|
Originally,
all aspirants for admission to Orders of Chivalry had to be
Catholic in full communion with Holy Mother Church and prove
legitimate noble/gentle birth. Occasionally, the Grand Master
would exercise his prerogative and admit motu proprio
also somebody with deficient proofs of nobility. Later on,
different categories were established, e.g. those of Justice,
Devotion, Honour, Grace, and Merit, etc.
In
the Cérémonial de la Réception et Profession des
Chevaliers de l’Ordre Royal, Militaire et Hospitalier de
Nostre-Dame du Mont Carmel et de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem,
of 1703, the Grand Master says to the novice: “Vous
me demandez une grace qui ne doit être accordée qu’à ceux
que le merite en rend dignes autant que la Noblesse de leur
naissance, & qui son disposé à la pratique des œvres de
miséricorde envers le pauvres de Jésus-Christ, & à verser
leur sang pour la défense de la Religion Chretienne, et pour le
service du Roi.”
In
respect of admission to the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem,
the Réglement du 15 Juin 1757, Article I, stated: “Nulle
personne ne pourra être reçue & admise à l’avenir par
le Grand-Maître des Ordres de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel &
de St. Lazare de Jérusalem, qu’elle n’ait fait les preuves
de la Religion Catholique, Apostolique & Romaine, dans la
forme usitée dans lesdites Ordres, et celle de quatre degrés
de Noblesse paternelle seulment, le Novice compris, fondée sur
un principe certain & incontestable de Noblesse, sans
qu’il puisse, sous quelque titre & prétexte, ni pour
aucune cause que ce soit, être accordé aucune dispense des
preuves susdites, tant de Religion que de Noblesse, ni que
personne puisse être reçu dans lesdites Ordres avant d’avoir
satisfait auxdites preuves.”
Following
the re-establishment of the Grand Magistracy in 1925 in Paris,
and until the schism in 1969, the actual Members of the Order
were, without exception, the Knights professing the Catholic,
the Apostolic, and the Roman Faith. There were also several
categories of Affiliates of the Order, e.g. Knights of Honour,
Knights of Merit, Dames, and Chaplains, etc., with or without
noble proofs.
On
29th April 1940, at Madrid, the Grand Master, Don
Francisco de Borbón y de la Torre, 4th Duke of
Seville, signed new Statutes for the Order. In these, the
membership consists of Knights of Justice and Devotion and
Knights of Devotion.
Article
8 stipulates: “No one shall be accepted into the Order in
the category of Justice who does not present proofs of nobility,
carried out to four generations, the candidate included, namely
father and mother, grandparents, great-grandparents on either
father’s or mother’s side. Nobility may also be established
by four generations of paternal nobility, including the
candidate, father, paternal grandfather, and paternal
great-grandfather. In countries where nobility no longer has a
legal existence, these proofs may be replaced by proofs of
ancient and notable lineage, establishing that each generation
has lived free, honourably and notably.” (English
translation from The
Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of
Jerusalem, A Short History of the Most Ancient Order of
Chivalry, Past and Present ; Grand Priory of the Western United
States of America, Los Angeles, Ca., 1941)
Twenty
years later, the membership consisted of either Chevaliers de
Justice, (Catholics of noble linage in the paternal line of
a minimum of 100 years during at least three generations) or Chevaliers
de Dévotion (Catholics of distinguished social
standing). (Cf P. Bertrand de la
Grassière, L’Ordre Militaire et Hospitalier de Saint-Lazare
de Jérusalem ; Paris 1960)
The
Statutes of 1962 for the English Tongue of the Order of
St. Lazarus of Jerusalem contain the following rules in respect
of noble proofs: “Members and Affiliates, who wish to be
classified as of Justice or Nobility are required to furnish
proof of ancient nobility. Such proof consist of either four
degrees in the direct paternal line or else of four quarterings [i.e.
four noble grand-parents; editor’s note] and shall be
certified by a Judge of Arms or the King of Arms in the Council
of each Priory or Bailiwick.”
“Special
Regulations in the English Tongue.
In the English, Irish and Welsh Bailiwicks the proof shall be
paternal or pronominal nobility to a period not later than 1688,
or four quarters of nobility of which the paternal or pronominal
must be at least 100 years of nobility. In the Scottish
Bailiwick the proofs shall be dated at least to 1672 or consist
of four quarterings as in the afore-mentioned Bailiwicks of
England, Wales and Ireland. In accordance with custom in the
English Tongue, the wife of a Knight, on admission to the Order,
receives her husband’s rank (that is, will become a Dame) and
will be placed in her husband’s category of Justice or
Nobility. If, however, she is able to furnish proof of ancient
nobility, she may be admitted in the category of Justice or
Nobility although her husband is in the category of Grace.”
“Special
Dispensation with
regard to proofs of nobility may be made by the Grand Master
with respect to each several Priory or Bailiwick, having regard
to the historic tradition of the country concerned. Such
dispensation will be valid only within the Priory or Bailiwick
concerned. The Grand Master may grant dispensation from proof of
nobility in recognition of outstanding service to the Order.”
In
1969, the Malta Obedience abolished the distinction in the Order
between Roman-Catholic and non-Catholic Christians. In the Paris
Obedience, this distinction remained until the mid-1970s.
Referring
to, inter alia, the category of Justice, Prof. Erich
Feigl (French Obedience) quotes in his Memento
(Wien 1975), p 128, : “Die Ordensmitglieder ... müssen
den Nachweis ihrer adeligen Herkunft erbringen, der sich über
vier Generationen erstrecken muß.” (Members
of the Order must prove their noble descent for at least four
generations)
The
Constitution of the Order (Malta Obedience) of 1979,
article XV, section 5, stipulates that: “No applicant shall
be admitted to the Order in the category of Justice unless, as a
minimum requirement, he shall have proved hereditary nobility
from each of his four grand parents, or, when the paternal line
alone is used, from his paternal great-grandfather. Each
jurisdiction within the Order shall establish its own criteria
for admission in the category of Justice in accordance with the
custom and practice of the particular jurisdiction, which
criteria shall be approved by the Grand Master and promulgated
by the Grand Chancellor.” It goes without saying that the
Grand Master would not approve anything less than the minimum
stipulated in the first part of this section. Matters of
admission to the Order and allocation of rank and status therein
is traditionally the prerogative of the Grand Master, generally
delegated to the Grand Chancellery.
In
his book The Knightly Twilight, a glimpse at the Chivalric
and Nobiliary Underworld, (Union Press, Valletta, 1973) ,p
152, Lt.Colonel Gayre of Gayre and Nigg has the following to say
on the subject of Justice:
“The
proofs which are required for ranking as for justice vary from
Order to Order and country to country. They are, however,
seriously regarded according to the rules of the Order
concerned. For example, in the Order of Malta, the normal proofs
are:
1.
That of four quarters. That is four grandparents have to be
noble, and this nobility must go back in each of these four
families to the great great grandfather of each line. That is,
starting with the candidate, seven generations are involved.
This is often called the Italian proof. The Order of
Constantine St. George holds the same system. It is not an easy
proof for all that for a candidate especially in the
English-speaking world. For there social changes brought about
marriages to heiresses who belonged to families which had
reached, for all practical purposes, a genteel position in
society. Nevertheless they were strictly not gentry, and had no
coat of arms, or only one of recent origin.”
“2.
That of sixteen and thirty-two quarters. In some countries the
proofs within the Order of Malta are even stricter. In Germany
16 quarters are demanded, and in Spain 32 quarters.”
“3.
Paternal proof. Because of the fact that in England, in
particular, although to some extent in Scotland also, the
assumption in ancient times was that a man married within his
own rank in society, the official records often listed the male
line only. Thus, in the sixteenth and seventeenth century
Visitations of the English heralds, it is not unusual to find
the woman’s Christian name only given. The English common law
practice of a woman losing her surname on marriage is probably
another factor which has aided this development. To meet
this situation The Order of Malta established what has been
called the English Proof, which means evidence of noble descent
in the paternal line dating back to 1485. With the passage of
time this has become a more and more difficult proof to
establish, as a majority of the noblesse do not now go back
beyond the 16th and 17th centuries.”
“In
the Order of St. Lazarus this problem was met in the English and
Scottish Tongues of the Order by making the demand in the
paternal or pronominal line (as we are not dominated by the
Salic concept of inheritance) to 1672 in Scotland (when the
Public Register of the Lyon Court commences), and 1688 for
England and Ireland, when the Stuart Dynasty fell and the House
of Orange came to power. The ‘Italian’ form of proof of four
quarters may be offered as an alternative.”
“This
explanation of what are proofs of nobility, and what are the
criteria for arriving at the rank of justice, in the ancient
Orders has been necessary, because it will be seen at once how
difficult it is to establish. Therefore, it obviously follows
that there are very few who can qualify for that grade. Even in
the British Venerable Order of St. John, where the ‘proof’
has been reduced to nominal requirements, namely that the father
and mother must be armigerous, the majority of knights are,
nevertheless, of grace and not of justice.”
This requirement has since been further reduced simply
possessing properly recorded arms, i.e. being even a grantee de
novo. In this context, it is important to remember that the
Venerable Order of St John has a unique status in Britain and is
not regarded as one of the Orders of Chivalry of the Realm; not
unlike the position of the Order of St Lazarus in France before
the revolution.
CURRENT
POSITION IN ENGLAND & WALES
The
Grand Bailiwick of England & Wales (Malta Obedience) maintains
the requirements as set out above in the Constitution of the
Order, of 1979.
The
Grand Priory of England & Wales of the Order of St. Lazarus (French
Obedience), on the other hand, has followed the example of
the Venerable Order of St.John in adopting the same reduced
requirements for admission to the Category of Justice. The
current Manual for Members of the Grand Priory (p.
I-7) states: “There are two categories of membership,
applicable to Knights, Dames, Chaplains of Jurisdiction, and
higher grades. Those who are noble according to the Laws of Arms
of the country in which their personal arms are registered are
in the Category of Justice. The remainder are in the category of
Grace.” When this matter was raised with the then Bailiff,
Robin Gowlland, the inquirer was informed that “the Order
was only following instructions from the College of Arms”.
Considering that the College of Arms takes no cognisance of the
Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem, this statement is somewhat
surprising!
OBSERVATIONS
AND COMMENTS
It
would appear that the current Judge of Arms of the Grand Priory
of England & Wales recognises solely arms granted or
recorded by the College of Arms, to the exclusion even of
Scottish arms unless recorded by the College. This stance
demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of matters of
nobiliary law and is in flagrant contravention of the current
position of the Grand Priory of England & Wales, i.e. “Those
who are noble according to the Laws of Arms of the country in
which their personal arms are registered are in the Category of
Justice.” Nobility is an objective matter of
condition, not one of mere subjective recognition. Gentility is
a matter of blood-line over at least three generations, i.e.
race. The principle is quite clear to those who breed race
horses and pets, but nonetheless often denied in our egalitarian
society where the human species is concerned.
Further,
it should be noted that in England there appears to be no legal
requirement to record foreign arms whereas no arms may be used
in Scotland unless matriculated by the Court of the Lord Lyon.
The Lord Lyon is a Great Officer of State and a Judge of the
Realm, appointed by The Sovereign, in possession of the full
prerogative of The Queen in all nobiliary matters; he is not
subordinate to the College of Arms, nor to
the Earl Marshal. A Scottish Grant of Arms is a Patent of
Nobility. There is no such thing as non-noble arms in Scotland;
arms are ensigns of nobility, as is clearly expressed in the
grant, and this is the principal reason for the profusion of
Scottish noble families in central Europe, France, Russia, and
Scandinavia. In most countries, nobility was a prerequisite for
making an army career and, with few exceptions, any Scotsman
producing his Matriculation of Arms from Lyon Court would
instantly obtain a commission as an officer.
Recently,
a Member of the Order, of Scottish descent living in England,
who had had arms granted posthumously to an ancestor by Lord
Lyon and rematriculated in his own name, was refused the
Category of Justice by the Judge of Arms of England & Wales
because his arms were not recorded by the College of Arms.
However, since this gentleman, according to the Laws of Arms,
now belongs to the noblesse of the country (Scotland) in which
his personal arms are registered, he undoubtedly meets the
current requirements of the Grand Priory of England & Wales
to qualify for the Category of Justice. It should be added that
the College of Arms had declined to record these arms, claiming
that Lord Lyon had no right to grant as the grantee was
domiciled in England! It must be regarded as grossly unfair that
one of Her Britannic Majesty’s subjects should become the
victim, within the Order of St. Lazarus, of the “perpetual
competition” between the College of Arms and Lyon Court.
As
is well known, the College of Arms, still grants arms to US
citizens and other foreigners of proven English descent and also
devises arms for foreign civic corporations and other
institutions, presumably without any reference to their
respective authorities.
It
is well established that, since Elizabeth I, the English
Establishment, no doubt influenced by its own version of
Protestantism, unlike the authorities of most European
countries, has taken an often arrogant and superior view in
respect of foreign honours and dignities, a view which in some
respects conflicts with the very nature of the concept of
nobility.
Debrett’s
Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage & Companionage of 1960
contains the following article (p 178) on Foreign Titles:
“Foreign
titles borne by British subjects afford their holders no
precedence whatever in this country. It should also be borne in
mind that foreign titles cannot always be valued in comparison
with English ones, according to their nominal rank, but their
relative value has to be judged by whether their possessors
belong to the nobiles majores or nobiles minores
of their respective countries. Foreign authorities generally
assume that titular distinction accompanied by an hereditary
seat in the Diet or Parliament constitutes high nobility, and in
France and Germany this was practically co-extensive with the
ducal houses only. In England, however, the nobiles majores
(or high nobility) are co-extensive with the whole peerage
(dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, barons) and, according to
good authority, baronets. It, therefore, follows that only those
families of the high nobility abroad, such as the herzogs and a
few landgraves in Germany, and in France the dukes and two or
three feudatory comtes can claim our peerage (dukes to barons)
as equals in titular distinction, while marquises in France and
the margraves and grafs of the former Empire in Germany – if
the latter are the titular chiefs of their families – are
equal to our rank of baronet, the next rank (but without
parliamentary seat) in England below the peerage ; further, the nobiles
minores of Germany and France, varying between in France the
rank of comte to that of baron or plain ecuyer gentilhomme, and
in Germany the grafs of the Empire down to, and including, the
freiherrs (by courtesy) and herr vons, rank according to the
antiquity of their families with the families in England who are
also of the nobiles minores (knights, esquires, and
gentlemen).”
This
is not the place to analyse in detail the merits of this
article. Suffice it to observe that, from a European point of
view, it displays gross arrogance in attitude and ignorance of
fact.
The
following is a striking example of the English official attitude
of the day towards foreign dignities: H.I.&R.H. Prince
Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Christoph of Prussia, 4th son
of the Crown Prince of the German Empire and Kingdom of Prussia,
grandson of the last Emperor, and great-great-grandson of Queen
Victoria, was naturalised a British subject in 1947. According
to L.G. Pine’s Written and Spoken Guide to Titles and Forms
of Adress (Kingswood, Surrey 1959) p 12, “the Home
Office informed him that he should be properly be known as Mr.
Mansfield”! In 1951 His Imperial and Royal Highness
assumed, by deed poll, the surname of von Preussen. Since 1932,
no royal warrants naturalising foreign titles have been issued.
On
the previous page of the book referred to above, Mr Pine cites
the instance of Elizabeth I strongly objecting to Lord Arundell
of Wardour having been made a Count of the Holy Roman Empire by
the Emperor. Put into its historical, religious and political
context, (by Catholic standards she was a bastard and
usurper of the English Crown, guilty of perjury of her
Coronation Oath and eventually, by all standards, guilty of
regicide) one can see her concern!
In
the paragraph above Mr Pine states that: “no honours can be
held by British subjects which are not granted by the Queen or
which do not flow from her. They must be created by the Crown or
recognised by the Crown.” If taken seriously, this would
mean that no British subject could join the Order of Malta, or
the Holy Sepulchre, or accept a Pontifical honour from the Holy
See; no British subject could accept an ecclesiastical rank
outside the Church of England if this would imply an honorific
status as, for example, that of a Domestic Prelate to His
Holiness ; and no British subject could join the Order of St.
Lazarus!
An
aspect of the above is that the Lieutenancy in England of the
Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, in
compliance with a direct intervention from King George V, is the
only jurisdiction, known to the writer, of that Order where
Knights are not dubbed with a sword. On the other hand,
Professed Knights of Malta invested at the Conventual Church of
St. John of Jerusalem in St. John’s Wood receive the full
accolade as laid down in the Rituale.
However,
even after the Reformation, the attitude in England was not
always that mean. In the now Anglican parish church at Barking,
Essex, there is a fine and well preserved tomb stone with a
beautifully executed coat of arms displaying de Faria
impaling Goddard. On the shield is a British Knight’s
helmet (affronté) with the de Faria crest. The legend
reads: “Here lyeth ye body of Sr Timothy de Faria Knt of ye
order of Christ of Portugal & Serv.t to Queen Catherin of
Engl.nd. He departed this life ye 15ti of January Anno Dom
: 1714/15”. There are many other examples and in his book Italy’s
Knights of St. George, The Constantinian Order (Gerrards Cross
1986), Desmond Seward quotes several instances of British
and Irish Knights who obtained a Royal Licence to exercise the
prerogatives of their Knighthood.
Great
war heroes, like the Duke of Marlborough, the Duke of
Wellington, and others were showered with foreign honours and
dignities, for some including foreign dukedoms and hereditary
princely rank in various countries. Britain was proud of the
brilliance of her sons then, not mean. George IV wore the collar
of the Golden Fleece at his coronation. Queen Victoria regularly
wore a miniature bar consisting of the Family Order of King
George IV and six foreign decorations; Edward VII was portrayed
wearing the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, of which he was
an honorary Bailiff Grand Cross. Now the situation is very
different and there are British diplomats, decorated by foreign
powers, who are not allowed to wear the corresponding insignia
generally.
The
Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem is not an English Order; nor
has it, since the Reformation, been in any manner recognised by
the Crown in England. Thus, the College of Arms has no
jurisdiction over the Order.
It
is noteworthy, however, that on 3rd August 1967 the
Court of the Lord Lyon matriculated the arms of the Military and
Hospitaller Order of St .Lazarus of Jerusalem and that, on 26th
September of the same year, differenced arms were matriculated
for the Grand Priory of Canada, the Grand Bailiwick of England,
the Bailiwick of Ireland, the Hereditary Commandery of
Lochoreshyre, the Commandery of Malta, the Grand Bailiwick of
Scotland, and the Bailiwick of Southern Africa. n
consequence, a number of Scottish Members of the Order were able
to rematriculate their arms, marshalling the chief of Religion
and the Cross of Justice as well as other insignia of the Order.
Sadly, due to the schism which occurred in Paris in 1969, this
recognition was suppressed until such time that the Order is
re-united and the schism healed.
In
this context, it is interesting to study the armorial bearings
of the current Judge of Arms of the French Obedience Grand
Priory of England. The shield appears to be: per pale argent, a
cross vert, in the first quarter accompanied by a Tudor rose
proper; and, under a chief argent a cross vert, per bend sable
and argent, two bendlets sinister within a border
counterchanged. Assuming that these arms were granted or
recorded by the College of Arms, it would appear that the Judge
of Arms has been granted heraldic status of Grand Prior of
England & Wales (cf the general practice in England for
armigerous Heads of equally armigerous Institutions to impale
their arms), in addition to being given the Chief of Religion of
a Knight of St. Lazarus above his own arms. This would suggest
that, in spite of protestations to the contrary, the College of
Arms may have recorded Lazarine armorial charges.
The
Grand Magisterial Decree N° 26, of 20th September
1995, of the Malta Obedience of the Order confirms the
Regulations for Recording and use of Heraldry within the Order.
It is a well considered document, in principle based on sound
heraldic tradition. There is, however one aspect which requires
review. Seen from a European point of view, Section 5,
Categories of Arms eligible for Recording: Assumed Arms,
contains two unnecessary stipulations, probably based on
unfamiliarity with continental practice: In countries where the
assumption of armorial bearings is not prohibited, i.e. most
countries where there is no official heraldic authority dealing
with personal arms, the restriction contained
in sub-clause d) “They are not to be considered hereditary
except in the case of descendents who may themselves be admitted
to the Order” and sub-clause f) “Such
arms are to be for use within the Order only” make no
sense and should be removed. The concept of sub-clause f) could
suggest Masonic origins. It is obvious that, in countries with
official heraldic authority dealing with personal arms, any non-armigerous
person wishing to use arms is morally and sometimes also legally
bound to apply to the relevant authority for a Grant of Arms.
The Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem is not a secret society
and, as it can not and should not aim to guarantee secrecy in
heraldic matters, it can not allow its members the use of
“clandestine” armorial bearings, let alone record them. This
applies particulary to England and Scotland.
Leaving
matters of the Gentry and Peerage of the British Realm aside, an
English Grant of Arms does not confer noble status, i.e. the
College of Arms confers non-noble arms, of similar status to the
burgher-arms of Switzerland and parts of the German-speaking
world when duly recorded. Consequently, according to the current
reduced requirements of the Grand Priory of England & Wales,
an Englishman receiving a grant from the College of Arms would
not strictly qualify for the Category of Justice! The notion,
therefore, that somebody receiving a new English grant of arms,
but not one receiving a Scottish, would qualify for the Category
of Justice in the Order of St. Lazarus, is simply absurd.
As
is apparent from various quotations above, and indeed from the
very Motto of the Order: “ATAVIS ET ARMIS” (By
Ancestry and Arms), the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem
has for centuries been concerned not to demean the Category of
Justice by admitting to it men lacking in the requirements of
noblesse of race. Furthermore, the present day egalitarian
attitude, which prevails in some Jurisdictions of the Order, is
alien to the concept of chivalry and the tradition of the Order.
It seems bizarre that, in Britain, Members of sufficient means,
to put it bluntly, now should be able to “purchase” a
document which would entitle them to the Category of Justice,
particularly in England where a grant of arms is not a Patent of
Nobility. This renders the Category of Justice meaningless and,
to those in the Order who could not afford the cost of a grant
of arms, potentially offensive.
THE
‘JUSTICE CROSS’
The
Justice Cross usually consists of a gilded eight-pointed cross,
about 55 mm in diameter, with green enamel. When worn on
military uniform in Spain, it was often made from green cloth
and gold wire and sewn onto the left breast of the coat.
With
regard to the position of the Justice Cross, it could sometimes
vary, depending on rank, although the norm was that it was worn
on the left. In Spain, that seems to have always been the rule.
The publication produced in 1941 by the Grand Priory of the
Western United States of America, referred to above, states (p
34) that: “The Justice Cross is a plain gold Maltese
cross of eight points, green enameled. It is worn on the left
breast below the Star by all Knights and Dames of Justice.” In
France, however, following the example of the Grand Officers of
the Legion of Honour, who wear the plaque of that order on the
right, Knights and Dames etc. could wear the Justice Cross
together with their plaque on the right of the chest; Grand
Crosses always wore it with their plaque on the left. (Cf
P. Bertrand de la Grassière, L’ORDRE MILITAIRE ET
HOSPITALIER DE SAINT-LAZARE DE JERUSALEM, p. 177 ; Paris 1960)
The
“MEMENTO” (p.135), of 1975, decrees that the Justice
Cross is always worn on the left!: “Das Justizkreuz kann aus
emailliertem Metall oder aus Stickerei bestehen und wird stets
auf der linken Seite der Brust getragen.”
It
has been suggested that some “gong-collector” in the Malta
Obedience persuaded Lt.Col. Gayre to put the Justice Cross on
the right so they could sport four plaques plus the Justice
Cross and still pretend to comply with British dress regulations
(sic !). Latterly, it would appear, this fashion has been
adopted also by the French Obedience in England & Wales.
Since their dress regulations etc. seem to be regarded as
confidential, it has not been possible to establish the
authority for this development. It may, however, be observed
that in the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, the
Johanniterorden in Germany, Holland, and Sweden, and in the
British Venerable Order of St. John, the Justice Cross, without
exception, is worn on the left breast.
The
move of the Justice Cross of the Order of St. Lazarus to the
right breast for Knights, Chaplains, and Dames of Justice is, in
the view of the writer, an aberration inspired by a French
revolutionary precedent, and for those holding the rank of Grand
Cross of Justice unjustifiable and without precedent.
Note
of the website editors:
It
is a fact that at least during the past 15 years in Spain it was
not only usual to admit new members in very high ranks (KLJ and
above), also a lot of them have been bestowed with the Cross of
Justice. Contrary to the rest of the world the Grand Priory of
Spain has kept its own Constitution, which was quite different
from the international one. Such was unique within the Obedience
of Malta, and it sounds strange and inacceptable. Only after
pressure by the Supreme Council (since 1997!) in 2003 the
Spanish Constitution has been adjusted to the international one.
But it looks like the practice to bestow new members with high
ranks in the category of Justice has not been changed. |
