 1836. Son fils aîné et unique descendant survivant lui succéda sous le nom de Louis XIX, Roi en titre, après avoir porté les titres de Duc d’Angoulême et de Dauphin après l’avènement de son père. Le Duc d’Angoulême avait épousé Madame, infortunée fille de Louis XVI ; ils portaient étaient connus pendant l’émigration sous le nom de Comte et Comtesse de marnes. Il mourut comme son père, dans la Maison d’un aristocrate autrichien près de Goritz, le 3 juin 1844. L’héritier et successeur de Louis XIX à la tête de la Maison de France était son neveu le Duc de Bordeaux, fils unique de son frère cadet le Duc de Berry. Charles X avait abdiqué en faveur du Duc de Bordeaux le 2 août 1830 (six jours avant que Louis-Philippe n’accepte la Couronne que lui conféra l’Assemblée Nationale) ; le Duc de Bordeaux avait d’abord été reconnu Roi de jure par l’Empereur de Russie et le Duc de Modène, mais ces derniers reconnurent finalement Louis-Philippe. Après l’échec du soulèvement vendéen et la disparition de tout espoir de restauration, le statut de Roi en titre de Louis XIX ne fut pas contesté et le Duc de Bordeaux s’effaça.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>À la mort de son oncle, le Duc de Bordeaux prit le titre de Comte de Chambord, château qui lui avait été légué à sa naissance, et prit la tête de la Maison de Bourbon sans contestation de part ni d’autre. Bien qu’il n’eût jamais pris le titre de Roi, lui préférant celui de Chef de la Maison de Bourbon ou, de Fils Aîné de l’Eglise, ses partisans lui donnaient le nom d’Henri V, Roi de France et de Navarre. En 1873, en une réconciliation éclatante, il accepta de recevoir le Comte de Paris, à qui il pardonna la déloyauté de son grand-père en 1830 ; il continua néanmoins de refuser les compromis politiques qui auraient réconcilié ses partisans avec les orléanistes. À la mort du Comte de Chambord en son château de Frohsdorf en Autriche, en 24 août 1883, le Comte de Paris se proclama son successeur à la tête de la Maison de France, arguant de l’exclusion des branches aînées restantes aux termes des Renonciations de 1713. Ce fut pourtant le chef de la branche aînée, Juan (Jean), Comte de Montizon, lequel avait abdiqué son titre de Roi Carliste en faveur de son fils aîné, le Duc de Madrid, qui présida aux funérailles du Comte de Chambord. Il déclara alors : « En devenant Chef de la Maison de Bourbon par la mort de mon beau-frère et cousin, M. le Comte de Chambord, je déclare ne renoncer à aucun droit sur le Trône de France, que je tiens par ma naissance. »_<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le Comte de Montizon mourut à Brighton, Sussex, en Angleterre, le 18 novembre 1887 ; son fils aîné Carlos (Charles), Duc de Madrid, se proclama Chef de la Maison de Bourbon, prenant le titre de Duc d’Anjou. Dans une lettre au Comte de Valori en date du 14 septembre 1888, il écrivait : « Je suis Roi de toutes les libertés nationales, je ne serai pas Roi de la Révolution (…)je préserverai les droits inviolables des Bourbons dont je suis le Chef, droit qui ne s’éteindra qu’avec le dernier des descendants de la race de Louis XIV. »_ Il appuya à nouveau cette revendication dans une série de déclarations, y compris dans une protestation contre l’expulsion des membres d’ordres religieux en France, datée du 12 mars 1906 et publiée à Naples : « En tant qu’aîné de la Race de vos Rois et successeur salique, par droit de primogéniture, de mon oncle Henri V, je ne saurais demeurer plus longtemps spectateur passif des torts commis envers la Religion, et avec Sa Sainteté le Pape Pie X (…) »_ Don Carlos mourut dans un hôtel de Varèse, en Italie, le 18 juillet 1909. Il laissait quatre filles et un fils unique, Jaime (Jacques), qui lui succéda.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Le nouveau Duc d’Anjou et de Madrid réaffirma fermement ses droits à prendre la tête de la Maison Royale de Bourbon, accordant comme son père des citations aux Ordres du Saint-Esprit et de Saint-Michel, et défendant ses droits dans une lettre au maire de son Palais le 6 décembre 1911 : « Le Chef de la Maison de Bourbon, c’est moi ; c’est moi qui, dans ma lettre aux souverains, à la mort de mon cher et regretté père ai solennellement déclaré mon intention de relever tous les titres et prérogatives qu’il m’avait légués ; moi qui tiens du Comte de Chambord, avec le Château de Frohsdorf, les reliques, archives et documents de la Monarchie légitime ; moi qui suis maître des Ordres Royaux. S. A. R. le Duc d’Orléans n’est pas autorisé à appointer un Chevalier du Saint Esprit, ou de l’ordre approprié, puisqu’il vient presque en dernier dans notre arbre généalogique ; sa branche ne saurait exprimer la moindre prétention tant que ne seront pas éteintes non seulement ma branche, mais celles d’Espagne, des Deux-Siciles et de Parme. »_ Don Jaime communiquait régulièrement avec ses partisans français, signait les documents officiels du nom de « Jacques » à partir de 1918, et appointa plusieurs Chevaliers du Saint Esprit (en plus du Roi Alphonse XIII), et au moins deux Chevaliers de l’Ordre de Saint-Michel. Il mourut célibataire à Paris le 2 octobre 1931, quelques jours après avoir rencontré son cousin Alphonse XIII. Alphonse-Charles, son oncle âgé de quatre-vingt-deux ans, lui succéda en prenant le nom de Duc de San Jaime. Ce dernier toutefois ne suivit pas ses deux prédécesseurs dans leur revendication active de la tête de la Maison de France ; il ne fit qu’une seule concession à ses partisans français, en conférant son haut patronage à la Société Française d’Archéologie_.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A la mort d’Alphonse Charles, le titre de Chef de la Maison de Bourbon passa au Roi d’Espagne en exil, Alphonse XIII, qui avait conclu sa paix avec le Duc d’Anjou et de Madrid, lors de sa visite à son rival carliste le 23 septembre 1931. Alphonse avait accepté de recevoir le Collier du Saint-Esprit, par un document où il était nommé comme le « Prince Alphonse », en reconnaissance implicite des droits du Duc de Madrid à prendre la Tête de la Maison de France. Alphonse-Charles, Duc de San Jaime, ne laissa pas de descendance mais reconnut Alphonse XIII comme son successeur le 6 janvier 1932, déclarant : « Je fais appel à tous et en premier lieu à mon très cher neveu Alphonse de Bourbon sur lequel mes droits devront être reportés à ma mort, avec les principes fondamentaux qui ont toujours été exigés de tous les Rois de notre Royaume traditionnel. »_ Le vieux Duc de San Jaime convenait que sa position à la tête de la Maison de Bourbon lui donnait des responsabilités particulières, en faisant paraître un décret conférant le titre de Prince de Bourbon à tous les descendants par la branche mâle de l’Infant Don Sébastien_. À la mort d’Alphonse Charles, Alphonse XIII abandonna la bordure de gueules (qui est d’Anjou) de ses armes, bien que le défunt Don Juan, Comte de Barcelone, ait contesté la signification précise de ce geste eu égard aux droits français du Roi. Lorsque Alphonse XIII mourut le 28 février 1941 à Rome, les Colliers du Saint-Esprit et de la Toison d’Or furent posés sur son cercueil. Le fils aîné du Roi, le Prince des Asturies, avait péri dans un accident (après deux mariages contractés en infraction avec les lois de la Maison Royale d’Espagne), et son fils aîné, Don Jaime, Duc de Ségovie, lui succéda comme Chef de la Maison de Bourbon, tandis que son fils cadet, Don Juan, Comte de Barcelone, lui succédait à la tête de la Maison d’Espagne (son fils Juan Carlos devint Roi d’Espagne en 1975).<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Alphonse XIII quitta l’Espagne en 1931 et la Monarchie fut remplacée par une République, de sorte qu’à l’heure où le Roi d’Espagne accéda à la tête de la Maison de France en tant que représentant de Louis XIV, il n’était plus de facto Roi d’Espagne. Tout comme en 1887, le statut d’aîné et les droits aux Trônes de France et d’Espagne étaient réunis sur une même tête, celle d’un Prince non régnant. Si les deux Monarchies avaient été restaurées, le précédent historique aurait dicté que le Trône d’Espagne fût confié à un Prince puîné, comme cela avait eu lieu en 1700. Alphonse XIII considérait néanmoins qu’il détenait les deux prérogatives, et signait une lettre au Duc de Séville (jure uxoris) en février 1940 du nom de « Chef de la Maison de Bourbon en ses deux branches principales (…) par nos ascendants portés au Trônes de Saint-Louis et de Saint-Ferdinand ». l’Infant Don Jaime, le second fils d’Alphonse XIII, avait renoncé à ses droits espagnols, en raison d’une incapacité physique qui l’aurait empêché d’assumer la responsabilité de la Royauté, dans une lettre solennelle à son père en date du 21 juin 1933_. Ce geste de Don Jaime, empreint de courage et d’abnégation, était motivé par la conscience que ce handicap rendrait plus difficile encore toute entreprise visant à une Restauration. Deux ans plus tard, le 4 mars 1935, il épousa la descendante d’une famille française de vieille aristocratie, Emmanuelle de Dampierre (fille du Duc de San Lorenzo (titre accordé par le pape) et de sa femme, Vitoria Ruspoli, des Princes de Poggio Suasa). Cette union contrevenait toutefois aux exigences de la Loi Espagnole portant sur le mariage, article 12 de la nouvelle Loi du Titre II du Xè Livre de la Novisima Recopilaciòn (Décret Pragmatique de Charles III du 23 mars 1776). Le Décret Pragmatique de Charles IV en 1803 (Nouvelles règles pour la célébration des mariages) ne révoquait pas explicitement l’obligation d’égalité édictée par le Décret de 1776, mais bien qu’elle passât sous silence l’obligation d’une égalité de rang, elle confirmait la nécessité de l’approbation royale dans la validation légale d’un mariage dynastique. Plus tard au XIXe siècle, c’était la loi de 1776 qui avait communément cours : les dynastes qui contractaient des mariages inégaux mais qui désiraient gardaient leurs prérogatives royales ainsi que leurs titres faisaient l’objet de Décrets Royaux, contresignés par le Président du Conseil des Ministres, ce qui les excluait de la succession.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>La validité de la loi de 1776 avait été réaffirmée par les Décrets Royaux du 8 février 1847 et du 7 mars 1867, ainsi que par un Ordre Royal, émis par le Ministère de la Justice, le 16 mars 1875. Les différentes Constitutions du XIXe siècle, aboutissant dans la Constitution de 1876, qui eut cours jusqu’à la fin de la Monarchie, exigeaient également qu’une loi spéciale soit votée par les Cortes afin de valider le mariage du Roi ; le mariage du Prince héritier devait également recevoir l’approbation des Cortes, mais ces conditions ne pouvaient plus être remplies après la chute de la Monarchie en 1931. Les deux fils que Don Jaime eut de son mariage, tout en étant Princes du Sang et susceptibles de succéder à la tête de la Maison, ne pouvaient succéder au Trône d’Espagne d’après les lois de la Monarchie d’avant 1931_. Après la mort de leur père, Don Jaime fit clairement connaître sa position dans une lettre officielle datée du 23 juillet 1945, adressée à son frère, le Comte de Barcelone ; il reconnaît en lui le Roi d’Espagne de jure et l’appelle « Majesté », titre qu’il lui donne encore dans une nouvelle lettre datée du 17 juin 1947.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>D’éminents spécialistes ont argué que, la renonciation de D. Jaime ne se conformant pas aux exigences précises de la Loi et le Décret de 1803 l’ayant de fait emporté sur celui de 1776, la présence d’Alphonse XIII à la célébration du mariage de son fils était une reconnaissance ipso facto de sa légitimité dynastique. Ils considèrent donc que la révocation ultérieure par Don Jaime de sa Renonciation était légale. Toutefois, sa Renonciation était motivée par la reconnaissance spontanée d’un article de la Constitution de 1876, permettant l’exclusion des héritiers du Trône qu’un handicap rendait incapables d’assumer leurs fonctions royales. Lorsqu’il se maria, son père et lui présumaient tous deux que ce mariage disqualifiait également ses descendants de toute accession au Trône d’Espagne (de même que tous les autres dynastes espagnols qui s’étaient mariés hors du cercle des familles royales avaient été exclus depuis 1776). L’unique occasion qui s’offrait à lui d’émettre toute prétention au Trône d’Espagne était celle de la mort de son père, où pendant quelques jours, la succession à la Couronne avait été momentanément « ouverte ». cependant, en reconnaissant son frère comme le Roi de jure, il avait abandonné tout espoir raisonnable de faire entendre ses revendications. L’application de la loi sur les mariages de 1776 doit sans aucun doute être considérée comme justifiée dans ce cas, puisqu’elle avait été entérinée à nouveau par une série de compilations de la Loi Espagnole. La Constitution espagnole actuelle, en conséquence, reconnaît la Couronne d’Espagne comme le droit héréditaire de tous les successeurs de S.M. le Roi Juan Carlos, qu’elle identifie comme l’héritier de l’ancienne dynastie (article 56).<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Au cours des dernières années de sa vie, Don Jaime devint de plus en plus actif en France, honorant de sa présence plusieurs cérémonies légitimistes et conférant même quelques titres des Ordres Royaux. Il mourut à Saint-Gall en Suisse le 20 mars 1975 ; son fils aîné Alphonse, Duc de Cadix le remplaça à la tête de la Maison de Bourbon, et releva alors le titre de Duc d’Anjou porté par son père. Il est à noter qu’en 1936, Paul Watrin avait dans son journal, La Science Historique, salué la naissance du jeune Prince, « Le petit Prince Alphonse, espoir de la légitimité. »_ Ce commentaire est d’autant plus frappant qu’il date d’une époque où les Monarchistes français en tenaient majoritairement pour les Orléans, influencés qu’ils étaient par Charles Maurras (le Comte de Paris rompit avec lui après sa condamnation par Rome). Feu le Duc d’Anjou et de Cadix fut élu par la branche française de la Société des Cincinnati comme représentant de Louis XVI (ce qui entraîna la démission du Comte de Paris, représentant de l’Amiral d’Orléans), et assista à de nombreux rassemblements et cérémonies légitimistes. Alphonse, Duc d’Anjou et de Cadix fut assigné devant les tribunaux par le Comte de Clermont, fils aîné du Comte de Paris, qui cherchait à lui faire interdire de porter les armes pleines de France et le titre de Duc d’Anjou. Sa demande échoua ; le Duc de Cadix continua à porter le titre de Duc d’Anjou sur son passeport français. Il mourut au cours d’un tragique accident de ski à Beaver Creek, Avon, dans le Colorado, le 30 juin 1989 ; son second fils, Louis-Alphonse, le seul qui restât en vie, lui succéda. Il est né le 25 avril 1974, possède la double nationalité française et espagnole et vit à Madrid. Monseigneur le Prince Louis-Alphonse fut élu en remplacement de son père comme représentant de Louis XVI par la Société des Cincinnati. Le 24 juin 2000 il fut reçu Bailli Grand-Croix d’Honneur et Dévotion in gremio religionis par l’Ordre souverain militaire de Malte en tant que « Son Altesse Royale le Prince Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon, Duc d’Anjou » lors de la cérémonie annuelle d’investiture de l’Ordre tenue en la Chapelle Royale du Château de Versailles. Depuis sa majorité, Monseigneur Louis-Alphonse, Duc d’Anjou a témoigné d’un intérêt particulier pour la France et son histoire, prenant part à un grand nombre de cérémonies, en particulier la cérémonie annuelle de commémoration de la fondation des Invalides, où il est invité par le Gouverneur des Invalides (en même temps que le Chef de la Maison d’Orléans et le Chef de la Maison Bonaparte).<br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-35534862930695627372015-12-30T00:43:00.002+01:002015-12-30T00:43:32.776+01:00THE AWARD OF THE FRENCH ORDERS OF THE KING AFTER 18901894 Mgr Jacques, later duke of Madrid and Anjou<br />
1894 Mgr Alphonse-Charles, duke of San Jaime<br />
1896 Henri d'Aguilera, Marquess of Cerralbo and Grandee of Spain<br />
1897 Urbain, Comte de Maille de la Tour Landry<br />
1897 Bertram, Earl of Ashburnham<br />
1907 Tirso de Olazabal, count of Arbelaiz<br />
1919? Prince Sixte de Bourbon de Parme<br />
1920 Prince Paul of Serbia<br />
1927? Prince Francois-Xavier de Bourbon de Parme<br />
1930 Comte Jean d'Andigne<br />
1931 Prince Gaetan de Bourbon de Parme<br />
1931 Alphonse XIII et I.<br />
<br />
and as commandeur of the Order (a rank below knight, of which there were four, the officers of the Order)<br />
1931 Mgr Jean de Mayol de Lupe.<br />
<br />
Order of Saint Michel<br />
<br />
1929 Comte Jean d'Andigne (1864-1938, "Grand maître de la maison française" of the duke of Madrid, Présidant of the Mémorial de France a Saint Denys, a post now held by the duke of Bauffremont, conseiller-general of Maine et loire and Mayor of Durtal)<br />
1930 Comte Amedee d'Andigne<br />
<br />
Jacques I also conferred the revived legitimist decoration founded at the restoration, the Order of the Lily (a somewhat overt sign of his pretensions):<br />
<br />
1930 Comte Guy d'Andigne<br />
1930 Jacques Comte de Francqueville d'Abancourt<br />
1930 Andre Yvert<br />
1930 Andre Pinaud<br />
? Henri-Gustave Lelievre<br />
? Paul Watrin<br />
? Pierre Alessandri<br />
<br />
Charles XI, duke of Madrid, in a letter to Lord Ashburbham on 18 Nov 1897, wrote: "Mi querido Lord Ashburnham: deseando dar a V. una prueba de la alta estima en que tengo sus relevantes servicios a mi Causa y persona, he decidido nombrarle, y por la presente le nombro, Caballero de la insigne Orden del Espíritu Santo. Con esta carta le entrego uno de los Collares que, según los estatutos de la Orden, deben ser devueltos, a la muerte de cada titular, el Jefe y primogénito de los Borbónes, y que por este concepto poseo yo, desde el fallecimiento de mi amado Tío Enrique V de Francia."<br />
<br />
The nomination of the Count of Arbelaïz was made in a letter dated Venezia, 25 November 1907:<br />
<br />
"Mi querido Tirso: para darte una prueba de mi agradecimiento por tus eminentes servicios a nuestra santa causa te nombre el ano pasado come Rey legitimo de España, caballero de la insigne Orden del Toisón de Oro y deseando darte ahora una nueva prueba de mi cariño y del especial aprecio ... ha decidido conferirte, como Primogénito y Jefe que soy de la Casa de Borbon, por consiguiente Gran Maestre nato de la Orden del Espíritu Santo, la dignidad de Caballero de esta Orden insigne. El collar que te entrego, juntamente con esta carta, es uno de los que conservaba mi inolvidable Tio, Enrique V de Francia, y que le era devueltos, según exigen los Estatutos de la Orden, a la muerte de cada titular..."<br />
<br />
In the chapel of the Palazzo Loredan in Venice, the residence of the duke of Madrid, was the white flag of Henri V that had been embroidered as a gift from the ladies of Bordeaux - unfortunately his widow, Berthe, who did not like the Carlists (a feeling they reciprocated) burnt much of his papers etc at his death. There he made close friends with Cardinal Sarto, who was particularly drawn to France and during his reign as Pope Saint Pius X issued several letters marking his support and belief in traditional institutions, with a particualr mention of the French context.<br />
<br />
At the funeral of the duke of Madrid, his son (this same prince who Mr Stewart pretends took no interest in his French inheritance), wore both the Toison and the Saint Esprit. The legitimist magazine (yes there was even such a publication for these uninterested Frenchmen), La Monarchie francaise, number 12, 25-Aug-10 Sep 1911, and again in the issue number 15, of 1912, published a letter in which the duke of Madrid criticised the award of the Saint Louis to General de Charette by the duke of Orleans. He wrote then... "Si le feu général avait eu la Croix de Saint-Louis, il n'aurait pu la tenir que du Comte de Chambord, de mon Père, ou de moi. ... J’accueille avec la même incrédulité l'information que vous me rapportez, selon laquelle le Duc d'Orléans parait quelquefois avec le Collier de Saint Esprit, qui est mon apanage exclusif. Le Chef de la Maison de Bourbon, c'est moi; moi qui, dans mon lettre aux Souverains, a l'occasion de la more de mon cher et regrette Père, ai solennellement déclare que j'entendais revendiquer tous les droits et prérogatives qu'il me transmettait en dépôt; moi qui tiens du Comte de Chambord, avec le Château de Fröhsdorf, les reliques, les archives et les papiers de la Monarchie légitime, ainsi que la Maîtrise des Ordres royaux. S.A.R. le Duc d'Orléans est d'autant moins qualifie pour faire un chevalier du Saint-Esprit, ou pour s'approprier cet Ordre, qu'il est le tout a fait dernier dans notre arbre généalogique, et que sa branche ne peut produire la moindre prétention qu'après la complète extinction non seulement de la mienne, mais encorde de celles d'Espagne, des Deux Siciles et de Parme. ... de l'excellent revue la Monarchie Française, ou la tradition légitimiste est si vaillement défendue, je vous autorise a faire état dans ses colonnes de cette lettre, que je ne veux même pas honorer du nom protestation, mais simplement de mise au point d'une question qui ne peut être controversée...<br />
<br />
In a letter from Prince Paul of Yugoslavie, to Baron Pinoteau, the former wrote: 25 May 1965 "Don Jaime qui était le meilleur ami de mon père (il avait fait la guerre russo-japanese ensemble) m'a, en effet, donne un collier de l'ordre du saint-Esprit, qui hélas est reste en Belgrade."<br />
<br />
A letter written by the Conde de Melgar, Gentilhomme de Service de Monseigneur le Duc d'Anjou et Madrid, to the Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honour, dated 1 August 1928, reads (in part) « Monseigneur le Prince Jacques ... possède la collection de 36 colliers laisses par le Roi Charles X a son fils et héritier, transmis par celui-ci a Henri de France (Comte de Chambord) léguée par ce dernier a son neveu (Don Carlos) comme a l'héritier de ses droits. Ce dernier Prince était le Père de Mgr le Prince Jacques de Bourbon. Ces 36 colliers représentent tous les colliers remis, selon les lois de l'Ordre du Saint-Esprit, après la mort des chevaliers, au Grand Maître Souverain de l'Ordre. Les changes politiques de la France sont cause qu'un grand nombre de colliers ne furent pas restitues au Grand Maître quand moururent leur détenteurs. Rien d'étonnant a ce qu'un de ces colliers soit venue aux mains d'un collectionneur d'en faire don au Musée de la Légion d'Honneur. Mais Monseigneur le Prince Jacques tient a préciser que parmi les 36 colliers qu'Il possède se trouve celui que le Roi Charles X son trisaïeul reçut a sa réception dans l'Ordre et dont il ne se sépara jamais... »<br />
<br />
In a post script were given the names of the living holders of the Order, namely Prince Jacques, Chef de la Maison de Bourbon; Prince Sixte de Bourbon-Parme, Prince Xavier de Bourbon de Parme, and Prince Paul de Serbie. A further letter was sent by the Duke of Madrid's secretary, M. Demay, on 29 Aug 1928, noting the the name of "Infant D. Alphonse de Bourbon" had been omitted in the first letter.<br />
<br />
On 2 Aug 1929 the duke of Madrid conferred the collar of Saint Michel on Comte Jean d'Andigne, in which letter he wrote: « ... pour récompenser les services déjà longs que vous Nous avez rendu comme premier gentilhomme de notre Maison, et pour consacrer la fidélité des vôtres et de Vous-même au Roi légitime..." The following year, he conferred on Count d'Andigne, in a letter written on his behalf and beginning: "Par ordre de Monseigneur le Prince Jacques de Bourbon, Duc d'Anjou et de Madrid...." the Collar of the Saint Esprit.<br />
<br />
There were in fact not only the Memorial de Saint Denys, a legitimist organization which has never faltered in its support of the senior line, but also the service d'honneur of the duke in which a number of French aristocrats participated. The secretary-general of the Memorial was for some time Comte de Francqueville d'Abancourt, who was given the Order of the Lys on 25 Aug 1930 (Saint Louis), in a letter from the duke, signed "Jacques Jaime" in which he begins by describing himself as "Chef légitime de la Maison Royale de France..."<br />
<br />
The journal des debats of 8 december 1931, reporting the funeral of don Jaime, quoted the duke as follows: "Je ne pretends a rien. Par ma naissance, j'incarne, une tradition; c'est tout différent. ... Un roi légitime ne gouverne que d'accord avec son peuple, qui doit être un peuple libre. C'est cela qui s'appelle la monarchie nationale ou le roi est pour tous et un frère aine et un père. En France, tous les Français se sentaient de la famille royale; voila pourquoi l'égalité est un instinct français: égalité de droits et de dignité qu n'offense pas la juste et nécessaire inégalité d’influence et de position. ... Le roi appartient au pays; le pays n'est pas au roi. Ceux qui critiquent Louis XVI ou mon aïeul Charles X ne savent pas ce que c'est qu'un roi de France... J'ignore si jamais la France reviendra a la tradition capétienne. je sais que j'ai le devoir de maintenir cette tradition léguée pas mes pères pour le jour ou la France m'y appellerait. Je suis un mainteneur; je ne suis pas un prétendant."<br />
<br />
In his address to King Alfonso XIII when the latter called on him (along with the Duke of Miranda) for the first time, on 23rd September 1931, at his residence on the Avenue Hoche, Don Jaime, Duke of Madrid said: “Tout d'abord t'es-tu compromis avec nos cadets quant a la succession royale en France. Cela n'a rien a voir avec l'Espagne; et, cependant, sache-le bien, si nous ne sommes pas d'accord sur la question française, impossible pour moi de m'entendre avec toi pour une union pratique en Espagne. Peu importe qu’il y ait un jour ou qu’il n’y ait jamais de monarchie en France! Mais il importe beaucoup qu’un Bourbon soit toujours fidèle à la maison de France, où qu’il aille, où qu’il règne. Le Chef de la Maison de France, c’est l’ainée des Bourbons. Un jour, sans doute, ce sera toi, car tu est jeune,et survivras à moi et à mon oncle. Dans tous les pays, sauf la France, les rois peuvent abdiquer, les dynasties peuvent renoncer. En France, toute abdication, toute renonciation est nulle, parce que les princes des fleurs de lys sont à la France. La France peut renoncer à eux. La réciproque n’est pas vraie. Pour la France, tu ne pourras jamais ni renoncer, ni abdiquer. De même, après toi, ton fils ainé, n’eut-il ni bras ni jambes, prendra ta place comme chef de la Maison de France. Là, il n’y a pas d’abdication possible. » The agreement then proposed by the Duke of Madrid was then that there would be an assembly of Spanish Monarchists gathered on the Spanish border; there Alfonso XIII would recognize don Jaime as King, and don Jaime would adopt don Juan as heir to the throne of Spain, to which the elder sons would renounce, but would retain their French rights, which were irrenounceable. .<br />
<br />
Two days later, on 25th September 1931, with the acceptance by Alfonso XIII of this charge, he conferred upon him at the King’s temporary residence at Fontainebleau, the Collar of the Saint Esprit. The King confirmed his acceptance of these agreements and, receiving the Collar of the Order expressed his great happiness at being received therein. In the letter from Mgr Mayol de Luppe reporting these events, to Count de Francqueville d’Abancourt, he wrote: “…Pour moi je trouve cela parfait et providential. Mgr le Duc d’Anjou n’a pas d’héritier direct; la branche de D. Alphonse semblait séparée de la France, non par le droit, mais par les faits et par sa rupture avec la tradition, en suite de son usurpation. La voilà qui rentre dans le rang. Le fils aîné de D. Alphonse et le cadet D. Jaime (très bien malgré son informité) auront postérité uniquement française. .. »<br />
<br />
The diploma of the Saint Esprit is probably in the archives of don Juan and now the present king, but photographs exist : It begins “Nous Jacques Jaime par la Grâce de Dieu, Chef des Maisons Royales de France et d’Espagne, Maître Souverain de l’Ordre de Saint-Esprit… Aussi ce avec joie que Nous reçûmes de la Providence le vingt-trois septembre dernier l’insigne faveur que Nous accorda Sa bonté quand Elle daigna conduire à Nous le Prince Alphonse Louis (sic) Ferdinand… Notre bien amé Cousin qui (après Notre Oncle, le Prince Alphonse… Premier Prince du Sang de France et Prince des Asturies) est Notre héritier, et qui, selon l’ordre naturel des choses, est destiné à Nous succéder… En France, en effet, une consécration divine préside de par Notre histoire à la transmission des droits et devoirs royaux, ce pourquoi des actes pourtant solennels, tels que la renonciation de Philippe V et l’abdication de Charles X, Notre trisaïeul maternel, sont nuls et de nul effet. Notre Cousin Alphonse Nous a protesté reconnaître cette loi immuable et lui obéir. Il s’est déclaré prêt à assumer après Nous la charge de Chef de la Maison de France, à conserver et défendre les droits et devoirs inhérents à cette charge et à les transmettre sans tentative de renonciation ou abdication à Son aîné. Nous lui avons clairement expliqué ces lois, ces devoirs, ces droits, cet ordre immuable de succession. Il nous promit de se soumettre à ces obligations, de les enseigner à ses enfants et de leur faire entendre que de part leur naissance ils son d’abord Prince du Sang de France. Aussi en témoignage de cette événement si grave et joyeux qui Nous a permis de transmettre formellement et solennellement le dépôt du droit Royal, d’en seigneur à Notre éventuel successeur direct l’Ordre de la Monarchie Capétienne qui a fait de la France la première des Nations chrétiennes et du Roi de France le plus Auguste des Souverains, avons-nous voulu remettre Nous-même à Notre di bien amé et féal Cousin Alphonse le collier de Notre Ordre du Saint-Esprit, le dispensant des cérémonies requises pour telle réception, le recevant, par exception singulière, au dit Ordre en ce dit jour vingt-cinquième de septembre mil neuf cent trente et un, encore que la date de telle réception soi fixée par Nos statuts au premier janvier. Nous obligeons Notre dit bien amé Cousin a toutes obligations de l’Ordre quant à l’obéissance et serment au Grand Maître, quant aux œuvres de piété et charité prescrits des statuts de l’Ordre, tels que Nous les avons modifiés, sauf dispense de l’Aumônier (sic) pour lors existant, de Nos Ordres. Qu’il sache tenu au port constant ;’insigne de l’Ordre, la Croix du Saint-Esprit devant toujours être portée avant toute autre décoration. Mais même s’il Nous venions à mourir avant Notre Oncle, il ne serait pas tenu, sauf décision contraire de Notre successeur à la restitution du Collier, le constituant après Nous, ey égard aux présentes circonstances, gardien de fait des colliers de l’Ordre, encore que les dits colliers soient en droit complètement et sans possible restriction, ès pouvoirs de Notre successeur qui en pourra disposer à Son gré Royal. Toutefois quant à l’ancienneté dans l’Ordre pour Notre dit Cousin la date de réception comptera comme si Notre bien amé Cousin Alphonse avait été reçu le premier de Janvier mil neuf cent trente deux, le premier janvier étant le jour du grand chapitre annuel. Il prend rang aussitôt après Notre Cousin Gaëtan de Bourbon, Prince de Parme.<br />
<br />
Et avons donné le présent acte sous Notre seing et le sceau de Nos armes le vingt cinq de septembre, an de grâce mil neuf cent trente et un, de Notre avènement le vingt-deuxième. Jacques Jaime »<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-90550250634501025062015-12-30T00:40:00.002+01:002015-12-30T00:40:30.409+01:00ON THE NATIONALITY OF FRENCH PRINCESRe-reading Hervé Pinoteau’s introduction to Sixte de Bourbon-Parma’s thesis on the treaty of Utrecht, I had the opportunity to consider his reporting of the case over the succession to the Château of Chambord. One of the several issues was the citizenship of the various parties, Princes Xavier and Sixte claiming to be French citizens. In rejecting this claim, it is interesting that the Civil Tribunal of Blois (in whose district was Chambord), in its judgement, found that: « Il est malaise d’admettre que celui-ci (Philip V) ait conservé la nationalité française en montant sur le trône d’Espagne; que vainement, on prétendant que le droit de successibilité au trône de France, auquel le Duc d’Anjou n’aurait pu valablement renoncer, aurait eu comme conséquent de lui conserver la nationalité française, au moins latente, en vertu de la règle qui s’opposait à ce qu’un prince étranger puisse régner en France ; qu’en effet, si un Prince né à l’étranger ou demeurant à l’étranger, c'est-à-dire non régnicole, n’était pas incapable de succéder, c’était ainsi que la déclarait d’Aguesseau au parlement de Paris en 1713, parce que les maximes fondamentales de l’État et cette espèce de substitution perpétuelle qui appellent successivement les Princes du sang à la couronne, valent bien des lettres de nationalité » que c’est à tort qu’on a pu voir dans cette capacité, de redevenir Français en montant sur le trône de France, une nationalité puissance, qu’on ne peut non plus soutenir que la Constituante aurait reconnu en les maintenant les droits des descendants de Philippe V à la nationalité française, puisque l’aptitude à redevenir français était la conséquence de la possibilité qui leur était laissée de revendiquer les droits au trône. Attendu que de ce qui précède, il résulte que le Duc d’Anjou auteur des parties au procès est devenu Espagnol en montant sur le trône d’Espagne, que par suite, c’est la nationalité espagnole qu’il a transmisse à ses descendants…. »<br />
<br />
Pinoteau, in his commentary on this, goes on to write « Il était difficile à un tribunal de la République d’en dire plus, mais l’essentiel y était avec ce rappel de la loi successorale. C’est exactement ce qu’écrivait Saint-Simon : un prince de nationalité étrangère devenant l’ainé dans l’ordre de primogéniture devenait automatiquement roi de France et donc Français. » [Saint-Simon, Papiers en marge des Mémoires, 1954, pp. 249-250].<br />
<br />
This judgment was appealed and the appeal court of Orléans, the 29th Feb 1928, confirmed the judgment above, repeating this text exactly. Finally, on 13 April 1932, the Court of Cassation refused to hear the appeal by Prince Sixte.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-10803994766416240802015-12-30T00:37:00.004+01:002015-12-30T00:37:54.579+01:00THE COMTE DE CHAMBORD AND 1873THE COMTE DE CHAMBORD AND THE EVENTS OF 1873<br />
<br />
The Comte de Chambord has been generally blamed for stubbornly refusing to accept the tricolore, and thereby throwing away the last chance of a restoration. This judgment is not supported by the facts, however, as it would seem to have been plotting by a small number among the Orleanists, hoping to provoke the abdication of the Comte de Chambord in favour of the Comte de Paris (with or without the latter’s knowledge), which led to the Comte de Chambord giving up the crown.<br />
<br />
The issue of what the Comte de Chambord intended with the reconciliation with the Comte de Paris is also not entirely clear. Orleanists argue that Chambord’s intention was to recognize the Comte de Paris as his eventual heir, but the direct evidence of the time is slight. One quotation was recorded by the Marquis de Flers on the 5th March 1873, when the Comte de Paris had his second meeting with the Comte de Chambord after stating that he and the Comte de Chambord had political differences, to which Chambord replied: “Croyez, mon cousin, que je trouve tout naturel que vous conserviez les opinions politiques dans lesquelles vous avez été élevé; l’héritier du trône peut avoir ses idées comme le roi a les siennes.”<br />
<br />
The request by the Comte de Paris to visit Frohsdorf was received well by the Comte de Chambord, but on strict terms: “Les intérêts les plus chers de la France exigent d’une manière impérieuse que la visite faite, dans la situation présente, par S.A.R. le Comte de Paris à M. le Comte de Chambord, ne puisse donner lieu à aucune interprétation erronée ; M. le Comte de Chambord demande que M. le Comte de Paris déclare qu’il ne vient pas seulement saluer le chef de la Maison de Bourbon, mais bien reconnaître le principe dont M. le Comte de Chambord est le représentant, avec l’intention de reprendre sa place dans la famille. Frohsdorf, le 3 août 1873.»<br />
<br />
The Comte de Paris replied that “Je désire porter le plus tôt possible mes respectueux hommages au chef de ma famille.” This was not enough for the Count of Chambord, however, who asked for “une signification plus accentuée, les relations de famille ne pouvant être utilement renouées qu’avec la reconnaissance du principe dont il est le représentant.”<br />
<br />
The Comte de Paris then declared : “Mon grand-père a brisé l’anneau ; je veux renouer la chaîne des traditions. J’ai certaines idées, mon cousin a les siennes. Les miennes sont personnelles. Ce n’est que par un accord avec la nation qu’il peut faire prévaloir ou modifier les siennes ; je n’ai pas plus à les examiner qu’il ne aurait me demander d’abdiquer les miennes.”<br />
<br />
His written declaration followed, stating : “M. le Comte de Paris pense, comme M. le Comte de Chambord, qu’il faut que la visite projetée ne donne lieu à aucune interprétation erronée. Il est prêt, en abordant M. le Comte de Chambord, à lui déclarer que son intention n’est pas seulement de saluer le chef de la Maison de Bourbon mais de reconnaître le principe dont M. le Comte de Chambord est le représentant. Il souhaite que la France cherche son salut dans le retour à ce principe et vient auprès de M. le Comte de Chambord pour lui donner l’assurance qu’il ne rencontrera aucun compétiteur parmi les membres de sa famille.”<br />
<br />
The famous meeting then took place on the 5th August, at which the Comte de Chambord made his remark about the political opinions of the Comte de Paris. The statement following, however, stated clearly that there had been no discussion regarding the circumstances that would lead to a monarchical restoration, which would be in the exclusive competence of the National Assembly. “Mais il est établi par cette visite que les princes d’Orléans ne seront plus un obstacle à la réconciliation de la France et du prince qui représente la monarchie traditionnelle.”<br />
<br />
The drapeau blanc, however, was not the real obstacle that prevented the Comte de Chambord from returning, as is usually claimed. The constitutional problem was in reality the interpretation of the powers of the King, which if there was an immediate confrontation with the Assembly, would have led to a constitutional crisis; but it was the evident political divisions among the royalists that prevented a compromise from being found. This compromise could have worked, because the Comte de Chambord understood that the army would not accept the abandonment of the tricolore and any proposal to re-establish the drapeau blanc would likely have been postponed, at least until the new King had found a way to persuade the army to accept some workable compromise solution. This, however, was eventually sabotaged at the last minute by the Orleanists Vicomte d’Haussonville and Duc Decazes (the latter through an agent, a M. Savaray). Their hope was that their actions would provoke the Comte de Chambord to abdicate in favor of the Comte de Paris; indeed, apparently Haussonville stated that he would prefer a republic to the return of Chambord.<br />
<br />
The compromise the Comte de Chambord was persuaded to accept by M. Charles Chesnelong, who was sent to see him on behalf of the monarchist deputies and who sought a solution acceptable to the right and the center who made up the majority in the Assembly (14 October 1873). was:<br />
<br />
(1) “M. le Comte de Chambord ne demande pas que rien soit change au drapeau national avant qu’il ait pris possession du pouvoir.”<br />
Chambord’s reply : “Soit ! J’accepte cela. Je ne demande pas que l’assemblée prenne l’initiative d’un changement dans le drapeau et je n’ai pas l’intention de prendre moi-même avant d’être monté sur le trône. Je n’ai donc aucune objection à ce que vous disiez, en mon nom, que je ne demande pas que rien soit changé du drapeau avant que j’aie pris possession du pouvoir.”<br />
(2) “Monseigneur se réserve de présenter au pays, à l’heure qu’il jugera convenable, et se fait fort d’obtenir de lui, pas ses représentants, une solution compatible avec son honneur et qu’il croit de nature à satisfaire l’assemblée et la nation.” Chambord replied “J’accepte que la seconde déclaration que vous ferez en mon nom, soit formulée ainsi que vous venez de le dire.” (3) “M. le Comte de Chambord accepte que la question du drapeau, après avoir été posée par le roi, soit résolue avec l’accord du Roi et de l’Assemblée.”<br />
<br />
This latter clause was not quite so easy for the Comte de Chambord, because it allowed for the possibility that the assembly would reject any change, even though Chesnelong considered it in effect dependent upon the 2nd condition and not in conflict with it. Chambord’s reply to this condition («J’entends bien présentert la solution à l’Assemblée.”) was not exactly what Chesnelong wanted, but he considered that it was a natural extension of the 2nd, and therefore that there was no conflict. However, when these terms and his responses were written down, the Comte de Chambord hesitated, saying to Blacas that “La troisième me met trop à la merci de l’assemblée; je vous demande de la supprimer.” Chambord therefore requested that Chesnelong not include the third condition and Chesnelong left for Paris. So confident was the Comte de Chambord that this would be accepted that he asked Chesnelong to convey to the duc de Broglie that he would confirm him as first minister. Chiappe suggests that what the Comte de Chambord was hoping to do, in the event that the National Assembly refused, was to dissolve the assembly and put the question to the people – a very Bonapartist solution; but the proposed powers of the King would not in fact have included the power to dissolve the assembly.<br />
<br />
Chambord was not the ultra-reactionary he has been portrayed, as he had earlier made it clear (19 September 1873) that he rejected the “fantôme de la dîme, des droits féodaux, de l’intolérance religieuse, de la persécution contre nos frères séparés… [and that he rejected the]… gouvernement des prêtres, de la prédominance des classes privilégiées”, the very allegations against him made by the republicans led by Gambetta and Thiers. He considered himself above party, but that his act of reconciliation with the Comte de Paris had been “de rendre à la France son rang, et dans les plus chers intérêts de sa prospérité, de sa gloire et de sa grandeur.”<br />
<br />
Nonetheless he did not fully comprehend the reality of the divisions between the differing groups which, on some or other terms, were prepared to support the restoration. Perhaps this was why, on 14th October, he did not receive the deputies who had accompanied Chesnelong. The position of the Church was also uncertain; some, on the extreme right, vigorously demanded that the Comte de Chambord reject the tricolore because it symbolized the sovereignty of the people; yet the Pope, in an audience accorded to the royalist deputy Keller said “La couleur du pavillon n’a pas une grande importance. C’est avec le drapeau tricolore que les Français m’avaient rétabli à Rome. Vous voyez qu’avec ce drapeau on peut faire de bonne choses, mais M. le Comte de Chambord n’a pa voulu me croire.”<br />
<br />
The solution offered by Chesnelong was immediately subject to debate; duc d’Audiffret-Pasquier, leader of the center right and an Orléanist, was concerned that if the King’s proposal was rejected there would be an immediate crisis following the restoration. The army had made it clear that it would accept nothing less than the tricolore; some among the Orléanists were hoping for a solution that would provoke the speedy abdication of the Comte de Chambord in favor of the Comte de Paris, who would have immediately compromised on this question. Orleanist historians consider that the Comte de Paris was ignorant of these maneuverings, but he was certainly privy to the distribution of large sums to the deputies – estimated at between six and forty million francs to try and persuade them to accept the compromise proposed by Chesnelong. Chesnelong introduced the two clauses to which the Comte de Chambord had agreed to the Assembly in a passionate speech on 18th October that was received with a standing ovation. He made it clear that these two declarations were all he had been charged to transmit, stating that «Le prince n’usera de son initiative qu’après avoir pris possession du pouvoir; … mais usera-t-il de son initiative après son élévation au trône? J’en suis convaincu. Sera-ce dès le lendemain de son avènement ou plus tard? Je l’ignore. Quelle solution présentera-t-il ? Il ne me l’a pas indiqué. Voilà tout ce que je puis dire.”<br />
<br />
A text was then proposed by Audiffret-Pasquier that was voted on and passed by a large majority : “D’après ces propositions, la monarchie serait rétablie, toutes les libertés civiles, politiques et religieuses qui constituent le droit public de la France seraient garanties ; le drapeau tricolore serait maintenu et des modifications ne pourraient y être accordées, l’initiative royale restant d’ailleurs intacte, que par l’accord du Roi et de la représentation nationale ; les réunions que ces bureaux représentent seront immédiatement convoquées.”<br />
<br />
Unfortunately there still need to be a clear accord between the right and center right, and it was this that was deliberately sabotaged by the ardent Orléanists Decazes and Haussonville. Haussonville and Decazes’ protégé Savaray were secretaries of the session of the center right, and the former now used his office to alter the terms agreed by Chesnelong, who had stated that: “le Roi est dispose par avance à la plus complète harmonie de sentiments avec la majorité royaliste” to “à la plus complète harmonie avec les membres les plus libéraux de l’Assemblée et du pays,” and “solution compatible avec son honneur et transaction compatible avec son honneur.” Savary made an even more egregious change, altering the words reported as having been said by the Comte de Chambord to Chesnelong from “L’accord est complet entre le Comte de Chambord et la majorité royaliste sur les questions constitutionnelles” to “L’accord était donc complet, absolu, entre les idées de M. le Comte de Chambord et de la France libérale,” words that could never possibly have been used by the unfortunate prince at Frohsdorf. These wordings were then communicated to the press, and of course immediately were drawn to the attention of the Comte de Chambord, in Austria.<br />
<br />
The Orleanists argue that it was “incontestable [that] le chef de la branche cadette apparaît trop subtil et trop honnête pour tremper dans de semblables intrigues.” This may have been the case, but it is hard to understand why he did not then immediately disassociate himself from them, or order Decazes and Haussonville, both close friends and advisers, to withdraw them and record the actual agreed wording. Certainly Decazes and Haussonville hoped that the Comte de Chambord would now abdicate to the Comte de Paris and thus effect the Orléanist restoration that they had always sought; the Comte de Paris himself said nothing in the face of this disastrous blow to reconciliation and restoration. Whether Audiffret-Pasquier was privy to these intrigues is uncertain, his apologists assert that he tried to stop the reports of these deliberations form being published, but was too late.<br />
<br />
The Comte de Chambord was now faced with a fateful choice and, fully conscious of the reality of the political divisions even among the monarchists, despite his gesture to the Comte de Paris, decided to reject the uncertain compromise. His letter was transmitted directly to Chesnelong but he insured that a copy arrived at the same moment with the publication Union. After complimenting the deputy for his efforts, it continued: “On me demande aujourd’hui le sacrifice de mon honneur. Que puis-je répondre ? Sinon que je ne rétracte rien, que je ne retranche rien de mes précédentes déclarations. Les prétentions de la veille me donnent la mesure des exigences du lendemain et je ne puis consentir à inaugurer un règne réparateur et fort par un acte de faiblesse.” Did he know this would mean the end of his hopes and that of all French monarchists ? It would seem not as he still proceeded with his plan to return to France. The newspapers realized it, however, those on the right and center justly portraying this as an act of honour ; Le Gaulois commented “Il a préféré le suicide au déshonneur. La France aura pour lui le respect commandé par une si noble attitude;” L’Ordre “Le prince est sorti avec honneur et dignité de l’intrigue dans laquelle on l’avait indiscrètement mêlé. Des honneurs tels que lui peuvent se passer de la couronne;” Le Pays, “Cette lettre enlève à la France un roi, mais lui laisser un honnête homme.” No such generous sentiments were expressed by the journals of the left, all of which ridiculed the Comte de Chambord; sadly it is the memory of the supposedly obstinate reactionary that remains the general view.<br />
<br />
Chambord arrived in France on 5th November, going straight to Versailles, where he took up residence appropriately in the rue Saint Louis. He now sought a meeting with the president, the duc de Magenta, whose wife was a devoted legitimist. Chambord hoped that an accidental meeting could be arranged, and Comte Stanislas de Blacas, his aide, suggested this to the Maréchale Duchesse de Magenta, who thought it impossible but that Monseigneur could pay a call on the President. This Chambord and his advisers did not consider appropriate for the future King. Blacas now went to see the President himself, and asked him to present the Comte de Chambord to the National Assembly, but Magenta could not oblige and was nervous of the reaction of the army. When informed of his response Chambord remarked: “je croyais avoir affaire à un connétable de France, je n’ai trouve qu’un capitaine de gendarmerie.” He had been ready; the uniform of a Lieutenant-General with the Grand Cordon of the Legion d’Honneur, with the center of the star with the fleurs de lys rather than the Henri IV of the restoration, instead of the more ancient régime Saint Esprit, was laid out; but the call did not come. Nonetheless the projected restoration still went to the vote but failed by 378 to 310 votes; the republic was preserved and MacMahon assured the presidency until 20 November 1880. Chambord now left France for Austria; he did not want to live there if he could not reign.<br />
<br />
There was still hope for a restoration, but the legitimists could not agree to establish the Comte de Paris as King, as Haussonville and Decazes had hoped. The government was still heavily inclined towards the monarchy; the prime minister was still the duc de Broglie, while duc Decazes was given foreign affairs. The duc de la Rochefoucauld-Bisaccia, deputy, but also Ambassador in London, proposed a new law by which “(1) le gouvernment de la France est la monarchie; le trône appartient au chef de la Maison de France; (2) le maréchal de Mac-Mahon [duc de Magenta] prend le titre de lieutenant général du royaume ; (3) les<br />
institutions politiques de la France seront réglées par l’accord du Roi et de la représentation nationale.” This failed to obtain a majority and was the last serious attempt to re-establish the monarchy in the Assembly.<br />
<br />
In the winter of 1874 the former Queen of Spain, Isabel II, now living in Parisian exile, arrived in Vienna and received Chambord’s representative, to whom she made the astonishing suggestion that the Comte should adopt the Prince Imperial as his heir, criticizing the “tentative de fusion, c’est gravis les marches du trône pour en ouvrir le chemin aux princes d’Orléans”. To the surprise of his representative, M. de Monti, the Comte de Chambord far from being scandalised by this suggestion responded: “Cela pourrait sans doute faire le bonheur de la France, et, tout en gardant ma dignité, je pourrais un jour faire passer l’héritage de mes pères en des mains jeunes où s’ailleraient deux conceptions qui s’entrechoquent encore. Mais je suis trop vieux et on ne me comprendrait pas.” Does this suggest that the Comte de Chambord’s familial reconciliation was merely familial, and only political to the extent that it served the interests of the monarchy at the moment? Did he perhaps now consider that as the last of his line, the dynastic position of his successor was of less importance than effective government? Chambord was in fact on excellent personal terms with the Empress Eugènie, a legitimist at heart, while he was himself fascinated with Bonaparte’s military glory. When the Prince Imperial was killed, in 1878, Chambord sent his mother an emotional letter of condolence, professing his admiration for a brave young Frenchman.<br />
<br />
Somewhat surprisingly the Orléanists paid little further heed to the exile at Frohsdorf and the Comte de Paris himself took the reconciliation no further, only meeting once more with the Comte de Chambord when he was on his death-bed. Was this failure simply a recognition that there was to be no further political gain?<br />
<br />
After 1881 there was a legitimate excuse, as the government had threatened to close the border to the Orléans princes and had expelled them from the army, but for the seven years after Chambord left France it is hard to understand why there was no contact. When they did come the Comte de Chambord was immediately forgiving, welcoming the Comte de Paris and the Ducs de Nemours and Alençon, embracing them and even placing the Comte de Paris’ head upon his heart. It was a short interview, just seventeen minutes, ending with the Comte de Chambord taking the hand of the Comte de Paris and saying: “Quand vous rentres en France, dites bien à tous que c’est pour ma chère France qu’il faut prier et non pour moi. Mon seul regret est de n’avoir pu la servir et mourir pour elle comme l’a toujours désiré mon Coeur. Soyez plus heureux que moi, c’est tout ce que je désire.” Just before they left, the duc d’Alençon took the dying man’s hand, saying “Vous êtes mon roi et je voudrais mourir pour vous…” Those among the legitimists who later supported the claims of the Orléans blamed the Comtesse de Chambord for the poor relations between her husband and the princes of the cadet branch during his last years; they ascribed considerable influence to her as well as antagonism to their line.<br />
<br />
In France legitimist sentiments were still strong; fifteen steamers had been rented, each with a thousand royalists, to celebrate the feast of Saint Henri on the 15th July, in Brighton (this because it was the residence of the Comte de Montemolin, future head of the House of Bourbon?), but the celebrations were cancelled because of the grave health of their prince. Chambord continued to rest, his strength gradually dissipating until 23rd August when, in the presence of his wife, the Countess of Bardi (wife of the duke of Parma’s brother and a sister of Francis II of the Two Sicilies), the Duchess of Madrid (daughter of Chambord’s sister, the dowager duchess of Parma), and the Grand Duchess of Tuscany (half-sister of the Duchess of Berry, Chambord’s mother), he received the Last Rites of the Church. Also present in the castle were his half-brother, the Duca della Grazia, his aide the Comte de Monti and his wife, the Marquis de Foresta, Général de Charette (his half-nephew through his father’s relationship with Amy Brown) and MM. de Chevigné, de Raincourt, d’Andigné. De Champeaux-Verneuil and Joseph du Bourg, most of whom were later to rally to the duke of Madrid. After repeating the word “France” several times, M. le Comte de Chambord passed away at 7.27 a.m. on the morning of the 24th August, 1883.<br />
<br />
The Comtesse de Chambord announced that the funeral would be “private” and turned over responsibility for organizing the protocol to Emmanuel Bocher and Comte Stanislas de Blacas. After the representative of the Emperor Franz Joseph, the Archduke Ludwig-Karl, the first three places were reserved for the Duke of Madrid, the Duke of Parma and the Count of Bardi, with Francis II, King of the Two Sicilies, seated immediately behind them. The Comte de Paris attended, accepting that this was a “family” occasion but informing his supporters that the second funeral mass, in the cathedral at Goritz, would be the “official” ceremony at which he would preside. He then issued a statement, distributed to the sovereigns of Europe: “Sire, j’ai la douleur de vous faire part de la perte cruelle que la Maison de France vient d’éprouver dans la personne de son chef, Monseigneur Henri Charles Ferdinand Dieudonné d’Artois, duc de Bordeaux, Comte de Chambord, décédé à Frohsdorf, le 24 août 1884. Je prie Votre Majesté de vouloir bien accorder dans cette circonstances à la Maison de France sa haute sympathie. Philippe, Comte de Paris.” This was a curious form of words ; in his lifetime Chambord had been referred to by his supporters – Blacas, for example, when he met with Maréchal Mac-Mahon - as “Roi” and “Henri V” ; now he was restored to the surname “Artois” and the title of Duc de Bordeaux that he had not used for thirty-seven years ; the Comte de Paris himself meanwhile dropped the name “Louis”, given him in honor of his grandfather, for the single name “Philippe”.<br />
<br />
The second, larger funeral service took place in the Cathedral at Goritz; this time the Emperor was represented by the Prince of Thurn und Taxis (brother-in-law of King Francis II of the Two Sicilies). The issue of precedence again arose, and now the Comte de Mun asked the Comte de Chambord’s confessor, Fr Boll, to explain to the dukes of Madrid and Parma that they were wrong in their view of the placement and that the Comte de Paris should take first place. To Mun’s evident surprise, Fr Boll replied, that no, on the contrary, the Comte de Paris has no right to be placed first, neither right of family nor by inheritance. The priest continued: “Vous n’avez aucune raison de soutenir le Comte de Paris; il n’a pas le droit pour lui. Les legitimistes d’aujourd’hui ont oublié cela ; il y a cinquante ans, on le disait tout haut ; M. de Genoude, M. Coquille, plus tard, ont publiquement soutenu cette thèse historique. En 1791, à l’Assemblée constituante, Mirabeau, lui-même, a déclaré qu’il fallait réserver les droits éventuels de la branche d’Espagne. Le traité d’Utrecht a imposé la renonciation à qui ? Au roi d’Espagne. Don Carlos est lié à cette clause parce qu’il a revendiqué ses droits, qu’il a fait acte de prétendance. Son père, don Juan, peut être considéré comme lié aussi, parce qu’il les a fait valoir autrefois ; son fils également parce qu’il est son héritier. Mais son frère Alphonse [later Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime, last Carlist claimant] n’est pas lié et c est là qu’est l’hérédité.” ‘<br />
<br />
Poor Mun tried to insist, that everyone knew the Comte de Paris, no-one knew of this Alphonse,<br />
and indeed those monarchists who supported the claim of the senior line did not support him, but his father, don Juan. It was don Juan who now presided at the funeral at Goritz; the Orléans, unable to take the place they considered theirs, declined to attend.<br />
<br />
The Comte de Chambord in his will of 5 July 1883 had named his nephew the duke of Parma his universal heir, with the reserve for the enjoyment first of his widow, with many individual legacies to other family members, including the duke of Madrid, who was bequeathed the collars of the Orders (perceived by legitimists as a highly significant bequest, since they could be bestowed only by the legitimate successor to the crown). It was alleged by the Orléanists that he left another, political testament, but no trace or evidence of this has ever appeared. Chiappe asserts that he never sustained the rights of the Spanish Bourbons, there is not much evidence that after the failure of the compromise of 1873 that he had any intention of supporting the claims of the Orléans either. Immediately following his death, on 26th August, all the legitimist organizations were dissolved; was this to hinder the Comte de Paris (which it certainly did)? Although this happened 120-130 years ago, it somehow seems a more distant memory; for most all possibilities for the Bourbons ended in 1830. There was still one attendant working at Frohsdorf in the 1960s whose parents had served the Comte de Chambord; the duke of San Jaime died in 1936, but his political heir as Carlist claimant, Prince François-Xavier de Bourbon-Parme did not die until the late 1970s – he had known well the last duke of Madrid. The château of Chambord, where a floor recently collapsed as a result of subsidence due to the drought and some thirty were injured, remains an historic relic of this last hope for restoration – there are many paintings and objects connected with the Comte de Chambord on view. Its last owner was Elie, Duke of Parma, who after his rights to possession of the castle were affirmed in a judgment of the French courts, after being challenged by Princes Sixte and François-Xavier of Bourbon-Parme, was forced to sell its contents and park to the French state, as a result of the right of pre-emption agreed in the final peace Treaty between France and Austria.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-33064544467252319172015-12-30T00:28:00.000+01:002017-04-25T18:04:48.268+02:00Descent of the Infanta Alicia (1917-2017), Senior Representative of King David I of Scotland and<br />
senior known representative of King Edward the Confessor.<br />
<br />
1. David I King of Scots (-1153) m. Matilda of Huntingdon [older sons d. young]<br />
2. Henry Earl of Huntingdon (-1152) m. Ada de Warenne (-1178) [older sons' issue extinct by 1290]<br />
3. David Earl of Huntingdon (-1219) m. 1190 Maud of Chester<br />
4. Margaret of Huntingdon m. 1209 Alan Lord of Galloway (-1234) [son d. s.p., other dau. d. s.p. by 1246]<br />
5. Devorguila of Galloway (-1290) m. John de Baliol (-1268) [sons' issue extinct by 1363]<br />
6. Ada de Baliol m. William de Lindsay<br />
7. Christine Lindsay (-1320) m. Enguerrand V de Coucy (-1321)<br />
8. Guillaume de Coucy (-1335) m. Isabeau de Chatillon (-1360)<br />
9. Enguerrand VI de Coucy (-1344) m. Katharina v O"sterreich (1320-1349)<br />
10. Enguerrand VII de Coucy 1 Earl of Bedford (-1398) m. Isabel of England<br />
(1332-1379)<br />
11. Marie de Coucy m. Henri de Bar (-1396)<br />
12. Robert de Bar Count de Marle (-1415) m. Jeanne de Béthune (-1450)<br />
13. Jeanne de Bar (-1462) m. Louis I of Luxembourg Count of Saint Pol (1418-1476)<br />
14. Pierre II of Luxembourg Count of Brienne (1440-1483) m. Marguerite of<br />
Savoy (-1483)<br />
15. Marie de Luxembourg (-1546) m. François de Bourbon Count of Vendôme.<br />
(1470-1495)<br />
16. Charles IV de Bourbon Duke of Vendôme (1489-1537) m. Françoise d'Alencon<br />
(1491-1550)<br />
17. Antoine de Bourbon Duke of Vendôme (1518-1562) m. Jeanne III d'Albret King of<br />
Navarre (1528-1572)<br />
18. Henri IV King of France (1553-1610) m. 1600 Maria de Medici (1573-1642)<br />
19. Louis XIII King of France (1601-1643) m. Anne of Austria, Infanta of Spain (1601-<br />
1666)<br />
20. Louis XIV King of France (1638-1715) m. Maria Teresa of Austria, Infanta of Spain<br />
(1638-1683)<br />
21. Louis Dauphin of France (1661-1711) m. Maria Anna v Bayern (1660-1690)<br />
22. Louis Dauphin of France (1682-1712) m. Marie Adelaide of Savoy<br />
(1685-1712)<br />
23. Louis XV King of France (1710-1774) m. Maria Leszczynska, Princess of Poland<br />
(1703-1768)<br />
24. Louis Dauphin of France (1729-1765) m. Josepha of Saxony (1731-1767) [older sons issue extinct by 1851, with the death of Marie-Thérèse, Dauphine of<br />
France, widow of the Louis, Duke of Aquitaine and then Dauphin, heir of Charles X]<br />
25. Charles X King of (1757-1836) m. Maria Teresa of Savoy (1756-1805)[older son, Louis, Duke of Aquitaine then Dauphin, died without issue, 1844]<br />
26. Charles Duke of Berry (1778-1820) m. Maria Carolina of the Two Sicilies (1798-<br />
1870) [son, Henri, Count of Chambord, d. sp. 1883]<br />
27. Louise of France (1819-1864) m. Charles III Duke of Parma (1823-1854)<br />
28. Roberto I (last reigning) Duke of Parma (1848-1907) m. Maria Pia of the Two<br />
Sicilies (1849-1882) [older sons d. unm. by 1950]<br />
29. Elias I D di Parma (1880-1959) m. Maria Anna, Archduchess of Austria (1882-1940) [sons d. unm. by 1974, older daus d. unm. by 1994]<br />
30. Alice Princess of Borbone-Parma (b. 1917) m. Alfonso Infante of Spain, Duke of<br />
Calabria in 1960 (1901-1964)<br />
31. Carlos Infante of Spain, Duke of Calabria (1964), (1938-2015) m. Anne Princess of Orléans (b. 1938)<br />
<br />
32. Pedro, Duke of Calabria (b. 1968)<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
While Infanta Alicia is certainly the senior representative of David I of Scotland, and as<br />
such representative of the ancient Scottish dynasty, she is the representative of Edward<br />
the Confessor, through his father, only because we do not know what happened to the<br />
possible senior descendants (and will probably never know; they have never been traced).<br />
David I was the youngest son of his parents, Malcolm III (d. 1093) and his wife<br />
Margaret. Descendants of one of the older sons are traceable to at least the mid-14th<br />
century, but drop below the radar. David I, and his descendants, are the senior *known*<br />
representatives of Malcolm and Margaret.<br />
<br />
Similarly, Margaret was a daughter of Edward Aetheling (d. 1057) and Agatha, and<br />
Margaret had a brother, Edgar, who had two daughters. The descendants of one daughter<br />
of Edgar can be traced to the end of the 13<br />
daughter of Edgar appears to have married in southern France, but this marriage has not<br />
been sufficiently proved. The woman in southern France has descendants traceable to the<br />
present day, and if she is conclusively shown to be the daughter of Edgar then Edward<br />
Aetheling's senior representative would have to be traced there; but at present Margaret is<br />
the senior *known* representative of Edward Aetheling.<br />
<br />
Edward Aetheling was the only son of King Edmund Ironside (d. 1016), who was an<br />
older half-brother of Edward the Confessor, which means that Edward Aetheling was the<br />
senior representative of King Ethelred the Unready (d. 1016), father of both Edmund<br />
Ironside and Edward the Confessor.<br />
<br />
Infanta Alicia may or may not be the senior representative of the father of Edward the<br />
Confessor, but she is currently the senior *known* representative of the father of Edward<br />
the Confessor. <br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-69405346161089155302015-10-21T09:36:00.002+02:002015-10-21T09:43:30.875+02:00<div style="text-align: center;">
THIRD TRIAL TO FOLLOW THE SUCCESSFUL APPEAL BY THE SOVEREIGN MILITARY ORDER OF MALTA IN THE CASE AGAINST THE SELF-STYLED "ECUMENICAL ORDER" - THE GREAT FABRICATOR'S HISTORICAL TESTIMONY DISMISSED</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="WordSection1">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #3232ff; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
Case:<span style="letter-spacing: -0.65pt;"> </span>14-14251 <span lang="EN-US" style="color: #3232ff; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Date Filed:<span style="letter-spacing: -0.9pt;"> </span>10/15/2015</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Arial;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
</div>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH<span style="letter-spacing: -0.45pt;"> </span>CIRCUIT<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 1pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 155.65pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">
<!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-element:field-begin;mso-field-lock:yes'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SHAPE <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>\* MERGEFORMAT <span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:group id="_x0000_s1075"
style='width:168.65pt;height:.6pt;mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line' coordsize="3373,12">
<v:group id="_x0000_s1076" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1077" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,0" path="m6,6r559,e" filled="f"
strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1078" style='position:absolute;
left:568;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1079" style='position:absolute;left:568;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m568,6r417,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1080" style='position:absolute;
left:988;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1081" style='position:absolute;left:988;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m988,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1082" style='position:absolute;
left:1408;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1408,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1083" style='position:absolute;left:1408;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1408,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1408,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1084" style='position:absolute;
left:1828;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1085" style='position:absolute;left:1828;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1828,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1086" style='position:absolute;
left:2248;top:6;width:279;height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1087" style='position:absolute;left:2248;top:6;width:279;
height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,0" path="m2248,6r278,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1088" style='position:absolute;
left:2529;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2529,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1089" style='position:absolute;left:2529;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2529,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2529,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1090" style='position:absolute;
left:2949;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1091" style='position:absolute;left:2949;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2949,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><w:wrap type="none"/>
<w:anchorlock/>
</v:group><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img height="1" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_s1075 _x0000_s1076 _x0000_s1077 _x0000_s1078 _x0000_s1079 _x0000_s1080 _x0000_s1081 _x0000_s1082 _x0000_s1083 _x0000_s1084 _x0000_s1085 _x0000_s1086 _x0000_s1087 _x0000_s1088 _x0000_s1089 _x0000_s1090 _x0000_s1091" width="282" /><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><![endif]--></span><!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:168.65pt;height:.6pt'>
<v:imagedata croptop="-65520f" cropbottom="65520f"/>
</v:shape><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 3.2pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.45pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">No.<span style="letter-spacing: -0.3pt;"> </span>14-14251<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 1pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 155.65pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">
<!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-element:field-begin;mso-field-lock:yes'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SHAPE <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>\* MERGEFORMAT <span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:group id="_x0000_s1060"
style='width:168.65pt;height:.6pt;mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line' coordsize="3373,12">
<v:group id="_x0000_s1061" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1062" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,0" path="m6,6r559,e" filled="f"
strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1063" style='position:absolute;
left:568;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1064" style='position:absolute;left:568;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m568,6r417,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1065" style='position:absolute;
left:988;top:6;width:838;height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="838,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1066" style='position:absolute;left:988;top:6;width:838;
height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="838,0" path="m988,6r837,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1067" style='position:absolute;
left:1828;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1068" style='position:absolute;left:1828;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1828,6r417,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1069" style='position:absolute;
left:2248;top:6;width:279;height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1070" style='position:absolute;left:2248;top:6;width:279;
height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,0" path="m2248,6r278,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1071" style='position:absolute;
left:2528;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2528,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1072" style='position:absolute;left:2528;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2528,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2528,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1073" style='position:absolute;
left:2949;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1074" style='position:absolute;left:2949;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2949,6r417,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><w:wrap type="none"/>
<w:anchorlock/>
</v:group><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img height="1" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_s1060 _x0000_s1061 _x0000_s1062 _x0000_s1063 _x0000_s1064 _x0000_s1065 _x0000_s1066 _x0000_s1067 _x0000_s1068 _x0000_s1069 _x0000_s1070 _x0000_s1071 _x0000_s1072 _x0000_s1073 _x0000_s1074" width="281" /><!--[endif]--></span><!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:168.65pt;height:.6pt'>
<v:imagedata croptop="-65520f" cropbottom="65520f"/>
</v:shape><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.2pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 3.2pt 0cm 0pt 163.3pt; mso-list: l1 level2 lfo9; tab-stops: 163.35pt; text-indent: -29.9pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">D.C.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Docket No.<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>9:09-cv-81008-KLR</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 12.05pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">SOVEREIGN
MILITARY HOSPITALLER ORDER OF SAINT JOHN<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>OF
JERUSALEM OF RHODES AND OF<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>MALTA,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.05pt 0pt 222.05pt; text-indent: 25.4pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Plaintiff–Counter Defendant–Appellant, versus<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0.65pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">THE FLORIDA
PRIORY OF THE KNIGHTS HOSPITALLERS OF <span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">THE </span>SOVEREIGN
ORDER OF SAINT JOHN OF JERUSALEM, KNIGHTS<span style="letter-spacing: -1.5pt;"> </span>OF
MALTA, THE ECUMENICAL<span style="letter-spacing: -0.8pt;"> </span>ORDER,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 247.5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Defendant–Counter<span style="letter-spacing: -0.55pt;"> </span>Claimant–Appellee.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.2pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 5.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 1pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 155.6pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">
<!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-element:field-begin;mso-field-lock:yes'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SHAPE <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>\* MERGEFORMAT <span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:group id="_x0000_s1043"
style='width:168.65pt;height:.6pt;mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line' coordsize="3373,12">
<v:group id="_x0000_s1044" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1045" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,0" path="m6,6r559,e" filled="f"
strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1046" style='position:absolute;
left:568;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1047" style='position:absolute;left:568;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m568,6r417,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1048" style='position:absolute;
left:988;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1049" style='position:absolute;left:988;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m988,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1050" style='position:absolute;
left:1408;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1408,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1051" style='position:absolute;left:1408;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1408,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1408,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1052" style='position:absolute;
left:1828;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1053" style='position:absolute;left:1828;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1828,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1054" style='position:absolute;
left:2248;top:6;width:279;height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1055" style='position:absolute;left:2248;top:6;width:279;
height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,0" path="m2248,6r278,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1056" style='position:absolute;
left:2529;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2529,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1057" style='position:absolute;left:2529;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2529,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2529,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1058" style='position:absolute;
left:2949;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1059" style='position:absolute;left:2949;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2949,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><w:wrap type="none"/>
<w:anchorlock/>
</v:group><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img height="1" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_s1043 _x0000_s1044 _x0000_s1045 _x0000_s1046 _x0000_s1047 _x0000_s1048 _x0000_s1049 _x0000_s1050 _x0000_s1051 _x0000_s1052 _x0000_s1053 _x0000_s1054 _x0000_s1055 _x0000_s1056 _x0000_s1057 _x0000_s1058 _x0000_s1059" width="282" /><!--[endif]--></span><!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><v:shape id="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:168.65pt;height:.6pt'>
<v:imagedata croptop="-65520f" cropbottom="65520f"/>
</v:shape><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 3.2pt 112.55pt 0pt 142.1pt; text-indent: -27.85pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>Florida<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 1pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 159.1pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly;">
<!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><span style='mso-element:field-begin;mso-field-lock:yes'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>SHAPE <span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>\* MERGEFORMAT <span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:group id="_x0000_s1026"
style='width:161.7pt;height:.6pt;mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line' coordsize="3234,12">
<v:group id="_x0000_s1027" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1028" style='position:absolute;left:6;top:6;width:560;
height:2' coordorigin="6,6" coordsize="560,0" path="m6,6r559,e" filled="f"
strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1029" style='position:absolute;
left:568;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1030" style='position:absolute;left:568;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="568,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m568,6r417,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1031" style='position:absolute;
left:988;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1032" style='position:absolute;left:988;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="988,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m988,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1033" style='position:absolute;
left:1408;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1408,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1034" style='position:absolute;left:1408;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1408,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1408,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1035" style='position:absolute;
left:1828;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1036" style='position:absolute;left:1828;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="1828,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m1828,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1037" style='position:absolute;
left:2248;top:6;width:279;height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1038" style='position:absolute;left:2248;top:6;width:279;
height:2' coordorigin="2248,6" coordsize="279,0" path="m2248,6r278,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1039" style='position:absolute;
left:2529;top:6;width:418;height:2' coordorigin="2529,6" coordsize="418,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1040" style='position:absolute;left:2529;top:6;width:418;
height:2' coordorigin="2529,6" coordsize="418,0" path="m2529,6r418,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><v:group id="_x0000_s1041" style='position:absolute;
left:2949;top:6;width:279;height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="279,2">
<v:shape id="_x0000_s1042" style='position:absolute;left:2949;top:6;width:279;
height:2' coordorigin="2949,6" coordsize="279,0" path="m2949,6r278,e"
filled="f" strokeweight=".19811mm">
<v:path arrowok="t"/>
</v:shape></v:group><w:wrap type="none"/>
<w:anchorlock/>
</v:group><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img height="1" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif" v:shapes="_x0000_s1026 _x0000_s1027 _x0000_s1028 _x0000_s1029 _x0000_s1030 _x0000_s1031 _x0000_s1032 _x0000_s1033 _x0000_s1034 _x0000_s1035 _x0000_s1036 _x0000_s1037 _x0000_s1038 _x0000_s1039 _x0000_s1040 _x0000_s1041 _x0000_s1042" width="270" /><!--[endif]--></span><!--[if mso & !supportInlineShapes & supportFields]><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:1.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><v:shape id="_x0000_i1028" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='width:161.7pt;height:.6pt'>
<v:imagedata croptop="-65520f" cropbottom="65520f"/>
</v:shape><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 3.2pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.35pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">(October 15,<span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt;"> </span>2015)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.2pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 185%; margin: 0cm 52.85pt 0pt 5.9pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Before
MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit<span style="letter-spacing: -0.5pt;"> </span>Judge:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 185%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection2">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 12.85pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">This appeal is the second in a long-running intellectual
property dispute between two religious organizations. The Sovereign Military
Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta alleges
that the Florida Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of
Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order is infringing
its registered service marks in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114,
and Florida law. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for
the Florida Priory. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Sovereign
Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes & of Malta<span style="letter-spacing: -1.65pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 6.75pt 0pt 5pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fla. Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign
Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SMOM
I</i>), 816 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1307–08 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In the first appeal, we
reversed in part and remanded for the district court to reconsider whether the
parties’ marks are likely to be confused. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See
Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes &
of Malta v. Fla. Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of
Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order </i>(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SMOM II</i>), 702 F.3d 1279, 1297–98 (11th
Cir. 2012). We were also critical of disparaging comments that the district
judge made about the parties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On remand,
the district court misapplied several factors in its analysis of likely
confusion, incorrectly assessed the Florida Priory’s defense of prior use,
relied on historical testimony that we previously deemed inadmissible, and<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>misinterpreted<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">2</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection3">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.9pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">our
instructions about consulting facts outside the record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the district court erred again, we
reverse again. But we deny the Sovereign Order’s request to reassign the case
to a different district<span style="letter-spacing: -0.95pt;"> </span>judge.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<h1 style="margin: 0.65pt 0cm 0pt 195.55pt; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo9; tab-stops: 195.6pt; text-indent: -15.95pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="I.__BACKGROUND"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: large;">I.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">BACKGROUND</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.9pt 0pt 5pt; tab-stops: 111.55pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">For purposes of background, we
identify the parties to this litigation and the marks<span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;"> </span>in<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span>dispute.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We also review the relevant procedural
history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>an<span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;"> </span>even fuller
account, see our previous opinion, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>1283–89.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt 215.5pt; mso-list: l1 level4 lfo9; tab-stops: 215.55pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="A._The_Parties"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">A.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The<span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt;"> </span>Parties</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.1pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The plaintiff is the Sovereign Military Hospitaller
Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta. It is a religious
order of the Roman Catholic Church. The Sovereign Order is headquartered in
Rome, Italy, and it performs charitable works across the globe. For example,
the Sovereign Order supports the operation of the Holy Family Hospital in
Bethlehem and several medical clinics in Haiti.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 7.1pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The defendant is the Florida Priory of the Knights
Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of
Malta, the Ecumenical Order. It too is a religious charitable
organization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Florida Priory is
associated with a parent organization, the Knights Hospitallers of the
Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical
Order. The Ecumenical Order is not associated with any one church or branch of<span style="letter-spacing: -1.55pt;"> </span>Christianity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 226pt 0pt 231pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">3</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection4">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 3.2pt 0cm 0pt 217.85pt; mso-list: l1 level4 lfo9; tab-stops: 217.9pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="B._The_Marks"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">B.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span>Marks</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.4pt 1pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">This
litigation involves five of the Sovereign Order’s registered service marks: one
design mark and four word marks. The Sovereign Order’s design mark is an
eight-pointed Maltese cross on a<span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt;"> </span>shield:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 178.25pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="_x0000_i1032" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:121.2pt;height:131.4pt;
visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image004.jpg"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img height="219" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.jpg" v:shapes="_x0000_i1032" width="202" /><!--[endif]--></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0cm 5.4pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign
Order’s word marks<span style="letter-spacing: -0.55pt;"> </span>are:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0cm 56.15pt 0pt 58.15pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Sovereign
Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>of Rhodes and of<span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt;"> </span>Malta<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.05pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 186%; margin: 0cm 133.45pt 0pt 135.9pt; text-indent: 55.2pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Knights of Malta Hospitallers of St. John of<span style="letter-spacing: -0.45pt;"> </span>Jerusalem<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0.5pt 56.05pt 0pt 58.15pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Order of St. John of<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>Jerusalem<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.4pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The
Sovereign Order’s design mark and its first two word marks became
“incontestable” in 2008 and 2009. That is, the Sovereign Order filed an
affidavit with the United States Patent and Trademark Office attesting that it
used the marks continuously for five years and satisfied the other statutory
criteria for incontestability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">15 U.S.C. §<span style="letter-spacing: -0.6pt;"> </span>1065.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 56.15pt 0pt 58.15pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">4</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection5">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 0cm 1.25pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order alleges that the Florida Priory’s
name and symbol infringe its five registered service marks. The Florida
Priory’s name—“Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of
Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order”—is unregistered. The Florida
Priory’s symbol is a white cross on a red shield, centered on a white Maltese
cross with a red crown above<span style="letter-spacing: -1.55pt;"> </span>it:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 187pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="_x0000_i1031" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="Trademark image" style='width:106.2pt;
height:146.4pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image006.jpg"
o:title="Trademark image"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt="Trademark image" height="244" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image007.jpg" v:shapes="_x0000_i1031" width="177" /><!--[endif]--></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Its registration
is<span style="letter-spacing: -0.5pt;"> </span>pending.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 194.25pt; mso-list: l1 level4 lfo9; tab-stops: 194.3pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="C._Procedural_History"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">C.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Procedural<span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt;"> </span>History</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 33.45pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">This litigation spans six years and consists of a
bench-trial judgment, an appeal, a remand decision, and now a second appeal. We
review the relevant procedural history<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>below.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt 168.85pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo8; tab-stops: 168.9pt; text-indent: -17.55pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1.__First_District_Court_Decision"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">First District Court<span style="letter-spacing: -0.75pt;"> </span>Decision</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order initiated this suit in 2009. It sued the Florida
Priory for infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act, unfair
competition under Florida common law, and violations of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Florida Priory disputed those claims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
also filed<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>several<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.05pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 236pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">5</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection6">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 16.4pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">counterclaims, seeking cancellation of the Sovereign Order’s four
word marks. The Florida Priory alleged that the Sovereign Order defrauded the
Patent and Trademark Office by applying for registration without disclosing
that a Delaware organization was already using similar<span style="letter-spacing: -0.55pt;"> </span>marks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.55pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">After a bench trial in 2011, the district court ruled
against the Sovereign Order and for the Florida Priory on their respective
claims and counterclaims. The district court rejected the Sovereign Order’s
claim of false advertising.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It found
that the Florida Priory did not misrepresent the “nature, characteristics,
qualities, or geographic origin” of its services, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B),
because the Sovereign Order and the Florida Priory “shared a history prior to
1798” and because the Florida Priory “expressly associates itself with the
Ecumenical Order, a non-Catholic organization.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM I</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 816 F. Supp. 2d at 1302. In reaching its historical finding, the
district court relied on the testimony of Nicholas F.S. Papanicolaou, the
Prince Grand Master of the Ecumenical Order. With respect to the Florida
Priory’s counterclaims, the district court cancelled the Sovereign Order’s word
marks. It found that the Sovereign Order defrauded the Patent and Trademark
Office because, at the time of registration, the Sovereign Order was “willfully
blind” to the fact that the Delaware organization was already using similar
marks. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at
1300. Because the Sovereign Order’s word marks were cancelled, the district
court concluded that its infringement claims for those<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>marks<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">6</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection7">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 12.85pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">failed
as well. As for the design mark, the district court rejected the Sovereign
Order’s claim of infringement because it found the parties’ marks visually
distinguishable, “thus removing any possibility for consumer confusion.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">at
</span><span lang="EN-US">1301. Finally, the district court rejected the
Sovereign Order’s claims under state law for the same reasons it rejected the
Sovereign Order’s claims of infringement. It added that the parties’ word marks
are not likely to be confused because “[t]he Court’s own [Internet] research
indicates that there are numerous Orders that use this type of terminology in
their names.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 1303 &<span style="letter-spacing: -0.5pt;"> </span>n.14.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 212.95pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo8; tab-stops: 213.0pt; text-indent: -17.5pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="2.__First_Appeal"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">First<span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt;"> </span>Appeal</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 7.2pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">In the first appeal, we affirmed in part and reversed in
part. We affirmed the judgment for the Florida Priory on the Sovereign Order’s
claim of false advertising. We ruled that “the district court erred when it
permitted Papanicolaou, a lay witness, to testify about historical
matters.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>1295.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 15.65pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Papanicolaou
was never “qualified as an expert witness” and could only testify about matters
within his “‘personal knowledge,’” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 602), which meant that the finding of the
district court that the Sovereign Order and the Florida Priory “shared a
history prior to 1798” was unsupported. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">But we concluded that this error was harmless because the district
court gave an “alternative ground” to support its decision—namely, that the
Florida Priory is non-Catholic.<span style="letter-spacing: 3.35pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">7</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection8">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.6pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">We reversed with respect to the remaining claims and
counterclaims. We reversed the cancellation of the Sovereign Order’s word marks
because the district court applied the wrong legal standard and because the
Florida Priory failed to prove that the Sovereign Order had the requisite
mental state for fraud. We also explained that the Patent and Trademark Office
was not misled because, at the time of registration, the Sovereign Order
successfully distinguished its marks by explaining they were </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">service </span></i><span lang="EN-US">marks, unlike the
Delaware organization’s </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">collective membership
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">mark. We then reversed the judgment for the Florida
Priory on the Sovereign Order’s claims of infringement. The district court
failed to apply the seven-factor balancing test required by our precedent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We remanded “so the district court [could]
conduct the proper, multi-factor infringement analysis for the design marks . .
. [and] word marks.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 1294 (footnote omitted). Because the Sovereign Order’s state-law
claims were tied to its infringement claims, we remanded those claims as
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We instructed the district court
“to limit its analysis to facts in the record and to refrain from consulting
outside sources on the Internet that have not been cited, submitted, or
recognized by the parties.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 1296.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 16.4pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order requested that we reassign the case
to a different district judge on remand. The Sovereign Order complained about
several comments that the district judge made about the parties and their
motives.<span style="letter-spacing: 2.2pt;"> </span>For<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">8</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection9">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 67.65pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">example, in his published opinion, the district judge
wrote the following disparaging<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>comment:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0.65pt 31.35pt 0pt 41pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The parties
present themselves as Christian charities. The Court struggles with the
parties’ characterizing themselves in that manner, however. The amounts of
money each party has raised for charitable purposes are unimpressive, which
leads the Court to believe that the members of both [the Sovereign Order] and
the [Florida Priory] 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<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span>acts.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.1pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">816
F. Supp. 2d at 1294 n.2 (quoting his own comments from trial). The district
judge also stated, “It just baffles <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">me </span>that
two charitable groups are spending their charitable money suing one another and
wasting all . . . these funds on litigation.” Trial Tr. 34. On appeal, we
deemed these comments “offensive,” “unnecessar[ily] belittling,” and “wholly
inappropriate.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>1297.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.1pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Nevertheless,
we found that the district judge exhibited no “actual bias in favor of, or
against, one party over the other” and explained that reassignment would
require “duplication of resources” in this “fact-intensive” case. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">We denied the Sovereign Order’s
request for reassignment and expressed our expectation that “on remand, both
parties will be treated with the respect they deserve and that the district
court will be able to freshly consider the remanded claims.”<span style="letter-spacing: 2.25pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 160.1pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo8; tab-stops: 160.1pt; text-indent: -17.55pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="3.__Second_District_Court_Decision"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Second District Court<span style="letter-spacing: -0.7pt;"> </span>Decision</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.1pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">On remand, the district court again entered judgment for
the Florida Priory on all of the Sovereign Order’s claims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With respect to the claims of<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>infringement,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.6pt; margin: 0cm 231pt 0pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">9</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection10">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 9.3pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">the district court identified and applied the
seven-factor balancing test for confusion: “(1) the type of mark; (2) the
similarity of the marks; (3) the similarity of the services the marks
represent; (4) the similarity of the parties’ service outlets and customers;
(5) the nature and similarity of the parties’ advertising<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>media;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 9.65pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(6) the
defendant’s intent; and (7) any actual confusion.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of
Rhodes & of Malta v. Fla. Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the
Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical
Order </i>(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SMOM III</i>), No.
09-81008-CIV, slip op. at 3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2014) (citing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SMOM II</i>, 702 F.3d at 1293). It also
considered the Florida Priory’s defenses of prior use with respect to the
Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks. Ultimately, the district court entered
judgment for the Florida Priory on the Sovereign Order’s claims of infringement
and its claims under state<span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;"> </span>law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.45pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The district court found that a few factors in the
balancing test weigh in favor of the Sovereign Order. The first factor favors
the Sovereign Order, the district court found, with respect to its
incontestable marks—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">i.e.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, the design mark, “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John
of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta,” and “Knights of Malta.” The district
court recognized that, under </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter v. <span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">B&H </span>Industries of Southwest Florida,
Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 880 F.2d 322, 329 (11th Cir. 1989), <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">an </span>incontestable mark is presumptively
strong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The district court also found
that<span style="letter-spacing: -1pt;"> </span>the<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 56.15pt 0pt 58.15pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">10</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection11">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 12.25pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">similarity of the marks favors the Sovereign Order with
respect to its word marks. The district court found “unmistakable” similarities
between the parties’ word marks, explaining that the Florida Priory’s name
includes nearly all of the Sovereign Order’s marks. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM
III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip op. at 8. The addition
of “Florida Priory” and “Ecumenical Order,” according to the district court,
“is insufficient to render the [Priory’s name] dissimilar.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">The district court also
found that the similarity of services favors the Sovereign Order with respect
to all of its marks. It recognized that both parties “are engaged in charitable
activities.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at
9. But it attributed little weight to this factor because “[t]here is nothing
unique in charitable services” and “[c]ountless charitable organizations exist
throughout the world.”<span style="letter-spacing: 2.6pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.6pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court found that the remaining factors—and
the overall balance—favor the Florida Priory. With respect to the first factor,
the district court found that the Sovereign Order’s contestable word
marks—“Hospitallers of<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>St.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.6pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">John of Jerusalem” and “Order of St. John of
Jerusalem”—are weak. It found that the contestable word marks employ “commonly
used generic words” like “Saint John” and “hospitaller.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 7. It also found that the
marks are used extensively by third parties. The district court cited testimony
that “[a]t least 20 charitable organizations can be found on the Internet that
use the terms ‘Saint John,’ ‘Knights,’ ‘Hospitallers,’ and ‘Knights of Malta’
in the names.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US">And<span style="letter-spacing: -1pt;"> </span>many<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 231pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">11</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection12">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.1pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">“Orders of St. John” and “Orders of the Knights of Malta,” foreign
and domestic, are featured in tourism publications for the island of Malta. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Moreover, several groups
“share the non-exclusive license to use [the Sovereign Order’s] name.”<span style="letter-spacing: 2.3pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.1pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">As for the similarity of the marks, the district court
found that it favors the Florida Priory with respect to the Sovereign Order’s
design mark. Citing its earlier decision, the district court reiterated that
the parties’ “two symbols are easily distinguishable.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 8.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Florida Priory’s
design “contains two crosses” to the Sovereign Order’s one. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM I</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 816 F. Supp. 2d at 1301.
And the Florida Priory’s shield has an ordinary cross on it, but the Sovereign
Order’s has a Maltese cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover,
only the Florida Priory’s mark features a<span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt;"> </span>crown.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.1pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The district court found that the fourth and fifth
factors favor the Florida Priory. The district court found “both similarities
and differences between the parties’ methods for fundraising.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip
op. at 9–10. Both parties use newsletters, the Internet, and email to reach
Christian donors of all denominations. But, unlike the Florida Priory, the
Sovereign Order also obtains funds from the federal government and some
Catholic organizations. Moreover, only the Ecumenical Order has advertised on
television. Based on these “minor differences” in fundraising and the Sovereign
Order’s failure to prove that “the parties’ advertising reached the same
individuals,” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at
11–12, the district court found that the fourth and fifth factors favor the
Florida<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>Priory.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">12</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection13">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.2pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The district court also found that the defendant’s
intent favors the Florida Priory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
found that the Florida Priory’s parent, the Ecumenical Order, has used the
marks at issue since 1911, well before the Sovereign Order began using them. To
trace this history, the district court relied on Papanicolaou’s testimony about
several documents: minutes from a 1908 meeting of the “Knights of Malta”;
incorporation documents from 1911 for a New Jersey organization, “Knights of
Malta”; incorporation documents from 1956 for a Delaware organization,
“Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Inc.”; and registration documents
filed by the Delaware organization in 1958 for the collective membership mark
“Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta,” dating the
mark’s first use in commerce as 1911.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The district court credited Papanicolaou’s testimony that the Ecumenical
Order shares an unbroken lineage with the Delaware and New Jersey
organizations. Furthermore, the district court credited Papanicolaou’s
testimony that his organization added “Ecumenical Order” to its name in 2002 to
distinguish itself from the Sovereign Order. It ultimately found no evidence of
bad faith, “especially considering that [the Florida Priory’s] parent’s use of
the mark in commerce predated [the Sovereign Order’s] use.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt;"> </span>12.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The district court found that the seventh and final
factor—actual confusion—favors the Florida Priory. The district court first
found that the Sovereign Order </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">itself </span></i><span lang="EN-US">has admitted that the parties’ marks are not likely to<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>be<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">13</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection14">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 10.1pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">confused.
When applying for registration in 2002, the Sovereign Order attested that its
word marks were not likely to cause confusion with any preexisting marks. Yet,
the district court found that the Ecumenical Order was already using the<span style="letter-spacing: -1.6pt;"> </span>mark “Sovereign Order of Saint John of
Jerusalem, Knights of Malta.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.9pt;"> </span>13.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 16.4pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Accordingly, the Sovereign Order was either “aware that [the Florida
Priory’s] parent existed but did not believe that the marks were confusingly
similar, or [the Sovereign Order] was unaware that [the Florida Priory’s]
parent existed.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US">at<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.25pt 0pt 6pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo7; tab-stops: 30.6pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">14.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“Either scenario,” the district
court reasoned, “leads to a finding of absence of actual confusion.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id. </i>The district court also found
lacking the evidence of actual confusion that the Sovereign Order presented at
trial. For example, the Sovereign Order introduced an email from Gail Quigley,
the cousin of the president of the Sovereign Order’s American Association.
Quigley had received an email from the Florida Priory soliciting donations and
forwarded it to her cousin, adding, <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">“I </span>don’t
know how I got on this distribution list. I’m confused about this group and
your Order of Malta. I think you have your origins with them. They seem much
more military.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The district court did
not find this email exchange useful because Quigley was not a donor and because
her emails suggest she understood the difference between the Sovereign Order
and the Florida Priory. Finally, the district court denied the Sovereign
Order’s motion to supplement the record with evidence of actual confusion since
the bench trial in 2011.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proposed
evidence<span style="letter-spacing: -1.5pt;"> </span>included<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">14</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection15">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 18.45pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">an
article in the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">New York Times </span></i><span lang="EN-US">discussing the prevalence of copycat orders, a press release about
the Florida Priory that mistakenly directs readers to the Sovereign Order’s
website, and evidence that the Florida Priory falsely claims to be recognized
by the Vatican. The district court denied the motion in a footnote, reasoning
that it “was instructed [by the Court of Appeals] to evaluate the likelihood of
confusion with regard to the marks at issue based on the evidence presented at
trial.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 14<span style="letter-spacing: -0.55pt;"> </span>n.1.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.1pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">After considering the seven factors, the district court
ruled in favor of the Florida Priory. It found that the balance of factors
weighed in favor of the Florida Priory with respect to the Sovereign Order’s
contestable marks. As for the incontestable marks, the district court found
that the Sovereign Order’s claims failed “on account of the prior use defense.”
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 17. Specifically, the
Florida Priory challenged the Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks under
sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(5)–(6).
The district court considered those provisions and, without specifying which
one it was applying, found that the Florida Priory had proved prior use. Again
relying on Papanicolaou’s testimony about the early–twentieth century
documents, the<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>district court found
that the Ecumenical Order had used the marks </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">before </span></i><span lang="EN-US">the Sovereign Order used them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip op. at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.8pt;"> </span>15–16.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 10.6pt 230pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">15</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection16">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 18pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">In this second appeal, the Sovereign Order complains
about several comments that the district judge made on remand. For instance,
the Sovereign Order complains that the district judge again impugned its
motives, speculating that “it’s obvious what’s going on here, that [the
Sovereign Order] waited five years until [its marks] became [i]ncontestable
where [it] knew all along [that] the defendant was using this name.” Tr. 3.
Additionally, the district judge told the parties, “[A]s I looked over what the
other senior judges are doing, a number of them say we don’t want any trademark
cases, and I thought, you know, that’s probably a good idea.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.3pt;"> </span>4.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<h1 style="margin: 0.8pt 0cm 0pt 165.55pt; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo9; tab-stops: 165.6pt; text-indent: -21.45pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="II.__STANDARDS_OF_REVIEW"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: large;">II.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">STANDARDS OF<span style="letter-spacing: -0.5pt;"> </span>REVIEW</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.4pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“After a bench trial, we review the
district court’s conclusions of law <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de
novo </i>and the district court’s factual findings for clear error,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tartell v. S. Fla. Sinus & Allergy Ctr.,
Inc.</i>, 790 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Proudfoot</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 4.25pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Consulting Co. v. Gordon</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 576
F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2009)), including its finding that “two marks are
not likely to be confused,” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1289. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 333<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;">
</span>U.S.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.05pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">364,
395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948). We review the denial of a motion to supplement
the record for abuse of discretion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Elston v. Talladega Cty. Bd.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>of</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">16</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection17">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 8.2pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Educ.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 997 F.2d 1394, 1405 (11th
Cir. 1993). Finally, we can reassign a case to a different district judge on
remand, but it is an “extraordinary” measure that <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">“we </span>do not order . . . lightly.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United States v. Shaygan</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 652 F.3d 1297, 1318 (11th<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>Cir.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0.55pt 12.25pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">2011) (internal
quotation marks<span style="letter-spacing: -0.65pt;"> </span>omitted).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<h1 style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 209.6pt; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo9; tab-stops: 209.65pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="III.__DISCUSSION"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: large;">III.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">DISCUSSION</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 12.25pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">In this second appeal, the Sovereign Order challenges
the judgment for the Florida Priory on its claims of infringement under the
Lanham Act and its related claims under state law. In the event of a remand,
the Sovereign Order renews its request to reassign the case to a different
district judge. The Florida Priory, for its part, largely defends the district
court and its various findings and<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>rulings.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.6pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court committed reversible errors. With
respect to infringement, the district court erred in considering several of the
factors for likely confusion, incorrectly assessed the Florida Priory’s
defenses of prior use, and misinterpreted our decision in the first appeal when
it denied the Sovereign Order’s motion to supplement the record. For the same
reasons, the district court erred in considering the Sovereign Order’s claims
under state law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although we are
concerned about the district judge’s inappropriate comments throughout this
litigation and his failures to adhere to our previous decision, we conclude
that reassignment on remand is not<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span>warranted.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 231pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">17</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection18">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.2pt 91.85pt 0pt 159pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="A._Lanham_Act_Infringement"></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lanham Act<span style="letter-spacing: -1.55pt;">
</span>Infringement</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.1pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The Sovereign Order’s primary claims against the Florida
Priory are for infringement under the Lanham Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A person is liable for infringement if he
uses a mark in commerce that is confusingly similar to a registered mark.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">15<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>U.S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 10.1pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">§ 1114(1)(a). A plaintiff bringing an infringement action must prove
“first, that its mark is valid and, second, that the defendant’s use of the
contested mark is likely to cause confusion.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 880 F.2d at 326. The second element—confusion— requires the
district court to balance seven<span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt;"> </span>factors:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 45.3pt 0pt 41.95pt; mso-list: l4 level2 lfo7; tab-stops: 61.95pt; text-indent: 0.05pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(1)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">strength of the mark alleged
to have been infringed; (2) similarity of the infringed and infringing marks;
(3) similarity between the goods and services offered under the two marks; (4)
similarity of the actual sales methods used by the holders of the marks, such
as their sales outlets and customer base; (5) similarity of advertising<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>methods;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0cm 52.7pt 0pt 41.95pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo6; tab-stops: 61.9pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(6)<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">intent of the alleged infringer to
misappropriate the proprietor’s good will; and (7) the existence and extent of
actual confusion in the consuming<span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt;"> </span>public.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 10.1pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Tana v. Dantanna’s</span></i><span lang="IT" style="mso-ansi-language: IT;">, 611 F.3d 767, 774–75 (11th Cir. 2010). </span><span lang="EN-US">The district court “does not have to consider all of these factors
in every case and in some cases, ‘new’ factors may merit consideration.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Swatch Watch, S.A. v. Taxor, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 785 F.2d 956, 958 (11th Cir. 1986). “The real question is whether
the court’s ultimate determination about the ‘likelihood of confusion’ was
correct.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Univ.
of<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>Ga.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 91.85pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Athletic Ass’n v. Laite</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 756 F.2d 1535, 1543 (11th Cir.<span style="letter-spacing: -1pt;"> </span>1985).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 21.25pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order challenges the judgment for the
Florida Priory on its claims of infringement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>With respect to all of its marks, the Sovereign<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>Order<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 1.05pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">18</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection19">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 16.4pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">contests the application of several factors in the balancing test
for likelihood of confusion. With respect to its incontestable marks, the
Sovereign Order contends that the district court erred when it considered the
Florida Priory’s defenses of prior<span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;"> </span>use.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 10.1pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court misapplied several factors when it
assessed the<span style="letter-spacing: -1.7pt;"> </span>likelihood of
confusion, and it erred by treating the defenses of prior use in sections
1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Lanham Act as defenses on the merits. We first
discuss the application of the balancing test for confusion and then discuss
the defenses of prior<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span>use.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt 206.5pt; mso-list: l2 level2 lfo6; tab-stops: 206.55pt; text-indent: -17.55pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="1.__Balancing_Test"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Balancing<span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt;"> </span>Test</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.4pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order challenges all of the factors that
the district court found in favor of the Florida Priory. That is, the Sovereign
Order challenges the findings about the first factor with respect to its
contestable marks, the second factor with respect to its design mark, and the
fourth through seventh factors with respect to all of its marks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With regard to the seventh factor, the
Sovereign Order also challenges the denial of its motion to supplement the<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>record.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 18.85pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court erred with respect to the first,
second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh factors. It also erred by denying the
Sovereign Order’s motion to supplement the record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We address the seven factors, in turn,<span style="letter-spacing: -0.95pt;"> </span>below.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">19</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection20">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 3.2pt 0cm 0pt 156.3pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo5; tab-stops: 156.35pt; text-indent: -16.7pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="a.__Strength_of_the_Plaintiff’s_Marks"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Strength
of the Plaintiff’s<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>Marks</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.6pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The first
factor assesses the strength of the plaintiff’s marks. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc.</i>, 711 F.2d 966, 973
(11th Cir. 1983). “The stronger the mark, the greater the scope of protection
accorded it, the weaker the mark, the less trademark protection it
receives.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Frehling Enters., Inc. v. Int’l Select Grp., Inc.</i>, 192 F.3d 1330,
1335 (11th Cir. 1999). We have described this factor as the “second most
important factor” in the seven-factor balancing test for confusion. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Caliber Auto. Liquidators, Inc. v. Premier
Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, LLC</i>, 605 F.3d 931, 938 (11th Cir.<span style="letter-spacing: -0.5pt;"> </span>2010).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.6pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">A factfinder assesses the strength of a mark in two
ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It first classifies the mark as
“generic, descriptive, suggestive, or arbitrary.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Custom
Mfg. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Midway Servs., Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 508
F.3d 641, 648 (11th Cir. 2007).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Arbitrary marks are the strongest, and generic marks are the weakest. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Aronowitz v. Health- Chem Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 513 F.3d 1229, 1239 (11th Cir. 2008).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It then considers “the degree to which third
parties make use of the mark.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at 1336. “The less that third parties use the mark, the stronger
it is, and the more protection it deserves.”<span style="letter-spacing: 3.4pt;">
</span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 12.25pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court found that the strength of the mark
favors the Sovereign Order with respect to the incontestable marks—the design
mark, “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes
and of Malta,”<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>and<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 231pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">20</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection21">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.55pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">“Knights of Malta”—but favors the Florida Priory with respect to the
contestable marks—“Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem” and “Order of St.
John of Jerusalem.” The Florida Priory challenges the former finding, and the
Sovereign Order challenges the latter. We review both findings and conclude
that the district court did not err in assessing the strength of the
incontestable marks but erred in assessing the strength of the contestable<span style="letter-spacing: -0.9pt;"> </span>marks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 179.4pt; mso-list: l7 level2 lfo5; tab-stops: 179.4pt; text-indent: -25.45pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="i._The_Incontestable_Marks"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">i.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Incontestable<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>Marks</span></u></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.55pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The Florida Priory challenges the finding that the
Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks are presumptively strong. The Florida
Priory disagrees with our decision in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, which recognized this presumption, but concedes that Circuit law
required the district court to apply it. The Florida Priory nevertheless
contends that its defenses of prior use should defeat this presumption. The
district court treated the Florida Priory’s defenses as </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">complete </span></i><span lang="EN-US">defenses on the
merits—an error we discuss later in the opinion. But, setting that issue aside,
the Florida Priory contends that its defenses of prior use at least rebut the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">incontestable status </span></i><span lang="EN-US">of the
Sovereign Order’s marks and the presumption that they are<span style="letter-spacing: -1pt;"> </span>strong.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.95pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Although we largely agree with the Florida Priory’s
criticisms of </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, we conclude that the district court correctly treated the
Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks as presumptively strong. We also conclude
that the Florida Priory’s defenses of prior use do not rebut this
presumption.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under the<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>plain<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 226pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">21</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection22">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 4.1pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">language of the Lanham Act, those defenses are not relevant to the
likelihood of confusion. They defeat only the conclusive presumption that
incontestable marks are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">valid</i>, not
the presumption that incontestable marks are strong for purposes of
confusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other statutory defenses may
defeat the latter presumption, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">see, e.g.</i>,<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>15<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 19.2pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">U.S.C. § 1065, but the Florida Priory did not raise
them. To put the Florida Priory’s arguments in context, we must first explore
the role that incontestability plays under the Lanham<span style="letter-spacing: -0.5pt;"> </span>Act.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 8.35pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Incontestability offers two key benefits for plaintiffs
complaining about <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">an </span>infringement.
With respect to the first element of infringement—validity— incontestability
provides “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">conclusive </span></i><span lang="EN-US">evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration
of the mark, of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s
exclusive right to use the registered mark in<span style="letter-spacing: -1.55pt;">
</span>commerce.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 12.85pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">§ 1115(b) (emphasis added).
Registration alone, by contrast, provides only “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">prima
facie </span></i><span lang="EN-US">evidence of . . . validity.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">§ 1115(a) (emphasis<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>added).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 13.2pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">In this Circuit, incontestability also benefits
plaintiffs with respect to the second element of infringement—confusion. We
held in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">that incontestability gives plaintiffs an advantage with respect to
the first factor in the seven-factor balancing test for likelihood of
confusion. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">880
F.2d at 328–29; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see also Caliber Auto.
Liquidators</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 605 F.3d at 939; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at
1336.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An incontestable mark is “presumed
to be at least descriptive<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>with<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">22</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection23">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.55pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">secondary
meaning, and therefore a relatively strong mark.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 880 F.2d <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">at </span>329.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.55pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">On this point, our precedent in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dieter </i>is an outlier. The majority of
circuits to consider the question have held that incontestability does not
affect the<span style="letter-spacing: -1.6pt;"> </span>strength of a mark for
purposes of confusion. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See Lone Star
Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc.</i>, 43 F.3d 922, 935 (4th
Cir. 1995); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oreck Corp. v. U.S. Floor
Sys., Inc.</i>, 803 F.2d 166, 171 (5th Cir. 1986); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Munters Corp. v. Matsui Am., Inc.</i>, 909 F.2d 250, 252 (7th Cir.
1990); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Miss World (UK) Ltd. v. Mrs. Am.
Pageants, Inc.</i>, 856 F.2d 1445, 1449 (9th Cir. 1988), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">abrogated in part on other grounds by Eclipse Assocs. Ltd. v. Data Gen.
Corp.</i>, 894 F.2d 1114, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 1990); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hornady Mfg. Co. v. Doubletap, Inc.</i>, 746 F.3d 995, 1008 n.13 (10th
Cir.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>2014).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.75pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But see Wynn Oil Co. v. Am. Way Serv. Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 943 F.2d 595, 600 (6th Cir. 1991) (agreeing with our Circuit). The
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agrees with the majority view. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Safer, Inc. v. OMS Invs., Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031, 1036 (T.T.A.B. 2010). As do the leading
treatises. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See, e.g.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 6 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition § 32:155 (4th ed.); Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 21,
reporter’s note<span style="letter-spacing: -0.95pt;"> </span>(1995).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 7.7pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The law in this Circuit is almost certainly incorrect.
The incontestability of a mark, by itself, says nothing about its strength. A
mark becomes incontestable when the owner uses it in commerce for five
consecutive years and files<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>an<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 226pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">23</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection24">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.6pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office attesting that the
mark is not generic, not subject to a prior adverse judgment, and not currently
subject to litigation. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">15 U.S.C. § 1065. Yet, “the test for likelihood of confusion is
based on the perceptions of consumers in the marketplace, which are ordinarily
unaffected by the status of a mark’s registration.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Restatement § 21, reporter’s note.
Furthermore, “trademark rights are not static and . . . the strength of a mark
may change over time.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Safer</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1036. That a mark enjoyed incontestable status in
the past says very little about its current strength in the marketplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">6 McCarthy § 32:155 (criticizing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">because “it focuses solely on the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">inherent
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">distinctiveness of a mark and ignores the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">acquired </span></i><span lang="EN-US">distinctiveness and
strength of the mark in the real world<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>marketplace”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.65pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Moreover, the Lanham Act was amended after </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">addressed the
relationship between incontestability and confusion. The Trademark Law Revision
Act of 1988 added the following proviso to section 1115 of the Lanham Act:
“[The] conclusive evidence of the right to use [a] registered [incontestable]
mark shall be </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">subject to proof of infringement
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">as defined in section [1114].” Pub. L. No. 100-667,
§ 128(b)(1), 102 Stat. 3935, 3945 (emphasis added). With this amendment,
Congress decoupled the questions of incontestability and validity from the
questions of infringement and confusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Petro Shopping Ctrs.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>L.P.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">v.
James River Petrol., Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, 130 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1997); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cf. KP<span style="letter-spacing: -1.5pt;"> </span>Permanent</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">24</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection25">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.35pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 543 U.S. 111, 118, 125 S. Ct. 542, 548 (2004) (“Section 1115(b)
places a burden of proving likelihood of confusion (that is, infringement) on
the party charging infringement even when relying on an incontestable
registration.”). The </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Court had no occasion to consider this statutory change because the
amendment became effective in November 1989, three months after </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">was decided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Pub. L. No. 100-667, § 136, 102 Stat. at 3948.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But our later decisions followed </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">without questioning its reasoning
or acknowledging the change in statutory language. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
Caliber Auto. Liquidators</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 605 F.3d at 939; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.9pt;"> </span>1336.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 10.75pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Nevertheless, “one panel of this Court cannot disregard
the precedent set by a prior panel, even though it conceives error in the
precedent.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United
States<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 10.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Romeo</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 122 F.3d 941, 942 n.1
(11th Cir. 1997) (quoting </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Davis v. Estelle</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 529 F.2d 437, 441 (5th Cir. 1976)). Although this principle gives
way when “the prior panel’s decision was based on legislation that ha[s] been
changed,” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>States</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 7.45pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">v. Woodard</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 938 F.2d 1255, 1258
n.4 (11th Cir. 1991), our Court has followed </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">even after the 1988 amendments to the Lanham Act, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see, e.g.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Caliber Auto. Liquidators</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 605
F.3d at 939. And it does not matter, for purposes of law of the Circuit, that
our later decisions failed to consider the change in statutory language. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See DeYoung v. Owens</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 646 F.3d
1319, 1325 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he mere act of proffering additional reasons
not expressly considered previously will not open<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>the<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">25</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection26">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.1pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">door
to reconsideration of the question by a second panel.” (quoting </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Smith v. GTE Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 236 F.3d
1292, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001)).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">remains the law of the
Circuit, and we must continue to follow it. Accordingly, the district court
correctly determined that the Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks are
presumptively strong.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.8pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Accepting that incontestable marks are presumptively
strong in this Circuit, the Florida Priory contends that its defenses of prior
use should nevertheless defeat the presumption we recognized in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">. In the district court,
the Florida Priory argued that it satisfied the criteria for the defenses in
sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Lanham Act. Under section 1115(b)(5), a
defendant must prove that “[its] mark . . . was adopted without knowledge of
the [plaintiff’s] prior use and has been continuously used by [the defendant]
or those in privity with him from a date prior to [the plaintiff’s
registration].”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>15 U.S.C. §
1115(b)(5).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under section 1115(b)(6), a
defendant must prove that “[its] mark . . . was registered and used prior to
the registration . . . or publication . . . of the registered mark of the
[plaintiff], and not abandoned.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">§ 1115(b)(6). The Florida Priory’s argument presents a question of
first impression: do the statutory defenses in section 1115(b) of the Lanham
Act defeat the presumption of strength we identified in<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0.65pt 12.85pt 0pt 41pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Based on the
text of the statute, we reject the Florida Priory’s<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>argument.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0cm 12.85pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">According to the
Lanham Act, the “defenses or defects” in section 1115(b)<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>rebut<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">26</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection27">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.1pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">“[s]uch conclusive evidence of the right to use the registered
mark.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">§
1115(b). In other words, they go to the first factor of infringement—validity.
The presumption we recognized in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, by contrast, goes to second element of infringement—confusion. We
cannot treat the defenses in section 1115(b) as defenses to the presumption we
recognized in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">without overriding the plain language of the Lanham Act. Although </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">itself is in conflict
with the statute, we decline to extend its error any further than<span style="letter-spacing: -0.95pt;"> </span>necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 8.35pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Of course, defendants can invoke other statutory
defenses that would potentially defeat the presumption from </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">. For example, section
1065 of the Lanham Act—the provision that defines incontestability—also
contains a defense of prior use. Under that defense, a defendant can challenge
incontestability “to the extent” that the plaintiff’s registered mark
“infringes a valid right acquired [by the defendant] under the law of any State
or Territory by use of a mark or trade name continuing from a date prior to the
date of registration . . . of such registered mark.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">§ 1065. This defense could
be relevant to the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter </span></i><span lang="EN-US">presumption because—unlike section 1115(b)—it defeats the
“incontestable” status of a mark, not the conclusive presumption of validity
that comes with<span style="letter-spacing: -1.65pt;"> </span>incontestability.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 12.85pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Compare id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">with id. </i>§<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>1115(b).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.1pt 0pt 5.9pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">But the Florida Priory never invoked any such defense.
The defense of prior use in section 1065 turns on state law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">§ 1065; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">accord Dorpan, S.L.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">27</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection28">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.05pt 0pt 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hotel Melia, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 728 F.3d 55, 63 & n.10 (1st
Cir. 2013); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Watec Co. v. Liu</i>, 403
F.3d 645, 652 (9th Cir. 2005); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Advance
Stores Co. v. Refinishing Specialties, Inc.</i>, 188 F.3d 408, 412–13 (6th Cir.
1999). The Florida Priory has never explained how it obtained rights to the Sovereign
Order’s marks under state law and satisfied the other conditions in section
1065. Any such defense is, therefore, forfeited. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See Maradiaga v. United States</i>, 679 F.3d 1286, 1294 (11th Cir.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>2012).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 9.35pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">In sum, the district court correctly determined that the
Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks are presumptively strong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although this presumption is legally dubious,
it remains the binding law of the Circuit. The Florida Priory’s defenses of
prior use under sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) do not defeat this presumption
because the Lanham Act expressly limits the effect of those defenses. The
Florida Priory failed to raise any other defense that could defeat the
presumption we recognized in<span style="letter-spacing: -0.65pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Dieter</span></i><span lang="EN-US">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.4pt 91.85pt 0pt 154.3pt; tab-stops: 183.55pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="ii._The_Contestable_Marks"></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">ii.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u style="text-underline: black;">The Contestable<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>Marks</u></i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 16.4pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The Sovereign Order challenges the finding that its
contestable marks are weak. The district court stated that the marks are
“generic” because they employ “commonly used” words. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip
op. at 7. It also found that the marks are used extensively by third parties.
The Sovereign Order contends that the district court erred by underestimating
the uniqueness of its marks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">28</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection29">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.5pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">We agree with the Sovereign Order that the district
court erred in two respects. First, the strength of a mark does not turn on its
component words in a vacuum, but instead “the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">relationship
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">between the name and the service or good it
describes.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at 1335 (emphasis added). For example, “apple” is a
common word, but it is a strong mark when used in connection with personal
computers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">2 McCarthy § 11:11.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And “sun”
is a common word, but it is a strong mark when used in connection with
banking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at 1335. The correct
standard is whether the Sovereign Order’s marks are strong when used in
connection with the Sovereign Order’s services. The district court erred by
evaluating the uniqueness of the individual words that comprise the Sovereign
Order’s marks—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">e.g.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">,
“hospitaller” and “Saint John”—instead of evaluating the relationship between
the marks and the services that the Sovereign Order provides. Second, the
district court misunderstood what matters when considering third-party use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With respect to licensees, their use does not
weaken the Sovereign Order’s marks. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Univ. of Ga.
Athletic Ass’n</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 756 F.2d at 1545 (“[W]idespread use
of a mark by licensees would tend to support, rather than rebut, the
proposition that [the] mark is a strong one.”). And, with respect to foreign
groups using the Sovereign Order’s marks in other countries, their use is
irrelevant to the strength of the marks in the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See E. Remy Martin
& Co.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Shaw-Ross Int’l Imports, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, 756 F.2d 1525, 1531, 1533 (11th
Cir. 1985). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>for<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">29</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection30">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 16.4pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">the remaining examples, “the significance of third-party use”
depends on “the </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">entire </span></i><span lang="EN-US">name a third party uses.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Safeway Stores</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Inc. v. Safeway Discount Drugs,
Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 675 F.2d 1160, 1165 (11th Cir. 1982)
(emphasis added). That other organizations use </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">parts </span></i><span lang="EN-US">of the Sovereign Order’s word marks is not persuasive evidence of
third-party use. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Moreover, the district court identified only twenty examples of
third-party use—a number “substantially less than in other cases in which we
have found significant third-party use.”<span style="letter-spacing: 2.5pt;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 160.05pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo5; tab-stops: 160.1pt; text-indent: -17.5pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="b.__Similarity_of_the_Parties’_Marks"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">b.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Similarity
of the Parties’<span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt;"> </span>Marks</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.65pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The second factor for confusion—the similarity of
marks—requires the factfinder to compare the plaintiff’s marks with the
defendant’s marks and measure their similarity. “[T]he greater the similarity .
. . , the greater the likelihood of confusion.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Exxon Corp. v. Tex. Motor Exch.
of Hous., Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 628 F.2d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1980).
Similarity must be determined “by considering the overall impression created by
the mark as a whole rather than simply comparing<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>individual features of the marks.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US">Relevant points
of comparison include “the appearance, sound and meaning of the marks, as well
as the manner in which the marks are used.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">John H. Harland</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 711 F.2d at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.75pt;"> </span>975.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5pt 0pt 6pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Neither party challenges the finding
of the district court that the similarity of the word marks favors the
Sovereign Order, but the Sovereign Order challenges the finding that the design
marks are dissimilar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It argues that the
parties’<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>design<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">30</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection31">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.4pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">marks
are strikingly similar. It highlights the common design elements—a shield and a
Maltese cross—that are featured in both marks and the overall impression that
the marks<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>convey.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.25pt 1.2pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">We
conclude that the truth is somewhere in the middle: the district court did not
clearly err by finding this factor favors the Florida Priory, but it clearly
erred to the extent it attributed significant weight to this factor. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d
at 1338.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The parties’ design marks are<span style="letter-spacing: -0.7pt;"> </span>similar:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 107.45pt; tab-stops: 264.25pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="image1.jpeg"
o:spid="_x0000_i1030" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:121.2pt;height:131.4pt;
visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image004.jpg"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img height="219" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image008.jpg" v:shapes="image1.jpeg" width="202" /><!--[endif]--></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="image2.jpeg"
o:spid="_x0000_i1029" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="Trademark image" style='width:106.2pt;
height:146.4pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image006.jpg"
o:title="Trademark image"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img alt="Trademark image" height="244" src="file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image009.jpg" v:shapes="image2.jpeg" width="177" /><!--[endif]--></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 4.4pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Both
marks feature a shield and a Maltese cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Both marks invoke impressions of Malta, Christianity, and the military,
and they are used in the same way—as the symbol for a religious charitable
organization. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See AmBrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 812 F.2d 1531, 1541 (11th Cir. 1986) (finding confusing similarity
in trade dress when, “[a]lthough a close examination of the two wrappers
reveals significant differences,” “each is the same size, each has a textured
silver foil background, each is printed primarily with blue and white inks,
each includes the product name in large block letters and the company name in
smaller script, and each features<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>a<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 6pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 56.15pt 0pt 58.15pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">31</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection32">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 4.85pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">polar bear”); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Exxon Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 628 F.2d at 505 (finding confusing similarity between two marks
that were used similarly and were both “printed in red with all block letters
on a white background” with blue underneath); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">John H.
Harland</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 711 F.2d at 976 (“Although the similarities
in appearance, sound and meaning between the marks . . . are far from
overwhelming, these similarities are accentuated by the manner in which the
marks are used.”). The overall designs of the marks are different, however, and
they are visually distinguishable. Because there are “both similarities and
differences,” we “cannot say flatly that either the marks are or are not
visually similar.” 4 McCarthy § 23:25. Instead, we conclude that this factor
does not meaningfully tip the scales one way or the other. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See John H. Harland</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 711 F.2d at
976; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see also In re Coors Brewing Co.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 343 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Although we uphold the . .
. finding that the two marks are generally similar, . . . we note that
similarity is not a binary factor but is a matter of degree. Because there are
significant differences in the design of the two marks, the finding of
similarity is a less important factor . . .<span style="letter-spacing: -0.95pt;">
</span>.”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.5pt 0cm 0pt 187.2pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo5; tab-stops: 187.2pt; text-indent: -16.7pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="c.__Similarity_of_Services"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">c.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Similarity of<span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">
</span>Services</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 35.9pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Neither party challenges the finding of the district
court that this factor favors the Sovereign<span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt;"> </span>Order.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 10.3pt 228pt 0pt 233pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">32</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection33">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 3.2pt 5.9pt 0pt 99.6pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="d–e.__Similarity_of_Sales_and_Advertisin"></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">d–e.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><u style="text-underline: black;">Similarity of
Sales and Advertising<span style="letter-spacing: -0.95pt;"> </span>Methods</u><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 21.65pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The fourth factor—similarity of the
parties’ sales methods—and the fifth factor—similarity of the parties’
advertising methods—merge in this case. The former focuses on “where, how, and
[with] whom” the parties do<span style="letter-spacing: -1pt;"> </span>business.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 7.1pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at
1339. “Dissimilarities between the retail outlets for and the predominant consumers
of plaintiff’s and defendants’ goods lessen the possibility of confusion . . .
.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza,
Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 615 F.2d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 1980). The latter
compares the parties’ advertisements and the audiences they reach.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See AmBrit</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 812 F.2d at 1542; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Amstar Corp</span></i><span lang="EN-US">., 615 F.2d<span style="letter-spacing: -1.5pt;"> </span>at<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.9pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">262. “The greater the similarity . . . , the greater the likelihood
of confusion.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Exxon Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 628 F.2d at 506.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Sovereign Order and the Florida Priory identify their “customers” as their
donors, not the recipients of their charitable services. Accordingly, both
their “sales” and their “advertising” methods are their fundraising<span style="letter-spacing: -0.2pt;"> </span>methods.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 15.05pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order contests the finding that these two
factors favor the Florida Priory. The district court found that, unlike the
Florida Priory, the Sovereign Order obtains funding from Catholic organizations
and the federal government. The Sovereign Order does not disagree with this
finding, but it argues that the district court applied an overly stringent
standard in assessing the similarity of the parties’ potential<span style="letter-spacing: -0.7pt;"> </span>donors.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 226pt 0pt 233pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">33</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection34">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.55pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">We again agree that the district court erred. By its own
findings, the fundraising methods and target donors of the Sovereign Order and
the Florida Priory overlap significantly. The district court found that both
parties use “print publications, the Internet and email to reach donors.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008- CIV,
slip op. at 11. More importantly, it found that the parties accept donations
from individuals “notwithstanding [their] relationship, if any, with the
Catholic Church.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Although the district court found differences between the parties’
fundraising methods, it labeled those differences as “minor.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">Our cases do not require an
“[i]dentity” of sales or advertising methods; “the standard is whether there is
likely to be significant enough overlap . . . that a possibility of confusion
could result.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at 1340; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see also Freedom Sav.
& Loan Ass’n v. Way</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 757 F.2d 1176, 1185 n.7
(11th Cir. 1985) (“It would overburden a plaintiff to ask that he or she prove
through direct evidence that a large number of customers actually use the services
of both parties: hence, it should be enough to show that the same customers are
likely to use both services.”). The parties here use many of the same
fundraising methods and “cater to the same general kinds of individuals,” “even
if the particular individuals [sending donations] differ.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Safeway Stores</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 675 F.2d at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>1166.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.3pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 227pt 0pt 231pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">34</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection35">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 3.2pt 0cm 0pt 194.2pt; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: 194.25pt; text-indent: -15.1pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="f.__Defendant’s_Intent"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">f.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Defendant’s<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span>Intent</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 4.5pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The sixth factor asks whether the defendant adopted its
mark “with the intent of deriving benefit from the reputation of the
plaintiff.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Exxon
Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 628 F.2d<span style="letter-spacing: -1.5pt;">
</span>at<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 12.85pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">506.
“Bad faith in the adoption and use of a trademark normally involves . . .
efforts by a party to ‘pass off’ its product as that of another.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Amstar Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, <span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;">615 </span>F.2d at 263. Intent can be proven with
direct or circumstantial evidence. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Jellibeans, Inc.
v. Skating Clubs of Ga., Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 716 F.2d 833, 843
(11th Cir. 1983). When intent is present, it can “justify the inference that
there is confusing similarity.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at 1340. But “it is neither a necessary nor sufficient
condition for determining the ultimate legal fact of the ‘likelihood of
confusion.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Jellibeans</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 716 F.2d at 843<span style="letter-spacing: -0.7pt;"> </span>n.23.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.1pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order challenges the finding that the
Florida Priory did not adopt its marks with the intent to benefit from the
Sovereign Order’s reputation. It contends that the district court impermissibly
relied on Papanicolaou’s testimony when it found that the Ecumenical Order used
the marks prior to the Sovereign Order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We<span style="letter-spacing: -0.1pt;"> </span>agree.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 6.25pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The district court erred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In our earlier decision, we held that the
district court erroneously “permitted Papanicolaou, a lay witness, to testify
about historical matters.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1295. Papanicolaou was never qualified as an expert
witness and could not testify about matters beyond his personal<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">35</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection36">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.6pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">On remand, the district court relied on Papanicolaou’s testimony to
explain the relationship between several documents from the early twentieth
century, including minutes from a meeting in 1908, incorporation documents from
1911 and 1956, and registration documents from 1958. Papanicolaou was not
present when these documents were created, and he has no more personal
knowledge about the events they describe than he had about
“late-eighteenth-to-early-nineteenth century history.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at 1294.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, the
documents, on their face, do not prove that the Florida Priory has used the
marks in question since 1911. The documents say nothing about the relationship
between the Ecumenical Order and the Delaware or New Jersey organizations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the district court cited
Papanicolaou’s testimony, not the documents, because only his testimony
described a relationship between the Ecumenical Order and the Delaware and New
Jersey<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>organizations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.6pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Granted, the district court also relied on testimony
about matters within Papanicolaou’s personal knowledge, but that testimony does
not render its other error harmless. Specifically, the district court credited
Papanicolaou’s testimony that, in 2002, he added “Ecumenical Order” to the name
of his organization to avoid the accusation that his organization was taking
advantage of the Sovereign Order’s reputation. The </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">primary
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">basis for its finding of no intent, however, was
its finding of prior use—a finding that was based on Papanicolaou’s </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">in</span></i><span lang="EN-US">admissible testimony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip op. at 12.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Accordingly,<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>we<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">36</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection37">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 4.25pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">cannot
say that the district court “was not ‘substantially swayed’ by Papanicolaou’s
inadmissible testimony” when it found that this factor favors the Florida<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>Priory.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 22.8pt 0pt 5pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
702 F.3d at 1295 (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Aetna Cas.
& Sur. Co. v. Gosdin</i>, 803 F.2d 1153, 1160 (11th Cir.<span style="letter-spacing: -0.45pt;"> </span>1986)).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 162.8pt; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: 162.85pt; text-indent: -17.55pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="g.__Evidence_of_Actual_Confusion"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">g.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Evidence of Actual<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;"> </span>Confusion</span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 12.85pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The “best evidence” that the parties’ marks are likely
to be confused is evidence that the marks actually have been confused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Amstar Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 615 F.2d<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>at<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 6.6pt 0pt 5pt; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: 36.6pt; text-indent: 0cm;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">263.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Evidence of actual confusion is “not necessary” for the
plaintiff to prevail on a claim of infringement, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">id.</i>, but even a “very little” amount of it is highly probative, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">World Carpets, Inc. v. Dick Littrell’s New
World Carpets</i>, 438 F.2d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 1971). The strength of such
evidence depends on “the number of instances of confusion,” “the kinds of
persons confused,” and the “degree of confusion.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Safeway
Stores</i>, 675 F.2d at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.75pt;"> </span>1167.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 8.35pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order makes three arguments to challenge
the finding of the district court that no actual confusion exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, it challenges the treatment of the
email from Gail Quigley that it introduced at trial. Second, it contends that
the district court erred by relying on representations that the Sovereign Order
made to the Patent and Trademark Office in 2002. Third, it challenges the
denial of its motion to supplement the record with evidence of actual confusion
that surfaced after the bench trial in<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>2011.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">37</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection38">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 3.2pt 12.25pt 0pt 42pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">We agree with
the Sovereign Order with respect to its last two<span style="letter-spacing: -1.2pt;"> </span>arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 22.85pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">We
disagree that the district court clearly erred by discounting the email from
Quigley. But the district court erred by considering the representations that
the Sovereign Order made in 2002 and by denying the Sovereign Order’s motion to
supplement based on its misreading of our previous decision on<span style="letter-spacing: -0.9pt;"> </span>appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt 58.2pt; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo3; tab-stops: 48.75pt; text-indent: -34.95pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="i._The_District_Court_Did_Not_Clearly_Er"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">i.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The District Court Did Not Clearly Err in
Weighing the Quigley<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>Email.</span></u></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The district court did not clearly err when it
considered Quigley’s email. The district court discounted Quigley’s supposed
confusion because she is not a donor to either the Sovereign Order or the
Florida Priory. We have held that “confusion of individuals casually acquainted
with a business is worthy of little weight.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">The district court was entitled to discount Quigley’s confusion. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See Sun Banks of Fla., Inc. v. Sun Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 651 F.2d 311, 319 (5th Cir. July 1981)
(discounting an inquiry about whether Sun Banks and Sun Federal were related
because “there is no indication that the inquiry was made by a potential
customer concerning the transaction of business”). Moreover, although Quigley
wrote, “I’m confused about [the Florida Priory] and your Order of Malta,” the
district court found that the remainder of her email suggests she understood
the difference between the Sovereign Order and the Florida Priory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the district court articulated one of
“two permissible views of the evidence,” we defer to its reading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>Ct.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 229pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">38</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection39">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 25.25pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">1504,
1511 (1985). At most, Quigley’s email raises “an inference of actual confusion
. . . [that] is not sufficiently dispositive so as to favor either side in an
appreciable fashion.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frehling Enters.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 192 F.3d at<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>1341.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: 16pt; margin: 0.8pt 35.25pt 0pt 58.2pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo3; tab-stops: 54.25pt; text-indent: -33.25pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="ii._The_District_Court_Erred_by_Consider"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">ii.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The District Court Erred by Considering the
Representations that the Sovereign Order Made to the Patent and Trademark
Office in<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>2002.</span></u></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 6.45pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court erred when it treated the
representations that the Sovereign Order made to the Patent and Trademark
Office in 2002 as relevant<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.8pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">According to the district court, the Sovereign Order conceded that
its marks are not likely to be confused with the Florida Priory’s marks by
registering its marks despite the Delaware organization’s prior use. Its
reasoning largely rehashes its earlier finding that the Sovereign Order
defrauded the Patent and Trademark Office—a finding we reversed in the first
appeal. As we explained, the Patent and Trademark Office notified the Sovereign
Order about the preexisting mark at the time of registration. But the Sovereign
Order successfully distinguished its marks by explaining that they are </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">service </span></i><span lang="EN-US">marks, as opposed to the
Delaware organization’s </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">collective membership
</span></i><span lang="EN-US">marks. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1292 n.14. In this litigation, the Sovereign Order
sues the Florida Priory for its use of allegedly infringing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">service </span></i><span lang="EN-US">marks. The Sovereign
Order’s attestations in 2002 about the Delaware organization’s collective
membership marks are<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>irrelevant.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">39</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection40">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: 16.05pt; margin: 3.2pt 0cm 0pt 53.25pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo3; tab-stops: 53.3pt; text-indent: -33.1pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="iii._The_District_Court_Erred_in_Denying"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">iii.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
District Court Erred in Denying the Sovereign Order’s Motion<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>to</span></u></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 16.05pt; margin: 0cm 162.5pt 0pt 181.5pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u style="text-underline: black;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Supplement the<span style="letter-spacing: -0.4pt;">
</span>Record.</span></u></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 9.15pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Finally, the district court erred when it denied the
Sovereign Order’s motion to supplement the record. The district court denied
the motion for one reason: it thought we had “instructed” it to evaluate
confusion “based on the evidence presented </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">at
trial</span></i><span lang="EN-US">.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip op. at 14 n.1 (emphasis added). We gave no
such instruction. In our earlier decision, we held that the district court
should “limit its analysis to facts in the record and . . . refrain from
consulting outside sources on the Internet that have not been cited, submitted,
or recognized by the parties.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1296.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this instruction to rely on the record
created by the parties and to refrain from conducting self- directed Internet
research did not address whether the district court should permit the parties
to supplement the record with post-trial<span style="letter-spacing: -1.05pt;"> </span>evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.05pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Although we review the denial of a motion to supplement
the record for abuse of discretion, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Elston</i>,
997 F.2d at 1405, the district court never actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exercised </i>its discretion because it misinterpreted our earlier
decision. Accordingly, we cannot defer to its decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See
Renico v. Lett</i>, 559 U.S. 766, 775, 130 S.<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;">
</span>Ct.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.15pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">1855, 1863 (2010) (“[I]f the record reveals that the trial judge has
failed to exercise the ‘sound discretion’ entrusted to him, the reason for such
deference by an appellate court disappears.” (quoting </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Arizona v. Washington</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 434 U.S.
497, 510 n.28, 98 S. Ct. 824, 832 (1978))); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Lykins
v. Pointer, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 725 F.2d 645, 649<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>(11th<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.7pt; margin: 0cm 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">40</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection41">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.85pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Cir. 1984) (“The court . . . must in fact exercise its
discretion.”). On remand, the district court should determine in the first
instance whether and how the parties can supplement the record with post-trial
evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
generally Chudasama<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.2pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mazda Motor Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 123 F.3d
1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[D]istrict courts enjoy broad discretion in
deciding how best to manage the cases before<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;">
</span>them.”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt 194.15pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: 194.2pt; text-indent: -17.55pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="2.__Prior-Use_Defenses"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Prior-Use<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>Defenses</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.2pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 7.45pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The Sovereign Order challenges the holding that its
incontestable marks were not infringed on account of the Florida Priory’s prior
use. The Sovereign Order contends that the district court erroneously treated
the defenses of prior use in sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) as complete
defenses on the merits. It also argues that prior use was outside the scope of
our appellate mandate and that the district court erred by relying on
Papanicolaou’s testimony to support its finding of prior use.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">The district court misinterpreted sections 1115(b)(5)
and (b)(6) as providing complete defenses on the merits. The defenses in
section 1115(b) rebut the conclusive presumption of validity that comes with
incontestability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See </i>15<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>U.S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">§ 1115(b). When that presumption is rebutted, however, the defendant
does not automatically prevail. Rebuttal reduces the conclusive presumption of
validity to a prima facie presumption of validity. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">,
469 U.S. 189, 199 n.6, 105 S. Ct. 658, 664 (1985) (“If one of the defenses<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>[in<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">41</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection42">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.55pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">section
1115(b)] is established, registration constitutes only prima facie and not
conclusive evidence of the owner’s right to exclusive use of the mark.”). The
defendant must still identify some additional reason why the plaintiff’s marks
are invalid. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">15
U.S.C. § 1115(a). Here, whether or not sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) apply,
the Sovereign Order’s marks are presumptively valid because they are
registered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
id.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US">The
district court erred by treating sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) as complete
defenses to infringement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See </span></i><span lang="EN-US">6 McCarthy § 32:153; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see also id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">at § 32:157
(treating the defenses in section 1115(b) as defenses on the merits leads to
the “absurdity of a challenger finding it easier to prove a defense to an
incontestable registration than to an unregistered, common-law<span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt;"> </span>mark”).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 10.1pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Of course, prior use </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">can </span></i><span lang="EN-US">be a defense on the merits, but we agree with the Sovereign Order
that any such defense would go beyond our mandate. Under the common law, prior
use can defeat the validity of a plaintiff’s mark. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
generally United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">,
248 U.S. 90, 39 S. Ct. 48 (1918); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hanover Star Milling
Co. v. Metcalf </span></i><span lang="EN-US">(</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Tea
Rose</span></i><span lang="EN-US">), 240 U.S. 403, 36 S. Ct. 357 (1916). In the
first appeal, however, we remanded for the district court “to consider, under
the correct legal standard, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">confusion </span></i><span lang="EN-US">with respect to all of [the Sovereign] Order’s marks.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1298
(emphasis added). Under the “mandate rule,” a district court can only “settle
so much as has been remanded.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Litman v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 825 F.2d 1506, 1511 (11th<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>Cir.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">42</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection43">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.2pt 12.25pt 0pt 6pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1987) (en banc) (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.</i>, 160
U.S. 247, 255,<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>16</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 13.95pt 0pt 5.95pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: 20.8pt; text-indent: 0.05pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">S.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ct. 291, 293 (1895) (internal
quotation mark omitted)). Because our earlier decision remanded for the
district court to consider the second element of infringement—confusion—it
could not consider challenges to the first element— validity. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See Barber v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers</i>,
841 F.2d 1067, 1070–71 (11th Cir. 1988). Prior use was relevant only insofar as
it informed the likelihood of confusion. As explained earlier, the defenses of
prior use in sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) do not do<span style="letter-spacing: -0.3pt;"> </span>so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.55pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">Furthermore, the district court erred by grounding its
finding of prior use in the inadmissible testimony of Papanicolaou. The
district court based its finding of prior use on the same evidence that it
cited for its finding of no intent—</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">i.e.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, Papanicolaou’s testimony about the twentieth century documents. As
we have explained, that finding was unsupported because Papanicolaou was not
qualified<span style="letter-spacing: -1.6pt;"> </span>to testify about matters
beyond his personal knowledge. Accordingly, even if prior use had been within
the scope of our mandate, the district court could not have relied on
Papanicolaou’s testimony to find that the Florida Priory has continuously used
the marks in question “since 1911.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM III</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, No. 09-81008-CIV, slip
op. at<span style="letter-spacing: 0.05pt;"> </span>15.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.65pt 12.25pt 0pt 6.05pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">In short, the district court erred when it held that the
Florida Priory’s defenses of prior use defeat the Sovereign Order’s claims of
infringement for<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>its<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 229pt 0pt 232pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">43</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection44">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.1pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">incontestable
marks. The defenses in sections 1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Lanham Act are not
complete defenses on the merits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those
defenses, when they apply, only lower the presumption of validity afforded to
incontestable marks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Florida Priory
no longer challenges the validity of the Sovereign Order’s marks, and any such
challenge would be outside the scope of our appellate mandate. Even if it were
relevant at this stage, the finding of prior use by the district court was
unsupported because it was based on Papanicolaou’s inadmissible<span style="letter-spacing: -1.6pt;"> </span>testimony.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 215.8pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: 215.85pt; text-indent: -17.5pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="3.__Conclusion"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Conclusion</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 6.65pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">We conclude that the district court erred when it
entered judgment for the Florida Priory on the Sovereign Order’s claims of
infringement. The district court erred with respect to every factor challenged
by the Sovereign Order. Specifically, the district court clearly erred in
attributing significant weight to its finding that the similarity of the design
marks favors the Florida Priory. And it committed legal errors when it assessed
the strength of the Sovereign Order’s contestable word marks, the similarity of
sales and advertising methods, the presence of intent, and the evidence of
actual confusion. It also erred with respect to prior use because sections
1115(b)(5) and (b)(6) are neither defenses on the merits nor defenses to the
presumption that the Sovereign Order’s incontestable marks are<span style="letter-spacing: -1.15pt;"> </span>strong.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 5.1pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Due to these errors, we reverse the judgment against the
Sovereign Order<span style="letter-spacing: -1.4pt;"> </span>on its claims of
infringement under the Lanham Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On
remand, the district<span style="letter-spacing: -1.35pt;"> </span>court<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.15pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">44</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection45">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 6.25pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">should reconsider the strength of the Sovereign Order’s
contestable marks, the similarity of the parties’ sales methods and advertising
methods, the Florida Priory’s intent, and the evidence of actual confusion. It
should also decide whether or how to supplement the record. Then, the district
court should reweigh the balance of factors and make a finding as to whether
the Florida Priory’s marks are likely to be confused with the Sovereign Order’s<span style="letter-spacing: -0.85pt;"> </span>marks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.4pt 0cm 0pt 197.95pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: 198.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="B._State-Law_Claims"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">B.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">State-Law<span style="letter-spacing: -0.35pt;"> </span>Claims</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.35pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 5.1pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The parties agree that the Sovereign Order’s claims
under Florida law rise and fall with its claims of infringement under the
Lanham Act. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1296 (citing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nat.
Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 529 F.3d
1325, 1333 (11th Cir. 2008)). Because we vacate the judgment on the claims of
infringement, we must also vacate the judgment on the claims under state law
and remand for further<span style="letter-spacing: -0.25pt;"> </span>proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt 209.15pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: 209.2pt; text-indent: -18pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="C._Reassignment"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.1pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">C.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Reassignment</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.2pt 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 10.9pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">Renewing its request from the first appeal, the
Sovereign Order again asks us to reassign the case on remand to a different
district judge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Sovereign Order
cites the district judge’s continued reliance on Papanicolaou’s inadmissible
testimony, his continued reliance on the rejected finding of fraud, and his
negative comments about the parties and their motives. The Florida Priory, for
its part, downplays the district judge’s rulings and comments and relies on our<span style="letter-spacing: -1.25pt;"> </span>earlier<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.45pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 231pt 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">45</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection46">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">refusal to reassign the case. Although we acknowledge the force of
the Sovereign Order’s arguments, we agree with the Florida Priory that
reassignment is not warranted.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.3pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">We can order reassignment “as part of our supervisory
authority over the district courts in this Circuit.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United States v. Torkington</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 874
F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir. 1989); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see </span></i><span lang="EN-US">28 U.S.C. § 2106 (“[A] court of appellate jurisdiction . . . may
remand the cause and . . . require such further proceedings to be had as may be
just under the circumstances.”). In the absence of actual bias, we consider at
least three factors in determining whether to reassign a case: “(1) whether the
original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings
aside; (2) whether reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of
justice; (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of
proportion to gains realized from reassignment.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Torkington</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 874 F.2d at 1447. Reassignment can become warranted on the second
or third appeal, even though it was not warranted on the first or second
appeal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See
Shaygan</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 652 F.3d at 1318–19 (citing </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United States<span style="letter-spacing: -1.5pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.65pt 5.05pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Martin</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th
Cir.2006); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">United States v. Gupta</i>,
572<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>F.3d</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0cm 91.85pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">878, 892 (11th
Cir.<span style="letter-spacing: -0.3pt;"> </span>2009)).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 16.4pt 0pt 5.95pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">The balance of the three factors identified in </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Torkington </span></i><span lang="EN-US">counsels against
reassignment, although the balance is closer than it was on the first appeal.
First, we agree with the Sovereign Order that the district judge’s adherence to<span style="letter-spacing: -1.55pt;"> </span>his<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 162.5pt 0pt 163.5pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">46</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection47">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 7.2pt 0pt 6pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">previous finding of fraud and his continued reliance on
Papanicolaou’s historical testimony suggest he may have “difficulty putting his
previous views and findings aside.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Torkington</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 874 F.2d at
1447.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, his most recent
missteps seem more akin to garden-variety errors of law than the kind of direct
defiance or “stalemated posture” that requires reassignment. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Brooks v. Cent. Bank of Birmingham</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 717 F.2d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir. 1983); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">cf.,
e.g.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United States<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>v.</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0.55pt 4.85pt 0pt 5.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Remillong</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 55 F.3d 572, 577
(11th Cir. 1995) (reassigning a case when the district judge “stubbornly
persisted in his questioned decision without reasonable explanation or
justification”); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">United States v. White</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir. 1988) (reassigning the case because
the district judge “entered a holding that had been explicitly reversed by this
Court previously”). The district court could have read our earlier
decision—mistakenly, but reasonably—as not totally foreclosing his reliance on
Papanicolaou’s testimony or his previous finding of fraud because we addressed
those issues in the context of different legal claims. Second, we also agree
with the Sovereign Order that the district judge’s repeated impugning of the
parties’ motives in written opinions and public hearings is cause for concern.
The same is true for his expressed disinterest in trademark disputes in general
and this case in particular. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Cf. Torkington</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 874 F.2d at 1447 (reassigning a case in which “the judge stated at
various times that he felt the taxpayer had little interest in this type of
suit, that this prosecution was ‘silly,’ and that it was a waste of<span style="letter-spacing: -1.3pt;"> </span>the<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 228pt 0pt 233pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">47</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection48">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.15pt 0pt 5pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">taxpayers’
money” and “questioned the wisdom of the substantive law he had to apply”). But
the district judge’s latest remarks, like his earlier ones, “do not rise to the
level of conduct that warrants assignment to a different judge on remand.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at 1297. And
we see no evidence that his remarks played any role in his ultimate decision.
Third, we are still convinced that reassignment will “entail waste and
duplication out of proportion to [the] gains.” </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id. </span></i><span lang="EN-US">(quoting </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Torkington</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 874 F.2d at 1447).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
district judge has a unique familiarity with this complex, “fact-intensive”
case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US">He conducted the
trial, heard the witnesses, and is familiar with the record and the parties.
Reassignment would “require duplication of resources expended by the parties
and the court” and would offset any corresponding gains. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Id.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">; </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see,
e.g.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">CSX Transp., Inc. v.
State Bd. of Equalization</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 521 F.3d 1300, 1301
(11th Cir. 2008) (denying reassignment when “[t]he judge presided over an
eight-day trial that concerned a complicated subject and drafted a thorough
27-page opinion”); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Stargel v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc.</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 791 F.3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 2015)
(denying reassignment when “the district judge ha[d] been assigned to [the]
case for over four years and . . . expended significant effort on the
not-so-simple issues”)</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US">Accordingly, we
conclude that reassignment is not warranted at this<span style="letter-spacing: -0.75pt;"> </span>time.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0.65pt 5.4pt 0pt 41.05pt;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: large;">“Reassignment
is an extraordinary order, and we ‘do not order [it]<span style="letter-spacing: -1.1pt;"> </span>lightly.’”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.55pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="margin: 0cm 5.4pt 0pt 5.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">Gupta</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 572 F.3d at 891
(alteration in original) (quoting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Torkington</i>,
874 F.2d<span style="letter-spacing: -1.45pt;"> </span>at<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 56.15pt 0pt 58.15pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">48</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.25pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 3.2pt 5.6pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: -0.05pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">1447); </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">see also Shaygan</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 652 F.3d at 1318. We again express our expectation that, “on
remand, both parties will be treated with the respect they deserve and that the
district court will be able to freshly consider the remanded claims
notwithstanding its previously expressed views.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">SMOM II</span></i><span lang="EN-US">, 702 F.3d at<span style="letter-spacing: -0.9pt;"> </span>1297.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<h1 style="margin: 0.65pt 0cm 0pt 204.55pt; mso-list: l1 level3 lfo9; tab-stops: 204.6pt; text-indent: -26.05pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="IV.__CONCLUSION"></a><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: large;">IV.</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">CONCLUSION</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h1>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 40.2pt 0pt 5pt; text-indent: 35.95pt;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US">We </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">VACATE </span></b><span lang="EN-US">the judgment against the
Sovereign Order’s claims of infringement under the Lanham Act, </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">VACATE </span></b><span lang="EN-US">the judgment against the Sovereign Order’s claims under Florida law,
and </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">REMAND
</span></b><span lang="EN-US">for proceedings consistent with this<span style="letter-spacing: -0.55pt;"> </span>opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3.45pt 230pt 0pt 231pt; text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">49</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-26898219382231529212015-09-23T22:57:00.001+02:002015-09-23T22:57:05.233+02:00<div align="center">
<strong><span style="color: #f00078; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">THE SELF-STYLED "ORDERS OF THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM"</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: #f00078; font-size: medium;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: #f00078; font-size: medium;">A brief survey of some of the imposter Orders</span></strong></div>
<div align="center">
<strong><span style="color: #f00078; font-size: medium;"></span></strong> </div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="color: #f00078;"><em><b>The Modern revivals of the Extinct Order of the Temple </b></em></span><b><span style="color: magenta; font-family: Goudy Old Style; font-size: small;">-</span> </b>it is not necessary to explore the early history of the great Crusader Order of the Temple in any detail. Founded in Jerusalem circa 1119-20 by two French noblemen it was confirmed by the three Papal Bulls <i>Omne datum optimum</i> (1139), <i>Milites Templi</i> (1144) and<i> Militia Dei</i> (1145) and was one of the dominant military powers of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is certain, however, that the Order was abolished "by an inviolable and perpetual decree" <a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/My%20Web%20Sites/chivalric/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm#FOOTNOTE_1">[1]</a> in Pope Clement V's Bull <i>Vox in excelso</i> of March 22, 1312. Furthermore, following its dissolution, the Grand Master Jacques de Molay was burnt at the stake on March 18, 1314, unjustly accused of disgraceful crimes, and many of the knights were executed or imprisoned. Contemporary chroniclers concluded that the injustices inflicted on the Templars were revenged by the death of Pope Clement on April 20th, just one month after Molay's execution, and Philip IV of France, who had engineered their downfall, died before the end of the year. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">That these events ended the Templars is well-attested; not one single document exists to support claims that it survived. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">To quote the eminent historian of Orders of Chivalry, Malcolm Barber, "Through the creation of their pseudo-histories, the Freemasons established a second indispensable element in the Templar image, that of the secret society .... it was during the 1760's that German masons introduced a specific Templar connection, claiming that the Order through its occupation of the Temple of Solomon, had been the repository of secret wisdom and magical powers, which James of Molay had handed down to his successor before his execution and of which the eighteenth century freemasons were the direct heirs". <a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/My%20Web%20Sites/chivalric/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm#FOOTNOTE_2">[2]</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">While several branches of international freemasonry still use the name "Order of the Temple" to describe their group, these bodies do not pretend to be Orders of Chivalry. Barber continues, "Lack of evidence has never been a serious problem for such writers, but nevertheless during the nineteenth century some felt a compulsion to consolidate these theories by the miraculous discovery of documents and objects which seemed to authenticate the Templar role. These included a list of Grand Masters of the Temple who had occupied the office since Molay's time; caskets, coins, and medallions supposedly held by the Templars .... and secret 'Rules'...... As most of these documents and objects did not have a provenance earlier than <i>circa</i> 1800 at best, it is not surprising that William of Nogaret and his men were unable to locate any of them at the time of the trial 500 years before". <a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/My%20Web%20Sites/chivalric/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm#FOOTNOTE_3">[3]</a></span><br />
<br />
<em><strong><span style="color: #f00078; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">THE EARLY REVIVALS</span></strong></em><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">In the early nineteenth century an attempt to revive the Order of the Temple was made by Augustus, Duke of Sussex (a black sheep son of George III and notorious rake), Charles Tennyson d'Eyncourt (uncle of the poet, Alfred, Lord Tennyson) and Admiral Sir Sidney Smith, who had participated as a naval captain in the defense of Acre in 1799. According to a letter from Smith he was given a Templar cross purporting to have belonged to Richard I (who was never a Templar knight); this cross had supposedly been in the custody of the Greek Orthodox Archbishops ever since and later Smith's possession of it was sufficient for the French Masonic "Order of the Temple" to confer upon him the title of "Grand Prior of England". Smith was a romantic prepared to accept the most unlikely story and, joining with Tennyson d'Eyncourt, he handed over the title of Grand Prior to the Duke of Sussex. With Smith's death in 1840 and that of Sussex in 1843 Tennyson d'Eyncourt himself lost interest and resigned. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">While various Templar groups flourished in the latter part of the century, they seem to have been largely independent of each other. The English branch languished until the various twentieth century revivals on the fringes of the chivalric world; the Temple is one of the most popular self-styled "Order" with less discriminating "collectors" of pseudo-chivalric honours. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Barber (<i>Op. cit</i>.) continues to dismiss the fantasies of Joseph von Hammer-Purstall (1818) and Jules Loiseleur (1872, reprinted 1975), ending his work "the Templar myths have therefore proved extremely durable and their contributions to the modern image of the real Templars arguably as powerful as that of their documented history...... The longevity of these myths perhaps, like Gnosticism, relates to their flexibility, for they have been used by both conservative and radical proponents of the conspiracy theory of history, by romantics imbued with nostalgia for a lost medieval past, by Freemasons seeking a colorful history to justify their penchant for quasi-religious ritual and play-acting, <b>and by charlatans who seek profit in exploiting the gullible</b>". Quoting from Umberto Eco's <i>Foucault's Pendulum</i>, one of the characters, Belbo, when asked how he recognized a lunatic, responded. "For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all <em>idée fixé</em>, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars". <a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/My%20Web%20Sites/chivalric/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm#FOOTNOTE_4">[4]</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">There are various branches of the Templar revival, and so-called "Priories" scattered across the globe. One such, the <strong>"Priory of Saint Norbert", </strong>apparently including Illinois, Indiana and Missouri, recently held a rather pompous "investiture" and "Solemn Vespers" at Saint James's Cathedral in Chicago, on "October 26, A.D. 1996" (the A.D. just in case someone should suppose they had returned from the pre-Christian era!). Among the luminaries who apparently underwrote this affair were "Her Highness Princess Elisabeth" (of where, one might ask?), and a whole list of gentleman misusing the title of "Sir", including Viktor Foerster, Thomas Glaser, Arstotle Halikais, John Lopez, Ronald Mangun, Russel Parthun, Dr George Podlusky, Terence Quandt, Jerome Radecky, Edward Rosewall, Maj-Gen Richard Stearney, Rev Fr John Tilford, Col Raymond Timmer, Admiral Grant Hollett, "His Excellency" Rev James Parker, and others.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="color: #f00078;"><strong>The Ancient and Noble Order of the Knights Templar</strong>:</span> yet another organization claiming to be descended from the original knights Templars and perhaps associated with the above. The evident success of this body is demonstrated by their financial requirements - a "benefaction" of $10,000 US dollars on joining and $2500 US dollars thereafter (several times what is required of Knights of Malta, for example, but a substantial reduction from the previous requirement of 45,000 Swiss Francs and $25,000 Swiss Francs respectively). In addition to the ranks of Knight and Dame, this group also had a category of Knight or Dame Chamberlain (limited to 50 in any one year), and Knight or Dame "Savant" (whatever that means), limited to twenty in any one year and a maximum of fifty. There were also ranks of Knight or Dame Fellows and Knight or Dame Chancellors, limited to members of the "Chancellors Court of Benefactors". Knights Fellows are apparently hereditary, in perpetuity, descending through the male or female line with the right to "abdicate" the title in favor of an heir. Apparently this includes the "lawful" right to the titles of "Sir" or "Lady". According to a letter dated 7 October 1996 from "The Chancellor Savant" 40% of their income was to be devoted to charitable purposes (very much less than the amount so dedicated by the vast majority of recognized Orders of Chvialry). This body, in addition to its "Chancellor Savanta", a certain "Sir" Graham Renshaw-Heron, M. Jur, PhD, KST (Via dell Ariete 65, Colle Piuccio, 04016 Sabaudia, Italy; tel), has a "Chief Historian" the "learned Bishop the Reverend Dr Sir Paul Benedek" and a "Chief Archivist" "Dr Sir James Hannon"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">This body, in asserting its legitimacy as the successor of the Templar Order, states (letter cited 7 October 1996): "our researchers have attempted to isolate and contact these various claimants [to be successors of the Templars], all but on proved fruitless. This one exception, however, after exhaustive efforts, was also, and most regrettably proven to belong to group of very kind and no doubt well-meaning people, having a common interest in history, overly fertile imaginations, but absolutely no basis of claim. There can never be and doubt, however, that many organizations do exist, and who believe they are either Templar or some other ancient survivor of some medieval Order of chivalry....." The letter goes on to dismiss all these organizations and their claims. The author of this letter claims that the Templars did not exist by Papal "instigation" but the King of Jerusalem - forgetting, of course, that (a) the King of Jerusalem was himself a Papal vassal, and (b) that in fact the Templars were constituted by Papal Bull, and their Rule approved by the Pope - and not by any act of the Kings of Jerusalem. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The subsequent reasoning for the alleged survival of the Order is so laughable in its convoluted reasoning (drawing a mysterious analogy with the discovery of the Cullinan diamond) that it is not worth repeating. This "Order" claims to have made donations to the underprivileged in Indonesia and India, without specifying precisely the objects or the amount of their charity. Apparently a "Dr Sir Carl Shapley" and a "Lady Virginia Lloyd-Thayer" are both presently in India working in the Order's interests, supervising a Templar project at the village of Bodhgaya, assisted by the "resident Charity Commissioner for India, Sir Nan Mohan Lal". The "Order" aspires, however, to admit at least 25,000 people, with a benefit to the Order of $250,000,000!!!, of which an anticipated $100,000,000 would be devoted to charitable and philanthropic endeavour. While one would indeed like to know who are the likely beneficiaries of this munificence, one might want to know even more who would get the remaining $150,000,000! This "Order" does not have a Grand Master, but the senior executive officer is apparently this same "Chancellor Savant" who occupies "a position of Constitutional authority similar to that enjoyed by the original medieval Grand Masters". The recipient of the kind letter of invitation to join this body was told that "make the moves that will put you among your true and noble peers, take the steps that will cause you to be legally known and addressed as Sir ........, and if you are married, your wife to be known and addressed with the honorific of 'Lady' ......and if you have an Heir, he or she will be lawfully entitled to be known and addressed as 'The Honorable', etc etc". The first investiture in the US was held scheduled for Thursday 27th March through Sunday 30th March, 1997. A web site associated with this "Order" could be found in the past at: <a href="http://www.compulink.co.uk/~littlevenice/templar.htm">http://www.compulink.co.uk/~littlevenice/templar.htm</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">There was another large Templar site is at: <a href="http://www.ordo-militiae-templi.org/starten.htm">http://www.ordo-militiae-templi.org/starten.htm</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><strong><span style="color: #f00078;">Sovereign Military Order of the Temple, Priory of Saint Michael and Saint George</span><span style="font-size: medium;">.</span></strong> It now has moved to a more substantial web site combined with some other Templar "priories" at <a href="http://www.smotj.org/index.php/us-priories">http://www.smotj.org/index.php/us-priories</a><span style="color: magenta;"></span> There is also a Priory of St James at <a href="http://www.stjj.org/history.htm">http://www.stjj.org/history.htm</a> </span><br />
<br />
Other self-styled Templar Orders, all reciting similar invented histories, include one at <a href="http://www.osmth.org/">http://www.osmth.org/</a>, another (British group) at <a href="http://theknightstemplar1119.org.uk/">http://theknightstemplar1119.org.uk/</a> while a rival British group describes itself as the only "officially recognised" Order (whatever that means - recognised by whom? Certainly not the UK government) <a href="https://www.theknightstemplar.net/portal/">https://www.theknightstemplar.net/portal/</a> . Their "official recognition" however is challenged by another UK group, also claiming the same "official" status - see <a href="http://www.kt-england.org/aboutus.htm">http://www.kt-england.org/aboutus.htm</a><br />
<br />
Then there is a Priory of St Louis the Crusader based in St Louis, Missouri, <a href="http://www.stlouisthecrusader.org/content/?page_id=2">http://www.stlouisthecrusader.org/content/?page_id=2</a> perhaps an unlikely place to find a colony of crusaders!<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: magenta;"><strong><span style="font-size: medium;">The Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani Ordo</span></strong><span style="font-family: Goudy Old Style; font-size: large;"><strong> </strong></span></span><span style="font-family: Goudy Old Style; font-size: small;">claims to be an "I<em>nternational Knighthood Order founded in 1118 in Jerusalem by Hugues de Payns, the last Statutes are published in the Official Gazette of the State of Brazil, on June 21 1956, Section I, page 12199-12200, and updated on december 27 1956, Section I, page 24718-24719.</em>" This facility does not confer any recognition by the Republic of Brazil of this body as an "Order of Chivalry". <br /><br /> "<em>In Italy is approved by the Tribunale di Roma - Pretura di Frascati on January 18 1960, legalized by the Procura Generale della Repubblica - Corte d'Appello di Roma on January 19 1960 at n°840; approved by the Ministro degli Affari Esteri on January 19 1960, validated by the Brazilian State on March 22 1960.</em>" This likewise does not mean that the Order is recognized as an "order of Chivalry or Knighthood" in Italy, a status defined by a law of 1951 which emppowers the state to accord recognition to "non-National Orders". This category is the one into which the self-styled Templar Order would fall if it were considered an Order of Knighthood. It is not considered as such, however, except by the members and their associates who are sadly deluded in this regard. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Goudy Old Style;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Grand Preceptory of Italy of this group maintains a web site at: </span><a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2082/smtho.html"><span style="font-family: Goudy Old Style; font-size: small;">http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2082/smtho.html</span></a><span style="font-family: Goudy Old Style; font-size: small;">. This siteb discloses that the address of the Grand Preceptory is Via Luigi Ronzoni n°41 00151 Roma (ITALY) - tel. 0039-6-58203750 - fax 0039-6-535233. Its fictional successzion of "grand masters" after the execution of Molay names the following: 23 - Jean-Marc de Larmeny (1314-1324); 24 - Francesco Tommaso Teobald d'Alessandria (1324-1340); 25 - Arnaud de Braque (1340-1349); 26 - Jean de Clermont (1349-1357); 27 - Bertrand du Guesclin (1357-1380); 28 - Jean I, Count d'Armagnac (1381-1392); 29 - Bernard, Count d'Armagnac (1392-1419); 30 - Jean II, Count d'Armagnac (1419-1451); 31 - Jean de Croy (1451-1472); R - Bernard Imbault (1472-1478); 32 - Robert de Lenoncourt, Cardinal Arcibishop of Reims (1478-1497); 33 - Galeas de Salazar (1497-1516); 34 - Philippe de Chabot, Conte de Charny (1516-1544); 35 - Gaspard de Saulx et de Tavannes (1544-1574); 36 - Henry de Montmorency (1574-1615); 37 - Charles de Valois, Duc d'Angouleme (1616-1651); 38 - Jacques Rouxel de Grancey et de Medavy (1651-1681); 39 - Jacques-Henry de Durfort, Duc de Duras (1681-1705); 40 - H.M. (??) Prince Philippe, Duc d'Orleans (1705-1723); 41 - Prince Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, Duc de Maine (1724-1736); 42 - Prince Louis-Henry de Bourbon et de Conde (1737-1741); 43 - Prince Louis-Francois de Bourbon et de Conty (1741-1776); 44 - Louis-Hercules-Timoleon de Cosse (1776-1792); R - Claude-Mathieu Radix de Chevillon (1792-1804); 45 - Bernard-Raymond Fabre Palapatri di Spoleto (1804-1838); D' - Charles-Antoine-Gabriel Duc de Choiseul (1813-1813); D - Jules Guignes de Moreton et de Chabrillan (1836-1840); R - Sidney Smith, admiral of England (1838-1840); R - Jean Marie Raoul, magistral lieutenent (1840-1850); R - Narcisse de Valleray, magistral lieutenent (1850-1857); 46 - H.M. George V, King of Hannover (1857-1866); R - Angel Gabriel Maxim Vernois (1866-1873); 47 - H.M. Edward VII, Prince of Wales and King of England (1873-1910); D - Josephin Peladan (1892-1894); 48 - H.M. William II, Emperor of Germany (1910-1915); - "International Secretariat of the Templars" (1915-1920); - "Council of Regence" (1920-1935); R - Theodore Covias (1935-1938); D - Emil Clement Joseph Vandenberg (1935-1942); R - Gustave Joseph Jonckbloedt de Juge (1938-1945); - "Council of Regence" of the General Capitol of France (1945-1956); 49 - Prince Gabriel Jnellas Paleologo (1956-1987); 50 - Sebastiao Simoes de Lima (1988-1996); 51 - Prince Don Inellas Zaccaria (1996-).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Goudy Old Style;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">This list varies in the last two centuries the names claimed by most other pseudo Templar Orders, each of which claim their own peculiar succession in order to justify the pretensions of their own claimants (generally using fantasy titles). The majority of those named would never have even known that centuries later anyone was pretending that they had somehow been "grand masters" of a non-existent, fictional Order of Knighthood. It is absolutely certain that neither King George V of Hannover, nor King Edward VII of Great Britain, nor the Kaiser Wilhelm II, had anything to do with any such pseudo-Order. Although most of the people named were historical personages, the titles given them are generally given incorrectly (displaying the ignorance of those who compiled the list). It is equally certain that the claims of the two "princes" named as "grand masters" in the scond half of this century are self-assumed. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">Mr Rocco Zingari, who apparently asked the Vatican (unsuccessfully) to approve his Order in 1994, has been appointed "Grand Preceptor" by "Prince" Paleologo. The address of the Order is <strong>Avenida Paulista, 453, conj. 132, Sao Paulo, Brazil.</strong> </span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The most successful of the self-styled Templar Orders </span> </b><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">is that headed by "Count" Don Fernando Campello Pinto Pereira de Sousa Fontes as "Grand Master", see <a href="http://theknightstemplar.org/">http://theknightstemplar.org/</a> he claims to have succeeded his father, "Count" Antonio Campello Pinto Pereira de Sousa Fontes, who in turn had succeeded Emile Joseph Isaac Vandenburg. No exoplanation is given as to the preceding Grand Masters, until the end of the 18th century when it is stated that "In 1776, the Duke de Cosse Brissac accepted the Grand Mastership of the Templar Order and remained in office until his execution in 1782 during the bloody French Revolution." The author of this site's ignorance of history is exposed in his dating of the French revolution - this particular Duke of Brissac, a famously irreverent libertine, was actually executed in September 1792. That this "Order" claims to be disassociated from the Freemasons is particularly interestign as of course Brissac, and the Duke of Orléans, named as his predecessor, were notorious French Freemasons. This body, styled the "<i>Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani", </i>claims to be a Christian organization (despite its evident willingness to present a fictitious and invented history in its published history). On its web site the Order dedicates a paragraph to denouncing those who set up their own Templar Order independently of their own fantasy body, a case of the pot calling the kettle black and characteristic of the schisms that pervade so many of these bodies. The US members of this body have a web site at <a href="http://www.knighttemplar.org/">http://www.knighttemplar.org/</a> which they describe as the website of:</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">"The Ancient Order of Knights Templar"... "a true (<i>sic)</i>, legitimate 883-year-old Order of Knighthood!"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: small;">This body was run by a "Chevalier" Vincent G. Zubras, Jr., KGCTS, KGCTJ, Provincial Preceptor, OPCCTS, and had its headquarters at <span style="font-family: default; font-size: small;">P.O. Box 600231</span></span>, <span style="font-family: default; font-size: small;">Dallas</span>, <span style="font-family: default; font-size: small;">Texas</span>, <span style="font-family: default; font-size: small;">75360-0231</span>, <span style="font-family: default; font-size: small;">USA</span>. </span><br />
<br />
Of course there is a Scottish "Grand Priory" since Rosslyn chapel is the site of many Templar fantasies, stimulated by the historical fiction of Dan Brown - see <a href="http://www.scottishknightstemplar.org/">http://www.scottishknightstemplar.org/</a><br />
<br />
Italy has a large and flourishing body of Templar "knights" - see <a href="http://www.templarioggi.it/">http://www.templarioggi.it/</a> and while France has grand priories of the larger Orders cited above, it also has a spin-off group inspired by the Templars - <a href="http://www.ovdt.org/">http://www.ovdt.org/</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The Swedish "Priory" of this so-called "Order" has a web site at </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.tempelherreorden.org/start.htm">http://www.tempelherreorden.org/start.htm</a>, and the inclusion of a number of senior Swedish military officers (Sweden being a neutral country has few opportunities for its military to earn decorations for valor, so its officers are always hungry for more decorations) has enabled this body to obtain permission for its insignia to be worn on military uniform. The site is limited to password access. </span><br />
<br />
This group <a href="https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/">https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/</a> takes a harsh anti-Moslem stance with a popup advertisement on their first internet page asking if the visitor believes terrorists are entering the USA along with refugees. <br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">One could find many other such fantasy groups by trawling the internet - the mass murdered Anders Behring Breivik claimed to be a knight Templar while a group of volunteer fighters opposing ISIL have also assumed the name and a version of the Templar badge. </span>Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-38594661307474615262015-09-23T22:38:00.006+02:002015-09-23T22:38:31.191+02:00<div style="text-align: center;">
MODERN CARLISM - A LOST CAUSE AND FOOLISH FANTASY</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Adapted from an earlier article by Guy Stair Sainty (with permission of the author)</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">PRETENSION OF THE DUKE OF PARMA TO BE CARLIST
CLAIMANT</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Some facts concerning the Carlist claims of the
late Don Hugo di Borbone, Duca di Parma (formerly styled S.A.R Don Carlos-Hugo
de Borbón y Borbón-Busset, Príncipe de Asturias, Duque de Madrid y San Jaime,
Infante de España, Caballero de la Toisón de Oro, etc). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">5 May
1957 Carlos-Hugo stated” Faithful to my ancestors, faithful to my father the
king, you must know that with the held of God, I shall accomplish the hopes and
sacrifices that are imposed by the title of prince of the Asturias, which
legitimacy has caused to descend to me”.</span></b><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"> </span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">At the time the Prince of the Asturias was H.R.H.
Don Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias, later King Juan Carlos I of
Spain. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Meanwhile, on 20 Dec 1957, forty-four Carlist
notables visited Estoril to pledge their allegiance to Don Juan, Count of
Barcelona (father of the King Juan Carlos), as Carlist heir. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Carlos-Hugo, in a letter to a friend at this time
wrote: “I am convinced that Carlism must make a revolution and change form……
this revolution only I can do.” He and his father then approached Franco to try
and gain his support for their cause. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Count of Barcelona, in letters to Europe’s
royal houses, asked that no-one co-operate with Xavier and his son Carlos-Hugo,
pointing out that they could not claim to be Spanish dynasts because of Xavier’s
unequal marriage (the Bourbon-Busset are an illegitimate line of a junior
branch of the Bourbon family). He also asked the assistance of Elie, Duke of
Parma, who wrote (31 July 1958): </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">My quality
as a Spaniard by naturalization does not permit me to intervene directly in the
problems of the future of our dear Spain, and more particularly, the
monarchical institution. The ties that unite me to this are such that in
certain circumstances and conforming to the laws of primogeniture and
legitimacy defended by our ancestors, the rights to the crown could return to
me. And that, (I have) preference over every other Prince of Bourbon-Parma,
because, I am the head of this House and I am a Spaniard as I have indicated. I
do not intend to impose any succession problem and I recall only the facts that
give considerable authority to my recognition of the eventual rights of Don
Juan de Borbón, in declaring that I consider a usurper anyone who opposes these
rights</i>”. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">He died the following year, and his son Robert II
succeeded. The latter wrote soon after his succession, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">If the Crown of Spain falls one day to the House of Parma, it will come
to me as I am the Head and I am Spanish</i>”. His father Élie had not
recognized the marriage of Xavier, and had refused to give his wife the title
of Royal Highness (because of inequality, not because of the Carlist claim). At
a meeting with Xavier in 1960, at the time of the wedding of Princess Françoise
to Prince Edouard de Lobkowicz, Duke Robert was asked to unite the family and
recognize his marriage, and consequently the succession rights of Xavier’s
issue. Robert graciously consented and, in a letter dated 22 Aug 1961 written
to (Constantinian Bailiff and former Spanish Ambassador) Albert de Mestas “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I am not married and have no issue, my uncle
Xavier is indubitably my eventual successor. His children have always born the
titles of Prince (or Princesses) of Parma</i>”. He reiterated, however, his
belief that Xavier had usurped the Carlist claim and enunciated to his family
his sincere regret that Xavier had ignored his pleas to unite behind the Count
of Barcelona. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Carlos-Hugo and his father, however, were not
Spanish citizens. Franco tolerated their activities because it suited him
politically to encourage disunity among the Monarchists, whom it served him
better if they did not unite behind the Constitutionalist Don Juan. Under
Spanish law they could not succeed to the Crown unless they were citizens.
There was a good argument to be made that they were in fact citizens since the
Treaty of Aranjuez of 1801 conferred citizenship on all Princes of the House of
Bourbon, but they instead petitioned Franco for citizenship, which he simply
postponed deciding upon. The French courts at the time of the lengthy dispute
over the inheritance of the Chateau of Chambord, provoked by Xavier and his
brother Sixte’s desire to profit financially from the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>situation of their older brother, Elie, who
had an honorary commission in the Austrian army, had decided that Xavier and
Sixte were not French, but Spanish. Neither, however, petitioned for a Spanish
passport. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Meanwhile Xavier’s daughters Princesses Cécile,
Marie-Thérèse and Marie des Neiges became more and more active in promoting
first Carlism, and then their increasingly left-wing and indeed revolutionary ideas.
They moved to Spain, and learnt the language. Princess Françoise, now married,
stepped aside in deference to the wishes of Duke Robert and concentrated on her
charitable work and raising her family. Carlos Hugo increasingly concerned
himself with domestic Spanish politics, raising money to finance his cause and
living in an apartment in Madrid, coincidentally in the same building as the
leading Francoist Admiral Carrero Blanco (eventually assassinated in the early
1970s by Basque separatists). The building always had police guards, giving a
sense of importance to the apparent status of Prince Carlos-Hugo who with the
help of some sympathetic journalists managed to get frequent publicity for his
activities and anti-Don Juan statements. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In 1962 Juan Carlos and his family travelled to
Athens for his wedding, attended by most of Europe’s royal families. Franco,
seeking to counter the massive publicity that reinforced the position of Don
Juan, invited Carlos Hugo to their first meeting. Franco now let Don Juan know,
in his words, that “I have another candidate”. Encouraged, Carlos-Hugo, his
mother and sisters turned up at Montejurra in 1963, Princess Xavier being
styled Queen and “Majesty” before a crowd of 24,000 Carlists. They even founded
a new “Order”, the Cross of Forbidden Legitimacy, as a dynastic Order! Xavier
took the title of “Count of Molina”, while “conferring” that of Duke of Madrid
and San Jaime on Carlos-Hugo and Duke of Aranjuez on Sisto, along with the
titles of Infante of Spain and the Golden Fleece The latter later enrolled in
the Spanish foreign legion as Enrique Aranjuez, because, as a Frenchman (by
right of his mother), he could not join the regular army; under Spanish law,
however, if he took the oath to the flag he could later legally apply for
citizenship (whereupon he resigned from the Legion without actually applying or
serving). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Carlos-Hugo now began to move away from
collaborating with Franco, and began to attack Juan Carlos as a Francoist
puppet. He presented his side as federalist in spirit, socially and
traditionally close to the people, attacking Don Juan as liberal, centralist,
favourable to capitalism and the establishment. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Following a disastrous flood in Catalonia
Marie-Therese and Cecile offered their services to Caritas relief, Juan Carlos
and his wife attended the funeral service for the victims and visited the site
of the disaster where they were pelted with tomatoes by young Carlist
enthusiasts, including the two Parma princesses Later, attending another event
in Catalonia, they were struck by rotten vegetables. In an event in a theatre,
Marie des Neiges appeared in the opposite box to Juan Carlos and Sophie, the
theatre erupted when more young supporters of Carlos Hugo shouted slogans, and
the Prince of the Asturias and his wife were forced to leave. The Carlist
newspaper published an article with photographs of the two princes, describing
Carlos-Hugo as “Prince of the House of Borbón, Infant of Spain, but never able
to obtain the justice of being legally considered Spanish”, and Juan Carlos as
a “Prince who has obtained the quality of legally being Spaniard although born
outside Spain”. The fact that Carlos-Hugo was born in Paris was ignored. Juan
Carlos was criticized in the article for having been educated at Military
academies, but having (purportedly) done badly in school, and for living in a
Palace that belonged to the state without the consent of the public or the
Cortes or government (while, it was pointed out, Carlos Hugo was living in a
simple apartment). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Carlos-Hugo next announced his marriage to Princess
Irene of the Netherlands, whose mother was the wealthiest sovereign in Europe,
and who, although a Protestant, announced her conversion to Catholicism. She
had been a bridesmaid to Sophie of Greece at her wedding to Juan Carlos. As she
had not asked permission from Parliament to marry, the Dutch parliament
declared her automatically excluded from the succession. While Prince Bernhard
promised Don Juan that unless Carlos Hugo renounced his claims she would not be
allowed to marry, the couple ignored her father and were married in Rome on 29
April 1964 in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in front of 5000 Carlist
supporters. The Dutch royal family boycotted the marriage as did most royal
houses, although the groom’s parents and sisters attended, as did the Empress
Zita (his aunt) and, to the surprise of many, Dom Duarte Nuño, Duke of
Braganza, who had temporarily fallen out with Don Juan. The Duke of Parma
refused to attend; Don Juan had conferred upon him the rank of a Knight of the
Golden Fleece two months earlier and it was known that the groom would be
wearing the Spanish Order, to which he was not entitled (the photographs of the
wedding showing him with the badge of the Golden Fleece). </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">On their honeymoon Irene shocked the Spanish public
by being photographed in a bikini, then considered indecent and causing much
comment in the press (to the amazement of the Princess herself who had worn one
without comment in her own country). This did not go down well in conservative
Spain, and on their return the announcement of their audience with General Franco
described them as “Princess Irene of Holland and her husband”. This represented
a final breach with Franco and Carlos-Hugo began to change the political
orientation of Carlism towards the left. At the same time the activities of
Irene and her husband led to an open breach with Princess Sophia, whom she had
known all her life. Carlos-Hugo now also broke with his father, who was still
tied to the “traditional” Carlism. Xavier had advised his followers to vote
“Yes” in the referendum of 1966, which confirmed the establishment of the
Francoist state and allowed the General to nominate the future King.
Carlos-Hugo, through his political organization, now issued a proclamation that
any Princes who supported this would be deprived of the “legitimacy of the exercise”
of their rights, thereby deposing his own father. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Parmesan Carlists were now hopelessly divided
and Xavier caused further problems by publicly supporting the separatist
movement in Catalonia and the Basque provinces. This was a step too far for
Franco, who had fought the Civil War in the name of Spanish unity; on 26
December 1967 the Parma princes were expelled from Spain, for “contravening the
terms of their temporary residence”. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">On 8 April 1975 Xavier “abdicated” in favor of
Carlos-Hugo. The remaining leaders In July 1969 Juan Carlos was proclaimed
Prince of Spain and, from his exile in Paris, Carlos Hugo began a series of
attacks upon the new Prince of Spain and the future Monarchy they felt he would
embody. He was supported in this by his sisters, with the exception of
Françoise, while his brother Sisto continued to support the “traditional” Carlism
supposedly led by their father. The last occasion on which the whole family was
present together was for the baptism of the “Infante” Carlos Javier, heir to
the self-styled “Prince of the Asturias,” also attended by Queen Juliana, the
child’s godmother, and the rest of the Dutch royal family. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">The Carlists of the Tradition now demanded that
Carlos Hugo announce his adhesion to their traditions, but he did not respond
and they declared him deprived of his right to lead them. On 24 Jan 1977 he
wrote: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I have renounced nothing. These
are matters which one cannot renounce because they do not belong to the
patrimony of any individual</i>. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Sisto meanwhile seems to have become more involved
with the extreme right and was accused by his elder brother of having
sequestrated their father in the monastery of Solêsmes (1977). This provoked an
outraged protest from their mother, who published a statement on 7 March 1977 accusing
Carlos-Hugo of trying to remove his father from hospital and force him to sign
a statement recognizing him as his heir, and of falsely accusing Sisto of
keeping him against his will. It is impossible to be sure who was right, but on
4 March Xavier had signed a manifesto condemning his elder son’s increasingly
extreme politics, while just three days later (after Carlos-Hugo and his sister
removed their father form hospital) he named Carlos-Hugo as his heir in all his
“claims”. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Xavier died on 7 May 1977; Carlos-Hugo in his
announcement to the courts of Europe did not mention his Carlist claims, only
the title of Duke of Parma – knowing that any other claims would not be
acknowledged. The arms on the heading of the paper, however, were those of the Royal
House of Spain surrounded by the Golden Fleece. Carlos-Hugo, Cécile,
Marie-Thérèse and Marie des Neiges were never forgiven by their mother for what
she considered disloyal actions that had hastened their father’s death. Before
she died of cancer in 1984 she ordered that these four of her children should
not be allowed to enter the château after her death, and bequeathed her estates
to Sisto (who inherited Lignières) and Françoise. At her funeral they were
forced to stand outside the gates while their mother’s coffin was carried by.
Along with the chateau of Lignières and its contents – the legacy of Colbert,
from whom Marie-Madeleine descended – were the sixteen collars of the Saint
Esprit that Xavier had misappropriated. The last Carlist claimant, Alfonso
Carlos, Duke of San Jaime had asked his secretary to deliver these to Alfonso
XIII who was unquestionably the senior heir of the House of Bourbon even though
not the political heir of Carlism – the secretary had instead handed them over
to Xavier, who had not right to their possession.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In 1976 Carlos-Hugo tried to return to Spain but,
at the airport, was informed that the decree of expulsion was still in force.
The Carlists now divided; the “Traditionalist Communion” was headed by Sisto
(Sixte), the “Carlist Party” by Carlos-Hugo. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In early 1978, nearly three years after Juan Carlos
had become King, Carlos Hugo wrote: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I
address all Carlists, without any distinction, as your King, and as
representative of the legitimate dynasty, to call you to unity and invite you to
work to recover our liberties. Carlism has the responsibility of continuing to
serve the people; it is the moment for us to regroup around the federal idea
that was always the ideal of Carlism</i>”. Shortly afterwards, on 7 March 1978,
he was received by the King at the Oriente Palace, in a private audience. He
asked the King for Spanish citizenship but the King did not respond directly.
On leaving, he stated: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Neither myself,
nor my family, nor the political interests which we attribute to ourselves,
have, at this time, any ambition to occupy the place occupied by Juan Carlos.
The facts are the facts. He is today the head of State and we have not been
asked, neither ourselves, nor the people</i>”. On 5 Jan 1979 “Carlos de
Borbón-Parma y Borbón” was conceded Spanish nationality in a generous gesture
by the King which did not, however, acknowledge the title of Duke of Parma nor
the style Royal Highness, not out of hostility to his claim but because to officially
recognise a foreign title of pretension for a Spanish citizen was beyond his
authority and the recognition of Royal Highness would have required a decree
signed by the president of the council of ministers. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Carlos and his family acquired a house outside
Madrid and the party he headed became increasingly left-wing in its proposals.
On 28 April 1980 he resigned as President and as a member of the Carlist party,
stating, in his letter: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sir, I inform
you officially that by the present act I no longer belong to the Carlist party.
This is final. Receive my best wishes. Carlos-Hugo de Borbón</i>.” The
following year he and Irene divorced. His sisters Marie-Thérèse and Marie des
Neiges, both living in Spain, have pursued academic careers; the former was a
professor of political science at Madrid University, specializing in the Islamic
world of North Africa, the latter has a Doctorate in Biology specializing in
Mediterranean island fauna and flora – both continued to adhere to their
extremist political views. Princess Cécile interested herself in her family
history and volunteered for the Order of Malta. None of them ever publicly
expressed any regret for their actions in the 1950-70s. Such was the
uncertainty concerning whether Carlos-Hugo still claims his assumed Spanish
titles that, in 1987, a royal decree was issued stating: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">No other person can be titles Prince or Princess of the Asturias, nor
Infante of Spain, nor receive the treatment and honours that are attached to
the preceding dignities</i>” other than those authorized by the law. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In the end it was King Juan
Carlos, however, who restored democracy in Spain, who defended the liberties of
the people, and who initiated the new Federal constitution which gave autonomy
to the regions. It was he who stood up to the military and assured Spain’s
future as a democratic constitutional Monarchy. No other expression of regret
or withdrawal has ever been offered by the late Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma for
his actions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">One might have thought that the Carlist
claim would have expired with the death of Xavier and then his oldest son –
Sixte (Sisto) holds views that are as extreme as his sisters, but on the other
end of the spectrum and continues to enjoy the support of a small group of
Carlist fantasists who seem to be living in a parallel universe. When his first
cousin, Chares-Henri de Lobkowicz (only surviving son of His oldest sister,
Princess Françoise, organised an event to commemorate the foundation of the
Bourbon dynasty at which Louis-Alphonse, Duc d’Anjou, senior representative of
the Capetian House (along with an Orleans prince and Two Sicilies princess),
Sixte issued the following statement:</span><span style="font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">HRH Prince Sixte Henri
de Bourbon will not be attending a celebration, allegedly of the Bourbon
family, at Souvigny Abbey next weekend. He will not join the «family» dinner at
Bostz afterwards, either. The Prince has refused the invitation after being
informed that another was extended to a certain character who is in the habit
of granting and using the patrimonial titles of the French Royal Family.<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15017" />
<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15018" />
By those patrimonial titles we mean non-hereditary titles used by members of
the Royal Family, which only a reigning King of France may grant to his closest
relatives.<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15019" />
<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15020" />
Furthermore, the aforementioned individual's paternal grandfather was forced to
renounce the titles he had used, for himself and for his descendants.<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15021" />
<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15022" />
The said individual issues from a branch of usurpers who seized the throne of
the Spains against the fundamental laws of the Spanish Monarchy, and who caused
the death of over 400,000 Spanish Legitimists who stood for Religion and the
laws of the realm against the Liberals and their anti-Christian aggression.
They went as far as to have the Carlist generals' parents and siblings executed.<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15023" />
<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15024" />
The presence of such a character would constitute a provocation against true
Bourbons celebrating the history of their dynasty.<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15025" />
<br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1442928706916_15026" />
September 17, 2015.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 107%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;">As if this was not enough, Carlos-Hugo’s
son and successor as Duke of Parma, Carlo Saverio, or Carlos Javier as he is
also known, has decided to continue the baseless pretensions of his late
father. He is a Dutch citizen (and his recently married brother Jaime is now
Dutch Ambassador to the Holy See) and thanks to the generosity of his aunt
Princess, formerly Queen, Beatrix, he and his family have been incorporated into
the Dutch nobility as Princes of Bourbon-Parma and have been accorded the style
of Royal Highness. Despite this, and in what seems a gross discourtesy to his
aunt who is a member of the Order of the Golden Fleece which she received from
King Juan Carlos, he has proclaimed himself King Carlos Javier I of Spain, and
conferred Carlist titles on members of his family, along with the pretended
title of “Infante of Spain”. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3BcQdhGJj54a8z_PMxWu92RBZpfppWVjuBL941BqRZ7Kt1DhUlrs1gI7JoD1PIEwvcAAC-SBRTLVdgon2hK28cHsAd3tVw2yep8dya8F-IecbDrKDrc-ah3G4aEcVLjfJ7mL_yznDCvHr/s1600/MANIFIESTO+de+D.+Carlos+Javier-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3BcQdhGJj54a8z_PMxWu92RBZpfppWVjuBL941BqRZ7Kt1DhUlrs1gI7JoD1PIEwvcAAC-SBRTLVdgon2hK28cHsAd3tVw2yep8dya8F-IecbDrKDrc-ah3G4aEcVLjfJ7mL_yznDCvHr/s640/MANIFIESTO+de+D.+Carlos+Javier-1.jpg" width="430" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMiQLeGREfryoUsGIWl5iYtmJDv6qWEYbRZtIsGq3h4m2rAEE6okJGTjpBHPunP3lzSuppi9Lu582JbPcRkiLXupTSmiFdbSV2H7II4Sm9YNkA9ojXGDqbiy0WJzivGRchKacZ1aJSbAS0/s1600/MANIFIESTO+de+D.+Carlos+Javier-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMiQLeGREfryoUsGIWl5iYtmJDv6qWEYbRZtIsGq3h4m2rAEE6okJGTjpBHPunP3lzSuppi9Lu582JbPcRkiLXupTSmiFdbSV2H7II4Sm9YNkA9ojXGDqbiy0WJzivGRchKacZ1aJSbAS0/s640/MANIFIESTO+de+D.+Carlos+Javier-2.jpg" width="434" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU3oMpNgfz3K4iE1EyC3TmFmkqBCJ1KYr-u1VsNREu0PulbuhlJM_NUcLEepOVIHhyphenhyphen9NvCDI0Rygeby9ov4BpMNetOJQhqPnsFMf-cIn-WKE4v0r4bccFFIKyfMWqHDyRcVL6SvrGULf4_/s1600/MANIFIESTO+de+D.+Carlos+Javier-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU3oMpNgfz3K4iE1EyC3TmFmkqBCJ1KYr-u1VsNREu0PulbuhlJM_NUcLEepOVIHhyphenhyphen9NvCDI0Rygeby9ov4BpMNetOJQhqPnsFMf-cIn-WKE4v0r4bccFFIKyfMWqHDyRcVL6SvrGULf4_/s640/MANIFIESTO+de+D.+Carlos+Javier-3.jpg" width="536" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_clVdc_Fz7dFMnwzZk1tlWAgzjZeigmwJ0Pt4-n2btbaB7btbeYqkGyiUIaDpKAttS96oaXqBDQG0clH8fYex7-Gr3gUIffNWYVLl_fdVnh8JFZOtkuyxmAvDHHQvvheOjZeirunFTgqp/s1600/COMUNICADO+DON+CARLOS+JAVIER+M%25C3%2581RTIRES+2015+pdf-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_clVdc_Fz7dFMnwzZk1tlWAgzjZeigmwJ0Pt4-n2btbaB7btbeYqkGyiUIaDpKAttS96oaXqBDQG0clH8fYex7-Gr3gUIffNWYVLl_fdVnh8JFZOtkuyxmAvDHHQvvheOjZeirunFTgqp/s640/COMUNICADO+DON+CARLOS+JAVIER+M%25C3%2581RTIRES+2015+pdf-1.jpg" width="466" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmRwjMflFQo1V68ea3qIgBhGPRJpubobyoE3SEbPW7wSJAqqzhfW3lSimr5w-bkyJzM8iPS2K2oiKde3GwnP30rv__slNQ-1Um3bv8Kzx2S6FpfQHb9PiRhXB873eoxrRqp-1Z47SH04GB/s1600/COMUNICADO+DON+CARLOS+JAVIER+M%25C3%2581RTIRES+2015+pdf-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmRwjMflFQo1V68ea3qIgBhGPRJpubobyoE3SEbPW7wSJAqqzhfW3lSimr5w-bkyJzM8iPS2K2oiKde3GwnP30rv__slNQ-1Um3bv8Kzx2S6FpfQHb9PiRhXB873eoxrRqp-1Z47SH04GB/s640/COMUNICADO+DON+CARLOS+JAVIER+M%25C3%2581RTIRES+2015+pdf-2.jpg" width="522" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
</div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
</div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-16289618079855232012015-09-16T19:59:00.004+02:002015-09-16T20:00:26.267+02:00<div align="center">
<span style="color: red;"><strong>LETTER FROM THE GRAND CHANCELLOR OF THE LEGION OF HONOUR CONCERNING THE "ORDER OF SAINT LAZARUS OF JERUSALEM" </strong></span><basefont size="3"></basefont><b><span style="font-family: Arial1;"></span></b></div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial1;"></span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">LE GRAND CHANCELIER </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">DE LA </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">LÉGION D'HONNEUR, </span><span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">PARIS, le <b>30 AVR. </b></span><b><span style="font-family: Arial1;">1998</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;"><br />
Pon des O.Nx d. 69 FD <br />
</span><br />
<ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">Monsieur, </span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
<div align="JUSTIFY">
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre lettre du 6 avril courant et des pièces y annexées, sans oublier le bel ouvrage dû à votre plume dont, par ailleurs, elle s'accompagne aimablement. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Pour répondre à la question que vous voulez bien me poser, je voudrais vous confirmer que l'association constituant la branche française de l' >>Ordre >> militaire et hospitalier de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem >> a, depuis 1982 et à la demande expresse de la Grande Chancellerie, pris la dénomination d' <b>>>association des Hospitaliers de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem </b>>>. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Ainsi, elle a, en France du moins, renoncé définitivement à la qualification d' >>ordre >> dont elle se parait et qu'elle utilisait indûment au regard de la législation nationale en vigueur. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Celle-là suppose, en effet et depuis 1853, qu'un ordre authentique relève soit de la République française, soit d'une puissance étrangère souveraine ou encore, constitue un sujet de droit international public >> sui generis >>, tel par exemple le très illustre Ordre Souverain de Malte, ce qui nétait assurément pas le cas de l'association en cause, si honorable puisse-t-elle être au demeurant. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
A la nécessaire substitution d'appellation intervenue ne s'attache évidemment aucun caractère coercitif ou infamant. Le souci de la Grande Chancellerie, en l'espèce, est seulement de veiller, comme elle en a le droit et le devoir, à ce que l'association précitée respecte pleinement les engagements qu'elle a librement souscrits et les décisions qu'elle a elle-même arrêtées pour se conformer aux règles en vigueur dans mon pays et notamment au Livre IV du Code de la Légion d'honneur et de la Médaille militaire issu du décret n<sup>o</sup> 81-1103 du 4 décembre 1981. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Le respect scrupuleux de ces dispositions pénales, suppose, en particulier, que l'association dont il s'agit s'interdise définitivement d'organiser, en France notamment, des manifestations publiques et d'y conférer des distinctions susceptibles de créer confusion, d'une part avec des cérémonies officielles et d'autre part, avec des remises réglementaires de décorations française ou étrangères véritables. </div>
<ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul>2</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
<div align="JUSTIFY">
Je précise encore que cette administration a, en tant que de besoin, été plusieurs fois amenée à faire valoir ce qui précède au duc de BRISSAC qui préside l'association précitée et s'est personnellement, auprès de moi, en particulier, engagé, à de nombreuses reprises, à honorer scrupuleusement les obligations contractées par son défunt père, voici plus de seize ans et vis à vis de la Grande Chancellerie en l'occurrence. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
J'ajouterai enfin qu'en juillet 1997, j'ai notamment demandé au duc précité de bien vouloir dûment compléter la teneur des feuillets d'information que le réseau >> Internet >> émet à propos de ce qui <b>en France est et ne peut qu'y être, légalement et exclusivement, dénommé >> association des hospitaliers de St Lazare de Jérusalem </b>>>. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
J'estime en effet que cette appellation doit être nécessairement connue, non seulement dans mon pays mais aussi à l'étranger. </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY">
En vous remerciant d'avoir bien voulu m'interroger à ce sujet et en outre très vivement pour le très intéressant livre dont vous êtes l'auteur, que vous m'avez adressé et que je consulterai avec plaisir, je vous prie, Monsieur, d'agréer l'expression de mes sentiments les plus distingués. </div>
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;"><br /> </span><span style="font-family: Times Roman,Times New Roman;">Général FORRAY</span>Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-67175691480215750792015-09-16T19:55:00.000+02:002015-09-16T19:56:49.741+02:00<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><b>A U S T R I A N N O B I L I T Y S I N C E 1 9 1 8</b></span></div>
<div align="CENTER">
<strong><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></strong> </div>
<div align="CENTER">
<strong><span style="font-size: medium;">reproduced by kind permission of the author</span></strong> </div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">(shortened version of a speech before the <i>Deutscher Adelsrechtsausschuss </i>in September 1997) </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div align="CENTER">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">ã</span> By Georg (Freiherr von) Froelichsthal</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><u><b></b></u></span> </div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><u><b></b></u><u><b>1. Meaning of the expression "Austrian nobility"</b></u><br />
<br />
Firstly it has to be clarified: what is Austrian nobility, or better: who belongs to the Austrian nobility? Starting from the Austrian nobiliary legal system in 1918 this would mean the whole nobility of the Austrian half of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Taking into consideration that portion of the Austrian half of the Habsburg Empire which is today part of Poland or the Ukraine, it is hard to include noble families of such countries for merely historical reasons among the Austrian nobility. An other example would be families originating in former crown possessions which still belong to Austria, but of which portions belong today to other states: should a familiy whose origins lie in South Tyrol (today part of Italy) or in the former Lower Styria (today part of Slovenia) still belong to the Austrian nobility? A further problem is the Burgenland, which belonged always to Hungary and became part of Austria in 1920: noble families of the Burgenland should be included properly among the Hungarian nobility.<br />
For my topic I have chosen a perhaps a little problematic but nevertheless very simple solution: I consider those persons as a part of the Austrian nobility who are noble and who are Austrian citizens, because the law on the abolition of nobility was applicable only to these persons. As one can see in the end this results in a very broad mixture. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><u><b></b></u></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
<u><b></b></u><u><b>2. Law on the abolition of nobility</b></u><br />
With the proclamation of the republic on 12<sup>th</sup> November 1918 by the Provisional National Assembly, the legal status of the Austrian nobility did not change. But in the same year initial attempts to abolish the nobility were begun. After discussing different drafts, the new elected National Assembly on 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1919 passed the "Law on the abolition of the nobility, the secular orders of chivalry, male and female, and of certain titles and dignities". Art. 1 abolished the nobility and other honorary priorities of Austrian citizens, Art. 2 foresaw administrative penal fines for using nobiliary titles. Two weeks later the Ministry of the Interior and Education and the Ministry of Justice issued an instruction how this law should be executed in practice. This instruction went in parts further than it had been foreseen by the Constitutional Committee of the National Assembly and in one point even further than the clear legal text. It outlawed <i>inter alia</i> the use of the following titles and signs of rank: <i>von, Durchlaucht, Erlaucht, Edler, Ritter, Freiherr, Graf, Fuerst, Herzog </i>and foreign class designations. The law on the abolition of nobility has been elevated one year later to constitutional rank, as it was mentioned in Art. 149, para. 1 of the newly created Federal Constitution Act of 1920. Later attempts to abolish or to change this law were unsuccessful. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
From a legal point of view there arose some problems from the new situation. The punishment: The maximum amount for a fine was expressed in crowns: because of inflation and the change of the currency this amount was amended a few times, but always on the same basis as "normal" as opposed to constitutional laws. This has never been contested at the Constitutional Court, but I believe a challenge would have had, and still would have, a very good chance of succeeding.<br />
The prohibition against the use of foreign class designations: The Ministry of Interior interpreted it after 1945 to encompass German citizens who obtained Austrian citizenship, so that they had to forfeit their former noble titles. Following the German constitution of Weimar, however, those former titles had become part of the name and were no longer class designations. Therefore the law was applied erroneously by the Ministry of the Interior, as has been demonstrated several times in proceedings before the Administrative Court. One difference with Germany remained: in Germany the former title is used sex-specifically (i.e.. <i>Graf/Graefin</i> or <i>Freiherr/Freifrau/Freiin</i>); this is not the case in Austria, where the form is not changed. If I had chosen my - German - wife's name at the marriage, I would have had to call myself Georg Freiin von Uslar-Gleichen, alphabetically entered under F, as Freiin.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The lack of clarity in the expression "to make use". The Ministerial instruction had stated that it was under the phrase "make use" of a title by which the law on the abolition of the nobility was ignored. The famous conductor <i>Herbert von Karajan</i> - an Austrian - told Austrian officials that he would not conduct concerts in Austria if he would not be allowed to use his <i>"von" </i>on posters - in my eyes a clear case of ignoring the aforementioned law. As Austrian officials naturally were interested in Herbert von Karajan continuing to conduct in Austria, they found a brilliant solution: In Karajan's passport a note was made that his stage name was "von Karajan" - and the problem was solved. Another effect of this unclear meaning of the expression "to make use" is that in wedding announcements nobiliary titles are not normally used by those making the announcement, but are used by all others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Finally there is the problem of the double names. In many ennoblements there was conferred also a <i>Praedikat</i>, i.e. a second name, i.e. "Mayerhofer v. Grünbühel". After the abolition of the nobility many of these families called themselves with their full name and replaced only the <i>"von" </i>by a hyphen, in our example "Mayerhofer-Grünbühel". The Ministry of Interior fought against this practice and finally the Supreme Court stated that this practice was not legally correct. The public authorities were really "trained" concerning double names and consulted often the Common Administrative Archive which administers also the former Nobility Archive. I shall give a small example of an actual occurrence. One day the telephone rang in the archive and an official asked: "I have here a lady whose name is Habsburg-Lothringen; she is surely noble, isn’t she?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
A final note to the law on names. The opportunities which have arisen under the German law to choose ones name between many possibilities will mean that in Germany there will be many individuals with a noble name who will not be part of the nobility, and I can see no end to this development. The Austrian solution of abolishing titles has a great advantage over the German: when a name has no title the incentive to choose it in preference to a non noble name is much smaller; and also the danger of deception decreases.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
What was the effect of the abolition of nobility on the nobility itself? The high nobility, which surely was the first object of the law, was not affected very much because its property was not touched. But the law had a much greater influence on the so called <i>Zweite Gesellschaft</i> (Second Society), to whom belonged <i>inter alia</i> the many ennobled officer - and civil servant-families: they did not have large financial backing, and their names were not well known - thus they became the real victims of the abolition of the nobility. Politically this was nonsense, because the republic created in this ways enemies for the new state who normally would have been loyal subjects. In practice it was still usual to refer to nobles with their titles for many years. After WW II this pattern began to change and it is now only common in rural areas to refer to old families by their titles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
A final comment on the legal situation: Art. 60 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution Act excludes members of reigning or formerly reigning houses for eligibility as Federal President of the Republic of Austria. This includes the entire Part I and II families of the Gotha. When Austria signed the international agreement to eliminate all kinds of racial discrimination it was forced to make a reservation because of this regulation. <u><b></b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
<u><b></b></u><u><b>3. Organization of the Austrian nobility</b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The Austrian nobility is not organized. But it still exists - where can it be found and how has it developed? The <i>Tiroler Adelsmatrikel</i> (Tyrolean Nobility Roll) has to be mentioned first. It is the only one of the old provincial representative bodies which survives in Austria and is probably the oldest extant organization of this kind in German speaking countries. It includes the whole of historic Tyrol, i.e. North- and East-Tyrol, today parts of Austria, South Tyrol and the Italian Tyrol (Trentino), today belonging to Italy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Secondly the <i>Vereinigung katholischer Edelleute in Oesterreich</i> (Association of Catholic Nobles in Austria). It was founded before the beginning of WW I and started its work in 1922. Art. 1 of its statutes provided <i>inter alia</i> that it would create a roll of the Austrian nobility. In 1937 the Association had 2300 members (with many of them living at least for part of the year outside Austria) which was a large number considering then that 93% of the Austrians were Catholics, so the Association was truly representative of the Austrian nobility. When Austria lost its sovereignty in 1938 the Association was one of the first institutions which were dissolved by the new regime. After 1945 the Association was not re-erected.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
There are also the chivalric Orders which are evidently not nobility associations but which had or have only noble members. The first is the (Austrian) <i>Orden vom Goldenen Vliess </i>(Order of the Golden Fleece) whose protecting power is the Republic of Austria. As second there is the <i>Sternkreuzorden</i> (Noble Order of the Starry Cross) which does not enjoy any public legal quality. And finally one might mention the <i>Militaer-Maria-Theresien-Orden</i> (Military Order of Maria Theresia) which promoted members up to 1931. The last knight died about a dozen years ago and from that moment on the Order ceased to exist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
More interesting in this context is the <i>Souveraener Malteser-Ritter-Orden</i> (Sovereign Military Order of Malta), more precisely the <i>Grosspriorat von Oesterreich</i> (Grand Priory of Austria). The Grand Priory has now 420 knights and dames with 68% of them being noble. Looking at the data of the <i>Malteser Hospitaldienst Austria</i> (Maltese Hospitally Service), from which a good portion of the new members of the Order are recruited, one sees that this Service has 1170 members of which 39% are noble; and including the 380 active members of the service, of which only 24% are noble. Therefore it is probable that the percentage of nobles in the Grand Priory will diminish. Nevertheless the Order is one of the main centers for the Austrian nobility and this will not change.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Finally there are two gentlemen’s clubs in Austria. First the once important <i>Jockey Club für Oesterreich </i>(Jockey Club for Austria), which was founded in 1867. It was never limited exclusively to the nobility, but the aristocratic element has always played a decisive role in its history. Its aim is to be authority for the turf and to be a social club. Because of the changes of the last 80 years the latter is the main aim today. The Jockey Club has 195 members of whom 60% are noble.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The second gentlemen’s club is the <i>St. Johanns Club </i>which unites the highest number of noblemen in Austria. It was founded 1954 by a group of gentlemen aged between 25 and 35 years old and is under the protection of the Order of Malta. The founders were children and grandchildren of those who had been leading members in the Association of Catholic Nobles. When the Club was founded there were also discussions about founding a club for the nobility; this was finally abandoned, <i>inter alia</i> perhaps because the Allied Control Commission (at that time Austria was still an occupied country!) probably would not have allowed it. Nevertheless the Club intensively discussed in its first years the role of the nobility and its tasks in the changed world. Members of the St. Johanns Club also took part at the foundation of the CILANE, the European Nobiliary Commission and the Club organized in 1960 the congress of CILANE in Vienna. The St. Johanns Club is a social club whose members have to belong to a Christian denomination. This is an ovious parallel with the Association of Catholic Nobles. The St. Johanns Club has 760 members, and 67%, i.e. more than 500, are noble.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Thus there is no organization in Austria today which exclusively represents the nobility other than the Tyrolean Nobility Roll. I have been asked sometimes if there is any possibility of founding an association of the Austrian nobility, and I would advise against this for two reasons: On the one hand it is - at least in my eyes - very doubtful whether the authority for societies would allow it, for constitutional reasons. On the other hand - and this is a much more valid argument - there is no need for such an association and it probably would not be accepted by society. This decision was made in 1954 and I do not sympathize with the idea of turning the wheel back. <u><b></b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
<u><b></b></u><u><b>4. Austrian nobility today</b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><strong><u></u></strong></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Members of the Austrian nobility have to work like everyone else. Examining the occupations of the nobility there are some concentrations in certain activities: Agriculture and forestry are still an important area; but civil and military service which traditionally attracted nobles do so no longer; the only exception in this field is the diplomatic service. Many nobles have entered the financial services industry, especially banking. Some nobles have become lawyers or accountants, and also entered the advertising industry. Finally it is worth noting that a higher proportion of nobles are becoming Catholic priests.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
In the introduction I examined the problem of defining who belongs to the Austrian nobility. When I prepared this speech I considered which noblemen have worked their way up in public life. It should be noted that not one of those I mention originates from a family which is exclusively Austrian and was born in Austria - an unexpected example of the historic international character of the Austrian nobility. I have to add that I did not exclude someone because he did not fit in this example.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The Minister for Science and Traffic is <i>Caspar (von) Einem</i>, nobility of Lower Saxony. His father was the very famous composer <i>Gottfried von Einem</i> and his mother was a born <i>von Bismarck</i>, a Prussian family. He is a member of the Social Democratic Party.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The president of the Constitutional Court is <i>Ludwig Adamovich (de Csepin)</i>. The family is originally Croatian.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The leader of the parliamentary members of Austrian Peoples Party (Christian Democrats) is <i>Andreas (von) Khol</i>, a Tyrolean who has been born in the south of the Brenner pass, i.e. in Italy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The archbishop of Vienna and newly created cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church is <i>Christoph Schoenborn</i> originated in the familiy of the counts of Schoenborn, who was born in 1945 in Bohemia.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
The Secretary General of the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs is (<i>Prinz) Albert Rohan</i>; after the family escaped the French Revolution of 1789 they became Bohemian princes.<br />
</span><br />
<div align="center">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">******************************************************</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The author was </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">born 14 January 1960 in Vienna, and after studying law at the University of Vienna, was accorded a Doctorate of Law in 1984. Since 1984 he has worked for the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance, and in 1994 was employed at the European Commission in Brussels (Banking Supervision Division). He is an authority on legal matters concerning banking supervision. He has been married since 1989 to Friederike Freiin v. Uslar-Gleichen; and has three daughters. He is a Knight of Grace and Devotion to the SMOM, in the Grand Priory of Austria, and is a Knight Jure Sanguinis of the Constantinian Order of St. George. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><u><b></b></u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><u><b></b></u><u><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Literature:</span></b></u><i></i><br />
<i></i></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Barchetti</span></i><span style="font-size: x-small;">: Adelsrecht in der Republik Deutschland und in Österreich, in: Zeitschrift Adler, 17. (XXXI.) Band, p. 41 ff (1993); <i>Binder-Krieglstein</i>: Österreichisches Adelsrecht "Einige Einblicke", in: Zeitschrift Adler, 16. (XXX.) Band, p. 281 ff (1992); <i>Brunner</i>: 50 Jahre Aufhebung des Adels in Österreich, in: Juristische Blätter, 8. März 1969, p. 139 ff; <i>Cornaro</i>: Versuch einer Zentraladelsmatrik im Vormärz, in: Mitteilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs (MöStA) 25. Band, Wien 1972, p. 295 ff; Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels; <i>Graf Finck v. Finckenstein</i>: C.I.L.A.N.E - Die europäische Adelskommission, in: Deutsches Adelsblatt, 15. November 1992, p. 250; <i>Goldinger</i>: Das ehemalige Adelsarchiv, in: MöStA 13. Band, Wien 1960, p. 486 ff; <i>Höfflinger</i> (H.---r): Leserbrief in: Monatsblatt Adler, VIII. Band, p. 253 f; <i>Jäger-Sunstenau</i>: Statistik der Nobilitierungen in Österreich 1701-1918, in: Österreichisches Familienarchiv Band 1, Neustadt/Aisch 1963; Jahrbuch der Vereinigung katholischer Edelleute in Österreich, Innsbruck/Wien 1928 und 1937; <i>Klecatsky/Morscher</i>: Das österreichische Bundesverfassungsrecht, 3. Aufl., Wien 1983; Malteser Hospitaldienst Austria: Mitgliederverzeichnis Mai 1997; Mitgliederverzeichnis des Jockey Club für Österreich 1997; Mitteilungen der Vereinigung katholischer Edelleute in Österreich, 3. Jahrgang Nr. 3 (1931); <i>Olscher</i>: Alles Recht geht vom Volk aus, in: Siegert, p. 71 ff; St. Johanns Club, Mitgliederverzeichnis August 1996; St. Johanns Club Nachrichten No. 1 (1956) ff; <i>Siegert</i> (Hrsg.): Adel in Österreich, Wien 1971; Souveräner Malteser-Ritter-Orden Großpriorat von Österreich - Verzeichnis der im Großpriorat eingeschriebenen Mitglieder, Stand Jänner 1997; <i>Stratowa</i>: Wiener Genealogisches Taschenbuch, Wien 1924-1937;<i> Waldstein-Wartenberg</i>: Das Adelsaufhebungsgesetz von 1919, in: MöStA 25. Band, Wien 1972, p. 306 ff; <i>Wandruszka</i>: Die "Zweite Gesellschaft" der Donaumonarchie, in: Siegert, 56 ff; <i>Windisch-Graetz</i>: Der Jockey Club für Österreich, Wien 1985.</span></span>Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-90297157456299402652015-09-16T19:52:00.002+02:002015-09-16T19:53:41.426+02:00<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>HEREDITARY OFFICES IN THE AUSTRIAN CROWN LANDS</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>reproduced by kind permission of Georg Freiherr v. Frolichsthal </strong></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 0cm; tab-stops: 21.3pt 42.55pt 63.8pt 3.0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: large; font-variant: small-caps; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><em>Die Landes-Erbämter in den österreichischen Kronländern</em></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 0cm; tab-stops: 21.3pt 42.55pt 63.8pt 3.0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">© </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Georg Frölichsthal<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 8pt 0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Im Hochmittelalter war es üblich, daß jedes Fürstenhaus Ämter zur
Besorgung der Haushaltung hatte; die ursprünglichen vier Hofämter waren
Truchseß, Kämmerer, Schenk und Marschall. Im Laufe der Zeit stiegen die damit
betrauten ursprünglich Unfreien in Macht und Ansehen; sie behielten zwar Titel
und Würden, mit der Arbeit wurden aber untergeordnete Organe betraut. Die
Dienste erlangten den Charakter von Ehrendiensten und wurden schließlich nur
noch bei besonders feierlichen Anlässen wie Erbhuldigungen ausgeübt. Weiters
lösten sich die Hofämter nach und nach von der Person des Fürsten und
verwandelten sich in Landes-Erbämter, die lehenbar wurden. Meist war eine
Familie zur gesamten Hand belehnt, die Würde ging üblicherweise im Wege der
Primogenitur vom Vater auf den ältesten Sohn über. Die Anzahl der
Landes-Erbämter wurde – auch zur Belohnung verdienter Familien – immer mehr
erhöht; am meisten gab es in Österreich ob und unter der Enns (je 17; als
letztes wurde das Oberst-Erbtürhüteramt für Österreich ob der Enns erst von
Kaiserin Maria Theresia geschaffen). Die Lehen durften ausschließlich an
inländische ständische Familien verliehen werden.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 8pt 0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: 21.3pt 42.55pt 63.8pt 3.0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">In den
Lehenbriefen des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts finden sich die Bezeichnungen nur mit
„Oberst“ und „Erb“ (wie Oberst-Erbmarschall - und für die übrigen Mitglieder
der belehnten Familie nur Erbmarschall), während im 19. Jahrhundert zur
Bezeichnung meistens noch der Ausdruck „Land“ hinzutrat (im Beispiel
Oberst-Erbland-Marschall). Der Rang innerhalb der Würdenträger scheint von Land
zu Land unterschiedlich gewesen zu sein. Während in Österreich ob der Enns der
Oberst-Erbland-Hofmeister den Vorrang vor allen anderen hatte, stand in Tirol
der Oberst-Erbland-Marschall an der Spitze der Tiroler Adelsmatrikel; auch die
Schematismen der einzelnen Kronländer haben abwechselnd den Hofmeister oder den
Marschall an oberster Stelle angeführt. Die Reihung der Ämter in der Tabelle
erfolgt alphabetisch.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 8pt 0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Folgende Dinge verdienen es, näher erwähnt zu werden:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Leider verfügen die Wiener Bibliotheken bei weitem nicht über
alle in Frage kommenden Provinzialschematismen, und leider haben diese
Schematismen auch nicht immer die Landes-Erbämter aufgezählt; für Görz und
Gradisca waren nur Angaben aus dem Jahr 1808 verfügbar (der letzte bezughabende
Akt im Allgemeinen Verwaltungsarchiv stammt aus 1816), während für Salzburg
überhaupt kein Amtskalender mit Angaben über die Landes-Erbämter aufzutreiben
war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Nicht alle Kronländer kannten Landes-Erbämter, sondern nur jene,
die in der folgenden Tabelle angeführt werden.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Österreichisch-Schlesien hatte keine Landes-Erbämter,
Preußisch-Schlesien jedoch sehr wohl (so z.B. die Henckel v. Donnersmarck als
Erboberlandmundschenken). Da zu vermuten ist, daß die Landes-Erbämter in
(Preußisch-)Schlesien aber nicht erst nach der endgültigen Trennung des Landes
im Jahr 1763 geschaffen worden sind, wäre es interessant, die näheren Umstände
genauer zu untersuchen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In Galizien und Lodomerien wiederum wurden durch Kaiserin Maria
Theresia und Kaiser Josef II. sogenannte Landes-Erzämter geschaffen, die
nicht lehenbar und nicht erblich waren und auf Lebenszeit verliehen wurden.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Die Einordnung des Postmeisteramtes unter die Landes-Erbämter
ist umstritten. Die Paar waren in Ungarn, Böhmen und Innerösterreich damit
belehnt; später wurde das Oberst-Hof- und General-Erblandpostmeisteramt als
Ehrenamt aufgefaßt, deshalb zählen auch die Amtskalender und Schematismen es in
der überwiegenden Mehrheit nicht auf (und deswegen fehlt es auch in der
folgenden Tabelle).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In Salzburg erfolgt nach 1815 keine Neubelehnung mit dem
Kämmereramt. Der Siebmacher für Salzburg vermutet dazu, dass die Grafen v.
Toerring einen Rechtsanspruch auf Neubelehnung mit diesem Amt gehabt hätten,
wenn sie darum eingekommen wären.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Eindeutiger „Rekordhalter“ sind die Lamberg, die es immerhin in
drei Kronländern auf insgesamt vier verschiedene Landes-Erbämter gebracht
haben.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Eine einzige österreichische Familie übte auch im Hl. Römischen
Reich ein Erbamt aus: die Althann waren seit 1714 Reichserbschenken.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 21.3pt; text-indent: -21.3pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Von den insgesamt erfaßten 80 Familien sind innerhalb der
letzten 150 Jahre über ein Viertel erloschen, zuletzt im Mannesstamme die
Hohenwarth.</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Mit dem Ende der alten
ständischen Verfassungen im Jahre 1848 (mit Ausnahme Tirols) haben die
Landes-Erbämter, die ja eigentlich nur noch bei den Erbhuldigungen sichtbar in
Funktion traten, weitgehend ihren Sinn verloren und wurden daher in den
Länderschematismen ab diesem Zeitpunkt mehrheitlich nicht mehr angeführt.
Auffälligste Ausnahme hievon ist neben dem Sonderfall Tirol der
niederösterreichische Amtskalender, der bis zum Jahr 1919 die Landes-Erbämter
aufzählt. Rechtlich gesehen bestanden die Landes-Erbämter jedoch nach 1848
weiter und wurden auch durch die Lehen-Allodisierung (RGBl. Nr. 103/1862)
nicht berührt. Dennoch wurde ab diesem Zeitpunkt zumindest bei Erlöschen der
belehnten Familie keine neue Belehnung mehr vorgenommen. Mit der
Vollzugsanweisung der Staatsämter für Inneres und Justiz, StGBl. Nr. 237/1919,
wurden die Landes-Erbämter für aufgehoben erklärt.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 8pt 0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<u><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Quellen</span></u><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 8pt 0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<u><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Ungedruckt</span></u><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">: Allgemeines
Verwaltungsarchiv (Wien), Hofkammer IV D 4, Kartons 513 und 517 <u>Gedruckt</u>:
Amtskalender für Tirol und Vorarlberg für das Jahr 1914, Innsbruck (1914);
Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, 1951 ff; Gondorf, Bernhard: Die alten Reichsämter,
in: Der Herold, Vierteljahreszeitschrift, Band 11, 1984/86, 101ff; Gothaische
Genealogische Taschenbücher; Handbuch des Herzogthumes Kärnten für das Jahr
1856, Klagenfurt (1856); Handbuch des Herzogthumes Steiermark für das Jahr
1848, Graz (1848); Handbuch des Königreiches Böhmen für das Jahr 1848, Prag
(1848); Hof- und Staatshandbuch des österreichischen Kaiserthumes, Wien 1848;
Heyer v. Rosenfeld, Friedrich/Bojni</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">č</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">i</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">ć</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">, Dr. Ivan v.<sup><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">: </span></span></sup><span style="letter-spacing: 0.1pt;">Der
Adel in<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></sup>Galizien, Lodomerien und der Bukowina, Nürnberg 1905 („Neuer
Siebmacher“);</span> Houwald, A. Freiherr v.: Brandenburg-Preußische
Standeserhöhungen und Gnadenakte für die Zeit 1873-1918, Görlitz 1939; Kremer,
Johann Heinrich Edler v.: Das langobardisch-österreichische Lehenrecht, Erster
Theil, Wien 1838, 161ff; Meiller, Dr. Andreas v.: Zur Geschichte der
Obersten-Hof-Ämter in Österreich, in: Zeitschrift Adler 1, 1871, 6ff, 14f, 23f;
Mayerhofer, Ernst/Pace, Graf Anton: Handbuch für den politischen
Verwaltungsdienst, fünfter Band, fünfte Auflage, Wien 1901, 162ff; Mitis, Dr.
Oskar Freiherr v.: Die Erbwürden im Herzogtum Krain, in: Monatsblatt Adler V,
1905, 434ff; Niederösterreichischer Amtskalender für das Jahr 1919, Wien 1919;
N.N.: Adelsmatrikel des Herzogthums Krain, in: Monatsblatt Adler IV, 1897, 136;
Planck v. Planckburg, Karl: Die Landes-Erbämter und die Erbhuldigungen in
Österreich ob der Enns, in: Jahrbuch der Vereinigung katholischer Edelleute in
Österreich, Innsbruck/Wien/München 1929, 84ff; Provinzial-Handbuch von
Österreich ob der Enns und Salzburg für das Jahr 1848, Linz (1848);
Schematismus für Krain und Görz auf das Jahr 1808, Laibach (1808); Tiroler
Matrikelstiftung, früher Tiroler Adels-Matrikel-Genossenschaft, Innsbruck 1978,
102; Weitenhiller, Moritz Maria Edler v.: Die Wappen des Adels in Salzburg,
Nürnberg 1883 („Neuer Siebmacher“)</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm -21.3pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="WordSection1">
</div>
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="WordSection2">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -55.3pt 0pt 0cm; mso-outline-level: 6; page-break-after: avoid; tab-stops: 21.3pt 42.55pt 63.8pt 3.0cm; text-align: center;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 8pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Im Jahr 1848 belehnte Familien</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -55.3pt 0pt 0cm; tab-stops: 21.3pt 42.55pt 63.8pt 3.0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: currentColor; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid #CCCCCC; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid #CCCCCC; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 3.5pt 0cm 3.5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border: 1pt solid rgb(204, 204, 204); mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; mso-outline-level: 1; page-break-after: avoid;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 24.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; mso-outline-level: 2; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Österreich ob der Enns<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; mso-outline-level: 1; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 24.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Österreich unter der Enns<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Steiermark<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Kärnten<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Krain<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Görz und Gradisca (1808)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Tirol<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Salzburg<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Böhmen<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Falkenmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Thürheim<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. St. Julien<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Waidmannsdorff<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Ottenfels-Gschwind<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Lanthieri<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Cobenzl<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Sternbach<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hofkaplan<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Propst des Chorherrenstiftes St. Florian<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Propst des Chorherrenstiftes Klosterneuburg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hofmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Ungnad-Weißenwolff<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Khevenhüller-Metsch<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Trauttmansdorff<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Orsini u. Rosenberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Thurn u. Valsassina<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten Porcia<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Trapp Gfen v. Matsch<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen Kinsky<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Jägermeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Lamberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Baudissin-Zinzendorf-Pottendorf<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Grafen v. Dietrichstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Platz<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen u. Herren v. Gallenberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Strassoldo<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Thun (Zweig Castel Fondo)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 5;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Kämmerer<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Lamberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Breuner-Enckevoirth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Attems<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Herberstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Auersperg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Breuner<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Cles<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nach 1815 keine Neubelehnung erfolgt<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 6;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Küchenmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Stiebar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Stiebar<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Wurmbrand<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Seilern<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Wolkens-<br />
perg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Perlas<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Welsperg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen Wratislaw v. Mitrowitz<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 7;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Marschall<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Starhemberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Starhemberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vacat<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Wagensperg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Auersperg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Thurn u. Valsassina<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten v. Auersperg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Lodron<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 8;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mundschenk<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen Barth v. Barthenheim<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Hardegg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Stubenberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Dietrichstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen Coronini v. Cronberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vacat<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen zu Spaur<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Küenburg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen Czernin v. Chudenitz<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 9;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Münzmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Pergen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Pergen<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 10;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Panier<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(OÖ u. NÖ:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Panier und Fähnrich)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Abensperg u. Traun<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Abensperg u. Traun<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">a) Herrenstand: Gfen Chorinsky<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">b) Ritterstand: Frhrn<br />
v. Wor</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: Cambria; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ž</span><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">ikowsky<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 11;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Schatzmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten v. Lobkowicz<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 12;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Silberkämmerer<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Kuefstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Kuefstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Wickenburg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Erberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen zu Brandis<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Altgfen v. Salm-Reifferscheidt<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 13;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Stäbelmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Fuchs<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Fuchs<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Mandell<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Goess<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Egkh zum Hungerspach<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Stürgkh<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Welsperg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 14;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Stallmeister<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Harrach<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Harrach<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Windisch-Graetz<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vacat<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Lamberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vacat<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Wolkenstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 15;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Truchseß<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Schönborn-Buchheim<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Schönborn-Buchheim<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Hardegg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Herberstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Hohenwarth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Cobenzl<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Künigl<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Lamberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-right-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fsten u. Gfen v. Colloredo<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 16;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Türhüter<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Chotek<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Chotek<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Mladota<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 26.65pt; mso-yfti-irow: 17; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204); border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 95.65pt;" valign="top" width="159"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vorschneider (OÖ u. NÖ: Schildträger, Kampfrichter u.
V.)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Althann<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Althann<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Frhrn v. Hammer-<br />
Purgstall<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Stürgkh<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Vacat<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.85pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 70.9pt;" valign="top" width="118"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Wolkenstein<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 63.75pt;" valign="top" width="106"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">--------------------<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
<td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; height: 26.65pt; mso-border-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid #CCCCCC .5pt; padding: 0cm 3.5pt; width: 78pt;" valign="top" width="130"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -3.5pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Gfen v. Waldstein-Wartenberg<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm -55.3pt 0pt 0cm;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="mso-break-type: section-break; page-break-before: always;" />
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="DE" style="font-family: "Baskerville Old Face",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-language: DE; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-47357391867574084132015-09-14T22:07:00.001+02:002015-09-14T22:08:08.678+02:00<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">THE RUSSIAN SUCCESSION IN 2013, SIMPLIFIED <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Reproduced by kind permission of the author </div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Brien Purcell Horan <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 8pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Copyright 2013 and 2014 by
Brien Purcell Horan © </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 8pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duchess Maria of Russia succeeded her father, the Grand Duke
Wladimir, as head of the Russian Imperial House upon his death in April 1992. Guy
Sainty, the scholar of European dynasties, summed up the subject of the Russian
succession well when he wrote, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
position of the Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna as Head of the Imperial House
has been acknowledged by most serious Russian monarchist organizations and by
most of those Heads of Royal Houses which continue to maintain relations with
the Imperial House</i>.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The
heir of the Grand Duchess Maria is her only son, the Grand Duke George of
Russia. At present, they are the only living members of the Russian Imperial
House.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the run up to
festivities planned in Russia in 2013 to mark the four hundredth anniversary of
the accession of the House of Romanoff to the Russian throne, the purpose of
this article is to simplify the succession issue.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Because
the Russian dynasty lost its throne nearly a century ago, there is only one way
to establish who are the members of the dynasty today and who is its head: that
is, by analyzing the succession laws which governed the Imperial House from
1797, when Emperor Paul I instituted them, through the fall of the monarchy in
1917 to the present day. In his Act of 4 April 1797 announcing the succession
laws, Emperor Paul proclaimed, “…<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Having
established the order of succession, I shall explain its aim, which is this: that
the State never be without a successor; that the successor be determined by the
law itself; that there be not the slightest doubt as to the successor</i>…”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The term “succession
laws” refers to the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire on Succession
to the Throne and the Statute of the Imperial Family. A key provision of these
dynastic laws, still in effect today, may strike some twenty-frst century
readers as old-fashioned. In order to pass dynastic status to his children, a
member of the Russian dynasty was required to marry a member of a royal or
sovereign house. Emperor Alexander I instituted this requirement in 1820, and
successive emperors through Nicholas II enforced it strictly. In exile, the
Grand Dukes Kirill and Wladimir, successive heads of the dynasty from 1918 to
1992, fully recognized its binding effect. The equal marriage rule first took
root in the Habsburg dynasty of the Holy Roman Empire, and it still applies
today to many formerly ruling dynasties of the old German Empire. Until very
recently it was closely enforced by the Spanish dynasty too, a legacy of
Habsburg rule in Spain. A union contracted by a Russian dynast with a royal
princess was called an equal marriage. The children of the marriage were
members of the dynasty. A marriage with a commoner, that is, a wife who was not
a member of a reigning or formerly reigning dynasty, was described as a
morganatic or unequal marriage. The children of the marriage were not members
of the dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In summary, the issue of the headship of the Russian dynasty is
inseparable from the succession laws, including their equal marriage
requirement. In this respect, the words of the late historian Prince Cyril
Toumanoff are appropriate: “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Monarchy, if it is true
monarchy and not a caricature, is inseparable from Legitimacy. Legitimacy, in
turn, means Legality, the faithful observance of both the spirit and the letter
of the Law. Law, finally, is above and independent of human practice. Thus,
Monarchical Legitimism must survive historical adversities, and the inalienable
rights of a dynasty must continue to exist irrespective of whether that dynasty
actually rules or has been forcibly prevented by historical circumstances from
holding power</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I. THE DYNASTY IN EXILE, 1918 TO 1992<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">On 1 January 1917,
Emperor Nicholas II began the final weeks of his reign. Those closest to him in
the line of succession to the throne were his son, Tsesarevich Alexei (first in
line), his only living brother the Grand Duke Michael (second in line), and his
senior first cousin, Grand Duke Kirill (third in line).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In a document dated 2
March 1917 at 3 p.m., Nicholas II abdicated on behalf of himself and his son
Alexei and sought to pass the throne to his brother, Michael. The emperor’s abdication
on behalf of his minor son Alexei was technically invalid, because it did not
comply with the succession laws. A dynast had no legal right to waive or
renounce the succession rights of a minor child who himself was a full member
of the dynasty. In the revolutionary chaos and violence of March 1917, however,
one can understand a devoted father’s wish not to be separated from a son who
suffered from haemophilia, an incurable and then nearly always fatal disease. In
any event, on 3 March 1917, the Grand Duke Michael declined to accept the
throne.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The monarchy then
fell. Nicholas II and his family were made prisoners, as was the Grand Duke
Michael. Grand Duke Kirill and his family, including his pregnant wife (born
Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh, a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland
and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria), escaped from St. Petersburg to Finland,
which had been part of the Russian empire and where they went into hiding. Their
only son, Prince Wladimir of Russia, was born there in August 1917. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In June 1918, the
Bolsheviks secretly executed Nicholas II’s brother Michael near Perm, Russia. The
following month, on 17 July 1918, Nicholas II and his family, including his son
Alexei, were murdered in Ekaterinburg. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Under the succession
laws, Grand Duke Kirill automatically succeeded on 17 July 1918 as head of the
dynasty and, to legitimist Russian monarchists, as emperor. Article 53 of the
Russian succession law states: "<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On
the demise of an emperor, his heir accedes to the Throne by virtue of the law
of succession itself, which confers this right upon him. The accession of an
emperor to the Throne is counted from the day of the demise of his predecessor</i>."
Due to conflicting information and rumors emanating from Russia, however,
Kirill waited until 1924, when he finally became convinced that those senior to
him had in fact been murdered, to proclaim himself emperor and head of the
dynasty and to proclaim his only son, Wladimir, as the Grand Duke-Tsesarevich,
that is, as his heir. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Kirill’s 31
August/13 September 1924 succession proclamation saddened his aunt, the 76 year
old Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II. </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Her reaction was not rooted in
any objection to Kirill’s legal rights, which she acknowledged, but derived instead
from her refusal until her death in 1928 to accept that her sons and grandson
were dead. </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Writing to the Dowager Empress on 14 September 1924, the day after he
had announced his assumption of the title of emperor, Kirill promised his aunt
that he would step aside if her sons or grandson turned out to be alive: “<i>Should
the miracle in which you believe occur and your beloved sons and grandson all
be alive, then I will be the first to express my allegiance to my Legitimate
Sovereign and will place at his feet all that I have accomplished…Don’t let me
down in this difficult moment of my life such as none of our ancestors had to
live through.</i>”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Shortly afterwards, i</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">n a 1924
letter to Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich of Russia, the Dowager Empress,
while not disputing Kirill’s eventual succession rights, wrote<span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">: “…<i>There is no definite news up to now
about the fate of my beloved sons and grandson. I therefore consider the act of
Grand Duke Kirill’s proclamation as premature. Nobody is in the position to
deprive me of the last gleam of hope</i>…” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The Russian succession laws applicable to the dynasty from 1797 to the
present specified that the right of succession passed first to male dynasts in
order of primogeniture. Should the male dynasts die out (which happened in
1992, when the last male dynast of the male line of the dynasty died), the
succession would then pass to the female line.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Eighteen Russian dynasts were murdered during the revolution (twelve
males and six females).<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
When Kirill made his declaration of succession in 1924, there were nineteen
male dynasts who had survived the revolution and were still alive in the West. They
obviously were </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">the individuals
with the most direct interest in who the head of the Russian dynasty was. In
the 1920s, and especially in the months following the 1924 declaration, when
there was still a belief that the Soviet regime might be of limited duration, fifteen
of these nineteen male dynasts recognized Kirill as head of the dynasty and
Wladimir, his only son, as Kirill’s heir. Here is a list of the names of the
fifteen who supported Kirill as head of the dynasty and Wladimir as his heir,
followed by their place in the line of succession as of 1924:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Kirill of Russia (first in
line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Wladimir of Russia (second in
line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Boris of Russia (third in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Andrew Wladimirovich of Russia
(fourth in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich of Russia (fifth
in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Vsevolod of Russia (sixth in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Gavriel of Russia (seventh in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince George Constantinovich of Russia (eighth
in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia
(twelfth in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich of
Russia (thirteenth in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Andrew Alexandrovich of Russia (fourteenth
in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Feodor of Russia (fifteenth in
line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Nikita of Russia (sixteenth in
line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia (seventeenth
in line)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Rostislav of Russia (eighteenth in
line).<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Missing from the above
list of supporters are the male dynasts who in 1924 respectively were ninth, tenth,
eleventh and nineteenth in line.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The most junior
male dynast, nineteenth in line in 1924, Prince Vassily of Russia (1907-1989),
did not take a position on the succession question in the 1920s. His father
Grand Duke Alexander of Russia (thirteenth in line) and his 5 older brothers
all expressed fidelity to the Grand Duke Kirill. But Grand Duke Alexander did
not ask his youngest son to sign their 1924 declaration of loyalty because
Vassily was then a minor.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">The principal resistance from within the dynasty to forty-seven year
old Kirill’s 1924 proclamation came from sixty-eight year old Grand Duke
Nicholas Nikolayevich (ninth in line in 1924 and sixteenth in line on 1 January
1917). Nicholas Nikolayevich never publicly disputed Kirill’s position as the
senior living dynast. But he declined to sign a statement of allegiance to
Kirill. And as was their custom, Nicholas Nikolayevich’s devoted younger and
only brother Grand Duke Peter (tenth in line in 1924) and the latter’s only son
Prince Roman of Russia (eleventh in line in 1924) followed the old grand duke’s
lead. It is widely thought that, in the event the monarchy was restored,
Nicholas Nikolayevich, then the oldest living male dynast, believed that he
would be the most suitable Romanoff to sit on the throne, not based on his
distant place in the line of succession but based upon the respect and prestige
he had earned as commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the first year of
World War I. A few weeks after Kirill’s 1924 announcement, Nicholas
Nikolayevich, not to be outdone, announced he was assuming “supreme leadership”
of all Russian armed forces in exile. And when a couple of monarchist groups
announced their support of him as future tsar, he did nothing to discourage them.
But his health soon started to fail, and he died in early 1929. Nicholas
Nikolayevich was strongly slavophile and anti-German. Encouraged by his royal
Montenegrin wife, he perhaps also had disdain for the strict Germanic
succession rules of male primogeniture instituted in 1797 by Tsar Paul. Before
Paul I, the question of who would be the next tsar was often uncertain, and
more than once the Romanoff with the strongest support had simply seized the
crown.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[7]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="color: #c00000; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Thus, we see that in the 1920s, with the exception of this one small
cadet branch of the dynasty (the so-called “Nikolayevichi line”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn8" name="_ednref8" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[8]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
consisting of just three male dynasts, Nicholas Nikolayevich, followed as
always by his younger brother Peter and nephew Roman), the overwhelming
majority of male dynasts of the Imperial House supported Kirill as dynastic
head and Wladimir as his heir.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Today the only male descendants of the male line of the Nikolayevichi
branch are Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014)</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> <a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn9" name="_ednref9" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[9]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></a></span></b></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"> and his younger
brother Dmitry, who, as sons of the morganatic marriage of Prince Roman of
Russia, are not dynasts. Despite the unwillingness of the 3 Nikolayevichi male
dynasts to agree to issue a declaration of loyalty to Kirill in the 1920s, even
the morganatic Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) has publicly conceded after the
fact that Kirill and Wladimir were the successive lawful Heads of the Imperial
House. In a published letter to a French magazine in 1992, he described
Kirill’s position as head of the dynasty as “<i>incontestable</i>”
(indisputable).<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn10" name="_ednref10" style="mso-endnote-id: edn10;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[10]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Thus his unfounded assertion that he himself succeeded as dynastic head in
April 1992 on the death of Grand Duke Wladimir (an assertion analyzed below) is
an obvious acknowledgement that Wladimir was indeed head of the Imperial House.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn11" name="_ednref11" style="mso-endnote-id: edn11;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[11]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Aside from the members of the Imperial House who survived the
revolution, the institution with perhaps the strongest interest in knowing the
identity of the head of the dynasty was the Russian Orthodox Church. </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Although the identity of the
head of the dynasty is solely a legal matter determined exclusively by the
succession laws, it is interesting to note the strong legitimism of the church.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">As Emperor Paul I stated in his declaration of
5 April 1797, the day of his coronation, the Orthodox faith is “inseparable”
from the Russian throne “because the sovereign in Russia is the Head of the
Church.” After the revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church splintered into two
principal branches. The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, headed since
November 1917 by a patriarchate in Moscow restored after the fall of the
monarchy, was subject to the pressures of the Communist state during the Soviet
period and had no contact or association with the dynasty. In exile, however,
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), headed by a Synod of
Bishops with its headquarters first in Yugoslavia and later in New York City,
ministered to the spiritual needs of the emigration. From the formation of
ROCOR in 1922 until the last days of the Soviet Union in 1991, the senior
dynast of the day (first Grand Duke Kirill and then his son) was recognized as
the dynastic head by the four successive First Hierarchs (Metropolitans
Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret, and Vitaly) of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
of Russia.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn12" name="_ednref12" style="mso-endnote-id: edn12;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[12]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> At the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, headed by
Patriarch Alexei II and with its headquarters in Moscow, asserted its
independence from the state. Alexei II acknowledged the Grand Duke Wladimir as
head of the dynasty and in 1992 delivered the eulogy during the Grand Duke’s
funeral liturgy, formally describing him as "head of the Russian dynastic
house".<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn13" name="_ednref13" style="mso-endnote-id: edn13;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[13]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Both
Patriarch Alexei II (died 2008) and his successor, the current Patriarch Kirill
I also recognized Grand Duchess Maria as head of the Russian dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In conclusion, despite
whatever debates may have raged at different times in the past, the position of
the Grand Dukes Kirill and Wladimir as successive dynastic heads was
unquestioned by the overwhelming majority of senior dynasts. This is an
important point, because the pronouncements of these two Heads of the Imperial
House during the decades of exile are highly relevant to the succession
question. <span style="color: #c00000;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">II. THE EQUAL MARRIAGE RULE OF THE RUSSIAN
DYNASTY<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A male dynast
had the imperial title either of Grand Duke of Russia or Prince of Russia
(technically, “Prince of the Imperial Blood”), depending upon his seniority. Similarly,
female dynasts were either Grand Duchesses of Russia or Princesses of Russia. The
children of morganatic marriages had the right to neither imperial title. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Emperor
Alexander I promulgated the equal marriage rule in unambiguous language in
1820, language never revoked: “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">... We consider it
good, for the firm maintenance of the dignity and tranquility of the Imperial
Family and of the Empire itself, to add to the existing enactments of the
Imperial Family the following additional regulation: if any person of the
Imperial Family enters into a marriage alliance with a person of a status
unequal to his, that is, not belonging to any royal or ruling house; in such a
case the person of the Imperial Family cannot pass on to the other person the
rights which belong to members of the Imperial Family, and the children issuing
from such a marriage have no right of succession to the Throne. Expressing this
Our Will to all present and future members of Our Imperial Family and to all
Our faithful subjects, in accordance with the exact right established in
article 23 of the Statute on the Imperial Family, We, in face of the King of
Kings, make it incumbent upon one and all whom it may concern solemnly and
inviolably to maintain for all time this Our additional enactment.”</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Here are several
relevant extracts from the principal laws and documents which specify that
membership of the dynasty is limited to children of equal marriages only and
that the children of morganatic marriages are not dynasts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">First</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, Article 188 of the succession laws in effect in 1917 provided:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“188. A
person of the Imperial Family who has entered into a marriage alliance with a
person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to any royal or
ruling house, cannot pass on to that person, or to the posterity that might
issue from such a marriage, the rights which belong to members of the Imperial
Family. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Addendum (1911): Henceforward none of
the grand dukes or grand duchesses may enter into a marriage with a person of
unequal status, that is, not belonging to a royal or ruling house</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">.”</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Thus, again, the
children born of a marriage of a member of the Imperial House with a commoner
cannot themselves be members of the Imperial House. And the Addendum, inserted
by Nicholas II in 1911 at the time he was trying to prevent the marriage of his
grand ducal brother to his mistress (a commoner), meant that henceforth the
emperor would not give permission to the grand dukes, the senior members of the
dynasty, to marry non-royal spouses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The marriages of the
Grand Duke Paul of Russia (1860-1919), uncle of Nicholas II, illustrate how the
equal marriage rule operated. Grand Duke Paul married twice and had a son by
each wife. His first wife was Princess Alexandra of Greece, a member of a royal
house. Because this was an equal marriage, their only son, Grand Duke Dmitry of
Russia (1891-1941), was a member of the Russian Imperial House. Paul’s second
wife was a commoner, Mme. von Pistohlkors. Because this was a morganatic
marriage, their only son, Vladimir Paley (1897-1918), was not a member of the
Russian Imperial House. In 1915, Nicholas II gave Vladimir Paley and his mother
the morganatic titles of Prince and Princess Paley. These were noble, non-royal
titles, quite different from the dynastic title of Prince of Russia. Nicholas
II gave them the surname of Paley, because, as explained in more detail later,
in imperial Russia it was forbidden for morganatic descendants of dynasts to
bear the name Romanoff, which was the surname of the dynasty. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Second</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, Articles 36 and 126 of the succession laws are also very
straightforward. Article 36 states:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“Children
issuing from a marriage of a person of the Imperial Family with a person not
having the corresponding dignity, that is to say, not belonging to a royal or
ruling house, have no right of succession to the Throne</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">.”</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Article 126 specifies:
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">All persons of imperial blood who are born of a marriage between a person
of imperial blood and a person of corresponding birth which marriage was
authorized by the reigning emperor are recognized as members of the Imperial
House</i>."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; tab-stops: 22.5pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Third</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, Nicholas II in 1911 issued a similarly clear
pronouncement that, although he would not prohibit Princes of Russia, the
junior dynasts, from marrying suitable non-royal wives, the children of such
morganatic marriages would not be members of the dynasty and would not have the
right to the Romanoff surname and coat of arms. This document<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn14" name="_ednref14" style="mso-endnote-id: edn14;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[14]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
is a letter dated 14 June 1911, sent on behalf of Nicholas II by Baron Vladimir
Frederiks, Nicholas II’s Minister of the Imperial Court, to Grand Duke Nicholas
Nikolayevich, who had presided at a meeting of grand dukes convened to advise
the emperor on the question of permitting dynasts to contract unequal
marriages.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn15" name="_ednref15" style="mso-endnote-id: edn15;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[15]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The
letter informs Grand Duke Nicholas of the following firm decisions made by the
emperor: 1) Grand Dukes of Russia may not contract unequal marriages; 2)
Princes of Russia (“Princes of the Imperial Blood”), if they receive the
emperor’s specific permission and if they renounce their succession rights
beforehand, may contract unequal marriages; and 3) “surnames and coats of arms
of the spouses and descendants of Princes of the Imperial Blood who have
contracted marriages with persons not possessing corresponding rank will be
granted in each specific case by the Lord Emperor.” The letter also states that
Nicholas II was completely unwilling to countenance recognition of any middle
category between that of “equal marriage” and of “unequal marriage.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn16" name="_ednref16" style="mso-endnote-id: edn16;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[16]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the 1980s, Nicholas
Romanoff (1922-2014), the morganatic son of Prince Roman of Russia, who is
discussed in more detail below, twisted the 1911 addendum to Article 188 (the
addendum holding that henceforth no grand duke would be permitted to marry a
non-royal bride) out of context to construct an illogical argument: namely,
that, because of this addendum, Princes of Russia could marry morganatically
and pass dynastic status to their children. But the language stated nothing of
the kind. It simply prohibited grand dukes from marrying morganatically. It did
not change the various articles (such Articles 36, 126 and 188) making clear
that children of morganatic marriages were not dynasts. And his suggestion that
Nicholas II intended that the morganatic children of the most senior members of
the Imperial House, the grand dukes, would have no dynastic status whilst the
children of morganatic marriages by the junior dynasts, the Princes of Russia,
would have full rights is ludicrous.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn17" name="_ednref17" style="mso-endnote-id: edn17;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[17]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The
1911 letter by Baron Frederiks, discovered in the state archives by Dr.
Stanislaw Dumin in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, exploded
Nicholas Romanoff’s theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Fourth</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, the heads of the Russian Imperial House from 1918 to the present, that
is, the Grand Duke Kirill of Russia (head of the dynasty from 1918 to 1938),
the Grand Duke Wladimir of Russia (head of the dynasty from 1938 to 1992), and
the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia (head of the dynasty from 1992 to present), each
reiterated that these morganatic descendants are not and cannot be members of
the Imperial House. The Grand Duke Kirill gave them morganatic titles and the
surname of Romanovsky, to denote kinship to but not membership of the dynasty. His
son, the Grand Duke Wladimir, did the same.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">
</b>The Grand Duke Wladimir’s daughter, the Grand Duchess Maria, has in 2012
made clear that there are now only two living members of the Imperial House,
herself and her son and heir.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn18" name="_ednref18" style="mso-endnote-id: edn18;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[18]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Due to the numerous
morganatic marriages contracted by Russian dynasts after the revolution, the
Grand Duke Kirill, as head of the Imperial House, promulgated in 1935 an
addendum to the house laws to address the question of morganatic titles and
surnames:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“In order
to establish the position of wives of Members of the Imperial House in cases of
unequal marriage and the position of the issue of such marriages, I have
established the following order in supplement to and development of the Statute
on the Imperial Family: <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The wives
and children of Members of the Imperial House in cases of unequal but lawful
marriages…receive the title and surname of Princes Romanovsky with, added to
it, the maiden surname of the wife of the said Member of the Imperial House or
a surname granted by the Head of the Imperial House of Russia... May these
marriages lay the foundation for new Russian princely families with a blood
relationship to the Imperial House of Russia and, as a result of this
relationship, may they always give their faithful support to the Imperial
House. Given at Saint</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Apple Symbols"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Briac on 28th July 1935. KIRILL” </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Fifth</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, various members of the Imperial House who married commoners in the
decades after the revolution acknowledged their understanding and acceptance of
the equal marriage rule by seeking from the exiled heads of the Imperial House
morganatic titles for their wives and children. A Grand Duke of Russia or
Prince of Russia who married a royal princess with the permission of the head
of the dynasty would not have to seek a separate title for his spouse and
children, because they would have automatic status and titles as members of the
Imperial House. So, for example, Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia
(1901-1980) (son of Grand Duke Alexander), following his morganatic marriage in
1931, requested and received from the Grand Duke Kirill a morganatic title for
his wife. Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich of Russia (1891-1941), following his 1927
marriage to an American commoner, requested and received from the Grand Duke
Kirill a morganatic title (Prince / Princess Romanovsky-Ilyinsky) for his wife
and his son. Similarly, Prince Vsevolod of Russia (1914-1973), upon his
morganatic marriage in 1939 to Lady Mary Lygon, requested and received from the
Grand Duke Wladimir a morganatic title (Princess Romanovsky-Pavlovsky) for his
wife. There are numerous other examples.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Sixth</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, when the Head of the Imperial House, the Grand Duke Kirill, died in
1938 and was succeeded by his only son, the then twenty-one year old Grand Duke
Wladimir, the five members of the Imperial House most senior in the line of
succession after Wladimir issued a public declaration of loyalty to the young
Grand Duke Wladimir. These were Grand Duke Boris (first in line after Grand
Duke Wladimir), Grand Duke Andrew (second in line), Grand Duke Dmitry
(1891-1941) (third in line), Prince Vsevolod of Russia (fourth in line), and
Prince Gavriel of Russia (1887-1955) (fifth in line). What is highly
significant about this declaration is that the six<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn19" name="_ednref19" style="mso-endnote-id: edn19;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[19]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
most senior members of the Imperial House set forth in this document a list of
all the living male dynasts in their order of succession to the throne. In
doing this, they made clear that their own morganatic sons and the many living
morganatic sons of other male dynasts were neither members of the Imperial House
nor in the line of succession.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is useful to read
the 11/24 October 1938 declaration in its entirety:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"We,
members of the Imperial House of Russia, having assembled after the death of
the Head of our House, the Grand Duke Kirill Wladimirovich, consider it our
most sacred duty solemnly to declare that the rights of each of the members of
the Imperial House of Russia are exactly determined by the Fundamental Laws of
the Russian Empire and the Statute of the Imperial Family, that they are known
perfectly to all, and that we must observe them religiously, by virtue of a
special oath, which is why the question of the order of succession to the
throne has never caused the slightest doubt among us and still less a
disagreement of any kind. We reject any departure from the order provided by
the law, because that would be an offense against the intangibility of our laws
and of our family traditions.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>"By
virtue of the laws indicated above, we recognize that the succession to the
throne belongs by right, in order of primogeniture, to the senior member of the
Imperial House of Russia, the Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich, which he assumed
by inheritance after the death of his father on 29 September/12 October 1938,
with a profound awareness</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">of the sacred duty which devolves upon him
according to law as Head of the Imperial House of Russia, bestowing upon him
all the rights and duties belonging to him by virtue of the Fundamental Laws of
the Russian Empire and the Statute of the Imperial Family.</i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>"The
members of the Imperial House of Russia appear as follows by primogeniture in
the order of succession: Grand Duke Boris Wladimirovich, Grand Duke Andrew
Wladimirovich<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn20" name="_ednref20" style="mso-endnote-id: edn20;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[20]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,
Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn21" name="_ednref21" style="mso-endnote-id: edn21;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[21]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,
Prince Vsevolod Ioannovich, Prince Gavriel Constantinovich, Prince George
Constantinovich, Prince Roman Petrovich<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn22" name="_ednref22" style="mso-endnote-id: edn22;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[22]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,
Prince Andrew Alexandrovich<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn23" name="_ednref23" style="mso-endnote-id: edn23;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[23]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,
Prince Feodor Alexandrovich<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn24" name="_ednref24" style="mso-endnote-id: edn24;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[24]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,
Prince Nikita Alexandrovich<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn25" name="_ednref25" style="mso-endnote-id: edn25;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[25]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>,
Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich, Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich,<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn26" name="_ednref26" style="mso-endnote-id: edn26;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[26]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> and
Prince Vassily Alexandrovich.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(signed)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Boris<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Vsevolod”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dmitry<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Gavriel<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">III. GRAND DUCHESS MARIA’S POSITION AS THE
CURRENT HEAD OF THE IMPERIAL HOUSE<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">By 1969, more than
half a century had passed since the fall of the monarchy and the exile of the
dynasty. As the decades of exile wore on, the ranks of a once large dynasty
thinned dramatically. Death from natural causes slowly but surely reduced the
number of dynasts of a sovereign house already decimated by Bolshevik murder
squads. Dozens of morganatic marriages after 1917 deprived the dynasty of an
opportunity to replenish its ranks. In fact, the only dynasts who felt an
obligation to contract equal marriages after 1917 were the children of the
first two successive heads of the dynasty in exile. All three of the children
of the Grand Duke Kirill (that is, the Grand Duchess Maria Kirillovna, the
Grand Duchess Kira, and the Grand Duke Wladimir, who married Princess Leonida
Bagration, of the former Georgian royal house) contracted equal marriages. And
the Grand Duchess Maria, only child of the Grand Duke Wladimir and Grand
Duchess Leonida, married a Prussian dynast, Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia, in
1976. Of the thirty marriages contracted by dynasts after 1917, these 4 were
the only equal marriages; the other 1926 unions were morganatic. Various aging
dynasts scattered around the world and lost contact with each other. Long gone
was the hope, still common when Grand Duke Kirill declared himself emperor in
exile in 1924 that the Soviet Union might be of short duration. Meanwhile, a
swelling number of morganatic spouses and morganatic children included several
ambitious people who resented the non-dynastic status to which they were
relegated by imperial laws that they barely understood, and fissures developed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">On December 23, 1969,
the dynastic head, Grand Duke Wladimir, issued a message that greatly ruffled
the feathers of the other surviving male dynasts. In 1969, apart from Wladimir
himself, there were only seven other surviving male dynasts. They were, in order of
succession, Prince Vsevolode of Russia (who would die in 1973), Prince Roman of
Russia (died 1978), Prince Andrew Alexandrovich of Russia (died 1981), Prince
Nikita of Russia (died 1974), Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia (died
1980), Prince Rostislav of Russia (died 1978), and Prince Vassily of Russia
(died 1989).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Of these seven, none
had married a royal spouse. All had contracted morganatic marriages. The oldest
of them was seventy-three years old, and the youngest was fifty-five. Of all these dynasts the only one to have surviving male line issue in the present generation, ineligible to succeed anyway because of their morganatic birth, was the late Prince Rostislav. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Grand Duke’s
message stated in essence that, at his death, his daughter, the Grand Duchess
Maria, would act as curatrix of the dynasty and that, when the last of these
male dynasts had died, she would become head of the dynasty in her own right. The
message stated in the relevant portion:</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“The
office of Head of the Imperial House of Russia, lawful inheritor of the rights
and duties of the Emperors of All the Russias, with which I have been charged
by the Lord God by virtue of the paramount right of primogeniture that has
passed to me, makes me duty bound to maintain the State Fundamental Laws of the
Russian Empire on Succession to the Throne and the Statute on the Imperial
Family inseparable from the aforesaid laws. By virtue whereof I recall the
essential condition contained in the law whereby the issue of a marriage
contracted between a person of the Imperial Family and a person of a status not
corresponding in equality of birth does not inherit the rights belonging to
members of the Imperial Family, one of which is the right of succession to the
Throne. Such is the position of the issue of the Princes of the Blood Imperial
now living, as also that of the issue of morganatic (to wit, unequal) marriages
contracted by members of the Imperial House now deceased. It can hardly be
envisaged that any of the Princes of the Blood Imperial now living, in view of
their age, could now enter into a marriage equal in status of birth or have
issue possessing the right of succession to the Throne. In view of the
aforesaid, in accordance with the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire,
succession to the Throne, after the demise of all male members of the Imperial
House, inevitably passes to the female dynasts of our family. In accordance
with the same laws, my first born daughter, Her Imperial Highness the Lady
Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna, is at present senior in succession to the
Throne in the female issue and at the same time the only one capable of having
issue enjoying the right to succession.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn27" name="_ednref27" style="mso-endnote-id: edn27;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[27]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> …
Wherefore, while in no way infringing on the order of succession to the Throne
provided by the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, I declare that,
in the event of my demise, my daughter the Lady Grand Duchess Maria
Wladimirovna, shall become Curatrix of the Imperial Throne of Russia, with all
the rights and functions connected with that office, for the service of Russia
and for the protection of our Dynasty from any encroachments from any quarter
whatsoever. When the right of succession to the Throne, after the demise of the
last of the male representatives of the Dynasty, will have inevitably passed to
the female issue, then the Lady Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna, Curatrix of
the Throne, shall become Head of the Imperial House of Russia.” </span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The
Grand Duke Wladimir had sworn a solemn oath, when he reached his dynastic
majority in 1933, to uphold the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire on
Succession to the Throne and the Statute of the Imperial Family. He swore the
oath in the presence of his father, and he took it seriously. From his point of
view, he sought to maintain the inviolability of the succession laws in the
event any of these seven male dynasts as potential future heads of the dynasty
was inclined not to uphold these laws faithfully. His view was that over the
years several of these seven men had shown little interest in the laws,
traditions and continuation of the dynasty. Based on the 1911 letter issued by
Baron Frederiks on behalf of Nicholas II, quoted above, it is also clear that,
had the monarchy continued, these seven male dynasts would have had to renounce
their succession rights as a condition of receiving the Emperor’s permission to
contract morganatic unions. From the points of view of the seven male dynasts,
however, the Grand Duke was seeking to tie their hands, in the event they
succeeded him as head of the dynasty. Presumably, Prince Vsevolode of Russia,
first in the line of succession to the Grand Duke Wladimir in 1969, was of the
view that, if he were to succeed the Grand Duke, he would become Head of the
Imperial House with exactly the same rights as his predecessor, and without any
need for the intermediary of a curatrix or guardian. Similarly, Prince Roman of
Russia, second in line, may have considered that should he succeed as Head of
the House, a 1969 declaration from his predecessor could not validly block him
from formally amending the succession laws to eliminate the equal marriage rule
and make his morganatic sons dynasts and Princes of Russia, if he were to
choose that course of action.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Three
Princes of Russia, Princes Vsevolode, Roman and Andrew, protested the 1969
pronouncement of the head of their house. This caused a permanent rift within
the dynasty. This rift in turn led a decade later to the formation by Prince
Roman’s morganatic son Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) of the Romanoff Family
Association (RFA). </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">As the latter
wrote on his website in 2010, “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In 1978, after the
death of my father Prince Roman Petrovich and whilst organizing his papers, I,
to my great surprise, found a scheme for the creation of a Family Association
was practically ready</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">.” Two male dynasts, Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of
Russia (who died a few months later in July 1980) and Prince Vassily of Russia,
became RFA members. The vast majority of other RFA members, however, were
descendants of morganatic marriages. By the 1990s, except for two elderly
Princesses of Russia, the two dozen or so members of the RFA were all
morganatic descendants. Today, the organization is composed entirely of
morganatic descendants. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In
the end, however, the 1969 declaration of the Grand Duke Wladimir turned out to
be unnecessary. The Grand Duke Wladimir outlived all of the seven male dynasts
still alive at the time of the 1969 declaration. The last of the seven, Prince
Vassily of Russia, died in 1989, at which point the Grand Duchess Maria became
first in the line of succession to her father.</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> </span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">When Wladimir died in 1992, the male line of
male dynasts of the dynasty died with him, and the succession then passed to a
female, the Grand Duchess Maria, as expressly provided for in the house laws
promulgated by Emperor Paul I at the time of his coronation in 1797.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Article 27 specifies
that both genders have the right of succession to the throne, with preference to
male dynasts by order of primogeniture but with the succession of female
dynasts by substitution upon extinction of the male dynasts. Article 6 provides
that, when the throne passes to a female dynast as empress, she has the same
power that an emperor would have. Article 30 clarifies that the female dynast
who succeeds is the one most closely related to the last emperor. </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Whether one considers
the last emperor to have been Nicholas II or (as do the legitimists) the Grand
Duke Wladimir, the female dynast most closely related to him is the Grand
Duchess Maria, who is the Grand Duke Wladimir's only child and is descended
from Nicholas II's senior uncle. The other female dynasts alive in 1992,
Princesses Vera and Ekaterina, were more distantly related to Nicholas II and
the Grand Duke Wladimir. Under the laws, the Grand Duchess Maria succeeded her
father in 1992 as head of the house. Her heir is her son and
only child, the Grand Duke George of Russia.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn28" name="_ednref28" style="mso-endnote-id: edn28;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[28]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Meanwhile,
certain morganatic descendants within the so-called Romanoff Family Association
continued to push themselves forward. The RFA, although privately organized
without the approval of the Head of the Imperial House, had an official
sounding name which misled several journalists into thinking incorrectly that
it was the dynasty or at least the mouthpiece of the dynasty. In the 1990s,
this grouping of numerous morganatic descendants using the Romanoff surname
interspersed with two elderly female dynasts increased the confusion of those who
viewed the RFA as being synonymous with the dynasty.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn29" name="_ednref29" style="mso-endnote-id: edn29;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[29]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Nicholas
Romanoff’s elected position as its president in the 1990s also gave him a kind
of platform to purport to speak for the “Romanoff family.” Although the RFA
expressed criticisms of the Grand Duke Wladimir and attacked his 1969
declaration, nobody challenged his position as head of the dynasty. Instead,
they bided their time and awaited his passing. Thus, Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014),
flanked by six other morganatic sons of dynasts, held a press conference in
Paris shortly after the April 1992 death of the Grand Duke Wladimir, during
which Nicholas Romanoff called himself by the dynastic title of Prince of
Russia and purported to have succeeded the Grand Duke Wladimir as head of the
dynasty.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The
claim of Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) to be head of the dynasty is of course
without legal merit. In order to be the head of a dynasty, one must first be a
member of the dynasty. Nicholas was the elder son of the morganatic marriage of
Prince Roman of Russia to a non-royal spouse. The legal texts discussed above
make clear that morganatic children of a dynast cannot themselves be dynasts: namely,
the 1820 decree of Alexander I instituting the equal marriage requirement; the
several sections of the succession laws in effect in 1917 that implement
Alexander I’s decree; the 1911 letter of the minister of the imperial court
explaining Nicholas II’s position that children of a morganatic marriage
contracted by a Prince of Russia are not only not members of the dynasty but
have no right to the Romanoff surname or coat of arms; the 1935 declaration of
Grand Duke Kirill approving noble, non-royal titles for children of morganatic
marriages; the 1938 declaration issued with the approval of Grand Duke Wladimir
and signed by the five dynasts most senior after him in the line of succession
which listed all the then living male dynasts by seniority and pointedly
excluded from the list the many morganatic sons (including Nicholas Romanoff)
alive in 1938; the 1969 declaration of Princes Vsevolode, Roman and Andrew of
Russia protesting the Grand Duke Wladimir’s nomination of his daughter as
Curatrix of the Throne recognised that Prince Roman’s children to be morganatic
and therefore excluded from the succession; and the declarations of the Grand
Duke Wladimir during his fifty-three years as head of the dynasty.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Nicholas
Romanoff’s claim </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">was based on his
consistent refusal to acknowledge the legal fact that the equal marriage rule
applied to all members of the Russian dynasty. Speaking of his father, Prince
Roman of Russia, a dynast, and of other dynasts who contracted morganatic
marriages, Nicholas Romanoff once said, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Our
parents married commoners. So what?</i>”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn30" name="_ednref30" style="mso-endnote-id: edn30;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[30]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Roman,
along with his father and his father’s brother, was, as explained above, one of
the three male dynasts who declined to acknowledge Kirill as head of the
dynasty in the 1920s. From 1973 until his death in 1978, Prince Roman of Russia
was first in the line of succession to the head of the dynasty, the Grand Duke
Wladimir. As suggested above, if Roman had outlived Wladimir and become head of
the dynasty in his own right, he might well have revised the succession laws
and dropped the equal marriage rule, declaring his two morganatic sons as
dynasts. Only the head of the dynasty would have the authority to amend these
rules. <a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn31" name="_ednref31" style="mso-endnote-id: edn31;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[31]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The suggestion that Nicholas Romanoff, as the morganatic son of a
dynast, might claim membership of the dynasty by embracing those aspects of the
succession laws which suit him and ignoring those which do not is wholly unreasonable.
In the light of Article 36 of the succession laws (</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“Children
issuing from a marriage of a person of the Imperial Family with a person not
having the corresponding dignity, that is to say, not belonging to a royal or
ruling house, have no right of succession to the Throne</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">”), it was with even less justification that he would take the additional step of claiming to be head of the
dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">By 1983, when he was
already in his sixties, and by which time all but two (Grand Duke Wladimir and Prince
Vassily) of the genuine male dynasts had died, Nicholas Romanoff started
calling himself by the title of Prince of Russia.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn32" name="_ednref32" style="mso-endnote-id: edn32;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[32]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> His
brother Dmitry (born 1926) followed suit.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">
</b>They were never members of the dynasty, however, and therefore could not be
Princes of Russia. Nicholas Romanoff is not, and has never been eligible to be
the head of the dynasty.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Several factors
contributed to the confusion that in the minds of some people surrounds
Nicholas Romanoff’s claim to head the dynasty.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn33" name="_ednref33" style="mso-endnote-id: edn33;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[33]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> First,
there were two<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b>kinds of princely
titles in Russia: there were noble, non-royal princely titles (such as Prince
Paley or Prince Yurievsky) and there was the Russian dynastic title of Prince
of the Imperial Blood, that is, Prince of Russia.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn34" name="_ednref34" style="mso-endnote-id: edn34;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[34]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The
legal distinction between the two was a difficult point for those without an
understanding of the difference between the titles of a reigning or formerly
reigning house and those which are considered ordinary noble titles. The titles
accorded to morganatic descendants, whether of Prince (as with Yurievsky) or
Count (Torby) are noble, nor royal titles. Second Russian imperial law and
practice before 1917 prohibited the morganatic children of dynasts from even
bearing the name Romanoff, the surname of the dynasty, in Russia. Instead, they
received new surnames, such as Yurievsky, Brassov, Paley and Iskander. In
post-revolutionary exile, however, when the morganatic child of a dynast was
born in France, Britain or the United States, he or she received the father’s
surname, Romanoff, under the laws of their country of birth. Third, Grand Dukes
Kirill and Wladimir, as successive dynastic heads, bestowed the noble title of
Prince or Princess Romanovsky on the morganatic children and wives of dynasts. As
stated earlier, these were not royal titles, and they denoted kinship to but
not membership of the dynasty.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b>Over
time, several of those who bore the surname Romanoff based upon birth in the
West and had been granted the title of Prince Romanovsky dropped the “sky”
ending and began to call themselves simply Prince Romanoff, a title that never
existed in Russia. To some journalists and others not conversant with Russian
imperial law the joinder of a princely title to the Romanoff surname seemed to
indicate a member of the Imperial House, particularly since they descended from
the dynasty.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b>Over the years, this
invented, self-assumed title of “Prince Romanoff” gradually received a degree
of social recognition, although it actually had no legal basis.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn35" name="_ednref35" style="mso-endnote-id: edn35;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[35]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> It
was but a short step for a morganatic Prince Romanovsky, using the name “Prince
Romanoff”, suddenly to start calling himself “Prince of Russia.” In 1992, Grand
Duke Wladimir, head of the dynasty and by then the only surviving male dynast
of the nineteen alive in 1924, was dismissive in a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i> interview of Nicholas Romanoff’s self-assumption of
a dynastic title: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">He can call himself
what he wants, but he is not a Prince of Russia.</i>”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn36" name="_ednref36" style="mso-endnote-id: edn36;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[36]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> <o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">APPENDIX: THE BAGRATIONS<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Princess Leonida Bagration of Moukhrani, the
wife of the Grand Duke Wladimir and mother of the Grand Duchess Maria, was a
member of the Royal House of Bagration, which ruled the Kingdom of Georgia (now
the Republic of Georgia) until 1801.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The tangled history of relations between the
Romanoffs and the Bagrations and between Russia and Georgia is complicated and
can only be analyzed very briefly in this appendix. The present writer has
thought it appropriate to provide a brief treatment, however, because, in
connection with his own dynastic claim, Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) has
asserted incorrectly that the Bagrations are not a royal house.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The Bagrations, the oldest Christian dynasty of
Europe, reigned as kings in Georgia from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.
In the eighteenth century, there were one Orthodox Christian empire and three
Orthodox Christian kingdoms in Europe: the Russian empire under the Imperial
House of Romanoff, the Kingdom of Kartli under the senior line of the Royal
House of Bagration, the Kingdom of Kakheti under a junior line of the Royal
House of Bagration, and the Kingdom of Imeretia under a third and even more
junior line of the Royal House of Bagration. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The Bagrations, Princes of Moukhrani, the family
of Grand Duke Wladimir’s spouse, were cadet members of the senior Kartli royal
line. King Vakhtang VI of Kartli was overthrown by Muslim invaders and went
into exile in Russia with his immediate family in 1724. Circa 1903, the last
descendants of Vakhtang VI in the male line died out, and the Bagrations of
Moukhrani became by primogeniture the senior princes both of the Kartli royal
line and of the entire Bagration dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">When King Vakhtang VI of Kartli (western
Georgia) was overthrown, his Bagration kinsman still reigned as King of Kakheti
(eastern Georgia). In 1744, King Theimouraz II of Kakheti expelled the Muslim
occupiers from Kartli and took control of its territory and of Tblisi, its
capital. His wife Queen Thamar (born Princess Thamar Bagration) was a daughter
of King Vakhtang VI of Kartli. Their son, Irakly, a Bagration of Kakheti by his
father and a Bagration of Kartli by his mother, then held the crown of both
kingdoms, reigning from 1762 to 1798 as King Irakly II of Kartli and Kakheti,
or, as he was also called, King of Georgia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The Bagrations of Moukhrani, cadets of the
Kartli line, had remained in Georgia after Vakhtang VI went into exile, and
they were important members of the combined ruling dynasty of the united
kingdoms. They were closely connected to King Irakly II, both by blood (through
Irakly’s mother Thamar of the Kartli line) and by marriage. Irakly II’s son
Crown Prince Vakhtang married Princess Kethevan Bagration of Moukhrani, and
Irakly II’s daughter Princess Kethevan Thamar Bagration married Ivan Bagration,
Prince of Moukhrani and head of the Moukhrani branch of the Kartli line. (The
latter couple were the direct ancestors of Grand Duke Wladimir’s father-in-law,
Prince George Bagration, who by 1946 had become the senior prince of the entire
dynasty.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In 1783, Russia and Georgia negotiated the
Treaty of Georgievsk, a solemn treaty of friendship that went into effect the
following year. The Russian negotiator was Catherine the Great’s favorite,
Prince Potemkin. The Kartli negotiator was Irakly II’s son-in-law, Ivan
Bagration, Prince of Moukhrani. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Encyclopedia Britannica</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> (1992 edition) has an article on the Treaty of
Georgievsk of July 24, 1783 which states in relevant part: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“[A]greement concluded by Catherine II the Great…and Erekle [Irakly]
II…by which Russia guaranteed Georgia's territorial integrity and the
continuation of its reigning Bagratid dynasty in return for prerogatives in the
conduct of Georgian foreign affairs…Under the terms of the treaty, Catherine
and her heirs were to defend Georgia against enemies, and Erekle [Irakly]
renounced dependence upon Iran or any other power. Though the treaty was to
have permanent validity, Emperor Paul I's manifesto of Dec. 18, 1800,
unilaterally declared the annexation of [Georgia] to Russia, and on Sept. 12,
1801, his successor, Alexander I, formally reaffirmed this determination.”</i></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The following excerpts from the English translation
of the treaty by the historian Dr. Russell Martin (Ph.D., Harvard University)
are noteworthy:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 16pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">“Since ancient times, the All-Russian Empire, on account of its same
faith as the Georgian people, has served as the defense, support and refuge to
the said [Georgian] people and to their Most Serene Sovereigns, against the
oppression of their neighbors, to which they were susceptible… In this very
situation, bowing to a request brought to Her Throne from the Most Serene Tsar
of Kartli and Kakheti, Irakly II Theimourazovich [son of Theimouraz], to
receive him with all his heirs and successors, and with all his Kingdoms and
Regions in the Monarchical protection of Her Majesty and of Her August Heirs
and Successors, with the recognition of the Supreme power of the All-Russian
Emperors over the Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti, [Her] Most-Gracious [Majesty]
consented to prepare and conclude a treaty of friendship with the
aforementioned Most Serene Tsar… ….</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Art. 2. Her Imperial Majesty, receiving from His Serene Highness
this sincere and solemn promise, equally promises and reassures by means of Her
Imperial word, on her own behalf and on that of her Successors, that their
favor and protection shall never be withdrawn from the Most Serene Tsars of
Kartli and Kakheti. In proof of which, Her Majesty gives Her Imperial guarantee
of the territorial integrity of the present realm of His Serene Highness Tsar
Irakly Theimourazovich,… </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">…<o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 16pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Art. 6. <b>Her Imperial Majesty, having received with favor the
recognition of Her supreme power and protection over the Kingdoms of Kartli and
Kakheti, pledges in Her Own name and in that of Her Successors: … to preserve
His Serene Highness Tsar Irakly Theimourazovich and the Heirs and descendants
to his House, uninterrupted on the Throne of the Kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti</b>;…
…</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 16pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"></span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Art. 12. The present treaty is to remain in force forever; but in the
case it shall be seen as necessary to change or amend it for the mutual benefit
of [both signatories], such changes must be made by mutual consent.”</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The elderly King Irakly II of Georgia, who
viewed Russia as his closest ally, died in 1798. His son, King George XII of
Georgia, succeeded, and was formally recognized as king by Emperor Paul I, but
died in 1800. George XII’s eldest son, Prince David Bagration, that is,
Tsarevich David Georgievich of Georgia, whom Emperor Paul I had formally
recognized in 1799 as heir to the Georgian crown in accordance with the
provisions of the Treaty of Georgievsk, became regent. In 1801, in violation of
the express terms of the Treaty of Georgievsk, Russia refused to recognize
David as king, overthrew the centuries-old Georgian monarchy, and absorbed
Georgia into the Russian empire.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Queen Mariam of Georgia (widow of King George
XII) and Dowager Queen Daria (widow of King Irakly II) tried unsuccessfully to
protest the Russian annexation of Georgia. Queen Mariam with other members of
the Georgian royal family was forcibly brought to Russia and was later confined
in a Russian convent. Prince David Bagration, heir to the Georgian throne, was
deported under military guard to Russia, where he lived out the remainder of
his days, writing on numerous scholarly subjects and translating Voltaire into
Georgian. George XII’s second eldest son Prince Ioane Bagration was also
deported to Russia. The third surviving son of George XII, Prince Theimouraz
Bagration, refused to accept the Russian annexation of his father’s kingdom. He
fled to Persia and from 1804 to 1810 fought as a soldier of the Persian army in
its war against Russia. He was taken into Russian custody in 1810 and also
deported to Russia. All the brothers were accomplished scholars. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Despite the overthrow of the combined Kingdom of
Kartli and Kakheti, or Kingdom of Georgia, in 1801, the third Bagration
monarchy, the Kingdom of Imeretia, continued to reign under its Bagration
sovereign, King Solomon II. He headed a junior line of the dynasty but was
closely related to his Kartli and Kakheti kinsmen, because he was born of the
marriage of his Bagration father to Princess Helene Bagration, a daughter of
King Irakly II. In 1810, Russia also dethroned Solomon II and absorbed his
kingdom. Fleeing into exile when Russia annexed Imeretia, King Solomon II </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">tried to enlist the support of Napoleonic
France to wrest his kingdom back from Russia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Prince Alexander Bagration, a son of King Irakly II and half-brother of
King George XII, was fiercely anti-Russian. In 1801, pursued by Russian troops,
he escaped to Persia. Beginning in 1804, he fought alongside Persian troops in
their war against Russia. In 1812, having returned to Georgia and having seized
Kakheti at the head of a large armed force, he claimed the Georgian crown. He
could not hold Kakheti against the Russian counterattack of 1813, however, and
he fled again from Georgia. He was involved in planning several royalist
uprisings in Georgia over the years, the last one being the failed 1832 plot to
restore the Bagrations.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Another son of King George XII, Prince Okropir
Bagration, born in 1795, was removed as a child to Russia, but as an adult became
a leader of the clandestine Georgian monarchist movement. As part of the same
1832 plot to restore the Bagration monarchy, he traveled to Georgia in 1830. In
1832, shortly before the planned coup, he and other conspirators were arrested,
and he was sent into internal exile in Russia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In other words, the Bagrations, having reigned
in Georgia for nearly ten centuries, did not leave their homeland happily, and
their supporters did not give up quietly. This stubborn Georgian resistance
bred Russian hostility. Russia’s goal was to Russify Georgia and blend it into
the empire. There would be only one tsar reigning in the Caucasus, and it was
to be a Romanoff, not the Bagration tsar. The monarchist resistance in Georgia
was crushed, and the inconvenient Bagrations were, so to speak, put in their
place. In the early years of exile in Russia, the sons of King George XII had
been accorded royal status. The former regent and heir to the Georgian throne,
Prince David Bagration, was called by the royal title of tsarevich during his
years of exile in Russia. By the 1830s, however, this royal recognition of the
sons of George XII had been withdrawn, the Treaty of Georgievsk had been
forgotten, and Russia began to treat the Bagrations as mere titled nobility and
subjects.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In 1911, Prince Constantine Bagration of
Moukhrani, a member of what had by then become what is generally believed to be the senior line of the Bagration
royal house of Kartli, and thus the senior branch of
the entire Bagration dynasty, married a member of the Russian Imperial House,
Princess Tatiana of Russia, a daughter of Grand Duke Constantine of Russia. This
was the first of three twentieth century marriages between Bagrations and other
European royal houses. As recounted by the couple’s only son (the late Prince
Theimouraz Bagration), Emperor Nicholas II, who attended the wedding, suggested
that the groom sign the marriage register as Prince of Georgia (i.e. Prince
Grousinsky). At the time of their engagement in 1910, Princess Tatiana’s
father, Grand Duke Constantine, in his diary entry of Tuesday, November 30,
1910, described the conversation his wife had with Emperor Nicholas II and
Empress Alexandra in respect of the impending marriage: “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">…My
wife was invited for tea with Their Majesties at Tsarskoe Selo. Having returned
from there to Pavlovsk, she told me that the Empress had reacted with more
leniency than the Emperor about Tatiana’s intentions. They both told my
wife that they would not look on her wedding with Bagration as morganatic in
view of the fact that he, like the members of the House of Orléans, is a
descendant of a once-ruling dynasty. The Emperor even said that T[atiana] would
not lose her annual stipend from the Office of Apanages. The Emp[ress] found it
unnecessary to wait until the end of the year, but my wife, citing my views on
the matter, countered that it was necessary to wait so that both were quite
sure of their feelings.</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn37" name="_ednref37" style="mso-endnote-id: edn37;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[37]</span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Nonetheless, despite Nicholas II’s private
assurance to the mother of the bride, no official steps were taken to declare
this an equal marriage. Less than four years after the marriage, the groom serving
as a an officer in the Russian Imperial army was killed in 1915 and, just two
years after his death, the Romanoffs joined the Bagrations as a dethroned
dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In 1946, Prince Irakly Bagration of Moukhrani,
the elder brother of Leonida, married Infante Maria Mercedes of Spain. Because
the Spanish dynasty also had an equal marriage rule, and because Georgia had
been incorporated into the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century, the
Infanta’s father, Infante Ferdinand, wrote to the Grand Duke Wladimir to ask
whether he, as head of the Russian dynasty, considered the Bagrations to be of
equal royal birth. The Grand Duke issued the following document:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">"<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Act of the Head of the
Imperial House, fifth December 1946: His Royal Highness the Infante don
Ferdinand [of Spain]…, when his daughter the Infanta Maria Mercedes was about
to contract a marriage with Prince Irakly Bagration of Moukhrani, asked me
whether…I could consider the proposed marriage to be an equal one. My reply,
which was conveyed to the Infante through the intermediary of the Spanish
minister in Berne, the Conde de Bailen, was in the affirmative, in as much as,
after prolonged and diligent study of the history of Georgia and the Georgian
question, and after consulting my uncle, His Imperial Highness Grand Duke
Andrew, brother of my late Father,…I consider it right and proper to recognise
the royal status of the senior branch of the Bagration family, as well as the
right of the members to bear the title of Prince of Georgia and the style of
Royal Highness. The present head of the family is Prince George. If Almighty
God, in His Mercy, allows the rebirth of our great empire, I consider it right
that the Georgian language should be restored for use in the internal administration
of Georgia and in her educational</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">establishments.
The Russian language should be obligatory for general relations within the
Empire.</i> (Signed) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wladimir.”<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">As the only person entitled to interpret the
meaning and application of the equal marriage rule of the Russian dynasty, the
Grand Duke Wladimir in 1946 made a pronouncement that was definitive and
binding on the dynasty he headed. He based his pronouncement on the simple fact
that the Bagrations, like the Romanoffs, were a dethroned royal dynasty. Thus,
his marriage to Princess Leonida Bagration two years later in 1948 became the
only equal marriage contracted by a male dynast since the fall of the monarchy
in 1917. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The
late Georgian historian, Prince Cyril Toumanoff, and others have pointed out the absurdity
of trying to suggest that the ancient Bagrations, who reigned as kings until
the nineteenth century, are not of “equal birth”, when one considers some of
the formerly reigning families deemed to be of equal birth for marriage
purposes, such as the roughly forty “mediatized” families which, as rulers of
various former co-states of the Holy Roman Empire, had lost sovereignty by 1806
and had never ruled as kings but only as reigning princes, dukes or counts, as
well as deposed dynasties like the royal house of Montenegro, which exercised
secular sovereignty only from the 1850s and reigned as kings only from 1910 to
1918.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">The status of the Bagrations as a sovereign
house dethroned in the nineteenth century was a matter of historical fact. Why
then did the Infante Ferdinand of Spain ask the Head of the Russian Imperial
House about their royal status? The Spanish dynasty is the senior branch of the
Royal House of Bourbon, and the Infante<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn38" name="_ednref38" style="mso-endnote-id: edn38;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[38]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
would certainly not have posed a similar question about the royal status of
various branches of the Bourbon dynasty which had lost sovereignty in the nineteenth
century, including the formerly sovereign houses of France (1830), of Parma
(1859), and of the Two Sicilies (1860), as well as the Orléans dynasty of
France (1848). His question no doubt was prompted by the manner in which,
beginning in the 1830s, the Romanoffs had sought to reduce the Bagrations to
the status of mere Russian nobles, in furtherance of Russia’s efforts to
engender Georgian loyalty to the new Romanoff tsars of the Caucasus rather than
to the old Bagration tsars. The late Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, the
Scottish lawyer and nobiliary expert, would have none of this and viewed the
1946 declaration as unnecessary. He once wrote</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“[The] Bagration…dynasty had
reigned in the male line as Kings from 886 until the nineteenth century, before
the seventeenth century boyar family of Romanoff dispossessed them. Both
Bagration and Romanoff are now equally dispossessed: which needs the official
recognition of which?</i>”<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn39" name="_ednref39" style="mso-endnote-id: edn39;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[39]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">When in 1946 the Grand Duke Wladimir, as Head of
the Imperial House, formally confirmed that the Imperial House recognized the
Bagrations of Moukhrani as a deposed royal dynasty and as being of equal birth,
his pronouncement may have seemed rather abstract to some, because nobody was
alive who remembered Georgia as a monarchy under the Bagrations. The collapse
of the Soviet Union, however, made the pronouncement suddenly less abstract. Georgia
again became an independent state in 1991 and reasserted its cultural and
historical traditions.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_edn40" name="_ednref40" style="mso-endnote-id: edn40;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[40]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">A Georgian monarchist movement quickly coalesced
around Prince George Iraklievich Bagration of Moukhrani (1944-2008), head of
the senior Kartli royal line and senior prince of the entire Bagration dynasty.
In 1995, he escorted from Spain to Tblisi the remains of his grandfather (Grand
Duke Wladimir’s father-in-law) Prince George Bagration, head of the royal
dynasty until his death in 1957, for burial in the crypt of the Georgian kings,
after a liturgy sung by the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church and
attended by the President of Georgia. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In 2007, the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox
Church, Ilia II, publicly called for restoration of a Bagration monarchy as a
guarantor of national unity and independence. It had been thought by many that
the junior Kakheti royal line of Bagration, direct descendants of King George
XII, had died out in the male line during the Soviet period. In the 1980s, during
the period of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Glasnost</i>, it was
established that there were indeed several males of this line who had survived
Stalinism and the Soviet Union. This line is likely to die out in the male line
in due course, however, because none of the three surviving princes of this
line, all now older than ages sixty, has a son. The current head of the Kakheti
line is Prince Nugzar Bagration (born 1950). A question then arose as to
whether various monarchist groups preferred George, head of the senior Kartli
royal line of the Bagrations, or Nugzar, head of the junior Kakheti royal line.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In 2009, Prince David Bagration (born in Spain
in 1976), son and successor of the late head of the Kartli line (Prince George
Bagration of Moukhrani, died 2008), having become a Georgian citizen, married
Princess Anna Bagration (born in Georgia in 1976), elder child of the head of
the Kakheti line (Prince Nugzar Bagration, who has no son), in Tblisi. Their
infant son, Prince George Bagration, was born in Spain in September 2011 and like
his forebear King Irakly II, this child unites through his parents both royal
lines. In due course, given a long life, he is likely to become through his
father the head of the senior royal line of Kartli and through his mother the
heir-general of the current head of the junior royal line of Kakheti. Through
his father, he is related to Bagration émigrés who fled from Georgia to the
West after the revolution and intermarried with the Russian and Spanish royal
houses. Through his mother, he descends from Bagrations who remained in Georgia
after the revolution and survived the Soviet dictatorship. With a Georgian
mother and maternal relatives born in Tblisi, he will presumably speak fluent
Georgian and be closely connected with his country. It seems unlikely that the
restoration called for by the Georgian patriarch could ever happen, especially
as two centuries have passed since the overthrow of the Georgian monarchy in
1801. Should a monarchist movement gather strength in Georgia in future years,
it is likely to revolve around this young child whose pedigree qualifies him so
notably as the representative of this ancient dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">Meantime,
the uneasy relationship between Georgia and Russia has continued to the present
day. In 2008, the two countries fought a war and broke off diplomatic
relations. In April 2012, in a diplomatic note forwarded via the Swiss embassy
because diplomatic relations remain officially broken, the Georgian Foreign
Ministry protested Russian construction plans that would result in the
destruction of a cemetery in Moscow containing royal Bagration graves. The last
chapter in this complicated history has yet to be written. </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In the Treaty of Georgievsk, Catherine the Great
gave her word that Russia would recognize the royal status of the Bagrations
and keep them on their throne forever. Due to power politics, this treaty
provision was violated during the reigns of her son Paul I and her grandson
Alexander I. In the reign of her grandson Nicholas I, following the monarchist
uprisings of the 1830s in Georgia, Russia ceased treating the sons of King
George XII of Georgia living in Russia as royal princes, even though their former
royal status was a matter of historical fact. Catherine II’s
great-great-great-grandson and heir Nicholas II, perhaps mindful of this
history, made a private comment acknowledging the royal status of the
Bagrations at the time of the first Romanoff-Bagration wedding in 1911. It was
her great-great-great-great-grandson and heir Grand Duke Wladimir who in 1946
gave effect to the underlying spirit of mutual respect between the two
dynasties that was a key purpose of the treaty. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->
<br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]--><br />
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Guy Stair Sainty, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Russian
Succession – Another View</i>, at </span><a href="http://www.chivalricorders.org/"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;">www.chivalricorders.org</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The writer was the late Grand Duke Wladimir’s lawyer, a role he
continued with the Grand Duchess Maria. The Grand Duke was Head of the Russian
Imperial House from 1938 to 1992. This essay limits itself strictly to a
summary of the main points of the succession question. Those interested in a
more thorough analysis might wish to read the writer’s more detailed treatment
of the issue, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Russian Imperial
Succession</i>, which first appeared in 1997 and has been subsequently updated.
It was translated into Russian by N. Dmitrovskii-Baikov and published in Russia
under the title <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rossiiskoe Imperatorskoe
prestolonasledie</i> (Moscow, 2001, ISBN 5-900053-024-0), with an introduction
by Viktor Nikolayevich Yaroshenko, Trade Representative of the Russian Federation
in France and, under Yeltsin, the first Minister of Foreign Economic
Development of the Russian Federation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> From the introduction by Prince Cyril Toumanoff, professor emeritus
of history, Georgetown University, to the excellent and authoritative <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Succession to the Imperial Throne of Russia</i>,
first published in 1984 under the editorial supervision of Archbishop Antony,
Archbishop of Los Angeles and Southern California, of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the Service of the
Imperial House of Russia, 1917-1941</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">
by Rear-Admiral H.G. Graf (private secretary of Grand Duke Kirill) (privately
published, 1999), p. 76.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> This number includes Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich of Russia
(1850-1918), although some accounts attribute his death during the revolution
to illness.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref6" name="_edn6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Although five of Grand Duke Alexander’s six sons recognized Kirill, only
four signed Alexander’s 1924 statement of loyalty. His son Prince Dmitry
Alexandrovich of Russia, who could not sign it because he was in New York when
it was written, recognized Kirill separately.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 5pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref7" name="_edn7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[7]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> Before the
revolution, the Russian dynasty was a large one, and Grand Duke Kirill and
Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich (“N.N.”) had not known each other well; the
latter, twenty years older than Kirill, was of the same generation as Kirill’s late
father. If there was a major bone of contention between them, it was perhaps
the role of N.N. in persuading Nicholas II to abdicate, given Kirill’s strong
view that this decision by the isolated and abandoned emperor was a disaster
which precipitated the fall of the monarchy. On 2 March 1917, Nicholas II had
received a telegram from N.N. in which the Grand Duke said it was necessary for
him "<em>to beg…on bended knee</em>" that the emperor abdicate. (Mark
Steinberg and Vladimir Khrustalev, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Fall of the Romanovs</i> [Yale University Press, 1995], pp. 89-90, citing State
Archive of the Russian Federation, Document f. 601, op. 1, d. 2102, l. 1-2). On
the afternoon of 2 March, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Voeikov, commandant of the palace,
entered the emperor's railway car to express his grief and astonishment at the
emperor's abdication. In his memoirs, Voeikov described Nicholas II's pointing
to the many telegrams on his desk and stating, "<em>What else could I have
done when everyone has betrayed me? And first among them Nikolasha
[N.N.]</em>." <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mark Steinberg and
Vladimir Khrustalev, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fall of the
Romanovs</i> (Yale University Press, 1995), p. 63, citing V.N. Voeikov,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> S tsarem i bez tsaria</i> (1936), p. 212. In
his famous diary entry of 2 March 1917, Nicholas II finished his description of
the day with this sentence: "<em>All around me is treachery, cowardice and
deceit</em>." In the first volume of his memoirs, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Once A Grand Duke</i> (New York, 1932, p. 145), Grand Duke Alexander of
Russia, Nicholas II’s brother-in-law and N.N.’s first cousin, wrote of N.N.:
“<em>Had Nicholasha [N.N.] advised the Czar on March 2, 1917 to remain with the
army and to accept the challenge of the revolution, Mr. Stalin would not have
been entertaining Mr. G.B. Shaw in the Kremlin in 1931</em>.” There were already
internal factions among the numerous dynasts long before the revolution. In the
same book of memoirs (pp. 40-42, 143-145), Grand Duke Alexander described how
various grand dukes at young ages took sides in the bitter lifelong feud
between two first cousins, Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich (a prominent
historian and a member of the French Academy, assassinated in 1919) and Grand
Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich. It was even alleged by Grand Duke Nicholas
Mikhailovich that N.N.’s Montenegrin sister-in-law was pushing N.N., very
distant in the line of succession, as a future tsar well before the outbreak of
the revolution. On 11 May 1916, when N.N. was only sixteenth in line of
succession to the Tsar, Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich wrote a letter to his
cousin Emperor Nicholas II hinting "<em>darkly that Nikolasha's [N.N.'s]
popularity, in view of the nervous mood of the Russian public, threatened the
legitimate line of succession, inflating the potential importance of
Nikolasha's brother Peter and nephew Roman, suggesting that, through them, the
childless Nikolasha could found an alternative branch of the dynasty</em>." <i>The
Flight of the Romanovs</i> by John Curtis Perry and Constantine Pleshakov (New
York, 1999), p. 125, citing <i>Nikolai II i velikiye knyazya</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">,</span> ed. by V.P. Semennikov (Leningrad-Moscow,
Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo, 1925), pp. 63-64. Grand Duke Nicholas
Mikhailovich’s letter to the emperor was as follows: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Georgia; mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;"> … Regarding the popularity of Nicholas [N.N.], I will
say this: His popularity was masterfully prepared at Kiev by Militsa [Grand
Duchess Militsa, born Princess Militsa of Montenegro, was married to N.N.’s
only brother Grand Duke Peter; Militsa’s sister Stana was married to N.N.]
quite gradually, during a long period of time and by making use of all means,
such as distributing to the people pamphlets, all kinds of booklets, pictures,
portraits, calendars, etc. Thanks to this well-planned preparation, his
popularity did not go down after the loss of Galicia and Poland, and rose again
after the victories in the Caucasus. From the very start of the campaign, I
repeatedly wrote to your dear mother, warning her of these Kiev intrigues, but
I could not write to you, without infraction of discipline, while I was
attached to the staff of Adjutant-General Ivanov. Now I am speaking freely. I
said, when you personally took the Supreme Command of the armies, and I repeat
now, that Militsa is not asleep in the Caucasus. I make bold to assure you,
from a deep conviction, that this popularity frightens me, in a dynastic sense,
especially in the excited state of our public opinion, which appears to take
more and more definite shape in the provinces. This popularity [of N.N.] does
not contribute in the least to the benefit of the Throne or the prestige of the
Imperial family, but only to the advertising of the husband [N.N.] of the Grand
Duchess [Stana] - a Slav woman [Montenegrin] and not a German - as well as of
his brother and nephew, Roman. In view of the possibility of all kinds of
troubles after the war, one has to be watchful and observe closely every move
in support of this popularity. You are aware of my boundless devotion to your
late father, your mother, yourself, and your line, for which I am ready at any
moment to lay down my life, but I do not recognize any other possibilities, in
the dynastic sense, nor shall I ever recognize any…”</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> See <a href="http://www.alexanderpalace.org/"><span style="color: blue;">www.alexanderpalace.org</span></a>. The present
writer does not read the letter of Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich (a
sometimes divisive figure within the dynasty) as accusing N.N. of disloyalty to
the emperor. The letter does, however, directly claim that amidst the chaos of
1916 Grand Duchess Militsa (wife of Grand Duke Peter and mother of Prince Roman
of Russia) was working hard to advance the stature and popularity of N.N. Did
she view him as a future tsar who could take charge and save the dynasty? The
wives of N.N. and his brother Grand Duke Peter were both daughters of King
Nicholas I of Montenegro. It was the two ambitious Montenegrin princesses,
known for their love of intrigue, who had introduced Rasputin to Empress
Alexandra. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Once A Grand Duke</i> (pp.
145-146), Grand Duke Alexander wrote that they “exercised an exceptionally bad
influence on the young Czarina.” Unlike the royal dynasties of northern Europe
where Russian grand dukes traditionally sought their wives, the Montenegrin
dynasty, which held secular sovereignty only from the 1850s until 1918, had
neither an equal marriage rule nor a well-rooted tradition of primogeniture. It
is indeed plausible to suggest that, at least after the fall of the dynasty,
the two sisters may well have contributed to a slavophile disdain for these two
rules and for legitimism in general on the part of their grand ducal husbands
and descendants. If so, this may partially explain why N.N., his brother Peter,
and Peter’s son Roman were the only male dynasts to decline in the 1920s to
recognize Grand Duke Kirill as the rightful dynastic chief by right of
primogeniture. To the extent they influenced his views, it may also explain why
the claim of Militsa’s grandson and Roman’s morganatic son Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014)
to be head of the dynasty ignores both the equal marriage rule and the
primogeniture rule. [2014 Note: In 2014, the family of Prince Felix Yusupov and
his wife Princess Irina of Russia (only daughter of Nicholas II’s sister Xenia)
sold at public auction the private letters of Felix and Irina, and a
pre-auction catalogue was published containing the texts of the letters (often
in French translation, as most of the letters were in Russian). There are
several letters from the Montenegrin sisters, Stana and Militsa, to Felix
Yusupov’s mother showing their implacable hostility to Russian legitimism. One
fascinating letter suggests that Militsa was still trying to put her son Prince
Roman of Russia on the Russian throne during World War II. This is a letter
from Felix Yusupov to his wife Irina of Russia, written during or following a
trip by the former to Rome. Although undated, it was clearly written in the
early 1940s, after Fascist Italy and its ally, Nazi Germany, had declared war
on Soviet Russia. The letter claims that Militsa, through the influence of her
sister, the Queen of Italy, was pushing the Italian government to pressure Nazi
Germany to set up a puppet monarchy in Russia with Roman as tsar, once Germany
and Italy overthrew the Soviet regime. If the French translation of the letter
is correct, it also states that Roman’s son (presumably Nicholas Romanoff, then
aged about 20 years) was using the title of Grand Duke of Russia in Rome. Was
this merely second-hand gossip that Yusupov was repeating or was it based on
actual facts? As the husband of Nicholas II’s only niece, Yusupov was certainly
in an excellent position to receive reliable information from the leading
members of the Russian community in Rome. On the other hand, the tendency to
spread gossip was not unkown in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">émigré</i>
communities.]</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 5pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref8" name="_edn8" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[8]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> All twentieth century male line dynasts of the Imperial House
descended from one of the four sons (in order of birth: Alexander, Constantine,
Nicholas and Michael) of Emperor Nicholas I. These four branches of the dynasty
were informally known as the Alexandrovichi (that is, descendants of
Alexander), the Constantinovichi, the Nikolayevichi, and the Mikhailovichi. In
the 1920s, as stated above, only the 3 male dynasts of the junior Nikolayevichi
branch declined to endorse Kirill as dynastic head and his son Wladimir as
heir. All male dynasts of the other three branches (except Vassily of the
Mikhailovichi branch, because he was a minor and was not asked to sign the
declaration of loyalty to Kirill issued by his father and older brothers)
supported Kirill and Wladimir.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn9" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref9" name="_edn9" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[9]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-US"> Nicholas Romanoff is referred to in these pages as “Nicholas
Romanoff (1922-2014)” to avoid confusion with others named Nicholas, such as
Emperor Nicholas II, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich of Russia and Grand Duke
Nicholas Mikhailovich of Russia. </span><span lang="FR" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;">[2014 Note: Nicholas Romanoff died in 2014.]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn10" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref10" name="_edn10" style="mso-endnote-id: edn10;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[10]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="FR" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;">Point de Vue-Images du Monde</span></i><span lang="FR" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;">, 12 May 1992, p. 17.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn11" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref11" name="_edn11" style="mso-endnote-id: edn11;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[11]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> On his website, </span><a href="http://www.nikolairomanov.com/"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small;">www.nikolairomanov.com</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">,
on which he called himself “Nikolai Romanov, Prince of Russia,” Nicholas
Romanoff wrote, “<em>In April 1992 I became the head of the Romanov Family</em>.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn12" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref12" name="_edn12" style="mso-endnote-id: edn12;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[12]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Metropolitan Vitaly, First Hierarch of ROCOR from 1985 to 2001,
opposed the notion of reconciliation between ROCOR and the Patriarchate. Long a
supporter of the Grand Duke Wladimir as head of the dynasty, the octogenarian
Vitaly was angered by the Grand Duke’s historic meeting with Patriarch Alexei
II in November 1991, and he de-emphasized the monarchism of the Church. He
resigned as First Hierarch in 2001 and was succeeded as ROCOR First Hierarch by
Metropolitan Laurus. In May 2007, the Patriarchate and ROCOR formally reconciled
during a solemn ceremony in Moscow during which Patriarch Alexei II and
Metropolitan Laurus signed an Act of Canonical Communion. The Church Outside of
Russia thereupon came under the Patriarch, although retaining a quasi-autonomy.
At his death in 2008, Metropolitan Laurus was succeeded as ROCOR First Hierarch
by Metropolitan Hilarion. On December 10, 2013, after a liturgy at the
Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York City and in the presence of the
Grand Duchess Maria, Metropolitan Hilarion gave a homily, during which he
welcomed the Grand Duchess as head of the dynasty. The following week, the
official website of ROCOR published, at http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2013/20131219_enhihvisit.html,
a description of her visit, entitled “The Visit of the Head of the Romanov
Dynasty to America.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn13" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref13" name="_edn13" style="mso-endnote-id: edn13;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[13]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> In his eulogy at
the funeral service on April 29, 1992, before dozens of bishops and priests and
some 15,000 mourners in St. Isaac Cathedral, St. Petersburg, the Patriarch
stated in part as follows: "<em>I was very impressed by his deep faith, his
love for Russia and her people, whom he wished to help…His whole life outside,
all his feelings and efforts, Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich dedicated to a
country he considered his own…His faith and long patience were not in vain. On
the eve of his passage to the other world, he stepped on his native soil…On his
return from Russia, he never ceased to dedicate all his strength to assist his
country, and despite his fragile health, he went to the United States to
persuade various American business circles to help Russia and to have faith in
his country. He died during this trip</em>." <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See also, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New
York Times</i>, April 30, 1992, page 1 (“With Old-World Pageantry, Russia
Buries A Romanov”) by Serge Schmemann).</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn14" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref14" name="_edn14" style="mso-endnote-id: edn14;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[14]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> State Archives of the Russian Federation [GARF], Fond 601 (“The
Emperor Nicholas II”), Opis’ [Inventory] 1, Delo [File] 2143, Folios 58-59.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn15" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref15" name="_edn15" style="mso-endnote-id: edn15;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[15]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The letter begins as follows: “<em>Your Imperial Highness – After I
presented [to the Lord Emperor] my loyal report on the project undertaken at
the meeting of the Grand Dukes, at which Your Imperial Highness presided,
regarding amendments and additions to the Statute of the Imperial Family,
together with a determination by the Minister of Justice, the Lord Emperor has
seen fit to set the following conditions under which His Imperial Majesty might
permit marriages of Princes and Princesses of the Imperial Blood [Princes and
Princesses of Russia] to persons not possessing corresponding rank…</em>” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn16" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref16" name="_edn16" style="mso-endnote-id: edn16;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[16]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The exact language of this portion of the letter is: “<em>In relation
to the categorization of marriages of Princes and Princesses of the Imperial
Blood, the Lord Emperor has seen fit to recognize only two categories of
marriages: (a) equal marriages, that is, those contracted with persons
belonging to a royal or ruling house, and (b) unequal marriages, that is, those
contracted with persons not belonging to a royal or ruling house, and He will
not recognize any other categories</em>.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn17" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref17" name="_edn17" style="mso-endnote-id: edn17;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[17]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) also used this meritless argument in
another context. Among the male line <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">morganatic
</i>descendants of Emperor Paul I alive in 1992, Nicholas Romanoff was still
rather junior. Ahead of him, for example, were 3 Ilyinskys, the morganatic son
and grandsons of Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich. According to Nicholas Romanoff’s
unreasonable argument, Paul Ilyinsky was not a dynast because his father was a
grand duke, whilst Nicholas Romanoff was a dynast because his father was only a
Prince of Russia. Later, he apparently backed away from this argument and
suddenly expanded his definition of dynast to include all morganatic
descendants in the male line: he now describes all the members of his “Romanoff
Family Association” as Princes and Princesses of Russia, at least according to
Wikipedia, even though in 2012 every single one of them is a morganatic
descendant.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn18" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref18" name="_edn18" style="mso-endnote-id: edn18;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[18]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Aside from the Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna and her son, the
only other Russian dynasts by birth who were alive in the twenty-frst century
were Princess Vera of Russia (1906-2001) and the latter’s niece Princess
Ekaterina of Russia (1915-2007).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn19" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref19" name="_edn19" style="mso-endnote-id: edn19;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[19]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Six, because it was issued with the express approval of the Grand
Duke Wladimir and signed by the five dynasts most senior in line after him.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn20" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref20" name="_edn20" style="mso-endnote-id: edn20;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[20]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> His morganatic son (and only child) Wladimir Andreivich (1902-1974)
was not included in the succession list, because he was the child of a
(subsequent) unequal marriage and thus was not a member of the dynasty. His
uncle, the Grand Duke Kirill, gave him the morganatic title of Prince
Romanovsky-Krassinsky on 28 July 1935. He left no issue. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn21" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref21" name="_edn21" style="mso-endnote-id: edn21;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[21]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> His morganatic son (and only child) Paul (1928-2004), long-time mayor of Palm Beach, Florida was not
included in the succession list, because he was the child of an unequal
marriage and thus was not a member of the dynasty. The Grand Duke Kirill gave
him the morganatic title of Prince Romanovsky-Ilyinsky. Prince Paul left two sons, both of whom only have daughters. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn22" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref22" name="_edn22" style="mso-endnote-id: edn22;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[22]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> His two morganatic sons (and only children), Nicholas (1922-2014)
and Dmitry (born 1926), were not included in the succession list, because they
were children of an unequal marriage and thus were not members of the dynasty. Nicholas left three daughters, his brother Dmitry is childless. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn23" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref23" name="_edn23" style="mso-endnote-id: edn23;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[23]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> His two morganatic sons, Michael (1920-2008), who foolishly allied himself with a notorious "self-styled" Order of Saint John and Andrew (born
1923), were not included in the succession list because they were children of
an unequal marriage and thus were not members of the dynasty. Michael was childless but Andrew left three sons, of whom the elder two are childless and the youngest has a daughter. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn24" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref24" name="_edn24" style="mso-endnote-id: edn24;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[24]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> His morganatic son Michael (1924-2008, dying one day after his cousin Michael) was not included in the
succession list because he was the child of an unequal marriage and thus was
not a member of the dynasty. His only son predeceased him and the latter's daughter survives. </span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn25" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref25" name="_edn25" style="mso-endnote-id: edn25;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[25]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> His morganatic sons Nikita (1923-2007) left an only daughter and Alexander (1929-2002)
died childless; they were not included in the succession list because they were children of an
unequal marriage and thus were not members of the dynasty.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn26" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref26" name="_edn26" style="mso-endnote-id: edn26;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[26]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-US"> Of the last two signatories to this document, Prince Rostislav left
two morganatic sons, Rostislav (1938-1999) and Nicholas (1945-2000). They were
the only morganatic descendants of the house bearing the name Romanoff to
leave male line descendants, all living in the United States of America. The only other surviving male line morganatic
descendant of the dynasty, Prince George Yurievsky (born in 1961, a great-grandson of the
second, morganatic marriage of Emperor Alexander II) recently married (in 2013)
but as yet has no issue. </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn27" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref27" name="_edn27" style="mso-endnote-id: edn27;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[27]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> At the time of the 1969 declaration, Grand Duchess Maria had just
reached the age of sixteen. The other female dynasts alive in 1969 were all well
past the age in which it was likely that they could have children, were they to
contract equal marriages.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn28" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref28" name="_edn28" style="mso-endnote-id: edn28;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[28]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Grand Duke George of Russia, Prince of Prussia, born in March 1981,
was created a grand duke shortly after his birth by his grandfather, Grand Duke
Wladimir. Grand Duke George’s father, H.R.H. Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia,
had converted to Orthodoxy before his marriage and remains Orthodox. Grand Duke
George's eventual accession as head of the dynasty will mark the first time
that the Romanoff succession has passed through the female line since the
promulgation of the present succession laws in 1797, but it will not be the
first time in the history of the Romanoff dynasty. In 1762, the Romanoff
dynasty technically became extinct in the male line upon the death of the
Empress Elisabeth. The throne then passed to her German nephew, Emperor Peter
III, whose mother was a Romanoff grand duchess but whose father was a German
prince, the reigning Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. (In 1742, Peter of
Holstein-Gottorp had been summoned to Russia at age fourteen by his aunt, the
Empress, who created him a Grand Duke of Russia and named him heir to the
throne.) Although after 1762 the dynasty still was known as the House of
Romanoff, it had technically become the House of Romanoff-Holstein-Gottorp. Peter
III's son, Emperor Paul I, instituted the present succession laws. Assuming the
eventual succession of her son, the present Grand Duchess Maria thus will be
the last Romanoff-Holstein-Gottorp to head the dynasty. Nonetheless, upon the
succession of her son Grand Duke George, the dynasty, as it did in 1762, will
continue to be called the House of Romanoff.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn29" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref29" name="_edn29" style="mso-endnote-id: edn29;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[29]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> In one pronouncement of the Romanoff Family Association dated March
25, 1981, Prince Vassily of Russia, elected president of the RFA, referred to
the Romanoff Family Association as being composed of two categories of members:
“members of the Imperial House of Russia” (presumably, dynasts like himself)
and “members of the Romanoff Family” (presumably, morganatic descendants who
were not dynasts). Today, the RFA is composed exclusively of morganatic
descendants.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn30" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref30" name="_edn30" style="mso-endnote-id: edn30;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[30]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Robert K. Massie, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Romanovs – The Final Chapter</i> (New York, 1995), p. 278. Nicholas Romanoff’s
mother was from one of the most distinguished noble families of imperial
Russia, but her family had never occupied a sovereign throne and thus was not a
reigning or formerly reigning house.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn31" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 28.0pt 56.0pt 84.0pt 112.0pt 140.0pt 168.0pt 196.0pt 224.0pt 252.0pt 280.0pt 308.0pt 336.0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref31" name="_edn31" style="mso-endnote-id: edn31;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[31]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-language: EN-US;">In respect of the many dethroned dynasties in which the equal marriage
rule still applies, it is the head of the dynasty who has sole authority to
amend the rule, interpret the application of the rule, and decide whether a
marriage satisfies the rule. Several foreign dynastic heads have used their
authority to allow exceptions to the rule. For example, Archduke Otto, head of
the Habsburg dynasty of Austria from 1922 to 2007, strictly enforced the
ancient Habsburg equal marriage laws, recognizing the children of equal
marriages as archdukes and archduchesses but bestowing morganatic titles (like
Count von Habsburg) on morganatic descendants. In 1993, however, when his elder
son and heir Archduke Karl married a commoner, Otto relaxed the rule,
recognizing the union as a dynastic marriage and bestowing archducal rank on
his son’s wife and children. The dethroned Emperor William II of Germany also
made an exception for the wife of one of his younger sons. When his son Prince
Oskar of Prussia married morganatically in 1914, William II at first gave his
new daughter-in-law the morganatic title of Countess von Ruppin. Later, in
1920, after the fall of the monarchy, William II, living in exile, recognized
his daughter-in-law and her children as members of the dynasty, giving them the
titles of Prince and Princess of Prussia, with the predicate of Royal Highness.
Similarly, Crown Prince Rupprecht, head of the deposed Bavarian royal house,
elevated his daughter-in-law and grandsons, previously considered morganatic,
to dynastic status in 1949.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn32" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref32" name="_edn32" style="mso-endnote-id: edn32;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[32]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> See, for example, his introduction to a book published in 1983, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Les Descendants de Pierre le Grand, Tsar de
Russie</i> (Sedopols, 1983) by Nicolas Enache, in which he uses the name
“Nicholas Romanoff, Prince of Russia.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn33" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref33" name="_edn33" style="mso-endnote-id: edn33;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[33]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The authoritative European reference work, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels</i>, was never confused on this
point. Its 1953 edition of princely houses, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Genealogisches
Handbuch der Fürstlichen Häuser</i> (C.A. Starke Verlag, 1953, volume II), is
divided into three sections. Section I lists reigning and formerly reigning
dynasties, Section II lists the mediatised princely houses that were formerly
co-states of the Holy Roman Empire, and Section III lists “other, non-sovereign
European princely houses.” Prince Roman of Russia, father of Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014),
is, as a dynast, listed in Section I under the House of Russia. Prince Roman’s
wife and sons are, as non-dynasts, listed in Section III under the article on
“Romanovsky.” The Section III entry (p. 428) states: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The spouse of Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia…(see Section I),
Prascovia Dmitrievna, Countess Sheremetiev (born 1901) has received for herself
and her descendants (by a Ukase of the Grand Duke Wladimir as Head of the House
of Romanoff dated 7 May 1951) the name and title of Princess Romanovsky and
Prince Romanovsky, respectively…Prascovia, Princess Romanovsky, born Countess
Sheremetiev (at Poltawa 2 October 1901) married (in a union not in accordance
with the house laws) at Antibes 3 November 1921…Roman Petrovich, Prince of
Russia…(see Section I)…”</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn34" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref34" name="_edn34" style="mso-endnote-id: edn34;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[34]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Until the late nineteenth century, all male dynasts of the Russian
Imperial House had the title of Grand Duke of Russia. In 1886, Emperor
Alexander III altered this rule so that there were two titles for male dynasts:
Grand Duke of Russia for the sons and grandsons of emperors, and Prince of
Russia (“Prince of the Imperial Blood”) for more distantly related dynasts.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn35" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref35" name="_edn35" style="mso-endnote-id: edn35;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[35]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The late Alexander Romanoff (1929-2002) was the morganatic son of
Prince Nikita of Russia. Born in Paris, he bore the Romanoff surname under
French law. He was created Prince Romanovsky on 7 May 1951 by the Grand Duke
Wladimir. He called himself Prince Romanoff socially. As he recounted to his
Scottish friend Ian Lilburn, Alexander Romanoff was once included on the guest
list of a function planned in England during the 1950s. His grandmother, the
Grand Duchess Xenia of Russia, the sister of Nicholas II living in exile in
England, reviewed the guest list in advance. When she saw her grandson named on
the list as “Prince Alexander Romanoff,” she crossed off the title of prince
and changed his name on the list to “Alexander Romanoff, Esq.” She knew that
the title “Prince Romanoff” did not exist.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn36" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref36" name="_edn36" style="mso-endnote-id: edn36;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[36]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New York Times</i>, 9
February 1992.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn37" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref37" name="_edn37" style="mso-endnote-id: edn37;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[37]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ella Matonina, editor, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Zagadka
K.R.: Iz dnevnikov velikogo kniazia K.K. Romanova</i> (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Diaries of Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich)</i>, November 30,
1910 entry, Moscow (1994, no. 2): 174.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn38" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref38" name="_edn38" style="mso-endnote-id: edn38;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[38]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Infante Don Ferdinand was by birth a Bavarian Prince whose mother
was an Infanta of Spain and whose wife, the mother of Infanta Maria Mercedes,
was the second daughter of King Alfonso XII. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn39" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref39" name="_edn39" style="mso-endnote-id: edn39;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[39]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, eleventh Bart., Ph.D., LL.B., Albany
Herald, "The Social Recognition of Titles of Honour”, published in <i>Royalty,
Peerage & Nobility of the World</i> (London, 1976), pp. 663-667.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn40" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Heraldry,%20etc/Monarchical/Simplified%20Succession%20Nov2014(rev).doc#_ednref40" name="_edn40" style="mso-endnote-id: edn40;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[40]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Georgia had also
achieved independence during the chaotic period following the Russian revolution
when civil war raged across the southern and eastern part of the country. This
brief period of sovereign rule was ended following a Soviet invasion. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-49394805548659682082015-09-13T23:33:00.000+02:002015-12-30T00:58:30.699+01:00<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">HISTORIC RECONCILIATION OF THE LONG-STANDING DISPUTE WITHIN THE ROYAL
HOUEE AND FAMILY OF THE TWO SICILIES<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Naples, 5.30 pm., 24 January 2014</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">After more than fifty years of division within the Royal
House, His Royal Highness Prince Don Pedro of Bourbon-Two Sicilies,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Duke of Noto, representing His father, His
Royal Highness the Infante Don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, and His Royal Highness
Prince Don Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro, signed the agreement
attached here. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This will be followed eventually by the reunification of the
Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George and the sharing of the
responsibilities associated with the headship of the Royal House and Family. In
the meanwhile the Order is considered one, single body, with dual, parallel
administrations, each recognising the members of the other branch of the Order.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">That this agreement was possible is a great tribute to the
determination of the Duke and Duchess of Castro, the Infante Don Carlos and
Duchess of Calabria and the Duke and Duchess of Noto to bring an end to this
quarrel, even if there is not yet full agreement on the future path. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnNlmdbkwTKMPd9gUfXJhLo59QmpEK4LAbdwTwVJWjAe623Cyr1mgk5P0iT0D7eM6l1GK9aUA1S6Edg3UlewYJi5Y-KcbGlLJrJ0K8GVIjxCn99XksQmPnhOfWj31xi_0uyjeKNFlUBBVP/s1600/ACTA+CONCILIACION+FIRMADA-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnNlmdbkwTKMPd9gUfXJhLo59QmpEK4LAbdwTwVJWjAe623Cyr1mgk5P0iT0D7eM6l1GK9aUA1S6Edg3UlewYJi5Y-KcbGlLJrJ0K8GVIjxCn99XksQmPnhOfWj31xi_0uyjeKNFlUBBVP/s640/ACTA+CONCILIACION+FIRMADA-1.jpg" width="452" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiLB5Evano2M39GQrW4ddHVDqHbgaAhyphenhyphen1Pr1E8Fe152tW0SPI8gnnbqDHt2cd80ClHyf4Kgp1hbNSiS7VBhouJPkK3ERoZ5fwnwQDZw6UcaphTYfARdZ9m9Wdvq5jQ8HLIJxPGOYwPY0K0/s1600/ACTA+CONCILIACION+FIRMADA-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiLB5Evano2M39GQrW4ddHVDqHbgaAhyphenhyphen1Pr1E8Fe152tW0SPI8gnnbqDHt2cd80ClHyf4Kgp1hbNSiS7VBhouJPkK3ERoZ5fwnwQDZw6UcaphTYfARdZ9m9Wdvq5jQ8HLIJxPGOYwPY0K0/s640/ACTA+CONCILIACION+FIRMADA-2.jpg" width="452" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-LY3NqnUCFB_wl0iVLexojUzDVrGXtd_YbMwn4SsU8RHqSiaQXijhAhpaJ0Iv7peZ1l5qv_gXvwgmjfmlIdxe2ABUvK8IKhyphenhyphenn1JmBEkf9hu7slLmEF9_eVi86-_017yGslpgcNAxh5pqR/s1600/20140124_172304.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-LY3NqnUCFB_wl0iVLexojUzDVrGXtd_YbMwn4SsU8RHqSiaQXijhAhpaJ0Iv7peZ1l5qv_gXvwgmjfmlIdxe2ABUvK8IKhyphenhyphenn1JmBEkf9hu7slLmEF9_eVi86-_017yGslpgcNAxh5pqR/s640/20140124_172304.jpg" width="360" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqZ6_Jb9gfVTaokUryVzI-8vcnOdUcg6Yrcbg3HxzXWeAa8gwa0Sr_9jl7f5CYwHP5mPFkK9Hva7JY1ImJSbkGBHGkQ2faI_Oz_Uw_kpxUgfYjFZOmO3LpFFFy3_hj5mSJkQtpt-rQEzuH/s1600/20140124_174403.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqZ6_Jb9gfVTaokUryVzI-8vcnOdUcg6Yrcbg3HxzXWeAa8gwa0Sr_9jl7f5CYwHP5mPFkK9Hva7JY1ImJSbkGBHGkQ2faI_Oz_Uw_kpxUgfYjFZOmO3LpFFFy3_hj5mSJkQtpt-rQEzuH/s400/20140124_174403.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-91893096498234549132015-09-13T22:58:00.003+02:002015-09-13T23:00:11.280+02:00DECREE OF THE SPANISH MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS REGULATING THE USE AND WEAR OF ORDERS AND DECORATIONS, AND IN PARTICULAR THOSE ORDERS CONSIDERED TIED HISTORICALLY TO OR UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE SPANISH CROWN. THESE ORDERS ARE LISTED AS THE SOVEREIGN MILITARY ORDER OF MALTA, THE EQUESTRIAN ORDER OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, THE SACRED MILITARY CONSTANTINIAN ORDER OF SAINT GEORGE AND THE ILLUSTRIOUS ROYAK ORDER OF SAINT JANUARIUS.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTN2Un6csb7vDmS4qWCc-XUs7Stae-RFtnJUqFceG0XIEi5IyvRkELp7GeIndQu74yht8SWlcBbAxo6zw2svGE-qhIAP8KDeUWy3VsXAfwDqgDwvYxBtIB46kKwKSIN2UW829UGBTZqrgl/s1600/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTN2Un6csb7vDmS4qWCc-XUs7Stae-RFtnJUqFceG0XIEi5IyvRkELp7GeIndQu74yht8SWlcBbAxo6zw2svGE-qhIAP8KDeUWy3VsXAfwDqgDwvYxBtIB46kKwKSIN2UW829UGBTZqrgl/s640/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-1.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhan8HWT5XG2Mzxz1W-cOFW7efzrEGYzgKimL98J3s7WdqsYDP6oFYUD0oBg5boC_Vye6BZVEGYOcTyNKxb1fmWqeqeOL1JN4AZzwm3CXQK3H-VnKsEfYh6zmxqj4sKD_hXk6wqiUVP7Cyu/s1600/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhan8HWT5XG2Mzxz1W-cOFW7efzrEGYzgKimL98J3s7WdqsYDP6oFYUD0oBg5boC_Vye6BZVEGYOcTyNKxb1fmWqeqeOL1JN4AZzwm3CXQK3H-VnKsEfYh6zmxqj4sKD_hXk6wqiUVP7Cyu/s640/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-2.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_QmPrdA0C-0MWIWt78C-tZy28ryPy1_7NyKH9TZi1V7LMoOzHo0HA1bTdClG2PoJqX3_t87oioa_j7RGGI7cY1LZ4K45GcyGMfT6_j16c9FUATU9WyferpvospjqprLDgYaS03QhS8QXu/s1600/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_QmPrdA0C-0MWIWt78C-tZy28ryPy1_7NyKH9TZi1V7LMoOzHo0HA1bTdClG2PoJqX3_t87oioa_j7RGGI7cY1LZ4K45GcyGMfT6_j16c9FUATU9WyferpvospjqprLDgYaS03QhS8QXu/s640/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-3.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9CA3MSUrOz-rPusxc7mcKOJhwpxZX3ll8pD7wBQePIC6voulIxNN2uPy70MQB0AStax0FMzyliRC_oklo9hHOLoJljgDy9VjU8cLDxOs85RpHbxNSBW1Mt_ll90JmGrknuWaKLRPVglme/s1600/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9CA3MSUrOz-rPusxc7mcKOJhwpxZX3ll8pD7wBQePIC6voulIxNN2uPy70MQB0AStax0FMzyliRC_oklo9hHOLoJljgDy9VjU8cLDxOs85RpHbxNSBW1Mt_ll90JmGrknuWaKLRPVglme/s640/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-4.jpg" width="495" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUHV0RUIPHAY0LjvFGD_e31i9LCjdS3zfl8Y462Y4CQWuJn45yrMAFnGJrMNhuLHY23vykHoV5wM7OsmSsgz_uVJZLSXDIPhdlIvfzDs-izjAo_DCUjQHnCReIVaROifBpIR98NodLGZ_S/s1600/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUHV0RUIPHAY0LjvFGD_e31i9LCjdS3zfl8Y462Y4CQWuJn45yrMAFnGJrMNhuLHY23vykHoV5wM7OsmSsgz_uVJZLSXDIPhdlIvfzDs-izjAo_DCUjQHnCReIVaROifBpIR98NodLGZ_S/s640/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-5.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZadywko7sCFgvJTDjyVz9j-RND4gT0-PoMaV_6kclQB5LZQZ4_rqI80bXu3z5U7t_ANjbyeTKEfK36p_5PDQnAA6Iq8YdFr-kDia4urg0X6o9n3XDWblXAL5jrZJMhwQKYnQxvEyspPWF/s1600/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZadywko7sCFgvJTDjyVz9j-RND4gT0-PoMaV_6kclQB5LZQZ4_rqI80bXu3z5U7t_ANjbyeTKEfK36p_5PDQnAA6Iq8YdFr-kDia4urg0X6o9n3XDWblXAL5jrZJMhwQKYnQxvEyspPWF/s640/CUARDENILLO+ORDEN+CIRCULAR+4-6.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-14594019570371741362015-09-07T23:28:00.006+02:002015-09-07T23:29:00.205+02:00<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">THE QUESTIONABLE
SURVIVAL OF THE “ORDER OF SAINT LAZARUS”<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
by Guy Stair Sainty (published with the permission of the author)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The claim to historical
survival of a body with an international membership styling itself “l’Ordre
Militaire et Hospitalier de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem” has been repeatedly
challenged by historians and denounced by the Holy See. During the course of
the last hundred years supporters of the pretence to antiquity of the several
bodies which now claim this name have published numerous books and pamphlets
designed to sustain their assertion that their organisation is the historic
continuum of the Crusader Order of Saint Lazare. In reality it is a modern
foundation dating from the early years of the twentieth century. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The initial reinvention
dates from 1910 and was initiated by two lawyers, Paul Watrin (then a supporter
of the French legitimist monarchist cause), and Paul Bugnot already associated
with another invented Order. Others involved were a certain Fritz Hahn who
masqueraded as “Comte Fréderic Guigues de Champvaux” and Jacob Rotschild (no
relation to the banking family) who used various aliases including Jacob de
Moser, Moser de Veyga and even Count of Monte Cristo! There were others
involved including a wine merchant from Alsace called Charles Otzenberger who,
after this first effort had withered on the vine during the First World War,
was responsible for its second revival, in 1928.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the early 1930s it began to have greater
success in recruiting prominent members, although by the 1950s its French
leaders were notable figures in the Orleanist monarchist movement rather than
legitimists. The Order rather disastrously for its future recruiting split into
two separate groups in the late 1960s and, more recently, a third branch
separated from the latter two claiming to represent the Lazarite tradition,
while not pretending to an ancient history. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The Order’s cross has been
conferred on both distinguished individuals and others with questionable titles,
giving it a high profile and making it one of the best-known quasi-chivalric
organisations. Its senior officers, dressed in white and green uniforms (imitating
the historic uniform of the Order of Malta but with echoes of Steward Granger’s
Ruritanian uniform in the Prisoner of Zenda), organise elaborate ceremonies
where the cross of the Order is granted to men and women of every branch of
Christianity as well as, on occasion, to non-Christians. It has contributed to some
worthy causes and the majority of its members probably sincerely believe they
are part of an ancient and hallowed chivalric tradition; sadly they have been
thoroughly misled by misrepresentations of the historical record.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
There are three stages in
the historical existence of the original crusader Order: the first ended with
the 1489 Papal bull incorporating the Order of Saint Lazarus into the Order of
Saint John, which in canon law should have represented the end of the ancient Order’s
independent existence. The canonical successor to the historical grand mastership
is today the grand master of the Order of Malta. Two groups of knights of the Order
resisted this incorporation, however; the priory of Capua and the commandery of
Boigny (in France), each ultimately obtaining significant support that enabled
them to survive, albeit in new forms. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The Holy See briefly
acknowledged the autonomy of the priory of Capua of Saint Lazarus in the early
years of the sixteenth century but in 1572 the priory was formally unified with
the newly founded Order of Saint Maurice, merging the green Maltese cross of
Saint Lazarus with the white cross botonny of Saint Maurice. The Order of
Saints Maurice and Lazarus, under the hereditary grand mastership of the Dukes
of Savoy, was a subject of canon law until laicised in the nineteenth century when
it became an elite state merit award of the Kingdom of Sardinia and then, after
1860, of Italy. The considerable endowment of this Order is administered today
by a body under the direction of the president of the Italian republic which,
in 1951, declared awards of the Order permanently suspended. The former king of
Italy, Umberto II, ignoring the republic’s 1951 law and considering it to be a
dynastic Order of the House of Savoy, awarded the cross of this Order until his
death in 1983. Since then his only son, Vittorio Emanuele, as claimant to the
headship of the Royal House of Savoy (a claim denied by the Duke of Aosta, who
has challenged his cousin but has declined to award the Order), has made a
considerable number of awards of the Order. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The third manifestation
of the Order’s survival was the commandery of Boigny, its only surviving French
benefice at the time of its incorporation into the new Order of Our Lady of
Mount Carmel, which was treated differently to the priory of Capua and never
received formal Papal confirmation of its autonomy. The grand master of the
Order of St John’s authority had been somewhat diminished with the struggle to
retain and then ultimately lose possession of the island of Rhodes but,
nonetheless, the handful of knights at Boigny attempted a compromise with the grand
master and Pope by electing successive knights of St John as their “master
generals.” Thus they notionally obeyed the requirements of the 1489 Bull, while
avoiding being incorporated into the Langue of France of the Order of St John.
After 1572, by claiming the support of the latter Order they were able to
resist the authority of the Duke of Savoy and the newly founded Order of St
Maurice and Lazarus. Since canon law made it impossible for a professed religious
(as were the knights of St John) to make profession in another Order, it is
quite clear that the commandery of Boigny, far from being an independent Order
was at this time merely a quasi-autonomous commandery of the Order of Malta. Its
modest revenues remained separate from those of the langue of France of St John,
even though the knights who governed it as “masters-general” were themselves
members of the langue and ultimately subject to the authority of the grand master
in Malta. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The religious wars of the
sixteenth century had diminished Papal authority in France and the commandery’s
autonomy was intermittently supported by the crown and parliament of Paris. The
end of the wars of religion with the conversion of Henri IV in 1594 made an
accord with the Holy See over Saint Lazarus and similar contentious issues a
priority. Henry negotiated a new settlement over the commandery of Boigny with
the foundation of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and its combination
with the commandery of Boigny, as the Royal Military Order of Our Lady of Mount
Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem united, by the Papal Bull <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Romanus Pontifex</i> of 16 February 1608,
expanded upon in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Militantium ordinum</i>
of 28 February of the same year. This allowed the existing knights to retain
their titles while putting the “master-general” under the immediate authority
of the French king. The new institution could reasonably claim the enhanced
status that continuity with the ancient Crusader Order of Saint Lazarus
conferred and, as an Order closely linked to the French crown, some kind of parity
with the knights of St John. The proofs of nobility were not as strict as those
required by the latter Order (which, with the grant of Malta and Gozo in 1530,
was more commonly known as the Order of Malta) and the promises of profession
in the Order required neither poverty nor chastity. These fatures made it more
attractive to young noblemen who neither wanted to embrace chastity not serve a
sometimes arduous <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">caravan</i> on Malta.
Since the election of the “Grand Master” of the new Order was now subject to
the confirmation of its protector, the French king, claims by the grand master
of the Order of Malta and the Duke of Savoy to the commandery of Boigny could
be more easily rebutted. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
Henri IV in his decree of
1609 gave the new foundation the full name “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ordres
de Nostre Dame du Mont Carmel et de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, Bethléem et
Nazareth, tant deçà que delà des mers</i>” then continued by giving it the
short name “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dudit</i> [said] <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ordre de Saint Lazare</i>”. <span lang="FR" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;">Louis XIV referred in 1664 to the united Orders as
the “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ordre et Chevalerie de Saint Lazare
de Jérusalem</i>” while also stating that Pope Paul V had instituted “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">un autre Ordre militaire dédié à la
Saint-Vierge sous le titre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel; lequel il auroit joint
et unt à celui de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem.</i>” </span>A 1668 bull promulgated
by Cardinal Legate de Vendôme served to confirm the union of the commandery of
Boigny with the recently founded Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel,
acknowledging the united body as a single subject of canon law but under the
protection of the French crown. <span lang="FR" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;">Vendôme
gave it an even fuller title, as the “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ordres
Royaux, Hospitaliers et Militaires de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel et de
Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, tant deçà que delà les mers</i>”. </span>The
interchangeability of the name Order of St Lazarus for the full name of the
Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St Lazarus of Jerusalem demonstrates that
these two institutions were not in any sense merely temporarily united but were
one, single body. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The 1693 prohibition against
the enjoyment of ecclesiastical benefices did not affect those benefices
already aggregated to the Order, but was intended to prevent other benefices
subject to the jurisdiction of the local Ordinaries or other ecclesiastical
authorities from being added to its endowment. There had been conflicts over
the amalgamation of benefices since the middle of the seventeenth century when
there was an attempt to acquire the properties of the defunct priory of Cluny.
The attempts to increase the Order’s wealth by removing benefices from one
canonical foundation and granting them to St Lazarus was challenged in part on
the grounds that the knights did not make the full religious promises and in
1693 some concession to the Order made in the previous three decades were
cancelled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Conflicts over benefices
continued to dog the Order, however, culminating in a struggle for possession
of the benefices (and the debts and obligations) of the extinct Order of St
Anthony Abbot in 1777. These were ultimately conceded to the Order of Malta
although in the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily they were granted to the
Constantinian Order. The loss of aggregated ecclesiastical benefices and
extraordinary financial mismanagement had led to many financial claims against
the Order, which is why in 1783 the Pope confirmed that the “… <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">biens de l’Ordre sont sous la protection du
Saint Siège</i>” thus preventing them from being seized to pay the Order’s
debts. The Popes never surrendered their ultimate authority over the Order,
even though, as with the appointment of the French bishops, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de facto</i> authority rested with the
crown.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The proponents of
survival have misrepresented the award of the cross of Our Lady of Mont Carmel to
graduates of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">école militaire</i> as
recognition of the separation of the two Orders. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This essentially bogus argument did nothing of
the sort - it had originated with article fifteen of the 1757 statutes designed
to encourage future recruits to the École by giving them probationary
membership in the united Order, to which no-one could be admitted before the
age of thirty. <span lang="FR" style="mso-ansi-language: FR;">In 1779 this rule was
amended so that by article one “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Ordre
de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel faisant partie de ceux qui sont réunis sous la même
Grande Maîtrise, sera destiné à l’avenir aux seuls élèves de l’École royal
militaire, qui seront jugés dignes d’être admis dans cet Ordre</i>.” </span>Six
students at the school were to be chosen on the basis of their morals, their
progress and their “happy disposition” and of those six three would be made
knights of the said Order with a pension of one hundred <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">livres</i>. This, however, was purely an honorific and merely a stage
that would permit those chevaliers who later distinguished themselves on the
field of battle to be admitted to full membership of the combined Orders. To be
admitted to the École militaire one had to prove four paternal quarterings of nobility
and in a further decree the grand master declared that these would be
sufficient to qualify the École students who had received the cross of Our Lady
of Mont Carmel. By granting them the cross of Mont Carmel before they joined
the united Order, they were effectively exempted from presenting the full
proofs of four paternal and four maternal quarterings. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
Supporters of continuity
consistently argue their case in a manner designed to support their thesis<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>but, when it come to the period after 1815,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>an altogether more fanciful history has to be
imagined which ignores the extensive documentation that contradicts it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What should give rise to immediate questions
is why, when the Order’s history is so thoroughly documented from 1608-1788,
the alleged survival in the 19th century – even closer to our time – should
rest on such flimsy foundations. Why can no publication dedicated to the supposedly
surviving Order be found prior to its early twentieth century revival? Why are
there no diplomas, no contemporary rolls of knights, and no notarial record of
any officers of the suppose continuum of the Order? </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The united Orders were
abolished along with the other Royal Orders by an edict of the National
Assembly of 30 July 1791, promulgated in the name of the “King of the French”
and signed by the minister of Justice, who sealed it with the Great Seal. This
abolition was unrecognised by the exiled Count of Provence, the unfortunate
Louis XVI’s next brother and the Order’s last grand master and had no effect on
the canonical institution established in the bulls of 1608, even though for the
next twenty-three years it ceased to exist as a French institution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The handful of conferrals of the cross of the
Order by the Count of Provence, later Louis XVIII, while in exile, did not
follow the statutory requirements or forms of reception and do not provide
evidence that its constitution had been reformed. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
When rumours of the miserable
fate of Louis XVII, who had died on 8 June 1795 after some fifteen months of
solitary confinement in a small cell with no human contact, reached the exiled
Count of Provence he was at first unwilling to assume the royal prerogatives as
claimant to the crown. He did not begin awarding the Order of Saint Louis until
1807 and prior to the Restoration only made three awards of the Order of the
Holy Spirit, the first in 1810. The Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint
Lazarus of Jerusalem was a different case, however, as it had never been
awarded directly by the king but by a grand master whose authority derived
ultimately from Papal approval. Once his succession as king was confirmed and
he was proclaimed publicly as king, Louis XVIII became legal protector of the Order,
automatically relinquishing the grand mastership; there are no records of any
awards being made by him while in exile after 1803. Provence was proud of his
historic title of grand master of the United Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel
and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem (a splendid portrait from the 1780s attesting to
this may be seen in the Musée de la Légion d’Honneur), however, and he continued
to wear the breast cross of the Order until his death.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
After 1815 the Order had
no property to sustain it and most of the historic grand magistral insignia was
lost, while the officers of the Order required to examine the proofs of
candidates and carry out the protocol of investiture were unavailable during
Provence’s long exile. Louis was fully aware of this but seems to have used the
Order as an award of merit until he felt able to publicly assume the title of
king. It was by virtue of the Order’s statutes that he had enjoyed his grand magistral
authority and even as grand master he could not unilaterally amend them to
abolish the fundamental requirements for entry - Catholicism, eight quarterings
of nobility and a particular set of procedures for admission. Articles one, three,
eight, nine, and twelve of the 1757 statutes clearly lay out the requirements
for membership and admission, while article five expressly prohibited the grand
master from admitting knights of grace, founders of commanderies (who
previously were exempted from full proofs) and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Servans</i> [Serving Brothers]. Article six abolished the “family
commanderies” restricting their enjoyment to the founder at whose demise the
commandery would be dissolved and the property returned to the family which had
endowed it. One of the more ridiculous claims made by some “historians” of the
survival was that the descendants of the founders of such commanderies could
claim to have inherited some right to admission. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
A decree by the Count of
Provence of 1778 confirmed the minimum age of thirty for admission and that all
the one hundred (the maximum number of members), must profess the Roman Catholic
Apostolic faith, be born legitimate and able to prove eight quarterings of
nobility (article three of this decree). Furthermore, aside from the
ecclesiastical commanders, the members had to be serving or have served in the
military and reached the rank of army captain or ensign of vessel. This decree
created two classes of knights with additions to the decorations of the higher
rank - those who had reached the rank of colonel or ship’s captain were given
or promoted to the higher of the two classes. Commanderies would be awarded
according to rank and length of service, but anyone who gave up his military
career would no longer qualify for a commandery or any further promotion in the
Order. Aside from the privileges granted to students at the École militaire
this was the last legal decree concerning the united Orders and since then there
have been no legal amendments. Even if the Order had survived it is clear that
none of those presently claiming to be members could qualify as such under
these rules.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The purported admission
of non-Catholics by the Count of Provence in exile directly offended a founding
principle of the Order. This is why the only recipient of the cross in exile
listed in the post Restoration <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Almanach
Royal</i>, a Baron Dreisen <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(apparently
granted the cross at Mittau, where the grand master was living in exile in
1800), is described as a “knight of Honour”, the only one in this invented category.
There was no provision for knights of honour in the statutes so the grand master
must have devised this distinction as a way to honour individuals who had
helped him during his exile. The only other possible chivalric award for
non-Catholics in the gift of the crown was the “Institution of Military Merit”,
but this had also been abolished in the Revolution and, unlike Saint Louis, was
not awarded in exile.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The purported
award of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus to the Russian Emperor Alexander by the
exiled Provence was never included in any contemporary official or unofficial
lists of members of the united Orders nor, aside from Baron Dreisen, were the
names of any other non-Catholic knights allegedly given the cross (the only
record of these admissions can be found in secondary sources). After the
Restoration Alexander was accorded the Order of the Holy Spirit, as were other
European sovereigns.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
No documents have been
located in the French national archives that support the claims that the Order
maintained some quasi-clandestine existence after 1830. Indeed it is hard to
understand how any reputable historian could ignore the documentation which
proves beyond any doubt the decision to allow the Order to be extinguished with
the deaths of the remaining members. The Order’s statutes directly conflicted
with the Charter of 1814, effectively the French Restoration constitution, as
this prohibited any state institution from giving preference on the basis of
birth. Aside from Catholicity the most notable qualification for admission to
the Orders of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St Lazarus of Jerusalem was ancient
nobility, so to have appointed new members would have breached an important
clause of the Charter unless the nobiliary requirements were reformed. If an
attempt had been made after 1815 to restore the Order’s original properties
this would have given its many creditors an opportunity to claim against it,
aside from the legal complications that would have resulted from disputes with
the post Restoration ecclesiastical authorities and others who may have
acquired some of the Order’s benefices legally. There would have been a risk
that disputes over the Order’s indebtedness, which had caused considerable difficulties
in the 1780s, would have been a further problem facing a revived Order, even if
the nobiliary requirements had been eliminated. The king had a sentimental attachment
to the Order but his long exile had taught him the benefit of pragmatism and with
his restoration he had proved willing to accept most of the changes that had
transformed France in the previous quarter century. Most notably he had had
failed to appoint as successor to himself as Grand Master, a post which the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Almanach Royal</i> listed as vacant. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
No final decision concerning
the Order’s future was made during the first restoration in 1814; it was
already clear the difficulties its revival would have entailed were considerable
but there were more pressing matters for the crown to deal with. After
postponing any decision and declining all requests for admission, the king came
to realise that the only sensible course of action was to allow it to become permanently
extinct. Confusion has been caused by the inclusion in the list of members
published in the post-Restoration <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Almanach
Royal</i> of names indicated by an interlaced ML who had not been admitted to
membership before 1788. The individuals listed probably submitted these names
to the editor themselves and only appeared in one or two editions of the
Almanach before being removed. Meanwhile the names of some members who had
survived the revolution and Napoleonic wars and who had been admitted as knights
before 1788 were omitted. The Almanach cannot therefore be considered a
reliable indicator of the surviving membership after 1814. Similar errors were
also made in rolls of the Legion of Honour and Saint Louis; the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Almanach</i> was a private publication
licensed by the crown and not of itself an official record. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
Petitions by two French Catholic
knights given the cross by Louis XVIII in exile have been located in the national
archives and letters from the grand marshal of the court survive according them
permission to wear the cross; both letters date before the hundred days. A
series of requests for admission in the period from 1815 to 1820, however, were
met with explicit refusals and the response that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the King has not made known his intentions relative to the two Orders</i>”
(9 April 1816), to “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the King has
postponed any nominations</i>” (27 May 1817). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a knight of the Order, Charles de Valory
(received in 1767), wrote asking to be promoted to commander, he received the
reply “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the King has not until now manifested
the intention of making any nomination or promotion in this Order</i>”. In 1822
when a request was directed to the minister of the King, the minister referred
the matter to the grand chancellor of the Legion of Honour as to the Order’s
status; the latter responded that it was not his responsibility. A subsequent
note from the minister of the King dated 31 October 1822 stated that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">HM since re-entering his states has done
nothing regarding this Order</i>”. By the following year a clearer policy had
been devised, the Minister stating on 31 August 1823 that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Order in which you wish to enter is no longer conferred</i>”. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
On 5 May 1824, the Grand
Chancellor of the Legion of Honour issued a statement on Orders, which could be
worn and which were to be suppressed, including a list of “pretended” Orders.
Of the French Royal Orders, each was listed in a brief mini-paragraph
identifying the government department which dealt with it. The paragraph on the
“Orders of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem and Our Lady of Mount Carmel united” came
last among the recognised Orders, with the statement that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">this last has not been awarded since 1788 and is to be allowed to
become extinct</i>”. The suggestion that “this last” meant just Our Lady of
Mount Carmel and not Saint Lazarus only makes sense if one ignores the fact
that each Royal Order had its own separate paragraph. Saint Lazarus and Our
Lady of Mount Carmel, however, were included as one institution, in the same section
and paragraph. This supposed separation of the two Orders is the shallow
foundation on which some have proposed that the Grand Chancellor intended to
allow Saint Lazarus to survive, while bringing the life of the Mount Carmel to
an end, as if they were separate institutions.</div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
This was not the end of
the matter, however, and further official statements regarding the fate of
these Orders make it clear that there was no surviving rump. On 31 August 1824
a letter from the royal household in answer to a further enquiry states “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Order of Saint Lazarus is no longer conferred</i>”
while on 12 March 1825 the minister of the royal household wrote “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Order of St Lazarus although tolerated
by the ordonnance of the 16 April 1824, is designated in the instructions that
followed, as an Order that has not been conferred since 1788 and is to be left
to become extinct</i>.” </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
Louis XVIII died on 16
September 1824, when he was succeeded as king by his brother, the Count of
Artois, as Charles X, whose style of “Protector” of the Order was included
among his grand titles and in the listing in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Almanach Royal</i>. The instructions given by the Marquis de Dreux-Brézé,
grand master of ceremonies of France in the protocols for the King’s funeral
required that the collar of St Lazarus be placed among the King’s other
decorations, with the notation “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">This
Order of which the late King, when Monsieur, was grand master has not been
preserved.</i>” The following year in response to yet another request for
admission to the Order, the minister of the new King replied on 12 March, 1825,
that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Order of Saint Lazarus…is
designated in the instruction that followed (in the 1824 ordinance) as an Order
which has not been conferred since 1788 and which will be left to become
extinct</i>”. The last such petition in the archives was submitted in 1826, but
this time was ignored without any response. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
That the various
statements regarding the Order written after the Grand Chancellor’s decree make
mention specifically of Saint Lazarus, the conventional short form for the
united Orders, must put paid to any suggestions that it had been the crown’s
intention to allow Saint Lazarus to continue while abolishing Mount
Carmel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were no secret or unpublished
nominations to a separated Order of Saint Lazarus, as the advocates of the
modern survival propose. Modern “historians” of the Order would seem to have deliberately
ignored the official statements issued after 1824 since they render wholly
implausible the proposition that the 1824 decree only referred to Mount Carmel.
<o:p></o:p></div>
Supporters of the
“survival” thesis list names of knights supposedly admitted to the Order,
citing as authority the book by the late Guy Coutant “de Saisseval” who for
long held high office in the Order – he in turn repeated similar claims by
Bertrand “de la Grassière” another senior officer of the revived Order. Neither
of these gentlemen based their claim on any documents that can be identified in
public or private archives. The claim that there were knights admitted either
according to the proper forms or by any other means after 1815 must be entirely
rejected. This is an invention designed to perpetuate the fiction that the
various bodies today styling themselves “Order of St Lazarus” are a legitimate continuation
of the Crusader era Order united in 1608 with the Order of our Lady of Mount
Carmel and then supposedly separated therefrom after 1815. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
There is also no contemporary
documentary evidence to support the suggestion that the council of the Order,
acting in direct contravention of the wishes of the king and the instructions
of the grand chancellor of the Legion of Honour, assumed for itself the right
to admit or nominate anyone to membership in either the united Orders, or Saint
Lazarus alone. Even had the council attempted to do so, such actions were beyond
its authority under the statutes and no such nominations would have been
legitimate. Such a suggestion is as improbable as a British body purporting to
act as the legitimate continuum of the Order of St Patrick, awarding knighthoods
and conferring the Order’s collar after Irish independence. <o:p></o:p></div>
A prohibition was imposed
on wearing the cross by the government of Louis-Philippe in an act of 10 February
1831; although this was a usurpation of the powers of the exiled Charles X,
neither he nor his successors as head of the Royal House of France attempted to
revive, or approve the revival, of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and
Saint Lazarus before its canonical extinction. The last surviving member
admitted and received before the Revolution, Antoine-François de Charry des
Gouttes, Marquis des Gouttes, died in 1856 at the age of one hundred and three.
By the provisions of canon law an Order becomes extinct one hundred years after
the death of its last member; any possibility of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and
Saint Lazarus being revived either together or separately under the provisions
of canon law ceased on 31 December 1956. French law has been clear on the
matter of the Order’s extinction for one hundred and ninety-one years. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The supporters of the
modern revival state that in 1841 the surviving knights persuaded Maximos III,
then Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, when visiting Paris, to assume the role of protector
of the Order. If there is any contemporary documentary evidence of this, it has
never been produced. The office of Patriarch Maximos V ignored a request for further
elucidation on this point and a letter directed to one of the senior Melchite
prelates who specialised in the history of the patriarchate did not even
receive an acknowledgement. It has been claimed that the records of the patriarchate
concerning the alleged protection given to the Order were destroyed in a fire,
but none of the purported nineteenth century members of the Order appear to
have left written record of any involvement with the patriarchate. Proponents
of the supposed survival of the “Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem”
make similar claims to lost archives and secret admissions - <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>no serious historian can give credence to such
arguments. That there should be no surviving record in France or the Lebanon of
any diplomas or of meetings of the Order’s officers or council seems to stretch
the bounds of credibility. Without such written record these claims must be
considered to be unsubstantiated at the very least and more probably as
twentieth century inventions. Although the proponents of the modern foundation
state that the Patriarch has confirmed the patronage accorded to the Order in
1841, since such affirmation can only be made on the basis of documentary evidence
available to the Patriarch one can only speculate why this evidence has never been
published? </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The Patriarchs are not
sovereigns, or even claimants to sovereignty, so lack the authority to found or
give their protection to Orders of Chivalry, particularly since the Melchite
Church was in communion with Rome and the Patriarch subordinate to the See of
Saint Peter. The Patriarch had already been instructed to break off an
association with another dubious “chivalric” body in the 1930s so it is evident
that the Pope considered the Patriarch’s authority in such matters subordinate
to the Holy See. The limited civil jurisdiction granted to certain Patriarchs
by the Turkish Sultan did not include the right to found or protect Christian
Orders of Chivalry nor were such powers enjoyed by the more powerful Ottoman provincial
governors. The recently founded Patriarchal “Orders” awarded by several
Patriarchs of the both the Latin and Greek Churches are church awards but
nothing more; they are certainly not comparable to other military or state
decorations or any Orders of Chivalry, however they were designated by their founders,
and no European state recognises them as such. <o:p></o:p></div>
In 1930 the then
Patriarch, Cyrill IX was reported in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">La
Croix</i> as having withdrawn his patronage of Saint Lazarus because it was
neither officially recognised by the French Government nor the Holy See. The
Melchite Patriarchs were subsequently persuaded to restore their protection and
their nominal connection with one of the branches of the present foundation has
been preserved – the Patriarchate has benefited from this association as some
donations have been made to charities and groups with which it is associated.
The Holy See, however, has repeatedly refused to recognise the modern revival, and
has not changed its stance since explicitly condemning the Order in a lengthy declaration
published in 1935, repeated on 21 March 1953, both of which were published in
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Osservatore Romano</i>.<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Orders,%20other/St%20Lazarus%20-%20questionable%20survival.docx" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> The Holy See had taken no
interest in the historical Order since its abolition in the revolution, as the
kings of France did not attempt its revival. Even though canonical extinction
did not actually become final until 1956 the author of the 1935 decree no doubt
assumed that an Order whose last legitimate admission was made almost one
hundred and fifty years earlier must surely be extinct. The precise date of
extinction does not diminish the effect of the Holy See’s condemnation of the
Order. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
Two recent advocates for
survival have proposed that the Emperor Napoleon III may have somehow enjoyed
the prerogative to legitimise the Order – but this is no more reasonable than
attributing the same authority to President François Hollande. One of the
peculiarities of the constitution of the French Republic is that the president
still enjoys some of the authority once held by the French kings; but it is
ridiculous to suggest that anyone other than a reigning King of France could
have exercised the authority delegated by the Pope in 1608. The proposition
that the Melchite Patriarch could somehow assume an authority attributed by
Papal authority to the French king is likewise baseless – why the Melchite
Patriarch and not some other Metropolitan?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The 1910 revival was the
work of enterprising business men joined with some rather pitiful fantasists
who went along with the newly invented history. The precise involvement of the
Patriarch and what he agreed at this time is hard to determine. In any case this
first effort at revival petered out during the First World War and it was not
until 1928 that Order of Saint Lazarus was once more brought to life. The
“election” of General D. Francisco de Borbón y Borbón, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">suo uxoris</i> Duke of Seville in 1935 brought some respectability but
this otherwise notable figure was neither then nor ever a “Royal Highness.” The
general’s request of King Alfonso XIII to allow him this title was explicitly refused,
although he was later honoured with the Order of the Golden Fleece. This
assumption of the royal style was without merit or legitimacy – the first Duke
of Seville and his descendants had been deprived of their titles and
prerogatives as members of the Spanish royal house because of his morganatic
marriage. The Seville branch, while holding various noble titles had no right
to any royal titles or styles nor to the throne. Even if they had not been so
deprived, the laws of the Spanish royal house limit the title of Royal Highness
and Infante to the children of the sovereign and of the Prince of Asturias; any
other descendant had to be individually granted the title. Only after the
marriage of Alfonso XIII in 1906 did the King extend the title of Prince and
Royal Highness to members of the royal family who were not Infantes; but in
each case on an individual basis in a decree countersigned by the president of
the council of ministers. The attribution of the title of Royal Highness by the
Spanish branch of Saint Lazarus is designed to elevate the status of their former
Grand Master - but the members of this line have no more right to this style
than the distinguished authors of the article in the journal of the Scottish
Heraldry Society which recently advocated the legitimacy of this revival. <o:p></o:p></div>
As for Lt Colonel (in the
education corps) Robert Gayre, the founder of Clan Gayre, his involvement led
to one notable change – the definitive abandonment of any pretence that this
remained an exclusively Roman Catholic institution. Gayre himself, a member of
the Scottish Episcopalian church claimed that as such he was “Catholic” but he
would hardly have been recognised as such by the seventeenth and eighteenth
century Popes who had granted the historic Order various privileges. In any
case the Order’s last legal statutes required that all members profess the
“religion catholique, apostolique et romaine” which is irreconcilable with the
thirty-nine articles of the Church of England and Scottish Episcopalian church.
Having purchased the feudal barony of Lochoreshire, Gayre then established the
“commandery of Lochore” and, astonishingly, the then Lyon King matriculated
arms for this body as well as other subsidiary organisations of the Order.
Since the authority of Lord Lyon does not extend to recognising Orders of Knighthood,
a prerogative retained by the Crown and neither delegated to the London nor
Edinburgh officers of arms, these matriculations have no value as “recognition”
of the legitimacy of the modern revival as an Order of Chivalry. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
The recent Vatican
statement of 16 October 2012 declaring that only the Orders of Malta and the
Holy Sepulchre can hold investitures and ceremonies in Catholic churches has
caused some confusion among the Catholic hierarchy as well as the laity. This
repeats the text of a statement issued earlier that year by the Italian
conference of bishops – the latter, however, had included a very specific
exception, excluding from the prohibition those Orders recognised as
“Non-National Orders” by law 178 of 1951 (which also established the Order of
Merit of the Italian Republic). The latter included those Orders defined as
dynastic or family awards of the dynasties formerly ruling in Italy, but not
those of the House of Savoy. Since none of the revived Orders of Saint Lazarus
are recognised under law 178, the prohibition against the Order celebrating
investitures or holding ceremonies in any Catholic Church must be considered
definitive even if, in practice, it has been ignored by some senior members of
the Catholic hierarchy who have unwisely associated themselves with this body. The
Order has also been condemned by successive grand chancellors of the Order of
the Legion of Honour who have demanded that members of Saint Lazarus do not
wear insignia in France that imitates that of a chivalric Order. </div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
Those who adhere to the
Borbón-Seville faction of the revived Order must inevitably deny the legitimacy
of a competing Order headed now by a cousin of the Count of Paris, Count
Dobrzensky, and formerly under the grand mastership of a junior Orléans prince
(styled “Duc d’Anjou”). This group is no more legitimate than the so-called
Seville obedience but was assisted in its claim by the imprudent decision of
the Count of Paris to accord the Order his “protection”. One might speculate as
to what this “protection” is actually worth but those who believe that
authority rested with the king of France and his successors may consider that the
Count of Paris, as one of the two claimants to the headship of the House of
France, could better claim to represent the historic protectors than the
Melchite Patriarch. Since the Order had even ceased to exist in canon law, however,
one cannot give any more worth to the Count of Paris’s claim to protect it than
that of any other person who might feel the urge to found an “Order”. One
British based group has done precisely that, using the same nomenclature and
insignia but maintaining that their group is indeed a modern revival, with no
links other than its name to the historic institution, now as extinct as the
dinosaurs.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; text-align: left;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/Orders,%20other/St%20Lazarus%20-%20questionable%20survival.docx" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-ansi-language: IT;"> </span><span lang="IT" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: IT;">Condemnation of the Order of Saint Lazarus by the Holy See, Osservatore
Romano of 15/16 April 1935: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Da tempo
viene svolta attività intesa a far rivivere e ad introdurre in Italia l'Ordine
Militare ed Ospedaliero di San Lazzaro ramo di Boigny, sia con l'offerta di
onorificenze dell'Ordine per cavalieri e signore, sia con articoli diretti a
sostenere l'esistenza dell'Ordine quale ramo francese dell’ antico Ordine di
San Lazzaro di Gerusalemme, il cui ramo italiano venne fuso nel 1572 con
l'Ordine di San Maurizio. Poiché l'Ordine di San Lazzaro di Boigny, non
soltanto non è riconosciuto in Italia, ma risulta, anzi, definitivamente
soppresso, per lo meno sin dal 1608, ad opera del Pontefice Paolo V e del Re
Enrico IV, l'azione suindicata deve ritenersi illegale e sono state, pertanto,
impartite le necessarie istruzioni perché sia fatta cessare, procedendo, ove
occorra, nei confronti dei responsabili, ai sensi di legge. Abbiamo già più
volte avuto occasione di accennare alla fioritura di pseudo-Ordini
Cavallereschi, che si è notata in questi ultimi tempi in Italia e fuori.
Qualunque sia la denominazione assunta da questi cosiddetti Ordini (S. Giorgio
di Miolans o del Belgio, S. Maria di Nazareth, S. Maria di Bethlem, S. Lazzaro,
e simili), si tratta sempre di riesumazioni di antichi Ordini Cavallereschi,
che sono completamente estinti, fatte da persone private le quali svolgono
generalmente un'azione intensa, che finisce col sorprendere la buona fede di
moltissimi, che non possono valutare al giusto pulito queste iniziative
sprovviste di ogni legittimità. Il fenomeno è tanto più grave se si considera
che queste iniziative, essendo poste abilmente sotto titoli di Istituzioni
religiose storiche, per il più delle persone, anzichè private - come sono in
realtà - possono apparire sotto l'egida della Chiesa e della Santa Sede. Non
tutti sono tenuti a sapere che gli antichi Ordini Cavallereschi erano dei veri
e propri Ordini Religiosi, dipendenti dall'Autorità Ecclesiastica, come ogni
altro Ordine religioso, e costituiti da professi che emettevano i voti sacri
prescritti dalle Regole, e godevano i redditi dei benefici ecclesiastici di cui
erano investiti. Ma questi antichi Ordini non hanno di comune se non il loro
antico titolo (quando questo è stato conservato) con le moderne decorazioni
Equestri, le quali per una completa trasformazione giuridica del primitivo
istituito possono sussistere in quanto un Sovrano o Capo di Stato nei limiti
della propria giurisdizione dia ad esse la legittima consistenza civile. Nulla
di tutto questo nel preteso Ordine di S. Lazzaro. Sotto tale denominazione
canonicamente per la Santa Sede non esiste più alcun Ordine da vari secoli. Lo
aveva infatti già soppresso e incorporato all'Ordine di S. Giovanni (attuale
Ordine di Malta) sin dal secolo decimo quinto; poi nel secolo decimo sesto,
dopo una parziale e temporanea resurrezione, lo soppresse nuovamente come ente
a sè, e lo incorporò all'Ordine di S. Maurizio (anno 1572), dando origine così
all'attuale Ordine dei Ss. Maurizio e Lazzaro. A causa poi delle ardenti
questioni politiche del tempo in Francia, non ostante le tassative disposizioni
della Santa Sede, la casa priorale di Boigny, col relativo godimento di
benefici ecclesiastici, riuscì a mantenersi in vita in forza esclusiva di
decreti dell'autorità regia e civile. Come si vede era una posizione tutt’
altro che canonica e regolare per un Ordine religioso, sia pure, cavalleresco!
Ma poi quando nel 1608 il Re di Francia Enrico IV, ad eliminare le continue
difficoltà che sorgevano a questo proposito, ottenne dal Pontefice Paolo V il
riconoscimento del nuovo Ordine di Nostra Signora del Monte Carmelo, attribuì a
questo nuovo Ordine i beni, le case e le persone, che nei confini dei suoi
Stati avevano già appartenuto all'Ordine di S. Lazzaro. Da ciò è avvenuto che
in Francia sino alla Rivoluzione sia esistito un Ordine Cavalleresco che veniva
chiamato cumulativamente di Nostra Signora del Carmela e di S.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lazzaro; mentre tale Ordine per la Santa Sede
e per la Curia Romana era<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>soltanto
l'Ordine di Nostra Signora del Monte Carmelo. Ognuno comprende su quali labili
arene sia stato costruito l'edificio del preteso Ordine di S.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lazzaro, oggetto del comunicato surriferito;
e come siano destituiti di fondamento e di realtà i titoli di Cavalieri,
Commendatori ecc. (per i laici) di Monsignori (per gli ecclesiastici) che si
attribuiscono coloro che vengono ascritti sia ad esso, come a qualunque altro
dei pretesi Ordini sopra accennati</i>”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-750993745679817469.post-64111232574212534562015-09-07T23:19:00.002+02:002015-09-07T23:19:11.961+02:00THE ORDER OF SAINT JOSEPH - AN AUSTRIAN USURPATION OF THE TUSCAN ORDER<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
The recent appearance of a self-styled Order of Saint Joseph (<a href="http://www.josephsorden.org/">http://www.josephsorden.org/</a>) that has assumed the name and badge of the Order of Saint Joseph and of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany is the latest addition to the ranks of self-styled Orders. This Order does not actually pretend to be the Tuscan Order but claims a separate origin as a revival of the Order of Saint Joseph founded for the Burghers of the small imperial city of Friedberg, Hesse which was governed as an immediate state of the Holy Roman Empire with direct representation in the Imperial Diet. This Order was established by Emperor Joseph II as Grand Master on 6 November 1768 with the Burggraf (Imperial governor) as Grand Prior, and the Burgmannen (the equivalent of a patriciate) as knights. It ceased to exist with the dissolution of the Empire and the incorporation of Friedberg into the newly established Grand Duchy of Hesse. The first Grand Prior and Burggraf was Franz Heinrich von Dalberg (1716-1776) whose eldest son Karl Theodor von Dalberg became Prince-Primate of the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans, Grand Duke of Frankfurt and a leading political figure in the Napoleonic period. His second son, Wilhelm-Heribert, was father of Emmerich Joseph von Dalberg, grandfather of the English statesman Lord Acton. Dalberg was succeeded as Grand Prior by Count Johann von Waldbott von und zu Bassenheim (1777-1805) and then by Count Clemens August von Westphalen (1805 until his death in 1818). There were no new appointments to the Order after 1806 and it expired with the death of the last of its members.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The badge of this Order was <span class="hps">a gold</span><span>,</span> <span class="hps">eight-pointed</span> <span class="hps">cross with a</span> <span class="hps">white enamel</span> <span class="hps">border</span><span> and </span><span>the</span> <span class="hps">imperial</span> <span class="hps">double-headed eagle</span> <span class="hps">with </span><span class="hps">the</span> <span class="hps">imperial crown</span> <span class="hps">above placed over the cross with the name</span> <span class="hps">Saint Joseph</span> on the eagle's breast surrounded by <span class="hps">the inscription</span><span>:</span> <em><span class="hps">Virtutis</span> <span class="hps">avitae</span> <span class="hps">Aemuli</span></em> <span class="hps atn">(</span><span>imitator</span> <span class="hps">of ancestral</span> <span class="hps">virtue</span><span>)</span><span>.</span> <span class="hps">The reverse of </span><span class="hps">the cross was</span> in <span class="hps">blue enamel with</span> a <span class="hps">white border and inscribed in the centre </span><span class="hps">in gold letters</span> was <em><span class="hps">Imperatoris</span> <span class="hps">auspiciis</span> <span class="hps">Lege</span> <span class="hps">Imperii</span> <span class="hps">conservamur</span></em> <span class="hps atn">(The imperial laws are protected by the </span><span class="hps">emperor's</span> <span class="hps">shield) suspended from a sky blue ribbon with a narrow dark blue border. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It is somewhat surprising, therefore, to learn that in 2011 a group of Austrians, refreshingly for a self-styled Order eschewing any pretension to nobility, decided that they had the authority to autonomously revive this Order and begin conferring it some two centuries after the reception of the last knight. This new body, while stating that its religious ceremonies will be celebrated according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, will accept members of any faith. Its aims are modest but worthy, citing support for the Christian tradition, community and dialogue. Nonetheless the Order evidently has greater aspirations conferring the title of "Grand Master" on its head, Mr Jochen Ressel and the grandiose (and rather pretentious) title of "Senator" on the three principal members of the "Grand Chapter" (the other two being the Secretary, Markus Kappel, and the Chamberlain (Kammerer) Reinhold Szakasits. There are three other members of the grand chapter are a lady, Margarete Krits-Zwittkowits, president of the Austrian Association, a Proconsul and the "Vorstand des Senats der Wirtschaft" (Board member of the Economics Senate). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There are apparently four categories of members: knights of Justice, Benefactor knights and Honorary knights and finally Dignitaries. The Order has periodic meetings, an annual investiture ceremony and a requirement to pay dues. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Order is based in Vienna and makes no pretension to any connection with the city of Friedberg, Hessen, where the original Order was founded, nor the House of Habsburg, other than claiming both as the basis for its historical existence and revival under this name . This body cannot in reality claim to be anything more than a society of individuals dedicated to a common purpose but who have adopted the external symbols of a chivalric Order. Whatever their intentions, these worthy people have no legal authority to found or revive the Order of Saint Joseph and, in particular, none whatsoever in assuming the name and badge of a genuine Order which is part of the patrimony of the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany and is authorised by the Italian government. The badge of the Tuscan Order, which it has illicitly imitated (the only difference, on close examination, being the substitution of the inscription <em><span class="hps">Virtutis</span> <span class="hps">avitae</span> <span class="hps">Aemuli</span></em> for the inscription on the Tuscan cross, <em>Ubique similis) </em>bears no resemblance whatsoever to the badge of the original Order founded for the burghers of Friedberg. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
These worthies have caused grave offence to the Archduke Sigismund and the officers and members of the Order of Saint Joseph by assuming a name and badge to which they have no right. There will no doubt be legal consequences. </div>
<div class="paragraph_style_3">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Turcopilierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09095797787821053323noreply@blogger.com0