Adoption and Nobility

In the commentary from Mr Valle defending his business he has asserted that the practice of gaining nobility through adoption is well-established. No doubt he makes such claims to reassure his clients, should they doubt his assertion thaqt through the service he offers they gain an honoured name and rank.

His claim is without merit, however. Yes of course adoptions were effected in past times, and yes sometimes the adoptees inherited the titles of their adoptive parents and entered the nobility. But this did not happen through the adoption process, but by royal grace, in the form of a decree, patent or diploma. In Italy the best known case is perhaps that of the Giovanellis, where the widow of the last Prince (herself born a Chigi) adopted her late husband's illegitimate sons. But this was not what made them Princes Giovanelli! It was the decision of king Umberto I to create them Prince Giovanelli that ennobled them. Other examples were the adoptions that led to the inheritance of the Aldobrandini, Salviati and (one branch of) the Torlonia names and titles by members of the Princely Borghese family. In each case, however, these successions required royal decrees to effectively pass the titles and names (the Borghese were of course already nobles).

In a recent exchange on this group I was attached for criticising the claim that an Ecclesiastical Tribunal was capable of legitimating the passage of a noble title to an adopted child (and in that case the title had been created by King Umberto II in exile and there was no sound legal basis for the ecclesiastical tribunal to exercise any jurisdiction over this title). I was subject to the typical ad hominem attacks that sometimes invade this group and was old I was surely a bad Catholic! I subsequently inquired of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See and was assured that jurisdiction over noble titles is reserved to the secretariat of state, and that the Papal Brief of Pius IX of 1876 concerning the Papal nobility still applied (and this required natural and legitimate descent). I was also told that the Secretariat of State had never asserted authority on behalf of the Holy See over any foreign titles.

Mr Valle claimed that adoption could legally pass titles in France, which I disputed and he now appears to no longer assert. Italian nobiliary law expressly requires natural and legitimate descent, so that rules out Italy. The succession to Spanish titles depends on a series of laws which are applied by the ministry of Justice; an adoption of an heir would only be successful with royal grace. It has been claimed that in 19th century Germany, adoptive heirs somehow entered the nobility - I challenge Mr Valle to name one example where nobility passed to an adoptive heir without royal confirmation and grant. The feudal system no longer exists and outside Scotland (until very recently) it is impossible to acquire a noble fief in any European state to the offer of the lordship and barony of Roccamora di Edessa is phoney.

Mr Valle does not like his business practices to be criticised. Perhaps if he simply explained that he offers to find a member of a noble family who is prepared to adopt a willing buyer so this person can assume that family name, but then mnore honestly explained that this would not make the adoptee a noble, he could escape the censure he richly deserves for his deceptive web site.

--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com

Aristocratic investment or mere snob value?

Mark Bridge finds out whether buying an historic title can offer any tangible financial benefits.

Most of us know that cash for honours is wrong. Under the law, no peerage title can be sold. However, would-be gentry can legitimately snap up the ancient role of “Lord of the Manor” from about £5,000. Hundreds of manorial lordships, a relic of the medieval feudal system, change hands each year – most sold by “old” families. This month, 23 will be auctioned in London, with estimates from £5,000 to £12,500.

Contrary to popular misconception, lords of the manor are no more lords than a pub landlord. Chris Eubank, for example, bought the lordship of Brighton for £40,000 in 1996 but remains plain Mr Eubank, although he can choose to use the impressive “style” of Lord of the Manor of Brighton after his name.

Despite this, manorial lordships are a piece of history and make an interesting, if not too serious, investment. Prices have climbed from an average of a few hundred pounds in the 1970s to about £7,000 to £10,000 today. But the trading of “titles” is fraught with the dangers of con artists and complications. So it is important to understand how the market works and what to steer clear of.

Robert Smith, of Manorial Auctioneers, which is holding the November 15 sale at Stationers’ Hall, Central London, explains that lordships went with ownership of landed estates until 1922. The two were then separated by an Act of Parliament, but a lordship is still treated as land in law and is transferred by conveyance in the same way as a house or plot.

A legitimate example should be supported by documents that track its ownership. These may be held by the lord of the manor and passed on at each sale, or kept at a county records office. Buyers are advised to hire an independent solicitor to scrutinise them. Geoffrey Barrett, of Blakemores solicitors, says that this should cost from about £300.

Lordships are not intangible assets. Most come with ancient rights, such as fishing or mineral rights or ownership of common or waste land within the manor, which can cover an area of several square miles. Often, these rights have not been exercised for decades or more and must be established after purchase through archival research and the help of a specialist solicitor.

The chances of striking coal or selling a big chunk of manorial waste land to a developer are slim, but lords of the manor are often able to charge power companies a small rent to keep posts or pylons on “waste” verges. A handful have exploited their rights to squeeze residents. The best-known is Mark Roberts, the Cardiff businessman and self-styled Lord Marcher of Trelleck, who has exacted tens of thousands of pounds from villagers in his 60 manors for the right to access their houses across “his” land.

Less common than manorial rights are obligations. The Lord of the Manor of Worksop, Derbyshire, for instance, is required to present the new monarch with a right-hand glove at his or her coronation. Other lords of the manor face the much more onerous burden of liability for repairs to the chancel of a local church. In a recent case, the House of Lords upheld the Church of England’s right to charge one unfortunate couple more than £200,000.

Since the 1920s the value of lordships has waxed and waned with the economy, soaring to an average of £12,000 in the late 1990s. Tony Morris-Eyton, of Savills, the estate agent, says that lordships with sound documentation should, at worst, hold their value. He says: “They are a bit of fun, so don’t do well in a recession but punch above their weight in boom time.”

He adds that the lordships most likely to outpace the market are household names. One such example is Chipping Campden, a pretty Cotswolds village, which is Lot 16 in this month’s auction. The lordship is being sold by the Earl of Gainsborough and has an estimate of £10,000 to £12,000 – small change compared with the record £171,000 paid for the lordship of Wimbledon in 1996.

Jonathan Chaplin, of Strutt & Parker, another estate agent, says that some people buy the lordship that once went with the manor house they own, because they are aware that bundling the two will increase interest in the property when they sell.

Lordships are not the only piece of history on offer at the auction. The final Lot is the Irish “Feudal Barony of Mullingar”. In a disconcerting twist, Timothy Duke, of the College of Arms, says that English and Irish feudal baronies were abolished by law in 1660 and 1662 respectively. Despite this spoiler, the sale looks set to benefit Viscount Gormanston, the peer whose ancestors held the barony, to the tune of £15,000 plus.

Mr Smith insists that the Act cited scrapped obligations once associated with the title, not the title itself. He adds that Manorial Auctioneers sold the English “Feudal Barony of Langley” for Greenwhich Hospital, a Crown charity, last year. “If it [the title] is good enough for the Crown, it’s good enough for us,” he says.

The validity of this title may be contentious, but the internet is home to a number of out-and-out fakes. One ruse is to offer a “title”, then change the buyer’s name from, say, Joe Bloggs to Lord Bloggs. Other sites sell a piece of paper “granting” the buyer often ludicrous honours.

More mainstream sites, such as Moonestates.com, sell tiny plots of land in the Scottish Highlands, claiming that these entitle the owner to the title Laird. However, the Court of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, the chief heraldic authority for Scotland, says that this is not the case.

More information on the trade in questionable and fake titles can be found at Faketitles.com.

CASE STUDY: fun and fringe benefits

Wendy Hobday, left, bought the lordship of Ruislip through Manorial Auctioneers as a Christmas present for her husband, Ken, in 1990 and inherited the role – as Lady of the Manor – on his death. Mrs Hobday, 72, of Denham, Buckinghamshire, paid £30,000 for the lordship, which had been held by King’s College, Cambridge, since its creation in the 15th century.

Mrs Hobday has a passion for local history and says that researching the lordship, which covers about 12 square miles, has been “great fun”.

King’s College chose to retain the mineral rights that once went with the manor, but Mrs Hobday earns about £100 a year in “way leave” rents from power and telecoms companies that keep structures on the land.

She uses the title “whenever it may help”, sometimes shortening it, incorrectly, to “Lady Ruislip”. In her role as Lady of the Manor, she has been asked to open local shops and has been upgraded on flights.

Her advice to would-be lords and ladies of the manor is to hire a good solicitor. The Law Society’s Find a Solicitor helpline on 0870 6062555 can assist.

Source: Business Times Online

Irene's kleinzoon wordt niet erkend

Achterkleinzoon van wijlen koningin Juliana, achterneef van koningin Beatrix, enig kleinkind van prinses Irene én zoon van prins Carlos: de koninklijke banden van de in 1997 geboren Carlos Klynstra uit Hummelo zijn niet gering. Maar toch is het schattige ventje niet welkom in de paleizen en is er geen contact met zijn vader of diens familie. laatst stond Carlos Jr. weliswaar oog in oog met zijn tante Beatrix-toen hij samen met zijn moeder in hetzelfde hotel in Lech logeerde-maar zijn komst zorgde eerder voor paniek dan voor verbroedering.

De beveiliging van de koningin kwam zelfs bij Nederlandse fotografen portretten van Carlos en Brigitte vragen. Wat bezielt de volgens velen zo menselijke prinses Irene om geen contact te hebben met haar enige kleinkind? En is het terecht dat een jongen zijn familie van vaderskant alleen maar kent van televisie en foto's? Volgens buurtbewoners is Carlos Jr. een hartelijke en vrolijke jongen die dol is op ravotten in de bossen met vriendjes en vriendinnetjes. Hij is ook een verwoed golfer, een hobby die hij deelt met veel leden van de koninklijke familie. Er is geen DNA-test nodig om vast te stellen dat Carlos een zoon is van Carlos de Bourbon de Parme, de toekomstige Hertog van Parma.

Wie jeugdfoto's van de prins naast die van zijn zoon legt ziet de verbluffende gelijkenissen. Bovendien heeft prins Carlos in een nog cryptische verklaring kort na de geboorte van Carlos Jr. het kind al min of meer erkend. Via een woordvoerder zei hij:

'Carlos de Bourbon de Parme heeft veel sympathieke reacties ontvangen op het bericht. Hij hecht er mede daarom aan te laten weten dat het een eigen, zelfstandige beslissing van mevrouw Klynstra is geweest om moeder te willen worden, welke beslissing hij volledig respecteert. Er bestaat echter geen familierechtelijke betrekking tussen hem en de pasgeborene en het mag uitgesloten worden geacht dat die er zal komen. Carlos de Bourbon de Parme vraagt er deze begrip voor, speciaal bij de media, dat hij zich afzijdig zal houden en het ook niet gepast vindt op de achtergronden in te gaan'.

Alleen op het geboortebewijs van Carlos Klynstra ontbreken de namen van de prins. Voor kleine Carlos is het geen geheim dat hij behoorde tot de beroemste familie van Nederland. Zijn stamboom is indrukwekkend. Hij stamt af van beroemdheden als de Franse Zonnekoning Lodewijk XIV, de Oostenrijkse keizerin Maria Theresia, Willem de Veroveraar en Nederlandse vorstinnen als Wilhelmina en Juliana. Nu wellicht allemaal niet zo belangrijk, maar als hij zich later bewust wordt van zijn afkomst kan hij alsnog naar de rechter gaan om de naam en titels van zijn vader op te eisen.

Volgens Mr. Sewandono, destijds universitair docent constitutioneel recht en bestuursrecht aan de Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, kan dit namelijk. Sewandono stelde in het Nederlands Juristenblad dat Carlos Jr. via de rechter zijn aanspraak op de adellijke titels kan afdwingen. Goede redenen om Carlos Jr. niet formeel te erkennen zijn er niet, meent de jurist Sewandono. Als vader Carlos zijn zoon erkent, heeft Carlos Klynstra recht op de adellijke titels van zijn vaderen diens achternaam. Carlos Klynstra wordt dan: Zijne koninklijke hoogheid Carlos Hugo Roderik Sybren prins de Bourbon de Parme.

Bron: www.koningkeizerrijken.info

Het Vrouwenverdrag in Nederland anno 1997

De bestrijding van directe discriminatie in de wetgeving heeft in ons land een lange historie die begint in de jaren zeventig. Teneinde deze vorm van discriminatie te bestrijden, dienden alle wetsbepalingen gezuiverd te worden van elementen waarin ten nadele van vrouwen rechtstreeks verwezen wordt naar het geslacht, of naar onverbrekelijk met het geslacht verbonden kenmerken. Door de wetgevingsoperatie Anders geregeld, die in 1977 van start ging, is in de jaren tachtig een belangrijk deel van de direct discriminerende bepalingen uit de wetgeving verdwenen.

In 1991 is de Slotnota Anders geregeld aan de Tweede Kamer aangeboden. In de aanbiedingsbrief verklaart de staatssecretaris van SZW dat haar integrale bemoeienis met deze operatie, als coördinerend bewindspersoon emancipatiebeleid, eindigt met de behandeling van deze Slotnota.

Hoeveel waardering de operatie Anders geregeld ook verdient - er zijn weinig lidstaten bij het Verdrag waar de directe discriminatie in de wetgeving zo grondig is aangepakt -, er blijven verschillende punten van aandacht met betrekking tot direct sekseonderscheid in de wetgeving:
(...)
Maatschappelijk minder relevant maar in constitutioneel opzicht even kwestieus, was de weigering van de wetgever om bij de totstandkoming van de Wet op de adeldom het toen gecodificeerde adelsrecht serieus te toetsen aan het beginsel van gelijkheid van mannen en vrouwen. [18] De samenhang met het al aanhangige wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van het naamrecht werd door de Kamers aangegrepen om een gedegen bespreking van deze problematiek uit te stellen. Blijkens de aanvaarding van een motie-Scheltema-De Nie is de Tweede Kamer inmiddels tot de conclusie gekomen dat de Wet op de adeldom alsnog in overeenstemming moet worden gebracht met het beginsel van gelijkheid van mannen en vrouwen. [19] Het vertoog van de regering dat de adeldom "een historisch instituut" is dat buiten het bereik van het gelijkheidsbeginsel behoort te vallen, gaat niet op. Al was het alleen maar omdat bij de totstandbrenging van de Wet op de adeldom op instigatie van de Kamer de eigentijdse gelijkstelling van wettige, onwettige en adoptiefkinderen in het adelsrecht wettelijk werd vastgelegd. [20]

18 Wet op de adeldom, Stb. 1994, 360.
19 Op 19 december 1996 aanvaardde de Tweede Kamer de motie Scheltema-De Nie c.s. over de overgang van adeldom via de mannelijke en de vrouwelijke lijn. TK 1996-1997, 25039, nr 2.
20 Artikel 3 van de Wet op de adeldom bepaalt: "Adeldom gaat ook volgens de bestaande regelingen met betrekking tot adeldom over op buiten het huwelijk geboren kinderen".