Talk:Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20/3/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Reading this link may help understanding all the animosity behind these matters What everyone should know about Orders



Contents

[edit] Disputed content.

I doubt the accuracy of all the infomation following the supposed restoration in 1851. The names mentioned are self styled individuals and the order unconnected with the original. See [1] for some discussion of Don Roberto Paternò Castello dei Duchi di Carcaci who pretends to have claims to an interesting number of titles.

The links provided to add 'credibility' include 1 page diy websites, sites that conveniently link between each other and the charity commission link which doesn't prove or endorse this content only showing that a charity was registered in a particular name. Certainly nothing that can be substanciated to prove anything. I had added disputed for now but really this content will need largely deleting. Alci12 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Speedy delete. - Kittybrewster 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't think that a poorly organized and poorly designed website constitutes as "proof" of whether information on that page is true or untrue. For references that lead "outside" the order itself, also see www.stiftelsenmoc.org, which is the nordic part of the charity (link on the UK charity page), which in turn DOES link to other organizations, such as the Catholic Church in Stockholm and the sisters of St.Brigid, both well-established organizations.

Nothing in the links provided proves anything, it's perfectly easy to setup a very basic website(s) populate it with a few photos, concoct a history and repeat anything you like then link to any other site you may wish. You may even persuade another site to link back. (Much as I enjoyed the notion of nuns as internationally recognised genealogists) What none of that does is amount to anything to prove that this military order 'exists/existed' in the past or that it exists now in any sense of a recognised international order. Wiki rules state: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence
Now I've tried but I can't find the order in any of the major publications that list such things but what I can easily find is respected sources [2] stating that the 'prince' who claims to head this order is a self-styled, that the order is a self-styled.
So at present I can't see this article has proved its contents and there is reason to doubt them from credible sources. Either you have to prove your case, we edit the article to show the the case is not proven and this is allowed to remain, or we Afd this. Alci12 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Documentary proof of the claims made in this article can be found here [3]. This includes notarized facsimile copies and English translations of, among other things, (1) the book "The Order of the Collar" written by the 7th Duke of Carcaci in 1849 which verifies the medieval origins of this Order, (2) a pronouncement of the Royal Commission for Titles of Nobility from 1859 (the Commission was a government body in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), (3) a decree by the reigning Head of State H.M. King Francesco II from 1860 recognising the Order and the succession to its Grand Magistry, (4) an expert opinion by a professor of Italian law, (5) three successive judgments establishing the legitimacy of the Order. The judgment from the International Court of Arbitration in Ragusa from 8th January 2003 asserts the Grand Master's status as a "subject of international law", a status belonging only to sovereign states. The Court also verifies the historicity and legitimacy of the claims in this article, including the titles belonging to the Royal House. Furthermore, the Court states that this judgment takes effect in all countries which have signed the New York Convention on Arbitration of 10th June 1959, the text of which is available here [4]. This includes virtually all members of the United Nations, as can bee seen on the list of undersigning countries available here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Arbitral_Awards). Anyone who takes the time to study these documents will see that all claims made in this article are indeed verified by documents found authentic and valid before a Court of Law. Ant_jo

[edit] Moved to talk page

User:Impavidus added the following to the article:

Everyone should read this article: You may understand why this page is in dispute

Seano1 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One can hardly conceive of an example better calculated to demonstrate the pernicious effects of long-term participation in self-styled orders upon the human psyche. Choess 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, well. I think Ant jo has made a point concerning the reliability and accuracy of the sources, and the Wikipedia project is supposed to present facts and nothing else. Of course, if you do not bother to read others' contributions, or simply disregard them, there's no way to help you. I am not concerned about "orders" but I am worried about the Wikipedia, and such Flat Earth bleating as yours is what is bringing the Wikipedia into miscredit. People will point at us and say: Look, these Wikipedia idiots do not even trust their own sources but rather make unfounded statements. Go home, Guy. -- Kleines Arschloch, 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sociology category

Catgeory has been removed. If anyone has any problems please come to Category_talk:Sociology and discuss. JenLouise 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax?

Are there any sources for this that aren't on the two websites in the external links? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All sources are verified

The main source, the book "L'Ordine del Collare" by Francesco Paterno Castello, seventh Duke of Carcaci, printed in 1851, can sometimes be found at the sites of Italian antiquarian book-dealers. This is also true of the genealogical works quoted, e.g. by Mugnos, Imhof, Scioppio and others. The fact that facsimile copies are available at their own sites, together with other notarised photo-copies, does in my opinion not affect the credibility of the documents, as their authenticity has been established by a court of law. Copies of the article from Rivista Araldica (then an official Italian authority) can be had from their official site [5]. Copies of the court rulings may be had by contacting the courts directly, e.g. here [6] . Ant jo 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Tribunale di Ragusa [7] in not proof, because citet rulings are from Arbitral court ("private court"). Yopie 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


In an arbitration the court tries the validity of the claims made and bases its ruling on those findings. It is therefore correct to say that the Ragusa judgment is proof of the position of the Grand Master as a subject of international law. That judgment is however not proof of the historicity of the Order. Those proofs can be found in the documents found here [8]. This includes notarized facsimile copies and English translations of, among other things, (1) the book "The Order of the Collar" written by the 7th Duke of Carcaci in 1849 which verifies the medieval origins of this Order, (2) a pronouncement of the Royal Commission for Titles of Nobility from 1859 (the Commission was a government body in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies), (3) a decree by the reigning Head of State H.M. King Francesco II from 1860 recognising the Order and the succession to its Grand Magistry, (4) an expert opinion by a professor of Italian law, (5) three successive judgments establishing the legitimacy of the Order. The two first judgments are from a regular Court of Law. Ant jo (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cross st agatha knight.jpg

Image:Cross st agatha knight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Pseudo Order

The right of a younger member of the Paterno family to be the founder of an Order of Knighthood is more than questionable. In international law only souvereigns, governments, former souvereigns and heads of families present at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 are "founts of honour". The Paterno's are not, and a youner member of that family certainly isn't.

An article should not open like this with a partisan? expertise. I would suggest that the experise is used as a reference.

Robert Prummel (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you, one can see Burkes World Orders of Knighthood & Merit by Guy Stair Sainty,part about self-styled orders, or http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm. Yopie (talk00:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) •


[edit] A genuine dynastic Order

The latest editing of this page in my opinon violates Wikipedia principles on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This dynasty is not a younger branch of the Paternó family, it is a junior line of the House of Barcelona. That this junior line became sovereign in its own right and reigned as kings is evident e.g. from James II of Majorca, where it can be seen that the coat of arms (with the junior blue bendlet) was used by him as reigning king of Majorca. To accuse a highly respected scientist and scholar, as professor Harrison, of being biased without offering any proof is again contrary to the principle of Wikipedia:verifiability. It is not possible to refer to the criticism from Stair Sainty within a Wikipedia article, as Stair Sainty offers no evidence or sources. On the contrary, his accusations have been refuted with reference to original source documents as can be seen here.

It is of course correct that the alleged medieval origins of this Order are not verifed, but it has not been claimed that they are anything but legendary. That this legend existed in the 19th century is verifed by source documents referred to in the article. It has also been shown by professor Elena Lourie, with source documents from the Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, that after the crusade in Menorca in 1288 by Alfonso III a small number of men were granted knighthood on condition they moved into the fortress of St. Agatha, situated in the region St. Agatha, and promised to defend the island. This may well be the foundation of the family tradition with the "knights from / of St. Agatha" as documented by the Duke of Carcaci, but as they say themselves this cannot be proven. For prof Lourie's articel, see "La colonizacion Cristiana de Menorca durante el Reinado de Alfonso III", in "Crusade and Colonisation", ISBN 0-86078-266-2.

Three independent Italian courts have verified that the Head of the dynasty is indeed a fons honorum, in fact this very term is used in the judgments as can be seen here, here and here. These are English translations, facsimile copies of the source documents are available here. The reference to the Order of Malta is not relevant, as the SMOM as a matter of principle does not recognise other Orders. "... for reasons of international law, the Holy See cannot recognise any Order other than the Pontifical Orders, the SMOM, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, and those Orders granted by sovereign States with which it entertains diplomatic relations" (Orders of Knighthood and Merit, Peter Bander van Duren, p. 504). It is however noteworthy that one of the undersigners of the Paternó family pact in 1853 was don Gaetano Maria, who swore on the Holy Crucifix, his honour and his Catholic Faith to respect the pact for himself and his successors; he was also the father of Frà Ernesto, Lieutenant of the SMOM 1955-62. The Family Pact included the revival of the House Order of the Collar of St. Agatha, as can bee seen here.

The Head of the House does not claim to be a subject of international law, he was ajudged this quality by an international court of law, as can be seen from the last judgment referred to above.

It is also correct that the validity of the headship of this branch of the family is absolutely dependant on the validity of their family pact in June 1853. That this pact is valid is evident not only from the recognitions given by the then reigning Bourbon Kings of the Two Sicilies, but also from the fact that such family pacts are always considered valid as part of the family's sovereignty. See e.g. the Nassau Family Pact, the pact of the House of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, the Pact of the House of Hesse the House of Habsburg and their Pact from 1703 and the Family Pact of the House of Lippe in 1958, where they also changed the succession to the Grand Mastership of their House Order. PeTom (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of the article?

In my opinion, the anonymous user Yopie is abusing this article. How can judgments from Italian courts be "self-published sources" ? Or expert opinions ? Guy Stair Saintys accusations are all unverified, he does not offer a single shred of evidence in support of his claims. To refer to his criticism therefore violates Wikipedia principles on Verifiability and Reliable sources.PeTom (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear "anonymous" PeTom. First: I´m not anon, so assume good faith and be civil. Second:Please, read WP:V#SELF about self-published sources. Article is mainly referenced by links to "order´s" web, thus article is based on self-published sources. Third: Italian courts - two are private - based "arbitrary courts", and take a look here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/thread/6deb4dfa60c9e858/9cabac7046029159?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=italian+court#9cabac7046029159.

Yes, article is abused, but not by me... Yopie 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

So, about sources. This "order" is listed in: "Ordres et contre-ordres de chevalerie" by A. Chaffanjon, Paris 1982, pp. 255-263 as self-styled. Patrice Chairoff in "Faux Chevaliers vrais gogos" list "order" as self-styled. Both are independent on Stair Sainty. Yopie 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proposal

I believe that we can strike a balance, an article that contains the following content:

  • The present order, it's work, statute and divisions. It does exist and therefore it should be on Wikipedia
  • The legends of the origin.
  • The documented origin
  • The revival in 1853
  • The order as a family- or dynastic order op the House of Paterno (with reference to the doubts about the Napolitan recognition)
  • The expansion of the order under the rule of the present Grand-Master
  • The discussion about the status of this order.

The views pro- and contra.

Then everyone can make up his own mind.

15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

I fully agree, and also think it much better the discussion is kept on this page (which surely must be the purpose of it) rather than inside the article. PeTom (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on sources

1) About self-published soruces: Wiki policy says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

"Reliable sources Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources."

Notarised photocopies of original documents, whether they are published on personal websites or not, does in my opinion not qualify as a self-published source. There can be many valid reasons for this, not least copyright issues. Anyone wishing to check the authenticity of the references here can simply contact e.g. the Court of Ragusa.

I therefore suggest that the photocopies referred to, which have also been tried before Courts of Law and found valid, should be considered admissible.

2) As for the Italian courts, it is not correct that two of them are private. In fact two of them are criminal state courts, [Bari and [Pistoia, which both found that the Head of the Royal House had the quality of fons honorum, and the third is not a private court, but the Ordinary Tribunal in Ragusa seated as a Court of Arbitration. The first two judgments are valid in all EU countries, the last in almost all the countries which have signed the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. I don't think we can express contempt for the Italian legal system by saying all their courts are corrupt. And if matters of succession can not be tried by of Court of Law, where else could they be tried with legally binding effect?

3) Whatever this Order is or not, it is not a House Order of the Dukes of Carcaci, as stated by Yopie. Neither do the Dukes of Carcaci claim it to be, nor do they claim to be a Royal House. The first Duke of Carcaci, Vincenzo, was born 1681 nad created Duke of Carcaci in 1725, as can be seen here. As stated above, this Order claims to legitimacy is totally dependant on the validity of their Family Pact. It seems the historic foundation for this validity can be found in Samuel von Puffendorfs book here, "De officio hominis et civis libri duo" from 1682, Book II, chapter 10, nr 12.

4) Stair Sainty offers no evidence or sources for his allegations. On the contrary, his accusations have been refuted with reference to original source documents as can be seen here. This, however, is a self-published source, but the original documents they refer to are not. It is correct that the MOC is much critised in the books by Chaffanjon and Chairoff, but again they offer only their personal opinions, no objective or original sources for their allegations.

5) As the Order of Malta as a matter of principle does not express an opinion on dynastic Orders, I fail to see the relevance of the reference to their silence on the MOC. It is however correct that one of the undersigners of the Paternó family pact in 1853 was don Gaetano Maria, who swore on the Holy Crucifix, his honour and his Catholic Faith to respect the pact for himself and his successors. He was also the father of Frà Ernesto, Lieutenant of the SMOM 1955-62, who according to Stair Sainty did denounce the MOC (but again no source is given). PeTom (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Hoax

This so-called "Order" is a blastant hoax. Never did the House of Ayerbe (bastard Aragonese House descended of James I of Aragon, extinct in legitimate line XIIIth c., illegitimate line in Sicily extinct XVIIIth c.) descended of James II of Majorca. The so-called "Duke of Perpignan" (a ridiculous title indeed, since no Dukedom of Perpignan was ever created, Perpignan being the capital city of the County of Roussillon) needs a good history lecture.

88.178.189.194 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. : there is a legitimate heir of the Houses of Aragon and Majorca. The King of Spain.

[edit] No hoax, the family line survived

The House of Ayerbe was not a bastard House from James I, but his legitimate children in his third marriage with Teresa Gil de Vidaure, the children were legitimised by the Pope after their marriage. Duke of Perpignan is the title of pretension of the Head of this House, since the Kingdom of Majorca had its capital in Perpignan. Such titles of pretensions are customary in Royal Houses, e.g. Bourbon Two Sicilies. Another of the titles belonging to the head of this family is Count of Roussillon, as can be seen from the court judgments.Daniel Milton (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit in accordance with the Editor's proposal above

This article should be edited to reflect the Editor's proposal above. As for sources, in legal work we tend to distinguish between "primary evidence" (original documents) and "secondary evidence" (notarised photocopies). For the purpose of the Internet it is obvious that photocopies will have to suffice and should be accepted as evidence. It is however correct that some points need to be elaborated and cross-referenced. I shall try to do some work on the article over the following days.Daniel Milton (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused by Yopie of some sort of fraud. I was invited to join the discussion here and thought I had something to contribute to the article, but do not wish to be subject to personal attacks. I am deleting my account.PeTom (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References and further studies

As for the reference to Stair Sainty, it seems obious he is/was unaware of the Family Pact, thinking their claims are based on primogeniture descent. As has been stated elsewhere, this family's right of succession is totally dependent on their Family Pact, which seems to have been recognised by courts and historians. I don't think Stair Sainty can be blamed for his unawareness, since most of the documentation seems to have been made public only in the last few years. The citations should follow Wikipedia rules. In the interest of objectivity I also think the citations from professor Harrison and Stair Sainty should be done in the same manner, either both should have the full text in footnotes (best) or they should both have the full text in the article. I think further studies and references should include references to the Pact of Caspe, which of course was a politically valid election but did not deprive this dynasty of their hereditary rights, and the Kingdom of Majorca where they ruled as sovereigns. Daniel Milton (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)