Genealogy * Hermeneutics * Genetics * Philosophy * Anthropology * Shamanism * History * Esoterics * Myth * Mysticism
DRAGON SOVEREIGNTY
I am the Hermetic King resurrected from the sepulcher of
the Nigredo. My fire has been drawn out of the darkness;
purified and exalted. My expansive fire is Solar by nature and
I am called the Son of the Sun. I am the purified and exalted
fire of your soul. I am the solar radiance of your consciousness
and the true Gold of the philosophers. Blessed are they who
have assimilated the inner most nature of this most adorable Fire!
the Nigredo. My fire has been drawn out of the darkness;
purified and exalted. My expansive fire is Solar by nature and
I am called the Son of the Sun. I am the purified and exalted
fire of your soul. I am the solar radiance of your consciousness
and the true Gold of the philosophers. Blessed are they who
have assimilated the inner most nature of this most adorable Fire!
Press Release, 3/9/2011
Setting the Record Straight Once & for All
Dragon Sovereign of Grand Duchy von Drakenberg (IRDC),
an Incorporeal Sovereign Nation-State
PRESS RELEASE, 3/9/2011, Wales.
THE HOUSE OF OUR FLESH
by Nicholas de Vere and Iona Miller,
Drakenberg Museum & Galleries
The wisdom of the alchemists claims that all life is fire, the soul of things. The light that emanates from it is our mercury and this all rises from the salt of the earth. No family is 'saltier,' -- physically, tangibly manifest -- than that of the ancient and royal Dragon bloodline. That is to say, their claims are far older and more legitimate than many contenders would dare to admit. The self-rooted nobility of the Dragon Family remains inextinguishable.
"Blood Right" is the Strongest Law
The incorporeal Nation-State of the Grand Duchy von Drakenberg is the "House of Our Flesh." Even mistranslations and misinterpretations of Sumerian cuneiform texts cannot keep the Dragons from their rightful heritage, their own Dragon Voice, and the practice of their own esoteric traditions. The Dragon line traces its roots through the Anunnaki into the Steppes of Central Asia. Current finds place Mesopotamian civilizations further down the timeline of outstanding human accomplishments, as the civilizing event horizon of mankind recedes into the paleolithic.
The dragon clan fades into the mists of pre-history in Central Asia, but that curtain is being pushed further and further back by archaeological finds at Gobekli Tepe (the oldest known temple in the world, predating Stonehenge by 7,000 years), the Bosnian Pyramids, the Arkaim observatory, and the lost Khazar capital of Itil. New observations and intepretations are also coming from digs in Basque country, the former western Glacial Refugia prior to the Glacial melt, the global flood, roughly 13,000 - 10,000 years ago. In the pre-diluvial Doggerland era, Britain was still connected via land bridge to the European continent. http://drakenberg.weebly.com/sacred-history.html
The Imperial and Royal Dragon Court is the ancient Household Court and Order of the senior Angevin descendants of the Imperial and Royal House of Vere of Caledonia, Anjou and Lorraine, and the physical embodiment of the Sovereign Princedom of Drakenberg, which is recognised under European Law as a sovereign ethnic racial group. Scientific evidence of the Dragon family traditions mounts daily. The dragon is calling its own home from the global Diaspora.
Documentation by GENEalogy
Books from the Imperial & Royal Dragon Court, including THE DRAGON LEGACY and THE DRAGON CEDE have raised awareness of the Ancient Source Family and its ancient and honorable culture. Thus, many have been led to examine their own ancestry for "dragon tracks," which are largely rooted in medieval times.
Heirs to this legacy are descended primarily from the lines of Clovis, Fulk-Melusine, Anglo-Norman royalty, and the Ashina Royal bloodline, which share a link to Davidic/Solomonic/Levite lines. Though western and eastern dragon cultures mixed during the era of the Crusades, there were many marriage bridges among the royals of Eurasia for ages preceeding medieval adventures. Based on the dragon tradition, to find de Veres and other related nobles in one's family lines means one embodies the dragon memories -- the royal seership -- in one's blood.
Though the Court has repeated its bona fides against spurious attacks, it sometimes becomes necessary to take a Templar's razor to the accusations of those who know not whereof they speak, basing misapprehensions on internet fables, limited genealogical understanding and ignorance of the new science of DNA genealogy, rather than legally-determined facts and legitimate recognition and alliances with families of known repute. The Dragon Court is well aware that arguably there are pretenders to many thrones that arise from time to time, but it does not count itself among them.
As Prince Nicholas notes, the Vere dynasty was established by name in 400 BCE. We are the oldest and most senior Royal Dynasty in Eurasia. Our name is Old Avestan (eastern Scythian-Aryan) Sanskrit. It means High Kings.
A) my ancestors never abdicated anything,
B) I am a descendant of the Blood Royal in both the maternal and paternal lineages and so therefore I am of Royal Blood, and I am head of my House.
Lastly, I have a fons honorum. This right is evidenced in the inclusion in Stephen Bourne's UK Passport, of the title I gave him "The Lord Stephen Bourne". Such a fons honorum would not have been accepted by the National Policy unit, if I had merely changed my name to include "prince" in it. For example, they thoroughly investigated the letters I sent to Stephen Bourne and they allowed him his title.
I am LEGALLY recognised as an Imperial Prince, and my passport and numerous other Government Identity documents prove it. I have an acknowledged Fons Honorum and Sovereign Status in European law. This means that if I bestow my Arms Differenced for anyone I welcome as a Vere Noble, there is nothing legal, moral or legitimate that anyone can say or do about it. As one Dragon Court member claims, "Yes I am a Vere Noble. I am also a Prince of the Ashina/Khazar Empire This is based on scientific fact, by DNA done by two different organizations on history and various other means. My wife has a direct unbroken female line to Princess Bertrada the Ancient of PRUM of the MEROVINGIANS."
Other members of the Dragon Court willingly demonstrate their own lineage and claims with DNA results as well as conventional genealogy. Kaaron Mitchell de Vere of Australia attests, "I am his (Prince Nicholas's) direct cousin and can demonstrate many of the same lineages as him. I am a Vere Noble. I can trace all 4 of my grandparents' bloodlines back via DNA through English, Scottish, Welsh nobility and royalty through the Merovingian to the Dal Riadan Kings, back to the Egyptian Pharoah Tutankhamun." Recent discoveries do, in fact, verify that Tut and the whole monotheistic Amarna group is of the royal dynastic bloodline R1b1b2, the same rare haplotype demonstrable in this Weir/Mitchell family. R1b1b2 is quite rare in modern Egypt (2% of the population). http://drakenberg.weebly.com/egypt.html
The dragon is the Bestea Neptuni, the sea serpent, in Egypt was Sobek the Pharaoh was anointed in the crocodile´s fat, in Babylon Marduk and in India Makara, carrier of the philosopher stone, our blue jewel which still runs diluted on our Merovaeus bloodlines which run on our veins.
The Dragon Court is a collective of European Royalty and Nobility working together. No, it ISN'T an old Hungarian Order. There NEVER WAS an "ORDER of the Dragon". IT WAS A ROYAL SOCIETY -- A COURT, not an Order. Ordo Draconis is an invention -- Societas Draconis.
False Accusations
Claims of "esoteric fantasy" are lodged against the current Dragon Court by those who imagine they know our story. Further, many genealogists are ignorant of the relatively new DNA genealogical findings on deep ancestry, much less Central Asian history and other relevant subjects. " I (NDV) have been researching and studying my given subjects for forty years now. I am an acknowledged Research Historian, Etymologist, Symbologist, Mythologist, Social dissenter, libertarian and a political and spiritual activist. My books are read worldwide and all my royalties are given to charity."
I never submitted a statutory declaration of a change of name to the passport office or anyone else. The Policy Unit of the UK Passport Office, the final arbiter in matters of royal and noble title for the purposes of establishing correct identity, examined my application and recognised that mine was a foreign royal title. They then entered it correctly in the Observations Page.
If I had changed my name by any form of Deed or Declaration, then my title would not be a title, but a name, and as such, it would appear AS PART OF MY NAME, on the personal details page, with my photograph, at the rear of my passport. If you have a peek, you will see that it does NOT. http://drakenberg.weebly.com/devere-lineage.html
False accusers might also consider that the note in the bottom left hand page of my application clearly indicates they accept that mine is a foreign title. Otherwise, it would have said in the Policy Unit footnotes on my application, that I had changed my name by Deed or Declaration to include the NAME "Prince".
I am not making money out of "false claims". But I know damn well that self-styled heralds don't give away heraldic licenses out of the kindness of their hearts, for free. They have built their personas and lives around their paltry "authority," often creating a false personality or social mask from the resulting self-referenced narcissism, rather than legitimate accomplishment.
I charge nothing, and I am living in less of a fantasy world than those currently concocting fraudulent titles from modern societies. Any titles (including all British titles of Peerage) granted by Papal Decree or by Napolean from the Donation of Constantine is just fraudulent esoteric fantasy, as can be easily demonstrated.
The only estoric fantasy is the donation of Constantine. Do you want me to spell out the impact of the Donation of Constantine? Okay. (SEE COMPLETE REFERENCE BELOW from <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html>
The Roman Church forged a document, a hundred years after the death of Constantine, saying he allegedly gave the Church the divine right to annoint Kings. There have been no legitimate kings in Europe for over a thousand years. No king crowned, or Prince anointed by the stench of Papist or Reformist Oleum Infame, has ever truly reigned. So there have been no legitimate Nobiliary or Heraldic creations either. Christian Monarchs, including the Windsors, have no legitimate right to reign, rule or govern, and so every piece of filthy tat, every ridiculous title they bestow or lend their names to, is fraudulent and illegal.
That said, we have no personal aspirations to the Throne. Faith in delusions is misplaced and no substitute for knowledge, much less gnosis.
To continue, Mr. Lucki states (3/16/11) in David's Facebook Profile Photograph Album that I changed my name and added a title to it, in order to make it appear that I am a Prince. Yes, I did make a Statutory Declaration. Absolutely. And this Declaration was the preamble, the frontispiece, to a 30 page document confirming, not to the Passport office, but to the public; my Sovereign right to hold the Dragon Court. By doing so, the intention on my part was to make a legally binding document which any interested party might challenge under British Law.
- Nicholas von Drakenberg You are all free to inspect this preamble yourself. The complete Statutory Declaration runs throughout the entire document and is signed and sealed by me, and by the Court officer in Sussex UK, page by page, and sworn before a Justice of that Court. In NO part of this document is there any declaration made by me concerning a change of name.
- Nicholas von Drakenberg At
the top of the page the document's intention and direction is clearly
set forth. In the paragraph proceeding, I clearly state my name and
title, and its Warrant of ratification. Having established my
identity and rank then, and only then, do I proceed to swear the
content of the document: AFTER stating Name and Rank. In
consequence, it is plain for all to see that I HAVE NOT made a
Statutory Declaration of a change of name to include a title. I swear
the Statutory Declaration AS The Prince de Vere, NOT to BECOME the
Prince de Vere.
Having done this on the first page of the Sovereignty Document, it would be rather pointless to then Swear a Statutory Declaration of a change of name in any subsequent part of that Document. And I didn't.
In November 1996 I had no intention of applying for a passport. I did not envisage having to leave the country for any reason. However, in the following year, it appeared probable that I would have to travel abroad. Consequently I applied and also requested that my title be included.
They asked for documentary evidence that I had right to title, I shrugged my shoulders and sent them the Sovereignty Document. Several weeks later, interspersed with a few phone calls from Mrs. Prowse at the Newport the passport office, and my Passport turned up in the post with my title, indicated as a foreign title, on the observations page.
AS A TITLE, Mr. Lucki, not as a "fantasy stage name". Fancy changing one's name to "Prince". You would sound like a German Shepherd Dog. "Here Puppy! Good boy!"
Al this can get rather tedious. However, it appears that with the level of ignorance that is rife within the so-called "Nobiliary" community, one has to repeat onesself over and over again and spoon feed these characters with the facts, because they appear incapable of any form of rudimentary research. - Nicholas von Drakenberg Ridiculously
and contradictarily enough, a British Peer's title is also his name, so
all that a patent of Nobility is an undeserving peasant getting
a Deed of Name change for being the lackey of some transient Prime
Ministerial incumbent. The damn thing doesn't even come from the monarch.
In fact all it is, is a glorified Statutory Declaration, issued by the toadying cretins at the College of Arms, at the behest of an individual with no personal fons honorum. The monarch doesn't even have the power of veto so, to all legal intents and purposes she has abdicated her power of fons honorum, which isn't held legally by the issuing Premier either.
So, in consequence I would rather have my title, than have a worthless piece of tastelessly calligraphied and decorated toilet roll with no fons honorum to back it up at all. Worth a thought, eh? No constitutional argument can shake the fact that British titles of Peerage are questionable anyway, due to the howling fraud of the Donation of Constantine. - Nicholas von Drakenberg Last
question...at what point in history did the Imperial and Royal, Holy
Blood of the House of Vere turn, in fact, to Strawberry Jam? At what stage does royal blood cease to be royal,
especially as it has interbred only with its own kind and is manifest on both sides of the family, AND shows up genetically?
Considering his response to David's assertion that his genes are inarguably of the Royal Ashina, Mr. Lucki seems to assert that David has to have a scrap of worthless paper from a fraudulent monarch, or a fraudulent office like his, giving David's blood THEIR permission to be Royal, before it CAN be royal. A sort of Transubstantiation by vacuous verbal diarrhoea. The tail does NOT wag the dog in the dragon-wolf's woods. - Heraldry is not a "Science". It reminds me
when another self styled expert attacked me by saying that Genealogy
was a Science, because it had...
the syllables "ology" appended to it.
- The Dragon Court was usurped temporarily in 1993, by a chap, just like Lucky
George, who thought that he had a greater right to utter forth on matters
Draconian, and a greater right to the protectorate of the Court than I.
He didn't actually, he just wanted it for his own self-glorification. Subsequently, his claims were disproven, utterly. So, Lucky George, you observed the Court being "run" on the Net and constantly fiddled with, not by me, but by the megalomaniac Richard Dufton, Plagiarist Extraordinaire and loonbucket to the Stars. Dufton spat poison into Bill Barcklay's ears, Poor Bill believed the Barm Cake, locked me out of dragoncourt.org and let Richard have free reign in publishing his own brand of utterly insubstantial, flaky, shameless self promotion.
The Dragon Court hasn't changed in Centuries. Its structure is the same now as it was then. Dufton usurped, but he never prevailed. He is reduced to hawking his rock collection around the local schools in order that he might glean some ego gratification from the misplaced admiration of little girls and boys. - The Court was
emptied at that time; in fact, I just closed it down altogether. It
was reconstituted in 2009 by myself and Freddy Krupa de Tarnawa, with a
more substanive core group, united in fraternity and fidelity to the
principles of the Dragon Tradition. http://www.sovereign-grand-duchy-of-drakenberg.org/Home.html
We look forward to the time when all our energies exclusively go toward building the legacy of the Dragon Tradition via our outreach programs, including our official websites, and The Drakenberg Museum & Galleries. Ours is a path of Sacred Activism. We prefer to engage in our process/goals: Identifying our core values and the vision that arises from them. Clarify your own sense of mission and purpose. Learn the basic skills of magic, "the art of changing consciousness at will," and put them to work to refine a personal mission aligned to your vision. Develop an understanding of what must be done to restore balance and healing to our environment, and learn practical tools for deepening our connection to the natural world. Learn the important attitudes and approaches that allow us to build alliances multiculturally. Develop a timeline of actions to take and alliances to make for manifesting our vision.
http://krupadetarnawa.weebly.com
Sovereignty Analysis
IRDC Chief Justice, the
Right Hon. Lord John Reeder's analysis of Sovereignty and his
recommended Modus Operandi for the Court on the International Stage.
CONCEPTUAL ANLYSIS UNDER ENGLISH LAW
A PRELIMINARY VIEW
Introduction
1. Nicholas De Vere Von Drakenberg is the titular “head” of the Grand Duchy of Drakenberg (hereinafter called “Drakenberg”). He seeks to have Drakenberg recognised as an entity by the European Union and the United Nations.
2. Drakenberg does not hold dominion over any lands. It claims no privileges, much less any rights, within any nation state – at least not yet. It does not claim to hold sway over any area of any nation state nor does it seek to assert any claims at odds with the domestic laws of any nation state: save to the extent that the domestic laws of any nation state and/or their enforcement contravenes the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
3. Drakenberg, however, is no mere title. It has a certain structure loosely defined by the IRDC (qv). It was described to me as an incorporeal libertarian entity of likeminded individuals (who may also be related by blood (as exemplified by a certain DNA profile)). Parentheses are mine.
4. The issue I have been asked to examine is whether it may be properly described as an independent or sovereign entity to which recognition may be given by the laws of the United Kingdom (to a certain extent that has been done), the European Union and/or the United Nations. This may carry with it certain rights and privileges, if such recognition may be gained.
The Concept of Sovereignty
5. Nicholas De Vere has already collected and published in a recent note a number of sources describing how the concept of sovereignty might properly be understood. None of these bears on the concept as a matter of English Law.
6. The concept of “Sovereignty” is a modern phenomenon: “modern” meaning a concept that has been developed over the last 700 years or so. Its development has been associated with the indicia of the sovereign state. Theoretically the head of a sovereign state, that nation’s sovereign, could be a baboon. Good order and discipline might not last long unless the baboon had its powers curtailed in some way, whereby the real seat of government in that state resided elsewhere. However, whatever conceptually may be possible, that possibility will always be circumscribed by practicalities and these will alter with the passage of time. In its simplest form a state had as its head or sovereign an individual and has a defined area of influence.
7. Whence did the individual derive his right to govern and whence did the area so governed derive recognition as a nation state? The two are intertwined. There are also dependent territories who have a titular head, but whose status as nation states is not an independent one. Is it possible to have a sovereign body recognised as such which does not assert an independence from the nation states in which its individual members reside and which does not have a defined territory? Is such an entity capable of existing as a matter of law or must it be denied any sovereignty, such that in fact it is a mere title or proper name describing collectively the individuals who adhere to it? Nothing more than a members club. If Drakenberg claimed an island as its sovereign territory – to which no other nation state laid claim - would that alter its legal status? If so, why does dominion over a piece of land of no apparent utility (for no one else wants it as postulated) make a difference to its recognition? These are questions which have to be considered in any analysis of sovereignty because of the manner in which the concept has been developed in modern jurisprudence.
Basic Propositions
8. A person living an isolated life cut off from the rest of society pays homage to no sovereign because he is totally self-sufficient. Small groups of individuals claimed that right in medieval times and before in the form of the city states. The nature of their independent sovereignty varied. Indeed the notion of city states and independent principalities continued into the nineteenth century. These “sovereign” states did not necessarily have the indicia of the modern nation state, and their leaders were not necessarily secure or their constitutions defined. They held sway de facto over a particular area of land. This is simple power.
9. I could trace the development of concepts of sovereignty through the medieval period, through Focault, Bodin, Hobbes and Locke, but this would be a daunting task and of doubtful utility. Doubtful, because we live in a very different age... from that in which these men were writing. It is, however, in Europe that the concept of the sovereign state developed and this model was “exported” to non-European lands which had very different models. Drakenberg must exist in our times, not those past.
English Concept or Model
10. The emphasis is on stability, territory and structure. Blackstone wrote, at the time (1765-69), the leading work on the English constitution. Sovereignty he considers in the first volume of his Commentaries on the Laws of England entitled “Of the Rights of Persons”.
11. He begins his analysis with a disquisition on “Natural Law”. He summarises it as follows, the summary reflecting the point made in Para. 8 above: “The law of nature, or morality, [usually called God’s law when coupled with revealed law ], which teaches the duty towards one’s neighbour, would scarce be wanted in a solitary state, where man is unconnected with man. A state of nature to which the laws of nature, or of morals, more particularly refer, must signify the state of men when they associate together previous to, or independent of the institutions of regular government.
The ideal equality of men in such a state no more precludes the idea of a law, than the supposed equality of subjects in a republic – the superior, who would prescribe and enforce the law in a state of nature, would be the collective force of the wise and good, as the superior in a perfect republic is a majority of the people or the power to which the majority delegate their authority.”
12. We see here the germs of where his treatise is going. By reason of association, man must have laws. Those laws which govern the relationship not only between individuals but between one group and another have their origin in an ideal natural state. However, since there will be groups which do not acknowledge the law of another group, mutual intercourse is regulated by a “law of nations”, which comprises not only natural law but treaties, leagues and compacts.
The jus gentium.
13. However, before that relationship arises the group requires to be defined. It is its municipal law that gives it its identity. Such law is defined by Blackstone as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and what is wrong.” – I might observe the definition is tautologous. What a supreme power commands is right and what it prohibits is wrong. The words after the comma are unnecessary. There are however two ingredients here: the supreme power and the state. Natural law can go so far in regulating man’s relationship with man, but given the complexities of a society there is grafted onto its conduct inter se a whole raft of laws for its regulation.
14. To regulate the conduct of individuals is to legislate and that is a supreme act of power. The supreme authority thus legislating is the sovereign power. There can be no legislation without sovereignty.
15. On this matter Blackstone offers the following: “However [Governments] began, or by what right they forever subsist, there is and must be in all of them a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority, in which the jura summi imperii, or the rights of sovereignty reside.” This is the essence of sovereignty: a supreme power answerable to no one. In this country that supreme power is the King or Queen in Parliament. It is the law making power which all those under its dominion are required to obey. It is really as simple as that.
16. Blackstone subsequently discourses at length on the constitution of Parliament, both the House of Lords and the House of Commons and gives a detailed analysis of the position of the Crown, of its hereditary nature, prerogative and functions. He examines the effect of usurpation by force of arms and the consequences of civil war. A conqueror acquires only the crown: William the Conqueror took Harold’s crown subject to the laws of England and thus the crown’s descendibility by inheritance.
17. Whilst all this is quite fascinating as an analysis of English Constitutional Law, it does not help to understand the position of Drakenberg. Drakenberg cannot by Blackstone’s definition of sovereignty be a sovereign “state”. It does not have the indicia of such and it has no territory over which it asserts dominion. Land is necessary, because it defines the populated area over which the supreme power might legislate. Any laws of Drakenberg would be mere rules to be observed by those who wish to be Drakenbergers. The history of the Scots and the Irish and the uneasy relationship with England demonstrate the concept of dependence and limited sovereignty. Both were and Scotland is a dependent territory. It relies on England for its defence and finance, though many of its domestic laws are different from those of England. It does, however, have a defined territory and this lends substance to its position. Drakenberg is not so blessed. A sovereign state may be summarised as one having a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other nations. Drakenberg has substantial difficulties in meeting these criteria. However, there is no reason why it should not be a sovereign entity. Drakenberg can (loosely) meet all but the territorial criteria here set out. This is a much more flexible concept, because there is no claim to territory. If territory is claimed this leads to conflict with a more powerful state and at best dependent status only.
Relationship with other Nations
18. The relations between states were fostered by visiting embassies, with “embassadors” being granted certain rights and immunities to enable them to fulfil their functions. These reciprocal visiting rights were developed on a bilateral and ad hoc basis. In England it was the Crown which granted recognition to such embassies as part of the Royal Prerogative. Now the position is governed by the Vienna Convention. Those entitled to diplomatic privileges are nations or states. In other words those that meet the criteria set out in the last paragraph. However, there is a precedent for limited recognition on a worldwide basis. That is the model provided by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – the Knights of St John. They have observer status at the UN but claim no territory nor statehood. Their sovereignty is the subject of debate but in fact they have achieved a quasi-diplomatic status amongst many nation states. They issue passports (which are recognised by those states with which the Order has diplomatic relations), licence plates, coins and stamps.
19. Whilst I am firmly of the view that Drakenberg cannot pursue a diplomatic status associated with a nation state, the model provided by the Order of the Knights of Malta provides a precedent which may be of some use in pursuit of diplomatic recognition.
20. I recommend that a working group be established to carry out an in depth study of the Knights of Malta, with a view to closely structuring Drakenberg in a similar manner.
John Reeder QC
20th March 2011
CONCEPTUAL ANLYSIS UNDER ENGLISH LAW
A PRELIMINARY VIEW
Introduction
1. Nicholas De Vere Von Drakenberg is the titular “head” of the Grand Duchy of Drakenberg (hereinafter called “Drakenberg”). He seeks to have Drakenberg recognised as an entity by the European Union and the United Nations.
2. Drakenberg does not hold dominion over any lands. It claims no privileges, much less any rights, within any nation state – at least not yet. It does not claim to hold sway over any area of any nation state nor does it seek to assert any claims at odds with the domestic laws of any nation state: save to the extent that the domestic laws of any nation state and/or their enforcement contravenes the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
3. Drakenberg, however, is no mere title. It has a certain structure loosely defined by the IRDC (qv). It was described to me as an incorporeal libertarian entity of likeminded individuals (who may also be related by blood (as exemplified by a certain DNA profile)). Parentheses are mine.
4. The issue I have been asked to examine is whether it may be properly described as an independent or sovereign entity to which recognition may be given by the laws of the United Kingdom (to a certain extent that has been done), the European Union and/or the United Nations. This may carry with it certain rights and privileges, if such recognition may be gained.
The Concept of Sovereignty
5. Nicholas De Vere has already collected and published in a recent note a number of sources describing how the concept of sovereignty might properly be understood. None of these bears on the concept as a matter of English Law.
6. The concept of “Sovereignty” is a modern phenomenon: “modern” meaning a concept that has been developed over the last 700 years or so. Its development has been associated with the indicia of the sovereign state. Theoretically the head of a sovereign state, that nation’s sovereign, could be a baboon. Good order and discipline might not last long unless the baboon had its powers curtailed in some way, whereby the real seat of government in that state resided elsewhere. However, whatever conceptually may be possible, that possibility will always be circumscribed by practicalities and these will alter with the passage of time. In its simplest form a state had as its head or sovereign an individual and has a defined area of influence.
7. Whence did the individual derive his right to govern and whence did the area so governed derive recognition as a nation state? The two are intertwined. There are also dependent territories who have a titular head, but whose status as nation states is not an independent one. Is it possible to have a sovereign body recognised as such which does not assert an independence from the nation states in which its individual members reside and which does not have a defined territory? Is such an entity capable of existing as a matter of law or must it be denied any sovereignty, such that in fact it is a mere title or proper name describing collectively the individuals who adhere to it? Nothing more than a members club. If Drakenberg claimed an island as its sovereign territory – to which no other nation state laid claim - would that alter its legal status? If so, why does dominion over a piece of land of no apparent utility (for no one else wants it as postulated) make a difference to its recognition? These are questions which have to be considered in any analysis of sovereignty because of the manner in which the concept has been developed in modern jurisprudence.
Basic Propositions
8. A person living an isolated life cut off from the rest of society pays homage to no sovereign because he is totally self-sufficient. Small groups of individuals claimed that right in medieval times and before in the form of the city states. The nature of their independent sovereignty varied. Indeed the notion of city states and independent principalities continued into the nineteenth century. These “sovereign” states did not necessarily have the indicia of the modern nation state, and their leaders were not necessarily secure or their constitutions defined. They held sway de facto over a particular area of land. This is simple power.
9. I could trace the development of concepts of sovereignty through the medieval period, through Focault, Bodin, Hobbes and Locke, but this would be a daunting task and of doubtful utility. Doubtful, because we live in a very different age... from that in which these men were writing. It is, however, in Europe that the concept of the sovereign state developed and this model was “exported” to non-European lands which had very different models. Drakenberg must exist in our times, not those past.
English Concept or Model
10. The emphasis is on stability, territory and structure. Blackstone wrote, at the time (1765-69), the leading work on the English constitution. Sovereignty he considers in the first volume of his Commentaries on the Laws of England entitled “Of the Rights of Persons”.
11. He begins his analysis with a disquisition on “Natural Law”. He summarises it as follows, the summary reflecting the point made in Para. 8 above: “The law of nature, or morality, [usually called God’s law when coupled with revealed law ], which teaches the duty towards one’s neighbour, would scarce be wanted in a solitary state, where man is unconnected with man. A state of nature to which the laws of nature, or of morals, more particularly refer, must signify the state of men when they associate together previous to, or independent of the institutions of regular government.
The ideal equality of men in such a state no more precludes the idea of a law, than the supposed equality of subjects in a republic – the superior, who would prescribe and enforce the law in a state of nature, would be the collective force of the wise and good, as the superior in a perfect republic is a majority of the people or the power to which the majority delegate their authority.”
12. We see here the germs of where his treatise is going. By reason of association, man must have laws. Those laws which govern the relationship not only between individuals but between one group and another have their origin in an ideal natural state. However, since there will be groups which do not acknowledge the law of another group, mutual intercourse is regulated by a “law of nations”, which comprises not only natural law but treaties, leagues and compacts.
The jus gentium.
13. However, before that relationship arises the group requires to be defined. It is its municipal law that gives it its identity. Such law is defined by Blackstone as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and what is wrong.” – I might observe the definition is tautologous. What a supreme power commands is right and what it prohibits is wrong. The words after the comma are unnecessary. There are however two ingredients here: the supreme power and the state. Natural law can go so far in regulating man’s relationship with man, but given the complexities of a society there is grafted onto its conduct inter se a whole raft of laws for its regulation.
14. To regulate the conduct of individuals is to legislate and that is a supreme act of power. The supreme authority thus legislating is the sovereign power. There can be no legislation without sovereignty.
15. On this matter Blackstone offers the following: “However [Governments] began, or by what right they forever subsist, there is and must be in all of them a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority, in which the jura summi imperii, or the rights of sovereignty reside.” This is the essence of sovereignty: a supreme power answerable to no one. In this country that supreme power is the King or Queen in Parliament. It is the law making power which all those under its dominion are required to obey. It is really as simple as that.
16. Blackstone subsequently discourses at length on the constitution of Parliament, both the House of Lords and the House of Commons and gives a detailed analysis of the position of the Crown, of its hereditary nature, prerogative and functions. He examines the effect of usurpation by force of arms and the consequences of civil war. A conqueror acquires only the crown: William the Conqueror took Harold’s crown subject to the laws of England and thus the crown’s descendibility by inheritance.
17. Whilst all this is quite fascinating as an analysis of English Constitutional Law, it does not help to understand the position of Drakenberg. Drakenberg cannot by Blackstone’s definition of sovereignty be a sovereign “state”. It does not have the indicia of such and it has no territory over which it asserts dominion. Land is necessary, because it defines the populated area over which the supreme power might legislate. Any laws of Drakenberg would be mere rules to be observed by those who wish to be Drakenbergers. The history of the Scots and the Irish and the uneasy relationship with England demonstrate the concept of dependence and limited sovereignty. Both were and Scotland is a dependent territory. It relies on England for its defence and finance, though many of its domestic laws are different from those of England. It does, however, have a defined territory and this lends substance to its position. Drakenberg is not so blessed. A sovereign state may be summarised as one having a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other nations. Drakenberg has substantial difficulties in meeting these criteria. However, there is no reason why it should not be a sovereign entity. Drakenberg can (loosely) meet all but the territorial criteria here set out. This is a much more flexible concept, because there is no claim to territory. If territory is claimed this leads to conflict with a more powerful state and at best dependent status only.
Relationship with other Nations
18. The relations between states were fostered by visiting embassies, with “embassadors” being granted certain rights and immunities to enable them to fulfil their functions. These reciprocal visiting rights were developed on a bilateral and ad hoc basis. In England it was the Crown which granted recognition to such embassies as part of the Royal Prerogative. Now the position is governed by the Vienna Convention. Those entitled to diplomatic privileges are nations or states. In other words those that meet the criteria set out in the last paragraph. However, there is a precedent for limited recognition on a worldwide basis. That is the model provided by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – the Knights of St John. They have observer status at the UN but claim no territory nor statehood. Their sovereignty is the subject of debate but in fact they have achieved a quasi-diplomatic status amongst many nation states. They issue passports (which are recognised by those states with which the Order has diplomatic relations), licence plates, coins and stamps.
19. Whilst I am firmly of the view that Drakenberg cannot pursue a diplomatic status associated with a nation state, the model provided by the Order of the Knights of Malta provides a precedent which may be of some use in pursuit of diplomatic recognition.
20. I recommend that a working group be established to carry out an in depth study of the Knights of Malta, with a view to closely structuring Drakenberg in a similar manner.
John Reeder QC
20th March 2011
Transcultural Dragon Community
Koinonia is the anglicisation of a Greek word (κοινωνία) that means communion by intimate participation. The essential meaning of the koinonia embraces concepts conveyed in the English terms community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy. Koinonia can therefore refer in some contexts to a jointly contributed gift. Koinonia is viewed as much deeper, however, when associated with a spiritual purpose. Koinonia is a complex, rich, and thoroughly fascinating Greek approach to building community or teamwork.
Cultural identity as such is something which every human being experiences, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individual. We often feel a deep resonance with the forms taken by our own particular cultural heritage and its traditions, but people who have the opportunity to live for an extended period of time in a country other then their own native land can also experience this resonance in a culture in which they happen to find themselves. It includes such things as a feeling of possessive pride when encountering art forms and folk ways emerging from a particular heritage, a consciousness awareness of the possibilities of expression afforded by a particular language, and swelling up of emotion.
In a world that has been radically and irrevocably changed by the Internet and by ‘globalization,’ that exceedingly problematic enterprise spawned by western capitalist imperialism, intercultural contact and exchanges are bound to occur. I believe it is critically important that we become aware of the different levels on which such contact and exchange can take place. While superficial exchange certainly entails acquiring new information, it can never result in the experience of a change of being. In contrast, however, deep, genuine contact with ‘Otherness’ entails letting oneself actually be touched (i.e., changed) by the encounter. It is within that space where one can experience the fact that the ‘Other’ is actually a hitherto unsuspected facet of ourselves. The idea that each human being is somehow the repository of all human culture, that each and every ‘Other,’ whether foreign or not, is only another aspect, another facet of him or herself is breathtakingly radical and leads us into the metaphysical heart of the transcultural experience.More than that, however, such lived experience of the transcultural also entails an experience of that ‘beyondness,’ I referred to above. As Nicolescu writes, “The transcultural designates the opening of all cultures to that which crosses them and transcends them.”
If one experiences the transcultural, one is no longer bound by a single, relatively closed culture. On the contrary, one can fully participate in one’s own native culture as well as the other cultures one encounters, but at the same time, one is enabled to go beyond the bounds of any particular culture, into the space of simply being human. This constitutes what can be understood as an emergent property of the sum total of one’s original native culture and subsequent encounters with other cultures. In the transcultural space we are filled with a sense of wonder because it is then that we begin to see what being human really means. And when we recognize ourselves in the ”mirror of the Other,” we have gone beyond the normal dichotomy of Subject and Object, the dichotomy which generally operates when two individuals are together. It is then that we recognize the Self in the Other because we realize that the Other is a Self, too. It is then that we experience a sense of being connected to the entire universe and can feel something of what was meant when the ancients spoke of how the microcosm was a mirror of the macrocosm. Indeed, the microcosm is a mirror of the macrocosm. (Jungian, K.C. Voss, http://www.istanbul-yes-istanbul.co.uk/transd/index.html )
Koinonia embraces a strong commitment to Kalos k'agathos meaning "good and good", an inner goodness toward virtue, and an outer goodness toward social relationships. In the context of outer goodness, translated into English, the meaning of koinonia holds the idea of joint participation in something with someone, such as in a community, or team or an alliance or joint venture. Those who have studied the word find there is always an implication of action included in its meaning.
Koinonos means 'a sharer' as in to share with one another in a possession held in common. It implies the spirit of generous sharing or the act of giving as contrasted with selfish getting. When koinonia is present, the spirit of sharing and giving becomes tangible. In most contexts, generosity is not an abstract ideal, but a demonstrable action resulting in a tangible and realistic expression of giving.
In classical Greek, koinonein means "to have a share in a thing," as when two or more people hold something, or even all things, in common. It can mean "going shares" with others, thereby having "business dealings,” such as joint ownership of a ship. It can also imply "sharing an opinion" with someone, and therefore agreeing with him, or disagreeing in a congenial way. Only participation as a contributive member allows one to share in what others have. What is shared, received or given becomes the common ground through which Koinonia becomes real.
Koinonos in classical Greek means a companion, a partner or a joint-owner. Therefore, koinonia can imply an association, common effort, or a partnership in common." The common ground by which the two parties are joined together creates an aligned relationship, such as a "fellowship" or "partnership". Two people may enter into marriage in order to have "koinonia of life", that is to say, to live together a life in which everything is shared. Koinonia was used to refer to the marriage bond, and it suggested a powerful common interest that could hold two or more persons together. The term can also relate to a spiritual relationship.
To create a bond between comrades is the meaning of koinonia when people are recognized, share their joy and pains together, and are united because of their common experiences, interests and goals. Fellowship creates a mutual bond which overrides each individual’s pride, vanity, and individualism, fulfilling the human yearning with fraternity, belonging, and companionship. This meaning of koinonia accounts for the ease by which sharing and generosity flow. When combined with the spiritual implications of koinonia, fellowship provides a joint participation in the sacred and denotes that common possession of spiritual values.
Fellowship is never passive in the meaning of koinonia, it is always linked to action, not just being together, but also doing together. With fellowship comes a close and intimate relationship embracing ideas, communication, and frankness, as in a true, blessed interdependent friendship among multiple group members. The idea of community denotes a “common unity” of purpose and interests. By engaging in this united relationship a new level of consciousness and conscience emerges that spurs the group to higher order thinking and action, thus empowering and encouraging its members to exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Thus community and family become closely intertwined, aiming at a common unity.
Both fellowship and community imply an inner and outer unity. Nowhere in the framework of community is there implied a hierarchy of command and control. While there is leadership, the leader’s task is to focus energy, and align interests, not impose control. Koinonia creates a brethren bond which builds trust and, especially when combined with the values of Wisdom, Virtue and Honor, overcomes two of humanity’s deepest fears and insecurities: being betrayed and being demeaned.
Whether working collectively or individually, the innovators of ancient Greece worked for the greater good of the whole — to propel their community forward, to share their understanding with others so that all ships would rise on a rising tide. Thus loftier goals and dreams are more easily manifested in the mind and achieved in reality. The team’s sense of Purpose became manifest.
THE
CHARTER OF TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
Preamble
Whereas, the present proliferation of academic and non-academic disciplines is leading to an exponential increase of knowledge which makes a global view of the human being impossible;
Whereas, only a form of intelligence capable of grasping the cosmic dimension of the present conflicts is able to confront the complexity of our world and the present challenge of the spiritual and material self-destruction of the human species;
Whereas, life on earth is seriously threatened by the triumph of a techno-science that obeys only the terrible logic of productivity for productivity's sake;
Whereas, the present rupture between increasingly quantitative knowledge and increasingly impoverished inner identity is leading to the rise of a new brand of obscurantism with incalculable social and personal consequences;
Whereas, an historically unprecedented growth of knowledge is increasing the inequality between those who have and those who do not, thus engendering increasing inequality within and between the different nations of our planet;
Whereas, at the same time, hope is the counterpart of all the afore-mentioned challenges, a hope that this extraordinary development of knowledge could eventually lead to an evolution not unlike the development of primates into human beings;
Therefore, in consideration of all the above, the participants of the First World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrábida, Portugal, November 2-7, 1994) have adopted the present Charter, which comprises the fundamental principles of the community of transdisciplinary researchers, and constitutes a personal moral commitment, without any legal or institutional constraint, on the part of everyone who signs this Charter.
Article 1: Any attempt to reduce the human being by formally defining what a human being is and subjecting the human being to reductive analyses within a framework of formal structures, no matter what they are, is incompatible with the transdisciplinary vision.
Article 2: The recognition of the existence of different levels of reality governed by different types of logic is inherent in the transdisciplinary attitude. Any attempt to reduce reality to a single level governed by a single form of logic does not lie within the scope of transdisciplinarity.
Article 3: Transdisciplinarity complements disciplinary approaches. It occasions the emergence of new data and new interactions from out of the encounter between disciplines. It offers us a new vision of nature and reality. Transdisciplinarity does not strive for mastery of several disciplines but aims to open all disciplines to that which crosses them and that which lies beyond them.
Article 4: The keystone of transdisciplinarity is the semantic and practical unification of the meanings that traverse and lie beyond different disciplines. It presupposes an open-minded rationality by re-examining the concepts of "definition" and "objectivity." An excess of formalism, rigidity of definitions and a claim to total objectivity, entailing the exclusion of the subject, can only have a life-negating effect.
Article 5: The transdisciplinary vision is resolutely open insofar as it goes beyond the field of the exact sciences and demands their dialogue and their reconciliation with the humanities and the social sciences, as well as with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience.
Article 6: In comparison with interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity is multireferential and multidimensional. While taking account of the various approaches to time and history, transdisciplinarity does not exclude a transhistorical horizon.
Article 7: Transdisciplinarity constitutes neither a new religion, nor a new philosophy, nor a new metaphysics, nor a science of sciences.
Article 8: The dignity of the human being is of both planetary and cosmic dimensions. The appearance of human beings on Earth is one of the stages in the history of the Universe. The recognition of the Earth as our home is one of the imperatives of transdisciplinarity. Every human being is entitled to a nationality, but as an inhabitant of the Earth is also a transnational being. The acknowledgement by international law of this twofold belonging, to a nation and to the Earth, is one of the goals of transdisciplinary research.
Article 9: Transdisciplinarity leads to an open attitude towards myth, religion and towards those who respect them in a transdisciplinary spirit.
Article 10: No single culture is privileged over any other culture. The transdisciplinary approach is inherently transcultural.
Article 11: Authentic education cannot value abstraction over other forms of knowledge. It must teach contextual, concrete and global approaches. Transdisciplinary education revalues the role of intuition, imagination, sensibility and the body in the transmission of knowledge.
Article 12: The development of a transdisciplinary economy is based on the postulate that the economy must serve the human being and not the reverse.
Article 13: The transdisciplinary ethic rejects any attitude that refuses dialogue and discussion, regardless of whether the origin of this attitude is ideological, scientistic, religious, economic, political or philosophical. Shared knowledge should lead to a shared understanding based on an absolute respect for the collective and individual differences united by our common life on one and the same Earth.
Article 14: Rigor, openness, and tolerance are the fundamental characteristics of the transdisciplinary attitude and vision. Rigor in argument, taking into account all existing data, is the best defense against possible distortions. Openness involves an acceptance of the unknown, the unexpected and the unforeseeable. Tolerance implies acknowledging the right to ideas and truths opposed to our own.
Final Article: The present Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted by the participants of the first World Congress of Transdisciplinarity, with no claim to any authority other than that of their own work and activity.
In accordance with procedures to be agreed upon by transdisciplinary-minded persons of all countries, this Charter is open to the signature of anyone who is interested in promoting progressive national, international and transnational measures to ensure the application of these Articles in everyday life.
Convento da Arrábida, November 6, 1994
Editorial Committee
Lima de Freitas, Edgar Morin and Basarab Nicolescu
Translated from the French by
Karen-Claire Voss
To learn more about transdisciplinarity you can visit the CIRET website at
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/index.htm
Preamble
Whereas, the present proliferation of academic and non-academic disciplines is leading to an exponential increase of knowledge which makes a global view of the human being impossible;
Whereas, only a form of intelligence capable of grasping the cosmic dimension of the present conflicts is able to confront the complexity of our world and the present challenge of the spiritual and material self-destruction of the human species;
Whereas, life on earth is seriously threatened by the triumph of a techno-science that obeys only the terrible logic of productivity for productivity's sake;
Whereas, the present rupture between increasingly quantitative knowledge and increasingly impoverished inner identity is leading to the rise of a new brand of obscurantism with incalculable social and personal consequences;
Whereas, an historically unprecedented growth of knowledge is increasing the inequality between those who have and those who do not, thus engendering increasing inequality within and between the different nations of our planet;
Whereas, at the same time, hope is the counterpart of all the afore-mentioned challenges, a hope that this extraordinary development of knowledge could eventually lead to an evolution not unlike the development of primates into human beings;
Therefore, in consideration of all the above, the participants of the First World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrábida, Portugal, November 2-7, 1994) have adopted the present Charter, which comprises the fundamental principles of the community of transdisciplinary researchers, and constitutes a personal moral commitment, without any legal or institutional constraint, on the part of everyone who signs this Charter.
Article 1: Any attempt to reduce the human being by formally defining what a human being is and subjecting the human being to reductive analyses within a framework of formal structures, no matter what they are, is incompatible with the transdisciplinary vision.
Article 2: The recognition of the existence of different levels of reality governed by different types of logic is inherent in the transdisciplinary attitude. Any attempt to reduce reality to a single level governed by a single form of logic does not lie within the scope of transdisciplinarity.
Article 3: Transdisciplinarity complements disciplinary approaches. It occasions the emergence of new data and new interactions from out of the encounter between disciplines. It offers us a new vision of nature and reality. Transdisciplinarity does not strive for mastery of several disciplines but aims to open all disciplines to that which crosses them and that which lies beyond them.
Article 4: The keystone of transdisciplinarity is the semantic and practical unification of the meanings that traverse and lie beyond different disciplines. It presupposes an open-minded rationality by re-examining the concepts of "definition" and "objectivity." An excess of formalism, rigidity of definitions and a claim to total objectivity, entailing the exclusion of the subject, can only have a life-negating effect.
Article 5: The transdisciplinary vision is resolutely open insofar as it goes beyond the field of the exact sciences and demands their dialogue and their reconciliation with the humanities and the social sciences, as well as with art, literature, poetry and spiritual experience.
Article 6: In comparison with interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity is multireferential and multidimensional. While taking account of the various approaches to time and history, transdisciplinarity does not exclude a transhistorical horizon.
Article 7: Transdisciplinarity constitutes neither a new religion, nor a new philosophy, nor a new metaphysics, nor a science of sciences.
Article 8: The dignity of the human being is of both planetary and cosmic dimensions. The appearance of human beings on Earth is one of the stages in the history of the Universe. The recognition of the Earth as our home is one of the imperatives of transdisciplinarity. Every human being is entitled to a nationality, but as an inhabitant of the Earth is also a transnational being. The acknowledgement by international law of this twofold belonging, to a nation and to the Earth, is one of the goals of transdisciplinary research.
Article 9: Transdisciplinarity leads to an open attitude towards myth, religion and towards those who respect them in a transdisciplinary spirit.
Article 10: No single culture is privileged over any other culture. The transdisciplinary approach is inherently transcultural.
Article 11: Authentic education cannot value abstraction over other forms of knowledge. It must teach contextual, concrete and global approaches. Transdisciplinary education revalues the role of intuition, imagination, sensibility and the body in the transmission of knowledge.
Article 12: The development of a transdisciplinary economy is based on the postulate that the economy must serve the human being and not the reverse.
Article 13: The transdisciplinary ethic rejects any attitude that refuses dialogue and discussion, regardless of whether the origin of this attitude is ideological, scientistic, religious, economic, political or philosophical. Shared knowledge should lead to a shared understanding based on an absolute respect for the collective and individual differences united by our common life on one and the same Earth.
Article 14: Rigor, openness, and tolerance are the fundamental characteristics of the transdisciplinary attitude and vision. Rigor in argument, taking into account all existing data, is the best defense against possible distortions. Openness involves an acceptance of the unknown, the unexpected and the unforeseeable. Tolerance implies acknowledging the right to ideas and truths opposed to our own.
Final Article: The present Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted by the participants of the first World Congress of Transdisciplinarity, with no claim to any authority other than that of their own work and activity.
In accordance with procedures to be agreed upon by transdisciplinary-minded persons of all countries, this Charter is open to the signature of anyone who is interested in promoting progressive national, international and transnational measures to ensure the application of these Articles in everyday life.
Convento da Arrábida, November 6, 1994
Editorial Committee
Lima de Freitas, Edgar Morin and Basarab Nicolescu
Translated from the French by
Karen-Claire Voss
To learn more about transdisciplinarity you can visit the CIRET website at
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/index.htm
The Imperial and Royal House of Vere is a Sovereign Dynasty in European Law as evidenced hereto.
Yours sincerely,
Nick de Vere von Drakenberg. Vere Princeps.
The concept of Sovereignty
"…the concept of sovereignty formally implies a power that is absolute, perpetual, indivisible, IMPRESCRIPTIBLE and inalienable." (Andrew Vincent, Nationalism and Particularity, 2002, p. 17)
Dr. Paulo Bonavides in his book "Political Sciences" (Ciência Política), page 126 declared:
"Sovereignty is one and indivisible, it cannot be delegated, SOVEREIGNTY IS IRREVOCABLE, SOVEREIGNTY IS PERPETUAL, sovereignty is a supreme power, these are the main points of characterization that made Bodin's sovereignty in the seventeenth century an essential element of State."
Professor Dr W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D’état (post-doctorate/ habilitation) from the University of Reims in France in his book "Treaty of Heraldry and Nobility Law" Volume II page 52.:
"Neither the elapsed time, even for centuries, or non-use of the acts of sovereignty exercised by the Prince Pretender, Head of Name and Arms of his house, may be derogated, prescribed or canceled. He/She retains these rights until the end of times ' ad perpetuam rei tenendam ' which are inserted in the person of the Prince Pretender. "
According with the former president of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Professor Doctor Renato de Francesco in 1959.
"... It's simply ridiculous, from a legal point of view, the distinction intended to be done about Dynasties that have reigned until recently or those who ruled in the distant past. It's not understandable how you can launch at the foot numerous pages of history, only to give lustre to this or that family, who, aided by good luck, have managed to remain on the throne, after the year 1815. A Dynasty either reigned or not it did not reign. If it reigned, even in very remote time, it deserves the historical and legal treatment as a Dynasty and all its effects."
From Professor Doctor W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D’état in Nobility Law by The University of Reims in France, in his book "Treaty of Heraldry / Nobility Law Vol. I, Book II, chapter I "Jurisprudence of Nobility" page 197:
"A "Chief of Name and Arms", a title attributed to a Claimant, being by juris sanguinis (law of blood) "heir apparent" of a defunct throne, as long as he or she has not formalized a voluntary act of resignation and acquiescence [formalized, not assumed or presumed] to the new political order of the state, according to the classic expression "subito la debellatio", retains, in all their fullness, the sovereign prerogatives of Fons Honorum (Fountain of Honors) and Jus Majestatis (right to majestic dignity). It is a fortiori, the source of nobility and honor, and may, without restrictions, create nobles and arm knights."
A Court sentence of the Republic of Italy (Pretoria de Vico Del Gargano, Repubblica Italiana sentence number 217/49) corroborates the above mentioned:
"(…) it's IRRELEVANT if an Imperial family has no longer been ruling FOR CENTURIES, because the deposition don't harm the sovereign prerogatives even if the sovereign renounces, spontaneously, the throne. In substance, in this case, the Sovereign does not cease to be King, even living in exile or IN PRIVATE LIFE (WITHOUT CLAIMING HIS SOVEREIGNTY), because his prerogatives are, themselves by birth, and CANNOT BE EXTINGUISHED, but remain and may be transmitted in time, from generation to generation."
So, a Dynasty never forfeits its rights. It does not matter how long ago the Dynasty ruled or the duration of the reign. If there's no "subito la debellatio", in other words, total family's extermination, or an agreement with the new regime by the head of the Dynasty (voluntarily and peacefully to surrender the sovereignty) at the time of the deposition, there's no extinction of the Dynasty and its sovereignty.
The sovereignty is divided in four basic powers and rights:
- "Ius Imperii" - the right to command and rule a territory;- "Ius Gladii" - the right to impose obedience through command and also control armies;- "Ius Majestatis" - the right to be honored and respected according with your title;- "Ius Honorum" - the right to award titles, merit and virtue.
So, there are two "kinds" of sovereignty related with "Ius Imperii" and "Ius Gladii", one called "de facto" (by fact) and other "de jure" (by right), the both need to be attached to a territory and a people (in other words, a State). A third sovereignty is related to the other two rights "Ius Majestatis" and "Ius Honorum" and it's related to a Dynasty and a family and does not depend on a State.
In Conclusion, even a monarch deposed centuries ago legally keeps his/hers “Jus Majestatis” and “Jus Honorum”, in other words, they have the right to be respected and called by their titles and they have the right to confer honors: titles of nobility, knighthoods and any kind of merits without restrictions on the monarch’s discretion. Also, restore or create Orders of Merit and Chivalry.
International law also guarantees to the deposed monarch the right to create a Government in Exile with all attributes.
http://www.imperialafrica.com/id141.html
Prof. Alfred Freddy Krupa de Tarnawa (M.F.A.)
Yours sincerely,
Nick de Vere von Drakenberg. Vere Princeps.
The concept of Sovereignty
"…the concept of sovereignty formally implies a power that is absolute, perpetual, indivisible, IMPRESCRIPTIBLE and inalienable." (Andrew Vincent, Nationalism and Particularity, 2002, p. 17)
Dr. Paulo Bonavides in his book "Political Sciences" (Ciência Política), page 126 declared:
"Sovereignty is one and indivisible, it cannot be delegated, SOVEREIGNTY IS IRREVOCABLE, SOVEREIGNTY IS PERPETUAL, sovereignty is a supreme power, these are the main points of characterization that made Bodin's sovereignty in the seventeenth century an essential element of State."
Professor Dr W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D’état (post-doctorate/ habilitation) from the University of Reims in France in his book "Treaty of Heraldry and Nobility Law" Volume II page 52.:
"Neither the elapsed time, even for centuries, or non-use of the acts of sovereignty exercised by the Prince Pretender, Head of Name and Arms of his house, may be derogated, prescribed or canceled. He/She retains these rights until the end of times ' ad perpetuam rei tenendam ' which are inserted in the person of the Prince Pretender. "
According with the former president of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Professor Doctor Renato de Francesco in 1959.
"... It's simply ridiculous, from a legal point of view, the distinction intended to be done about Dynasties that have reigned until recently or those who ruled in the distant past. It's not understandable how you can launch at the foot numerous pages of history, only to give lustre to this or that family, who, aided by good luck, have managed to remain on the throne, after the year 1815. A Dynasty either reigned or not it did not reign. If it reigned, even in very remote time, it deserves the historical and legal treatment as a Dynasty and all its effects."
From Professor Doctor W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D’état in Nobility Law by The University of Reims in France, in his book "Treaty of Heraldry / Nobility Law Vol. I, Book II, chapter I "Jurisprudence of Nobility" page 197:
"A "Chief of Name and Arms", a title attributed to a Claimant, being by juris sanguinis (law of blood) "heir apparent" of a defunct throne, as long as he or she has not formalized a voluntary act of resignation and acquiescence [formalized, not assumed or presumed] to the new political order of the state, according to the classic expression "subito la debellatio", retains, in all their fullness, the sovereign prerogatives of Fons Honorum (Fountain of Honors) and Jus Majestatis (right to majestic dignity). It is a fortiori, the source of nobility and honor, and may, without restrictions, create nobles and arm knights."
A Court sentence of the Republic of Italy (Pretoria de Vico Del Gargano, Repubblica Italiana sentence number 217/49) corroborates the above mentioned:
"(…) it's IRRELEVANT if an Imperial family has no longer been ruling FOR CENTURIES, because the deposition don't harm the sovereign prerogatives even if the sovereign renounces, spontaneously, the throne. In substance, in this case, the Sovereign does not cease to be King, even living in exile or IN PRIVATE LIFE (WITHOUT CLAIMING HIS SOVEREIGNTY), because his prerogatives are, themselves by birth, and CANNOT BE EXTINGUISHED, but remain and may be transmitted in time, from generation to generation."
So, a Dynasty never forfeits its rights. It does not matter how long ago the Dynasty ruled or the duration of the reign. If there's no "subito la debellatio", in other words, total family's extermination, or an agreement with the new regime by the head of the Dynasty (voluntarily and peacefully to surrender the sovereignty) at the time of the deposition, there's no extinction of the Dynasty and its sovereignty.
The sovereignty is divided in four basic powers and rights:
- "Ius Imperii" - the right to command and rule a territory;- "Ius Gladii" - the right to impose obedience through command and also control armies;- "Ius Majestatis" - the right to be honored and respected according with your title;- "Ius Honorum" - the right to award titles, merit and virtue.
So, there are two "kinds" of sovereignty related with "Ius Imperii" and "Ius Gladii", one called "de facto" (by fact) and other "de jure" (by right), the both need to be attached to a territory and a people (in other words, a State). A third sovereignty is related to the other two rights "Ius Majestatis" and "Ius Honorum" and it's related to a Dynasty and a family and does not depend on a State.
In Conclusion, even a monarch deposed centuries ago legally keeps his/hers “Jus Majestatis” and “Jus Honorum”, in other words, they have the right to be respected and called by their titles and they have the right to confer honors: titles of nobility, knighthoods and any kind of merits without restrictions on the monarch’s discretion. Also, restore or create Orders of Merit and Chivalry.
International law also guarantees to the deposed monarch the right to create a Government in Exile with all attributes.
http://www.imperialafrica.com/id141.html
Prof. Alfred Freddy Krupa de Tarnawa (M.F.A.)
"The Most Famous Forgery in History"
Who put the lies in the mouth of the Dragon, over 100 years after Emperor Constantine's death?
Medieval Sourcebook: The Donation of Constantine (c.750-800)
This is perhaps the most famous forgery in history. For centuries, until Lorenzo Valla proved it was forgery during the Renaissance it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy. Probably at least a first draft of it was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with the Frankish Mayor of the Palace, Pepin the Short. The Pope crossed the Alps to anoint the latter as king in 754, thereby enabling, the Carolingian family, to which Pepin belonged, to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become decadent and powerless and to become in law as well as in fact rulers of the Franks. In return, Pepin seems to have promised to give to the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. Constantine's alleged gift made it possible to interpret Pepin's grant not as a benefaction but as a restoration.
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church, who have been established now and in all previous times-grace, peace, charitv, rejoicing, long-suffering, mercv, be with you all from God the Father almighty and from Jesus Christ his Son and from the Holy Ghost. Our most gracious serenity desires, in clear discourse, through the page of this our imperial decree, to bring to the knowledge of all the people in the whole world what things our Saviour and Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the most High Father, has most wonderfully seen fit to bring about through his holy apostles Peter and Paul and by the intervention of our father Sylvester, the highest pontiff and the universal pope. First, indeed, putting forth, with the inmost confession of our heart, for the purpose of instructing the mind of all of you, our creed which we have learned from the aforesaid most blessed father and our confessor, Svlvester the universal pontiff; and then at length announcing the mercy of God which has been poured upon us.
For we wish you to know,, as we have signified through our former imperial decree, that we have gone away, from the worship of idols, from mute and deaf images made by hand, from devilish contrivances and from all the pomps of Satan; and have arrived at the pure faith of the Christians, which is the true light and everlasting life. Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.
There are therefore three forms but one power. For God, wise in all previous time, gave forth from himself the word through which all future ages were to be born; and when, by that sole word of His wisdom, He formed the whole creation from nothing, He was with it, arranging all things in His mysterious secret place.
Therefore, the virtues of the Heavens and all the material part of the earth having been perfected, by the wise nod of His wisdom first creating man of the clay of the earth in His own image and likeness, He placed him in a paradise of delight. Him the ancient serpent and envious enemy, the devil, through the most bitter taste of the forbidden tree, made an exile from these joys; and, be being expelled, did not cease in many ways to cast his poisonous darts; in order that, turning the human race from the way of truth to the worship of idols, he might persuade it, namely to worship the creature and not the creator; so that, through them (the idols), he might cause those whom he might be able to entrap in his snares to be burned with him in eternal punishment. But our Lord, pitying His creature, sending ahead His holy prophets, announcing through them the light of the future life-the coming,' that is, of His Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-sent that same only begotten Son and Word of wisdom: He descending from Heaven on account of our salvation, being born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary,-the word was made flesh and d welt among us. He did not cease to be what He had been, but began to be what He had not been, perfect God and perfect man: as God, performing miracles; as man, sustaining human sufferings. We so learned Him to be very man and very God by the preaching of our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, that we can in no wise doubt that He was very, God and very man. And, having chosen twelve apostles, He shone with miracles before them and an innumerable multitude of people. We confess that this same Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets; that He suffered, was crucified, on the third day arose from the dead according to the Scriptures; was received into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. Whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. For this is our orthodox creed, placed before us by our most blessed father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff. We exhort, therefore, all people, and all the different nations, to hold, cherish and preach this faith; and, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to obtain the grace of baptism; and, with devaout heart, to adore the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns through infinite ages; whom Sylvester our father, the universal pontiff, preaches. For He himself, our Lord God, having pit on me a sinner, sent His holy apostles to visit us, and caused the light of his splendour to shine upon us. And do ye rejoice that I, having been withdrawn from the shadow, have come to the true light and to the knowledge of truth. For, at a time when a mighty and filthy leprosy had invaded all the flesh of my, body, and the care was administered of many physicians who came together, nor by that of any one of them did I achieve health: there came hither the priests of the Capitol, saving to me that a font should be made on the Capitol, and that I should fill this with the blood of innocent infants; and that, if I bathed in it while it was warm, I might be cleansed. And very many innocent infants having been brought together according to their words, when the sacrilegious priests of the pagans wished them to be slaughtered and the font to be filled with their blood: Our Serenity perceiving the tears of the mothers, I straightway abhorred the deed. And, pitying them, I ordered their own sons to be restored to them; and, giving them vehicles and gifts, sent them off rejoicing to their own. That day having passed therefore-the silence of night having come upon us-when the time of sleep had arrived, the apostles St. Peter and Paul appear, saying to me: "Since thou hast placed a term to thy vices, and hast abhorred the pouring forth of innocent blood, we are sent by, Christ the Lord our God, to give to thee a plan for recovering thy health. Hear, therefore, our warning, and do what we indicate to thee. Sylvester - the bishop of the city of Rome - on Mount Serapte, fleeing they persecutions, cherishes the darkness with his clergy in the caverns of the rocks. This one, when thou shalt have led him to thyself, will himself show thee a pool of piety; in which, when he shall have dipped thee for the third time, all that strength of the leprosy will desert thee. And, when this shall have been done, make this return to thy Saviour, that by thy order through the whole world the churches may be restored. Purify thyself, moreover, in this way, that, leaving all the superstition of idols, thou do adore and cherish the living and true God -- who is alone and true -- and that thou attain to the doing of His will.
Rising, therefore, from sleep, straightway I did according to that which I bad been advised to do by, the holy apostles; and, having summoned that excellent and benignant father and our enlightener - Svlvester the universal pope-I told him all the words that had been taught me by the holy apostles; and asked him who where those gods Peter and Paul. But he said that they where not really called gods, but apostles of our Saviour the Lord God Jesus Christ. And again we began to ask that same most blessed pope whether he had some express image of those apostles; so that, from their likeness, we might learn that they were those whom revelation bad shown to us. Then that same venerable father ordered the images of those same apostles to be shown by his deacon. And, when I had looked at them, and recognized, represented in those images, the countenances of those whom I had seen in my dream: with a great noise, before all my satraps*, I confessed that they were those whom I had seen in my dream.
[* there were no such Roman officials]
Hereupon that same most blessed Sylvester our father, bishop of the city of Rome, imposed upon us a time of penance-within our Lateran palace, in the chapel, in a hair garment,-so that I might obtain pardon from our Lord God Jesus Christ our Saviour by vigils, fasts, and tears and prayers, for all things that had been impiously done and unjustly ordered by me. Then through the imposition of the hands of the clergy, I came to the bishop himself; and there, renouncing the pomps of Satan and his works, and all idols made by hands, of my own will before all the people I confessed: that I believed in God the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. And, the font having been blessed, the wave of salvation purified me there with a triple immersion. For there 1, being placed at the bottom of the font, saw with my own eyes a band from Heaven touching me; whence rising, clean, know that I was cleansed from all the squalor of leprosy. And, I being raised from the venerable font-putting on white raiment, be administered to me the sign of the seven-fold holy Spirit, the unction of the holy oil; and he traced the sign of the holy cross on my brow, saying: God seals thee with the seal of His faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to signalize thy faith. All the clergy replied: "Amen." The bishop added, "peace be with thee."
And so, on the first day after receiving the mystery of the holy baptism, and after the cure of my body from the squalor of the leprosy, I recognized that there was no other God save the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; whom the most blessed Sylvester the pope doth preach; a trinity in one, a unity in three. For all the gods of the nations, whom I have worshipped up to this time, are proved to be demons; works made by the hand of men; inasmuch as that same venerable father told to us most clearly how much power in Heaven and on earth He, our Saviour, conferred on his apostle St. Peter, when finding him faithful after questioning him He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petrani) shall I build My Church, and the gates of bell shall not prevail against it." Give heed ye powerful, and incline the ear of .your hearts to that which the good Lord and Master added to His disciple, saying: and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." This is very wonderful and glorious, to bind and loose on earth and to have it bound and loosed in Heaven.
And when, the blessed Sylvester preaching them, I perceived these things, and learned that by the kindness of St. Peter himself I had been entirely restored to health: I together with all our satraps and the whole senate and the nobles and all the Roman people, who are subject to the glory of our rule -considered it advisable that, as on earth he (Peter) is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God, so the pontiffs, who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the earthly clemency of our imperial serenity is seen to have had conceded to it,-we choosing that same prince of the apostles, or his vicars, to be our constant intercessors with God. And, to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we decree that his holy Roman church shall be honoured with veneration; and that, more than our empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of St. Peter shall be gloriously exalted; we giving to it the imperial power, and dignity of glory, and vigour and honour.
And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople* and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world. And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered. It is indeed just, that there the holy law should have the seat of its rule where the founder of holy laws, our Saviour, told St. Peter to take the chair of the apostleship; where also, sustaining the cross, he blissfully took the cup of death and appeared as imitator of his Lord and Master; and that there the people should bend their necks at the confession of Christ's name, where their teacher, St. Paul the apostle, extending his neck for Christ, was crowned with martyrdom. There, until the end, let them seek a teacher, where the holy body of the teacher lies; and there, prone and humiliated, let them perform I the service of the heavenly king, God our Saviour Jesus Christ, where the proud were accustomed to serve under the rule of an earthly king.
[*at the time of the supposed date of the document, Constantinople had not been founded. Its position as "chief seat" was two centuries away.]
Meanwhile we wish all the people, of all the races and nations throughout the whole world, to know: that we have constructed within our Lateran palace, to the same Saviour our Lord God Jesus Christ, a church with a baptistry from the foundations. And know that we have carried on our own shoulders from its foundations, twelve baskets weighted with earth, according to the number of the holy apostles. Which holy church we command to be spoken of, cherished, venerated and preached of, as the head and summit of all the churches in the whole world-as we have commanded through our other imperial decrees. We have also constructed the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, chiefs of the apostles, which we have enriched with gold and silver; where also, placing their most sacred bodies with great honour, we have constructed their caskets of electrum, against which no force of the elements prevails. And we have placed a cross of purest gold and precious gems on each of their caskets, and fastened them with golden keys. And on these churches for the endowing of divine services we have conferred estates, and have enriched them with different objects; and, through our sacred imperial decrees, we have granted them our gift of land in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast;-namely in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands: under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Sylvester and his successors.
For let all the people and the nations of the races in the whole world rejoice with us; we exhorting all of you to give unbounded thanks, together with us, to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For He is God in Heaven above and on earth below, who, visiting us through His holy apostles, made us worthy to receive the holy sacrament of baptism and health of body. In return for which, to those same holy apostles, my masters, St. Peter and St. Paul; and, through them, also to St. Sylvester, our father,-the chief pontiff and universal pope of the city of Rome,-and to all the pontiffs his successors, who until the end of the world shall be about to sit in the seat of St. Peter: we concede and, by this present, do confer, our imperial Lateran palace, which is preferred to, and ranks above, all the palaces in the whole world; then a diadem, that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara; and, also, the shoulder band,-that is, the collar that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle, and crimson tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and the same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry; conferring also the imperial sceptres, and, at the same time, the spears and standards; also the banners and different imperial ornaments, and all the advantage of our high imperial position, and the glory of our power.
And we decree, as to those most reverend men, the clergy who serve, in different orders, that same holy Roman church, that they shall have the same advantage, distinction, power and excellence by the glory of which our most illustrious senate is adorned; that is, that they shall be made patricians and consuls,-we commanding that they shall also be decorated with the other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial soldiery, so, we decree, shall the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned. And I even as the imperial power is adorned by different offices-by the distinction, that is, of chamberlains, and door keepers, and all the guards,-so we wish the holy Roman church to be adorned. And, in order that the pontifical glory may shine forth more fully, we decree this also: that the clergy of this same holy Roman church may use saddle cloths of linen of the whitest colour; namely that their horses may be adorned and so be ridden, and that, as our senate uses shoes with goats' hair, so they may be distinguished by gleaming linen; in order that, as the celestial beings, so the terrestrial may be adorned to the glory of God. Above all things, moreover, we give permission to that same most holy one our father Sylvester, bishop of the city of Rome and pope, and to all the most blessed pontiffs who shall come after him and succeed him in all future times-for the honour and glory of Jesus Christ our Lord,-to receive into that great Catholic and apostolic church of God, even into the number of the monastic clergy, any one from our senate, who, in free choice, of his own accord, may wish to become- a cleric; no one at all presuming thereby to act in a haughty manner.
We also decreed this, that this same venerable one our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, and all the pontiffs his successors, might use and bear upon their heads-to the Praise of God and for the honour of St. Peter-the diadem; that is, the crown which we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold and precious gems. But he, the most holy pope, did not at all allow that crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the glory of St. Peter; but we placed upon his most holy head, with our own hands, a tiara of gleaming splendour representing the glorious resurrection of our Lord. And, holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for St. Peter we performed for him the duty of groom; decreeing that all the pontiffs his successors, and they alone, may use that tiara in processions.
In imitation of our own power, in order that for that cause the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with power and glory even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule: behold we-giving over to the oft-mentioned most blessed pontiff, our father Sylvester the universal pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions; and relinquishing them, by our inviolable gift, to the power and sway of himself or the pontiffs his successors-do decree, by this our godlike charter and imperial constitution, that it shall be (so) arranged; and do concede that they (the palaces, provinces etc.) shall lawfully remain with the holy Roman church.
Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and the power of our kingdom should be transferred and changed to the regions of the East; and that, in the province of Byzantium, in a most fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our empire should there be established. For, where the supremacy of priests and the bead of the Christian religion has been established by a heavenly ruler, it is not just that there an earthly ruler should have jurisdiction.
We decree, moreover, that all these things which, through this our imperial charter and through other godlike commands, we have established and confirmed, shall remain uninjured and unshaken until the end of the world. Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign, and in the face of his terrible judgment, we conjure, through this our imperial decree, all the emperors our successors, and all our nobles, the satraps also and the most glorious senate, and all the people in the ,A-hole world now and in all times previously subject to our rule: that no one of them, in any way allow himself to oppose or disregard, or in any way seize, these things which, by our imperial sanction, have been conceded to the holy Roman church and to all its pontiffs. If anyone, moreover,-which we do not believe - prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation; and shall feel that the holy chiefs of the apostles of God, Peter and Paul, will be opposed to him in the present and in the future life. And, being burned in the nethermost hell, he shall perish with the devil and all the impious.
The page, moreover, of this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of St. Peter chief of the apostles; and there, promising to that same apostle of God that we would preserve inviolably all its provisions, and would leave in our commands to all the emperors our successors to preserve them, we did hand it over, to be enduringly and happily possessed, to our most blessed father Sylvester the supreme pontiff and universal pope, and, through him, to all the pontiffs his successors -God our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ consenting.
And the imperial subscription: May the Divinity preserve you for many years, oh most holy and blessed fathers.
Given at Rome on the third day before the Kalends of April, our master the august Flavius Constantine, for the fourth time, and Galligano, most illustrious men, being consuls.
(From Zeumer's edition, published in Berlin in 1888, v. Brunner-Zeumer: "Die Constantinische Schenkungsurkunde") translated in Ernest F. Henderson, , Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages , (London: George Bell, 1910), pp. 319-329
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996 [updated 11/23/96]
[email protected]
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html
Medieval Sourcebook: The Donation of Constantine (c.750-800)
This is perhaps the most famous forgery in history. For centuries, until Lorenzo Valla proved it was forgery during the Renaissance it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy. Probably at least a first draft of it was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with the Frankish Mayor of the Palace, Pepin the Short. The Pope crossed the Alps to anoint the latter as king in 754, thereby enabling, the Carolingian family, to which Pepin belonged, to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become decadent and powerless and to become in law as well as in fact rulers of the Franks. In return, Pepin seems to have promised to give to the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. Constantine's alleged gift made it possible to interpret Pepin's grant not as a benefaction but as a restoration.
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church, who have been established now and in all previous times-grace, peace, charitv, rejoicing, long-suffering, mercv, be with you all from God the Father almighty and from Jesus Christ his Son and from the Holy Ghost. Our most gracious serenity desires, in clear discourse, through the page of this our imperial decree, to bring to the knowledge of all the people in the whole world what things our Saviour and Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the most High Father, has most wonderfully seen fit to bring about through his holy apostles Peter and Paul and by the intervention of our father Sylvester, the highest pontiff and the universal pope. First, indeed, putting forth, with the inmost confession of our heart, for the purpose of instructing the mind of all of you, our creed which we have learned from the aforesaid most blessed father and our confessor, Svlvester the universal pontiff; and then at length announcing the mercy of God which has been poured upon us.
For we wish you to know,, as we have signified through our former imperial decree, that we have gone away, from the worship of idols, from mute and deaf images made by hand, from devilish contrivances and from all the pomps of Satan; and have arrived at the pure faith of the Christians, which is the true light and everlasting life. Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.
There are therefore three forms but one power. For God, wise in all previous time, gave forth from himself the word through which all future ages were to be born; and when, by that sole word of His wisdom, He formed the whole creation from nothing, He was with it, arranging all things in His mysterious secret place.
Therefore, the virtues of the Heavens and all the material part of the earth having been perfected, by the wise nod of His wisdom first creating man of the clay of the earth in His own image and likeness, He placed him in a paradise of delight. Him the ancient serpent and envious enemy, the devil, through the most bitter taste of the forbidden tree, made an exile from these joys; and, be being expelled, did not cease in many ways to cast his poisonous darts; in order that, turning the human race from the way of truth to the worship of idols, he might persuade it, namely to worship the creature and not the creator; so that, through them (the idols), he might cause those whom he might be able to entrap in his snares to be burned with him in eternal punishment. But our Lord, pitying His creature, sending ahead His holy prophets, announcing through them the light of the future life-the coming,' that is, of His Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-sent that same only begotten Son and Word of wisdom: He descending from Heaven on account of our salvation, being born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary,-the word was made flesh and d welt among us. He did not cease to be what He had been, but began to be what He had not been, perfect God and perfect man: as God, performing miracles; as man, sustaining human sufferings. We so learned Him to be very man and very God by the preaching of our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, that we can in no wise doubt that He was very, God and very man. And, having chosen twelve apostles, He shone with miracles before them and an innumerable multitude of people. We confess that this same Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets; that He suffered, was crucified, on the third day arose from the dead according to the Scriptures; was received into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. Whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. For this is our orthodox creed, placed before us by our most blessed father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff. We exhort, therefore, all people, and all the different nations, to hold, cherish and preach this faith; and, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to obtain the grace of baptism; and, with devaout heart, to adore the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns through infinite ages; whom Sylvester our father, the universal pontiff, preaches. For He himself, our Lord God, having pit on me a sinner, sent His holy apostles to visit us, and caused the light of his splendour to shine upon us. And do ye rejoice that I, having been withdrawn from the shadow, have come to the true light and to the knowledge of truth. For, at a time when a mighty and filthy leprosy had invaded all the flesh of my, body, and the care was administered of many physicians who came together, nor by that of any one of them did I achieve health: there came hither the priests of the Capitol, saving to me that a font should be made on the Capitol, and that I should fill this with the blood of innocent infants; and that, if I bathed in it while it was warm, I might be cleansed. And very many innocent infants having been brought together according to their words, when the sacrilegious priests of the pagans wished them to be slaughtered and the font to be filled with their blood: Our Serenity perceiving the tears of the mothers, I straightway abhorred the deed. And, pitying them, I ordered their own sons to be restored to them; and, giving them vehicles and gifts, sent them off rejoicing to their own. That day having passed therefore-the silence of night having come upon us-when the time of sleep had arrived, the apostles St. Peter and Paul appear, saying to me: "Since thou hast placed a term to thy vices, and hast abhorred the pouring forth of innocent blood, we are sent by, Christ the Lord our God, to give to thee a plan for recovering thy health. Hear, therefore, our warning, and do what we indicate to thee. Sylvester - the bishop of the city of Rome - on Mount Serapte, fleeing they persecutions, cherishes the darkness with his clergy in the caverns of the rocks. This one, when thou shalt have led him to thyself, will himself show thee a pool of piety; in which, when he shall have dipped thee for the third time, all that strength of the leprosy will desert thee. And, when this shall have been done, make this return to thy Saviour, that by thy order through the whole world the churches may be restored. Purify thyself, moreover, in this way, that, leaving all the superstition of idols, thou do adore and cherish the living and true God -- who is alone and true -- and that thou attain to the doing of His will.
Rising, therefore, from sleep, straightway I did according to that which I bad been advised to do by, the holy apostles; and, having summoned that excellent and benignant father and our enlightener - Svlvester the universal pope-I told him all the words that had been taught me by the holy apostles; and asked him who where those gods Peter and Paul. But he said that they where not really called gods, but apostles of our Saviour the Lord God Jesus Christ. And again we began to ask that same most blessed pope whether he had some express image of those apostles; so that, from their likeness, we might learn that they were those whom revelation bad shown to us. Then that same venerable father ordered the images of those same apostles to be shown by his deacon. And, when I had looked at them, and recognized, represented in those images, the countenances of those whom I had seen in my dream: with a great noise, before all my satraps*, I confessed that they were those whom I had seen in my dream.
[* there were no such Roman officials]
Hereupon that same most blessed Sylvester our father, bishop of the city of Rome, imposed upon us a time of penance-within our Lateran palace, in the chapel, in a hair garment,-so that I might obtain pardon from our Lord God Jesus Christ our Saviour by vigils, fasts, and tears and prayers, for all things that had been impiously done and unjustly ordered by me. Then through the imposition of the hands of the clergy, I came to the bishop himself; and there, renouncing the pomps of Satan and his works, and all idols made by hands, of my own will before all the people I confessed: that I believed in God the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. And, the font having been blessed, the wave of salvation purified me there with a triple immersion. For there 1, being placed at the bottom of the font, saw with my own eyes a band from Heaven touching me; whence rising, clean, know that I was cleansed from all the squalor of leprosy. And, I being raised from the venerable font-putting on white raiment, be administered to me the sign of the seven-fold holy Spirit, the unction of the holy oil; and he traced the sign of the holy cross on my brow, saying: God seals thee with the seal of His faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to signalize thy faith. All the clergy replied: "Amen." The bishop added, "peace be with thee."
And so, on the first day after receiving the mystery of the holy baptism, and after the cure of my body from the squalor of the leprosy, I recognized that there was no other God save the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; whom the most blessed Sylvester the pope doth preach; a trinity in one, a unity in three. For all the gods of the nations, whom I have worshipped up to this time, are proved to be demons; works made by the hand of men; inasmuch as that same venerable father told to us most clearly how much power in Heaven and on earth He, our Saviour, conferred on his apostle St. Peter, when finding him faithful after questioning him He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petrani) shall I build My Church, and the gates of bell shall not prevail against it." Give heed ye powerful, and incline the ear of .your hearts to that which the good Lord and Master added to His disciple, saying: and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." This is very wonderful and glorious, to bind and loose on earth and to have it bound and loosed in Heaven.
And when, the blessed Sylvester preaching them, I perceived these things, and learned that by the kindness of St. Peter himself I had been entirely restored to health: I together with all our satraps and the whole senate and the nobles and all the Roman people, who are subject to the glory of our rule -considered it advisable that, as on earth he (Peter) is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God, so the pontiffs, who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the earthly clemency of our imperial serenity is seen to have had conceded to it,-we choosing that same prince of the apostles, or his vicars, to be our constant intercessors with God. And, to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we decree that his holy Roman church shall be honoured with veneration; and that, more than our empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of St. Peter shall be gloriously exalted; we giving to it the imperial power, and dignity of glory, and vigour and honour.
And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople* and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world. And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered. It is indeed just, that there the holy law should have the seat of its rule where the founder of holy laws, our Saviour, told St. Peter to take the chair of the apostleship; where also, sustaining the cross, he blissfully took the cup of death and appeared as imitator of his Lord and Master; and that there the people should bend their necks at the confession of Christ's name, where their teacher, St. Paul the apostle, extending his neck for Christ, was crowned with martyrdom. There, until the end, let them seek a teacher, where the holy body of the teacher lies; and there, prone and humiliated, let them perform I the service of the heavenly king, God our Saviour Jesus Christ, where the proud were accustomed to serve under the rule of an earthly king.
[*at the time of the supposed date of the document, Constantinople had not been founded. Its position as "chief seat" was two centuries away.]
Meanwhile we wish all the people, of all the races and nations throughout the whole world, to know: that we have constructed within our Lateran palace, to the same Saviour our Lord God Jesus Christ, a church with a baptistry from the foundations. And know that we have carried on our own shoulders from its foundations, twelve baskets weighted with earth, according to the number of the holy apostles. Which holy church we command to be spoken of, cherished, venerated and preached of, as the head and summit of all the churches in the whole world-as we have commanded through our other imperial decrees. We have also constructed the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, chiefs of the apostles, which we have enriched with gold and silver; where also, placing their most sacred bodies with great honour, we have constructed their caskets of electrum, against which no force of the elements prevails. And we have placed a cross of purest gold and precious gems on each of their caskets, and fastened them with golden keys. And on these churches for the endowing of divine services we have conferred estates, and have enriched them with different objects; and, through our sacred imperial decrees, we have granted them our gift of land in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast;-namely in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands: under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Sylvester and his successors.
For let all the people and the nations of the races in the whole world rejoice with us; we exhorting all of you to give unbounded thanks, together with us, to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For He is God in Heaven above and on earth below, who, visiting us through His holy apostles, made us worthy to receive the holy sacrament of baptism and health of body. In return for which, to those same holy apostles, my masters, St. Peter and St. Paul; and, through them, also to St. Sylvester, our father,-the chief pontiff and universal pope of the city of Rome,-and to all the pontiffs his successors, who until the end of the world shall be about to sit in the seat of St. Peter: we concede and, by this present, do confer, our imperial Lateran palace, which is preferred to, and ranks above, all the palaces in the whole world; then a diadem, that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara; and, also, the shoulder band,-that is, the collar that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle, and crimson tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and the same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry; conferring also the imperial sceptres, and, at the same time, the spears and standards; also the banners and different imperial ornaments, and all the advantage of our high imperial position, and the glory of our power.
And we decree, as to those most reverend men, the clergy who serve, in different orders, that same holy Roman church, that they shall have the same advantage, distinction, power and excellence by the glory of which our most illustrious senate is adorned; that is, that they shall be made patricians and consuls,-we commanding that they shall also be decorated with the other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial soldiery, so, we decree, shall the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned. And I even as the imperial power is adorned by different offices-by the distinction, that is, of chamberlains, and door keepers, and all the guards,-so we wish the holy Roman church to be adorned. And, in order that the pontifical glory may shine forth more fully, we decree this also: that the clergy of this same holy Roman church may use saddle cloths of linen of the whitest colour; namely that their horses may be adorned and so be ridden, and that, as our senate uses shoes with goats' hair, so they may be distinguished by gleaming linen; in order that, as the celestial beings, so the terrestrial may be adorned to the glory of God. Above all things, moreover, we give permission to that same most holy one our father Sylvester, bishop of the city of Rome and pope, and to all the most blessed pontiffs who shall come after him and succeed him in all future times-for the honour and glory of Jesus Christ our Lord,-to receive into that great Catholic and apostolic church of God, even into the number of the monastic clergy, any one from our senate, who, in free choice, of his own accord, may wish to become- a cleric; no one at all presuming thereby to act in a haughty manner.
We also decreed this, that this same venerable one our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, and all the pontiffs his successors, might use and bear upon their heads-to the Praise of God and for the honour of St. Peter-the diadem; that is, the crown which we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold and precious gems. But he, the most holy pope, did not at all allow that crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the glory of St. Peter; but we placed upon his most holy head, with our own hands, a tiara of gleaming splendour representing the glorious resurrection of our Lord. And, holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for St. Peter we performed for him the duty of groom; decreeing that all the pontiffs his successors, and they alone, may use that tiara in processions.
In imitation of our own power, in order that for that cause the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with power and glory even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule: behold we-giving over to the oft-mentioned most blessed pontiff, our father Sylvester the universal pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions; and relinquishing them, by our inviolable gift, to the power and sway of himself or the pontiffs his successors-do decree, by this our godlike charter and imperial constitution, that it shall be (so) arranged; and do concede that they (the palaces, provinces etc.) shall lawfully remain with the holy Roman church.
Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and the power of our kingdom should be transferred and changed to the regions of the East; and that, in the province of Byzantium, in a most fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our empire should there be established. For, where the supremacy of priests and the bead of the Christian religion has been established by a heavenly ruler, it is not just that there an earthly ruler should have jurisdiction.
We decree, moreover, that all these things which, through this our imperial charter and through other godlike commands, we have established and confirmed, shall remain uninjured and unshaken until the end of the world. Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign, and in the face of his terrible judgment, we conjure, through this our imperial decree, all the emperors our successors, and all our nobles, the satraps also and the most glorious senate, and all the people in the ,A-hole world now and in all times previously subject to our rule: that no one of them, in any way allow himself to oppose or disregard, or in any way seize, these things which, by our imperial sanction, have been conceded to the holy Roman church and to all its pontiffs. If anyone, moreover,-which we do not believe - prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation; and shall feel that the holy chiefs of the apostles of God, Peter and Paul, will be opposed to him in the present and in the future life. And, being burned in the nethermost hell, he shall perish with the devil and all the impious.
The page, moreover, of this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of St. Peter chief of the apostles; and there, promising to that same apostle of God that we would preserve inviolably all its provisions, and would leave in our commands to all the emperors our successors to preserve them, we did hand it over, to be enduringly and happily possessed, to our most blessed father Sylvester the supreme pontiff and universal pope, and, through him, to all the pontiffs his successors -God our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ consenting.
And the imperial subscription: May the Divinity preserve you for many years, oh most holy and blessed fathers.
Given at Rome on the third day before the Kalends of April, our master the august Flavius Constantine, for the fourth time, and Galligano, most illustrious men, being consuls.
(From Zeumer's edition, published in Berlin in 1888, v. Brunner-Zeumer: "Die Constantinische Schenkungsurkunde") translated in Ernest F. Henderson, , Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages , (London: George Bell, 1910), pp. 319-329
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.
(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996 [updated 11/23/96]
[email protected]
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html
In Defense of Sovereignty
In Defense of Kingship and Divine Right
By Tracy R. Twyman
Originally written for Dagobert’s Revenge Magazine, Copyright 1998
(Does not necessarily represent author’s current viewpoint.)
“Ye seek a leader? I am your captain and your king.
Follow me!”
-King Richard I of England Patriarcha Book of Robert Filmer, 1680
In the late 17th century author Jacques-Benigne Bossuet proposed his theory of the Divine Right of Kings to settle a dispute between Pope Innocent XI and King Louis XIV of France over who had final authority in all matters French. Basically, he argued that kings were chosen by God and therefore should answer to no one except God. This theory dominated the period of Absolutism that Europe was going through around that time, in which kings exercised completely unchecked dictatorial powers, leading to the French Revolution and England’s Glorious Revolution, in which severe constitutional limits were placed on the crown. While Absolutism is certainly a case of a concept being taken to extremes, the idea that kings get their authority from God is not a new one. In fact, it is the very basis of monarchy.
Human civilization began in Ancient Sumer, and that is where kingship began. Sumerian records claim that government on Earth was first installed by the gods, specifically a divine royal family headed by Anu, King of the Gods. His symbols were the tiara, the scepter, and the shepherd’s staff, representing divinity, power, and righteous leadership, respectively. The Sumerians said that the gods created us, taught us all the basics of civilization, and shortly after the Deluge, they decided it was time for us to govern ourselves. They directed mankind in building the first city, Kish, and they crowned the first human king as an intermediary between mankind and his creators. “Kingship descended from heaven,” the texts read. The legitimacy of the king’s authority was derived directly from Anu. In fact, their word for kingship was Anutu (literally, Anu-ship). From that point on, kingdoms have come and gone, but the concept of king as deific appointee has made its way into all cultures.
Anu, the first Sumerian god-king
In our Judeo-Christian culture, the idea of divinely-ordained monarchy is backed up by scripture. After an unsuccessful attempt to rule His chosen people directly through a council of judges, Yahweh finally gave in to popular demand and appointed King Saul. Of course, Saul had a problem with obedience, and soon God had to choose another, young David, a descendent of the patriarch Judah. Having promised Judah 10 generations previous that he would father a great nation and that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah … until Shiloh come” (Genesis 49:10), it seemed like a natural choice. Through his prophet Nathan he told David “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” (Samuel 7:12). So in 1048 BC, David was crowned king of both Judah and Israel, with Jerusalem as his capitol, which until then had been a Canaanite village known as Jebus. The two nations split a couple of generations later, with Israel maintaining a separate succession and Samaria as the capitol, but the kingdom of Judah remained loyal until its inhabitants were carried off into Babylonian captivity, where Zedekiah, the last historically acknowledged King of Judah was blinded just prior to the murder of his sons. However, the royal bloodline was kept intact and a line of Judaic kings de jure proliferated, culminating 21 generations later in Jesus the Nazarene. Thus the title: King of the Jews” which was placed above his head at the crucifixion was actually an accurate description. In fact, there are some who say that Jesus and/or his brother James spawned heirs to the throne of Jerusalem, who fled to France and Ireland after his death and continued the Davidic dynasty, intermarrying with local royalty. This claim was made by a number of powerful European dynasties, including the Merovingians, the Carolingians, the Stuarts, the Plantagenets, the Habsburgs, and even Emperor Constantine, who have all traced their ancestry back to the House of David. It was this claim upon which they based the legitimacy of their rule, and usurpers who were not already of the Blood of Sion, as it’s called made a point of marrying into the usurped family before their coronation and anointment ceremony in order to make it legitimate. Indeed, it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the ritual of anointing kings, first employed by the Vatican when helping Pepin III depose Childeric II as King of the Franks, was, in the words of author Michael Baigent: “a deliberate attempt to suggest that the Frankish monarchy was a replica, if not actually a continuation, of the Judaic monarchy of the Old Testament.” This was significant, for the Church was now assuming the god-like power of creating kings, whereas up until that point kings had been born, not made, and were regarded as such upon coming of age.
Since the death of Absolutism, monarchy all over the world has given way to all sorts of supposedly “populist” governments: Democracy, Republicanism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and all points in-between, all under the banners of “Freedom,” “Liberty,” “Equality,” and the like. Here in the west, the few countries that still maintain a monarchy do it purely for show. Their sovereigns have been almost completely stripped of their authority and function merely as tourist attractions and topics of conversation, while parliaments and congresses of elected officials who supposedly represent the people have taken over the role of leadership. But do they really represent us? Rarely. If anyone, they represent the campaign contributors who actually put them there. Once in office, they are under no obligation to keep the promises they made to the public, and they only respond to public sentiment when they are about to be voted out of office. They have no sense of responsibility to the people they govern, and no loyalty to their oaths of office. Here in America, the Constitution is regularly pissed upon by those who find the First Amendment inconvenient and the Second Amendment dangerous. Unlawful searches and seizures occur daily in the midst of this ridiculous Drug War, and people under the age of 18 are considered less than human, without freedom of speech or movement. And the voters, an ignorant, apathetic bunch, gladly allow their rights to be trampled on in the belief that the Crime Bill will stop crime or that the Tobacco Bill will prevent lung cancer. They actually believe that Big Daddy Government is going to take care of them, often arguing that we should be more like “the rest of the civilized world,” meaning Europe, where guns are illegal, taxes of all kinds are exorbitant and personal freedoms are more like privileges. They are willing to look the other way as elected officials commit heinous crimes and sell our futures off to foreign interests simply because of a seemingly healthy economy, when in fact international banking families and the non-elected Directors of the Federal Reserve Board have more influence over the economy than any politician. In effect, what we have in America is neither a Republic nor a Democracy, but an oligarchy operating under the guise of mob rule.
In such a system, who will stand up for the rights of the individual citizen while Republicans and Democrats quibble about which Constitutional infringement to pass next? Who will provide consistent leadership and uphold the principles of our founding fathers despite the ever-changing agendas of passing administrations? Who will be immune to the influence of vested interests and party politics? Who will be a unifying symbol to re-instill pride and patriotism in the jaded masses, whose blase attitude has allowed this decay of American freedom?
The answer is simple. Within the confines of a well-established, well-respected, God-ordained royal family, a monarch can be born and bred expressly for the purpose of operating as a constitutional protector, and can exercise his or her authority without having to pander to corporations, politicians or angry voters who want their immediate needs met with no thought of the consequences. He would indeed answer to no one but God, duty-bound to watch over the nation as a shepherd keeps his flock. (And if he were descended from the Royal House of David, he could gain the respect of Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, both here and abroad.) The founding fathers knew this. In fact they initially wanted to crown George Washington “King of the Americans,” and then later offered the post to the exiled Charles Stuart III of Scotland, who declined only for lack of a male heir. They knew that without a strong head the body politic would be unable to function properly. The dogged defensiveness of some of Clinton’s supporters for “the honor and dignity of the office of Presidency,” their ardent loyalty to him despite everything he’s done just because he’s “the President” – is proof of this. It shows that many people still have an unconscious desire for a king, a father figure whose rule is absolute and whose leadership is unquestioned. The strong emotional reactions that many have had to his betrayal reveal that as well, a desire to have someone you can actually look up to as opposed to someone just doing a job for self-serving reasons. They too see the office of Presidency with the awe and reverence usually reserved for a monarch, and they don’t like to see that image disgraced. This demonstrates that the “democracy” which we currently enjoy – meaning the popular election of partisan puppets who waste the country’s time and money for 4-8 years, then get discarded like an old toothbrush – is not sufficiently meeting our need for leadership. We need someone who will defend our constitutional guarantees and who will defend our national sovereignty from foreign invasion, both military and monetary, someone who’s authority to watch over the affairs of this nation is respected by all, because he does so by divine right.
Originally written for Dagobert’s Revenge Magazine, Copyright 1998
(Does not necessarily represent author’s current viewpoint.)
“Ye seek a leader? I am your captain and your king.
Follow me!”
-King Richard I of England Patriarcha Book of Robert Filmer, 1680
In the late 17th century author Jacques-Benigne Bossuet proposed his theory of the Divine Right of Kings to settle a dispute between Pope Innocent XI and King Louis XIV of France over who had final authority in all matters French. Basically, he argued that kings were chosen by God and therefore should answer to no one except God. This theory dominated the period of Absolutism that Europe was going through around that time, in which kings exercised completely unchecked dictatorial powers, leading to the French Revolution and England’s Glorious Revolution, in which severe constitutional limits were placed on the crown. While Absolutism is certainly a case of a concept being taken to extremes, the idea that kings get their authority from God is not a new one. In fact, it is the very basis of monarchy.
Human civilization began in Ancient Sumer, and that is where kingship began. Sumerian records claim that government on Earth was first installed by the gods, specifically a divine royal family headed by Anu, King of the Gods. His symbols were the tiara, the scepter, and the shepherd’s staff, representing divinity, power, and righteous leadership, respectively. The Sumerians said that the gods created us, taught us all the basics of civilization, and shortly after the Deluge, they decided it was time for us to govern ourselves. They directed mankind in building the first city, Kish, and they crowned the first human king as an intermediary between mankind and his creators. “Kingship descended from heaven,” the texts read. The legitimacy of the king’s authority was derived directly from Anu. In fact, their word for kingship was Anutu (literally, Anu-ship). From that point on, kingdoms have come and gone, but the concept of king as deific appointee has made its way into all cultures.
Anu, the first Sumerian god-king
In our Judeo-Christian culture, the idea of divinely-ordained monarchy is backed up by scripture. After an unsuccessful attempt to rule His chosen people directly through a council of judges, Yahweh finally gave in to popular demand and appointed King Saul. Of course, Saul had a problem with obedience, and soon God had to choose another, young David, a descendent of the patriarch Judah. Having promised Judah 10 generations previous that he would father a great nation and that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah … until Shiloh come” (Genesis 49:10), it seemed like a natural choice. Through his prophet Nathan he told David “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” (Samuel 7:12). So in 1048 BC, David was crowned king of both Judah and Israel, with Jerusalem as his capitol, which until then had been a Canaanite village known as Jebus. The two nations split a couple of generations later, with Israel maintaining a separate succession and Samaria as the capitol, but the kingdom of Judah remained loyal until its inhabitants were carried off into Babylonian captivity, where Zedekiah, the last historically acknowledged King of Judah was blinded just prior to the murder of his sons. However, the royal bloodline was kept intact and a line of Judaic kings de jure proliferated, culminating 21 generations later in Jesus the Nazarene. Thus the title: King of the Jews” which was placed above his head at the crucifixion was actually an accurate description. In fact, there are some who say that Jesus and/or his brother James spawned heirs to the throne of Jerusalem, who fled to France and Ireland after his death and continued the Davidic dynasty, intermarrying with local royalty. This claim was made by a number of powerful European dynasties, including the Merovingians, the Carolingians, the Stuarts, the Plantagenets, the Habsburgs, and even Emperor Constantine, who have all traced their ancestry back to the House of David. It was this claim upon which they based the legitimacy of their rule, and usurpers who were not already of the Blood of Sion, as it’s called made a point of marrying into the usurped family before their coronation and anointment ceremony in order to make it legitimate. Indeed, it is generally acknowledged by scholars that the ritual of anointing kings, first employed by the Vatican when helping Pepin III depose Childeric II as King of the Franks, was, in the words of author Michael Baigent: “a deliberate attempt to suggest that the Frankish monarchy was a replica, if not actually a continuation, of the Judaic monarchy of the Old Testament.” This was significant, for the Church was now assuming the god-like power of creating kings, whereas up until that point kings had been born, not made, and were regarded as such upon coming of age.
Since the death of Absolutism, monarchy all over the world has given way to all sorts of supposedly “populist” governments: Democracy, Republicanism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and all points in-between, all under the banners of “Freedom,” “Liberty,” “Equality,” and the like. Here in the west, the few countries that still maintain a monarchy do it purely for show. Their sovereigns have been almost completely stripped of their authority and function merely as tourist attractions and topics of conversation, while parliaments and congresses of elected officials who supposedly represent the people have taken over the role of leadership. But do they really represent us? Rarely. If anyone, they represent the campaign contributors who actually put them there. Once in office, they are under no obligation to keep the promises they made to the public, and they only respond to public sentiment when they are about to be voted out of office. They have no sense of responsibility to the people they govern, and no loyalty to their oaths of office. Here in America, the Constitution is regularly pissed upon by those who find the First Amendment inconvenient and the Second Amendment dangerous. Unlawful searches and seizures occur daily in the midst of this ridiculous Drug War, and people under the age of 18 are considered less than human, without freedom of speech or movement. And the voters, an ignorant, apathetic bunch, gladly allow their rights to be trampled on in the belief that the Crime Bill will stop crime or that the Tobacco Bill will prevent lung cancer. They actually believe that Big Daddy Government is going to take care of them, often arguing that we should be more like “the rest of the civilized world,” meaning Europe, where guns are illegal, taxes of all kinds are exorbitant and personal freedoms are more like privileges. They are willing to look the other way as elected officials commit heinous crimes and sell our futures off to foreign interests simply because of a seemingly healthy economy, when in fact international banking families and the non-elected Directors of the Federal Reserve Board have more influence over the economy than any politician. In effect, what we have in America is neither a Republic nor a Democracy, but an oligarchy operating under the guise of mob rule.
In such a system, who will stand up for the rights of the individual citizen while Republicans and Democrats quibble about which Constitutional infringement to pass next? Who will provide consistent leadership and uphold the principles of our founding fathers despite the ever-changing agendas of passing administrations? Who will be immune to the influence of vested interests and party politics? Who will be a unifying symbol to re-instill pride and patriotism in the jaded masses, whose blase attitude has allowed this decay of American freedom?
The answer is simple. Within the confines of a well-established, well-respected, God-ordained royal family, a monarch can be born and bred expressly for the purpose of operating as a constitutional protector, and can exercise his or her authority without having to pander to corporations, politicians or angry voters who want their immediate needs met with no thought of the consequences. He would indeed answer to no one but God, duty-bound to watch over the nation as a shepherd keeps his flock. (And if he were descended from the Royal House of David, he could gain the respect of Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, both here and abroad.) The founding fathers knew this. In fact they initially wanted to crown George Washington “King of the Americans,” and then later offered the post to the exiled Charles Stuart III of Scotland, who declined only for lack of a male heir. They knew that without a strong head the body politic would be unable to function properly. The dogged defensiveness of some of Clinton’s supporters for “the honor and dignity of the office of Presidency,” their ardent loyalty to him despite everything he’s done just because he’s “the President” – is proof of this. It shows that many people still have an unconscious desire for a king, a father figure whose rule is absolute and whose leadership is unquestioned. The strong emotional reactions that many have had to his betrayal reveal that as well, a desire to have someone you can actually look up to as opposed to someone just doing a job for self-serving reasons. They too see the office of Presidency with the awe and reverence usually reserved for a monarch, and they don’t like to see that image disgraced. This demonstrates that the “democracy” which we currently enjoy – meaning the popular election of partisan puppets who waste the country’s time and money for 4-8 years, then get discarded like an old toothbrush – is not sufficiently meeting our need for leadership. We need someone who will defend our constitutional guarantees and who will defend our national sovereignty from foreign invasion, both military and monetary, someone who’s authority to watch over the affairs of this nation is respected by all, because he does so by divine right.
Aubrey
De VERE (1° E. Oxford)
Born: ABT 1110
Acceded: 1142
Died: 26 Dec 1194
Buried: Colne Priory
Notes: The Complete Peerage vol.X,p.199-207.
Father: Aubrey De VERE (Justiciar of England)
Mother: Alice De CLARE
Married 1: Beatrice of BOURBOURG (C. Oxford) 1139 - Divorce 1146
Married 2: Eufeme De CAUNTELO (C. Oxford) 1152
Married 3: Lucia De ESSEX (C. Oxford) (b. 1151) (dau. of Henry Fitzpayne, B. Rayleigh, and Cecily ?) 1162
Children:
1. Aubrey De VERE (2° E. Oxford)
2. Ralph De VERE
3. Robert De VERE (3° E. Oxford)
4. Henry De VERE
5. Alice De VERE
Born: ABT 1110
Acceded: 1142
Died: 26 Dec 1194
Buried: Colne Priory
Notes: The Complete Peerage vol.X,p.199-207.
Father: Aubrey De VERE (Justiciar of England)
Mother: Alice De CLARE
Married 1: Beatrice of BOURBOURG (C. Oxford) 1139 - Divorce 1146
Married 2: Eufeme De CAUNTELO (C. Oxford) 1152
Married 3: Lucia De ESSEX (C. Oxford) (b. 1151) (dau. of Henry Fitzpayne, B. Rayleigh, and Cecily ?) 1162
Children:
1. Aubrey De VERE (2° E. Oxford)
2. Ralph De VERE
3. Robert De VERE (3° E. Oxford)
4. Henry De VERE
5. Alice De VERE
Ralph de Vere, founder of the Veres of Scotland
The first Aubrey de Vere on record (in Britain) came to England with William the Conqueror.
He is usually held to be a Norman, though he may have been a Breton; he certainly had strong Connections with Brittany. Before the Conquest he was described as one of the barons of Conan, Count of Brittany, and after the Battle of Hastings he or his son (a second Aubrey) was allotted lands in Essex by the overlord there, who was Alan of Brittany, now called Alan, Count of Richmond in Yorkshire.
Like all civil wars, the conflict between the Empress Maud and King Stephen was a very troubling one.
It was really a fight between Normans and Flemings for the English throne; and since Stephen's wife was the Flemish Matilda, Countess of Boulogne, those Flemings already in England naturally flocked to her side. For reasons best known to himself Aubrey III de Vere sided with the Normans; he got his reward when the Empress Maud created him Earl of Oxford.
It has been said, I think correctly, that before a man could be given an earldom he had to have another honour.
Among those who supported Stephen and Matilda against the Normans was Alan Earl of Richmond, and Aubrey III's second son, named Ralf, went against his father and fought for Stephen in the army of his own overlord.
The first officially recorded de Vere in Scotland was a Radulfus (or Ralf) who was holding estates in Lanarkshire during the reign of Alexander II. In 1160 Conan, Earl of Richmond, had married Margaret, sister of the King of Scotland, and it seems likely that this may have been the time when his follower, Ralf, was awarded his lands there. We may note that when Aubrey III died, he was succeeded as Earl of Oxford by his first son, Aubrey IV; but when that son died childless the earldom passed to a third son, missing out the second son, Ralf.
With thanks to Mrs Beryl Platts, author of 'The Scottish Hazard'.
Hereto and in published narratives it is made manifest that the most senior bloodline of the entire Royal House of Vere in Great Britain and Eire descends - not through the Oxford posterity - but through the Scottish Branch extracted from Ralph de Vere, eldest son of Aubrey III Earl of Oxford; and culminating contemporarily in the elder progeny of the Veres of Kildress.
The first Aubrey de Vere on record (in Britain) came to England with William the Conqueror.
He is usually held to be a Norman, though he may have been a Breton; he certainly had strong Connections with Brittany. Before the Conquest he was described as one of the barons of Conan, Count of Brittany, and after the Battle of Hastings he or his son (a second Aubrey) was allotted lands in Essex by the overlord there, who was Alan of Brittany, now called Alan, Count of Richmond in Yorkshire.
Like all civil wars, the conflict between the Empress Maud and King Stephen was a very troubling one.
It was really a fight between Normans and Flemings for the English throne; and since Stephen's wife was the Flemish Matilda, Countess of Boulogne, those Flemings already in England naturally flocked to her side. For reasons best known to himself Aubrey III de Vere sided with the Normans; he got his reward when the Empress Maud created him Earl of Oxford.
It has been said, I think correctly, that before a man could be given an earldom he had to have another honour.
Among those who supported Stephen and Matilda against the Normans was Alan Earl of Richmond, and Aubrey III's second son, named Ralf, went against his father and fought for Stephen in the army of his own overlord.
The first officially recorded de Vere in Scotland was a Radulfus (or Ralf) who was holding estates in Lanarkshire during the reign of Alexander II. In 1160 Conan, Earl of Richmond, had married Margaret, sister of the King of Scotland, and it seems likely that this may have been the time when his follower, Ralf, was awarded his lands there. We may note that when Aubrey III died, he was succeeded as Earl of Oxford by his first son, Aubrey IV; but when that son died childless the earldom passed to a third son, missing out the second son, Ralf.
With thanks to Mrs Beryl Platts, author of 'The Scottish Hazard'.
Hereto and in published narratives it is made manifest that the most senior bloodline of the entire Royal House of Vere in Great Britain and Eire descends - not through the Oxford posterity - but through the Scottish Branch extracted from Ralph de Vere, eldest son of Aubrey III Earl of Oxford; and culminating contemporarily in the elder progeny of the Veres of Kildress.
The senior Scottish descent of the Vere Earls of Oxford.
The Scottish name Weir is derived from the Norman-French de Vere..... Alberic de Vere... accompanied the Conqueror.
Ralph or Radalphus de Ver was the first of the name on record in Scotland. As Ralph de Ver he was taken prisoner at Ainwick in July 1174. As Radulphus de Weir, he witnessed a Charter of King William, between 1174 and 1184. and as Radulph de Veir he gave a bovate of land in Sprowston, Roxburgh, to Kelso Abbey. As Radalphus de Vere he witnessed another Charter by King William to the Abbey of Lindores. He also witnessed another undated Charter of King William's to William de Hala, Herd (Errol.) The same, or perhaps a succeeding Radulph de Ver, or de Uer witnessed about 1204 a grant to the Abbey of Arbroath, and before 1214 another Charter by William the Lion. The Weirs of Lanarkshire claimed to be descended from this Radulph.
...................Richard Wer, Lanark, rendered homage to Edward I in 1296. Between 1398 and 1400 Rothald de Were, Baille of Lesmahagow, had a Charter from Patrick, Abbot of Kelso, of the lands of Blackwood, Mossiygning and. Durgundreston. and in 1497 Abbot Robert granted Rogerhill and Brownhill to Robert Weyr for services rendered..........................................
The English 'Weirs' (however) are descended from a progenitor who dwelt at a weir or fishing dam.
One Scottish Weir crest is (was in 1700's) a demi-horse in armour proper, bridled and saddled
gules. The motto is Nihil Verius.
Source:
From Dr. George Black.
The descent of the senior Scottish Branch of Vere of Oxford
from
'The Surnames of Scotland', New York Public Library Edition.
Primary sources in italic.
WEIR............As Ralph de Vere he was taken prisoner at Alnwick along with King William the Lion in 1174 (Bain, I, p. 174).He witnessed a charter by King William 'de decimis episcopatus' of Moray between 1174-84 (REM., 2), and as Radulph de Veir or Veyre, within the same period, he gave a bovate of land in Sprowestun, Roxburgh, to the Abbey of Kelso, his brother Robert being one of the witnesses (Kelso, p. 177). The same or perhaps a succeeding Radulph de Ver or de Uer witnessed a little before 1204 a grant to the Abbey of Arbroath (RAA., I, 11) and before 1214 another charter by King William (Panmure II, 126)
DE VERE and WEIR
Tartan: Weir (also Hope-Vere)
Motto: Vero Nihil Verius (Latin: Nothing Truer than Truth)
......Ralph de Ver, from whom the Weirs of Blackwood, Lanarkshire, claim descent, was captured, with King William I (the Lion), in 1174 whilst besieging the castle of Alnwick in Northumberland. Others of the name held land in Lesmahagow, Lanarkshire, in the fifteenth century.
Major Thomas Weir (1599 - 1670) Consort of the Queen of Elphame; was born at Kirkton House, Carluke. As an adult he lived at West Bow (below left) and was burned at the stake in Edinburgh (below right) for Witchcraft, Human Sacrifice (vampirism), Animal Sacrifice, Congress with the "Queen of Hell", Incest with his step-daughter Elizabeth Bourdon and also with his sister. His sister was hanged the next day for her part in some of his activities.
'Scotland and her Tartans' Alexander Fulton.
(Major Thomas Weir was the grandson of William Vere of Stonebyres and Lady Elizabeth Hamilton. His father Thomas married the witch, Lady Jane Somerville. Major Weir was the ancestor of the Tyrone Kildress Branch).
from
'The Surnames of Scotland', New York Public Library Edition.
Primary sources in italic.
WEIR............As Ralph de Vere he was taken prisoner at Alnwick along with King William the Lion in 1174 (Bain, I, p. 174).He witnessed a charter by King William 'de decimis episcopatus' of Moray between 1174-84 (REM., 2), and as Radulph de Veir or Veyre, within the same period, he gave a bovate of land in Sprowestun, Roxburgh, to the Abbey of Kelso, his brother Robert being one of the witnesses (Kelso, p. 177). The same or perhaps a succeeding Radulph de Ver or de Uer witnessed a little before 1204 a grant to the Abbey of Arbroath (RAA., I, 11) and before 1214 another charter by King William (Panmure II, 126)
DE VERE and WEIR
Tartan: Weir (also Hope-Vere)
Motto: Vero Nihil Verius (Latin: Nothing Truer than Truth)
......Ralph de Ver, from whom the Weirs of Blackwood, Lanarkshire, claim descent, was captured, with King William I (the Lion), in 1174 whilst besieging the castle of Alnwick in Northumberland. Others of the name held land in Lesmahagow, Lanarkshire, in the fifteenth century.
Major Thomas Weir (1599 - 1670) Consort of the Queen of Elphame; was born at Kirkton House, Carluke. As an adult he lived at West Bow (below left) and was burned at the stake in Edinburgh (below right) for Witchcraft, Human Sacrifice (vampirism), Animal Sacrifice, Congress with the "Queen of Hell", Incest with his step-daughter Elizabeth Bourdon and also with his sister. His sister was hanged the next day for her part in some of his activities.
'Scotland and her Tartans' Alexander Fulton.
(Major Thomas Weir was the grandson of William Vere of Stonebyres and Lady Elizabeth Hamilton. His father Thomas married the witch, Lady Jane Somerville. Major Weir was the ancestor of the Tyrone Kildress Branch).
Ralph de Ver was captured along with William the Lion at Alnwick in
Northumberland in 1174. He witnessed a charter of his king of lands
in the bishopric of Moray sometime between 1174 and 1184. He also
donated land to the Abbey of Kelso, and his brother Robert was a
witness. The Weirs of Blackwood in Lanarkshire, who (through a
female descent) were to become the principal family, claim descent
from Ralph de Vere.
(The claim is upheld in the Lyon Rolls as evidenced above).
Senior descent of the Veres of Oxford in Scotland and Eire continued.
Ralfredus ('Baltredus'/Ralph) de Vere
- the eldest surviving son and rightful heir of Aubrey III de Vere Earl of Oxford opposed his father in the Flemish war, was disinherited and fled to Scotland with his Liege Lord Conan of Brittany in approx 1165. Conan married the sister of the king and Ralph was given his lands in Lanark. He was a witness to a charter of King William, The Lion of Scotland 1165 - 1214. Ralph and William were captured after beseiging the Castle of Alnwick in Northumbria in 1174.
Had a son:
Walter Rory de Vere
Who had a son:
Ralph (Rudolphus) de Vere
Confirmed his father's donation to Kelso Monastery. Died at the end of the reign of
Alexander II of Scotland 1214 - 1249
Had a son:
Thomas de Vere
Living in 1266. Witness to a charter of a donation to Kelso Monastery by Hemicus St Clan.
Had a son:
Richardus de Vere (de Were)
Living approx 1294. Laird (Lord or Baron) of Blackwood. Lanarkshire. Mentioned in a donation to Kelso Monastery
Had a son:
Thomas de Were (de Vere) of Blackwood
Proprietor of the lands and Barony of Blackwood, Lanarkshire. Died in the reign of David the Bruce; David II of Scotland 1329 - 1371
Had a son:
(The claim is upheld in the Lyon Rolls as evidenced above).
Senior descent of the Veres of Oxford in Scotland and Eire continued.
Ralfredus ('Baltredus'/Ralph) de Vere
- the eldest surviving son and rightful heir of Aubrey III de Vere Earl of Oxford opposed his father in the Flemish war, was disinherited and fled to Scotland with his Liege Lord Conan of Brittany in approx 1165. Conan married the sister of the king and Ralph was given his lands in Lanark. He was a witness to a charter of King William, The Lion of Scotland 1165 - 1214. Ralph and William were captured after beseiging the Castle of Alnwick in Northumbria in 1174.
Had a son:
Walter Rory de Vere
Who had a son:
Ralph (Rudolphus) de Vere
Confirmed his father's donation to Kelso Monastery. Died at the end of the reign of
Alexander II of Scotland 1214 - 1249
Had a son:
Thomas de Vere
Living in 1266. Witness to a charter of a donation to Kelso Monastery by Hemicus St Clan.
Had a son:
Richardus de Vere (de Were)
Living approx 1294. Laird (Lord or Baron) of Blackwood. Lanarkshire. Mentioned in a donation to Kelso Monastery
Had a son:
Thomas de Were (de Vere) of Blackwood
Proprietor of the lands and Barony of Blackwood, Lanarkshire. Died in the reign of David the Bruce; David II of Scotland 1329 - 1371
Had a son:
While the House of Vere bore heraldically the 'Double Dragon Device' of the Dragon Court of Melusine long before this period - id est circa 1200 a.d. - it is believed academically that it was 200 years afterwards, during the investiture together of Emperor Sigismund and Richard de Vere XIth earl of Oxford into the 'princely degree' of the Knights of the Garter at St. George's Chapel, Windsor by King Henry IV, that Richard de Vere also received his investiture into the Societas Draconis by Emperor Sigismund. On the evidence of historical precedent, such an investiture; and the Dragon Name, became heritable. In this regard and by a process of lateral inheritance the Vere Dragon Court includes the degree of 'Sarkany Rend': Societas Draconis.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/dragons/esp_sociopol_dragondescent2.htm