Burke's Peerage Foundation struck off the charity register.

 Burke's Peerage Foundation has been struck off the charity register. A GOV.UK statutory inquiry, launched in March 2022, found serious misconduct and mismanagement, including conflicts of interest, poor financial management, and misapplied funds, which led to the disqualification of the former trustees. 

Burke’s Peerage Foundation (‘the charity’) was registered with the Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) on 5 February 2014 and was governed by a Declaration of Trust dated 5 January 2014.

The charity was removed from the Commission’s register of charities on 2 August 2023.

The charity’s objectives were: To advance the education of the public in the United Kingdom in the subject of genealogy and personal heritage.

William Bortrick (‘Mr Bortrick’) and Mark Ayre (‘Mr Ayre’) were trustees of the charity from the 5 February 2014.Trustee minutes obtained by the Inquiry record the appointment of a third trustee (‘trustee C’) on 16 July 2022 and their resignation on 14 September 2022. Trustee C was primarily appointed to conduct a viability review of the charity’s future, and they have informed the Inquiry that they were not involved in any decision making.  The Commission did not consider that trustee C was responsible for any of the findings of the inquiry and the reference to ‘the trustees’ throughout the report refers to Mr Bortrick and Mr Ayre only.

William Bortrick - Times Newspaper

Threat (intimidation) Naaaaa.

 In a follow up to my earlier posts I find with some amusement that I have gained fame as a "Fake Hunter" and there appears to be a website out there in world wide web intent on "Debunking the Fake Hunters". The anonymous (cowardly) owner of this website appears to be under the misapprehension that I (and others so proudly featured in his blog) might be intimidated, or bullied. He is of course quite wrong. 

This website (I'm sure you can find it if you search, I'm not going to link to it) is full of hate speech and scandalous misinformation set down in a rather pathetic way. It is a greenhouse of defamation. 

During last month I was contacted by a friend who asked if I would like to respond to the scurrilous accusations made on this hotbed of defamation; after giving it some thought, I decided to. Unlike the  cowardly owner of the site who hides behind a weak idea of anonymity, my life is something of an open book and I am happy to put the record straight (not that anyone in their right mind would believe anything posted on the "Debunking" site).

Here is a transcript of an interview I did a few days ago: https://bit.ly/3CSpPfn

 

Aristo Prats

 Well, our friend The Chief Herald of Arms of Malta is in the news once again with reports of his strange acceptance of dubious titles being in Private Eye  being repeated in the Blog of Loving Malta dot com.

Quote "Whether it’s passports or public assets, Malta’s government has a knack for controversial sales. But now, it’s the decision to sell dubious titles and arms to noble pretenders that has raised eyebrows in the UK. 

Private Eye, the iconic British publication, looked into Malta’s new sideline hustle, “title-laundering”, which sees the country grant heraldic titles and arms transforming “imaginary princes to ones recognised by an EU member state”."

If you click on the image you can see the full sized article.

Threats? Naaa.

 My reader, who has no doubt been closely following the Malta saga, will be pleased to learn that things are moving on apace. Prior to being able to place a formal accusation of Misconduct in Public Office against the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta before the Government Ombudsman, I had to go through several prior steps, the most important being to lay my complaint before his employer, Heritage Malta, to give them a chance to investigate. This I did however, Heritage Malta chose to take the same route they did when I first put it to them that the Office of Chief Herald had not been properly founded; they immediately went on the attack and defended their employee. History now shows that the advice they received from their advocate in that initial matter, advice that led them to set down their reasons for the legitimacy of the office, provided me with ample opportunity to forensically pull it apart and, ultimately, led to the Ombudsman finding against that advice and the eventual correct legislation being put in place.

I wrote to the Chief Executive of Heritage Malta putting a simplified case to him on the first of August and yesterday, 11th August, received a reply from Heritage Malta’s legal advisers. I briefly responded. It now appears that the Chief Herald has decided that he can print that letter in full on his website so I shall, with the greatest of pleasure, share with you my brief reply. Now that I have received the formal “Reply as to the legal legitimacy of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta”. I now have the “official” defence and now have a document to forensically examine to provide further evidence to the Government Ombudsman. I shall be doing so shortly however, as I will be attending the Cambridge conference next week, please don’t expect my response to be prompt.

Here is the link to the “Reply as to the legal legitimacy of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta”:

https://bit.ly/3QdtgkN

And here is the link to my brief response: https://bit.ly/3pbDQgr

I am particularly looking forward to forming an opinion on the lawyer’s comment that in regard to Coronets, supporters etc “the Government recognises only the totality of the Arms as belonging to an individual not any particular significance given by third parties to any specific components therein. As far as the government is concerned, one can display anything one likes in one’s coat of Arms …”

So, no significance in the coronet of a marquis and no significance in the coronet of a baron and yet, I have, just yesterday, declined an application from a Scottish baron who (did not have Scots arms) chose to receive a grant from Malta and was awarded, by the Chief Herald of Arms, supporters and the coronet of a baron. Apparently, there is no significance in this!

I shall be away at the Cambridge Conference next week but rest assured, I am really looking forward to drafting my complaint to the Ombudsman.

Has ICOC cocked it up? Apparently not!

 The Chief Herald of Arms of Malta has deleted from his website quite a few things of late which he clearly finds embarrassing. Given the reasons for his embarrassment and his many errors of judgement in regard to the acceptance of foreign and dubious hereditary honours, I am deeply concerned that the Maltese Heraldry website still features his CV which boasts the fact that "He is a Commissioner on the Board of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry " . If ICOC is to retain any credibility at all, I suggest that it might be a good idea to review their acceptance criteria for Commissioners*. I strongly suggest that no one is more unsuitable for membership of ICOC than the present Chief Herald of Arms of Malta.

Screen shot taken from the official website of The Chief Herald of Arms of Malta 29/7/2022

For those who are not familiar with ICOC, The International Commission for Orders of Chivalry is a private association, based in Milan (Italy) composed of renowned scholars on chivalric matters and award systems. The main goal of the ICOC is to determine the legitimacy of the Orders of Chivalry by publishing the Register of Orders of Chivalry.

* At the time of writing this I can't find his name on the ICOC "Patrons and Members" web page. Has he been removed?

Addendum 8th August 2022:

I have been assured by Pier Felice degli Uberti, President of ICOC, that Dr Gauci is no longer a member (and presumably therefore ought not to be still claiming on the Malta Heraldry website that he is). Pier Felice degli Uberti has sent to me a document outlining the membership procedures and asked that I publish it as an addendum to this post: https://bit.ly/3QpIbb7  

The Chief Halfwit of Arms of Malta

 I notice that our entertaining friend, the Chief Halfwit of Arms of Malta, has now removed those webpages which have given us so much pleasure since he launched them such a short while ago; his entire armorial and that even more entertaining page referencing those “hereditary honours” he has recognised have now disappeared from public view. Someone obviously tipped him off that he was coming under a great deal of criticism on Facebook heraldry forums however, he now has one other self-created conundrum he will have to solve. He is required, by the very legislation which created his office, to make public all his grants and registrations, many of which have caused him to panic and delete the very pages he is required by legislation to publish. I look forward to seeing how he wriggles out of this one.

O'Sullivan and Malta

 The Chief Herald of Arms of Malta has just sent a round robin email to all who have expressed an interest in his activities alerting them to his "New Look Website" which has details of not only recent grants and registrations but also his registration of hereditary honours. 

I have a number of concerns and begin to wonder about the ability (or desire) of the Chief Herald of Malta to check the facts provided by applicants prior to making his grants or registrations. One in particular stood out, that of O'Sullivan recorded in the hereditary honours section: 

Image screen shot from the Maltese website 25/07/22

Name: Sullivan, Gary Brian Sullivan (a.k.a. Gary Brian O’Sullivan & Garraí Eoin Brian Ó Súilleabháin MhicRaith). Honour : O’Sullivan Mór,  Count of Knockgraffon, Prince of Munster (foreign titles).

A check on the grants/registrations page provided this image: 

Image screen shot from the Maltese website 25/07/22

Image screen shot from the Maltese website 25/07/22

A quick check in Burke's General Armory provided me with a blazon for the arms of O’Sullivan and O’Sullivan Mór and it came as no surprise that the arms granted/registered by the Chief Herald of Malta are different. 

A further check in MacLysaght's book "Irish Families, Their Names, Arms and Origins", confirms that the true blazon for the O’Sullivan Mór is that given by Burke and not the arms granted/registered by Dr Gauci (no supporters either). I then had a conversation with a friend in The Genealogical Society of Ireland (Irish: Cumann Geinealais na hÉireann) (a voluntary non-governmental organisation promoting the study of genealogy, heraldry, vexillology and social history in Ireland and amongst the Irish Diaspora) and we both came to the same conclusion.  

Image taken from MacLysaght's book "Irish Families, Their Names, Arms and Origins" 

We both felt that when faced with a petition for arms from a person claiming to be an Irish Chief and bearing the titles Count of Knockgraffon and Prince of Munster it would have been sensible to have contacted his counterpart in Ireland to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of such claims linked with the territory and jurisdiction of the Chief Herald of Ireland. Had he done so (it is actually quite unfathomable that a Chief Herald would not be aware of this), he would have been informed that the "courtesy recognition" of Irish Chiefs and Chieftains was discontinued by Chief Herald Brendan O'Donoghue in 2003 following "The MacCarthy Mor" scandal - see: Irish Chiefs: Contents (eircom.net)

The claims contained in the text recorded on the website of The Chief Herald of Arms of Malta are entirely unsupported by the Chief Heralds of Ireland and I doubt if Colette O'Flaherty (Chief Herald) would have agreed to their inclusion, if asked by the Chief Herald of Malta.

The inclusion of the "Prince of Munster" and the "Count of Knockgraffon" is laughable given the scandal mentioned above.  Ireland, just like Malta, is a Republic - in both jurisdictions no such titles of nobility can be recognised by the State under the Constitution.  

If the gentleman was genuinely entitled to the arms of O’Sullivan Mór then, regardless of the fact that The Chief Herald of Ireland would not be in a position to recognise his honours and titles, he ought nevertheless to be in a position to prove his right to the undifferenced arms of his ancestors. In eschewing the Irish Office of Arms and instead choosing to swim over to Malta, it would seem that the petitioner now has "official" recognition - for what it is worth!

I fear that The Chief Herald of Arms of Malta is allowing himself to be used. 

Grants and registrations from the Chief Herald of Malta

It has come to my attention that the Chief Herald of Malta has now complied with the requirement to publish his grants and registrations for the previous year (in this case years). Details can be found on the following link however to see the actual records of grants and registrations you will have to scroll down quite a way. The transparency is refreshing however, I am disappointed that the Chief Herald has taken it upon himself to enhance foreign grants with coronets. It would seem that a Scottish baron, although not entitled to a coronet in Scotland, is somehow entitled to a Maltese coronet of rank. In addition,  he appears to have accepted Rwandan titles despite them being mere promissory notes from a now deceased King. He has, it seems added a veneer of officiality to what has otherwise been frowned upon. Why am I not surprised.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v43bnxbx210xm5e/Government-Gazette-22nd-April-22-Chief-Herald-Malta.pdf?dl=0

"Walts" and all - Malta again!

I understand that in Military circles there is a name for people who pretend to be something they are not, by either claiming to have served in a campaign that they have not served in, to wear a medal to which they are not entitled, to have attained a rank to which they are not entitled, or in fact, not to have served at all; that word is "Walt", as in Walter Mitty*.

A post made recently on a Facebook forum called "Maltese Nobility & Heraldry" has been brought to my attention; it states that Dr Gauci has been awarded the Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal.

I can't verify the source as I don't know who is behind the post however, the image quite clearly shows the Chief Herald of Malta proudly holding "a" medal. It is hard to tell but I'm not quite sure if it is the Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal he's holding as, to me at least, the ribbon looks quite different. 

This is the real Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal for comparison:

Regardless, I doubt very much that our friend, the Chief Herald of arms of Malta, is entitled to the Platinum Jubilee Medal despite his undoubted past service as a medical officer in the army simply because his service was "in the past"; he is no longer a serving member of H.M. uniformed services. The official guidance states quite clearly that recipients must be "individual George and Victoria Cross recipients and serving members of the Armed Forces and emergency services, among others, and acts as a token of the nation’s thanks to those who diligently serve the public". 

The post also reveals, if it is genuine, that Dr Gauci "was also awarded the Order of the League of Mercy (founded by Queen Victoria) for his pro bono work in the field of Pain relief." This is simply impossible: The League of Mercy was a British foundation established in 1899 by Royal Charter of Queen Victoria. The goal of the organisation was to recruit a large number of volunteers to aid the sick and suffering at charity hospitals. It was disbanded at the establishment of the National Health Service in 1947, with its Royal Charter subsequently surrendered. **

So, is the post on that Facebook page a genuine one, which would surely imply that Dr Gauci is a "Walt", or is it perhaps and attempt to smear his character by someone who doesn't actually reveal their own identity?  Well, I hope that the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta isn't claiming to be the recipient of these medals but I'm afraid that his track record of accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. 
  

*Walter Jackson Mitty is a fictional character in James Thurber's first short story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", first published in The New Yorker on March 18, 1939, and in book form in My World—and Welcome to It in 1942. Thurber loosely based the character, a daydreamer, on his friend Walter Mithoff.

** Edit July 2022. Apparently there is a private Charity called the League of Mercy Foundation created out of new cloth on 30th March 1999 however, although this charity emulates the work of the original, long defunct, Order of the League of Mercy, it is NOT an "Order" and it most certainly is NOT the Order of the League of Mercy founded by Queen Victoria. Again confirming that the accuracy of many statements made leave a lot to be desired. It comes as no surprise to me that Lord Lingfield is President of the League of Mercy Foundation.  

Maltese Herald tidying up loose ends

 

I'm being bombarded with emails and messages about the Chief Herald of Malta this morning.

It seems that he's sent out a Round Robin email setting out his newly minted authority and linking to the, now lawful, new, Gazette announcement of the date new legislation took place along with the link to the actual legislation. The email gives confirmation that he has now, officially and legally, been appointed, by Heritage Malta (phew, I bet he's relieved). 

It is a tacit acknowledgement that his grants etc made under the 2019 Gazette notice had no basis in law and a tacit acknowledgement that his appointment actually had no basis in law until it was just last month confirmed by Heritage Malta post the new Reg's coming into force. 

HOWEVER, the good news is that, under his real now existing powers, he has recognised the pre existing grants etc and brought them into his now lawful records. Hopefully, now he will alter his preamble on documents issued by him to reflect the proper date of his authority rather than rely on the meaningless 2019 Gazette notice. 

So, a clean slate.

Mission Accomplished. Maltese Herald Legal (at last).

Well, it finally happened. On the 21st January 2022 the Malta's Chief Herald finally became legitimate and actually now has some legal powers to act.

I am, needless to say, delighted that, after being dragged kicking and screaming, Parliament has, at long last (two years I believe), finally granted some lawful authority to Heritage Malta and its Chief Herald. I shall peruse the legislation at my leisure however, to date, I have resisted commenting because, in the only detailed grant I have seen, in that instance at least, the new armiger was Maltese (although in that grant, which may pre-date his authority, he relies still on the unlawful Gazette entry as his authority). 

I just hope that the Chief Herald doesn't get his fingers burned by trying to recognise "foreign" titles and nobility. I shall maintain the watching brief but merely as one of the many interested bystanders. 

The full document can be found here: https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/445.7/eng

PS I do like this bit:

(5)  For the purposes of sub-regulation (4), the Chief Heraldshall by the 31st of January of every year cause to be made available at a publicly accessible website on the internet of the Office or the Agency and published in the Gazette a notice containing the following:(a)  a  list  of  all  the  Letters  Patent  issued  during  the previous basis year indicating the particulars of the individual orbody  corporate  in  whose  favour the Letters Patent has been issued, the date of grant and a blazon of the arms so granted; and(b)  a list of all the Certificates of Registrations issued during the previous basis year indicating the particulars of theindividual or body corporate in whose favour the Certificate of Registration has been issued, the date of grant and a blazon of the arms so registered.

Maltese Heraldry still in limbo but it's happening slowly but surely

 

The arms of the Office of Chief Herald of Arms of Malta (an office in progress)

Well, now that we have finally seen the creation, in late July of this year, of the legislation allowing the setting up of the Office of Chief Herald, we have now received assurance, from the Office of the Ombudsman, that Subsidiary Legislation is underway. Although it has to be said that, as yet, the Office of the Ombudsman has not been made aware of what may or may not be included and so there still remains the question of what exact powers the new Chief Herald might have; let us not forget that despite his protestations to the contrary, the Office does not yet exist and he does not yet have any powers. 

We will have to wait to see what any new legislation will say about the granting of new arms to foreigners and how will this be made to square with the limitations placed upon Heritage Malta which presently only allows it to deal with that which already exists and is a part of Malta's Heritage. We will have to wait and see how the granting of a newly invented coronet for the untitled nobility (out of new metal so to speak) will be shoehorned into the existing legislation which prohibits the very acknowledgment of nobility by a Government Official. There are still many questions to be answered including whether or not there will be sufficient in the legislation to bring out of limbo and into a lawful status the grants already made without any authority by Dr. Gauci; let us hope that the new legislation is sufficient to at last do justice to what ought to have been from the beginning, but sadly was not, a worthy enterprise. 

The process, for those who like me are actually interested, is that Article 72 (b)  of the Cultural Heritage Act grants the Minister for Culture the power to make regulations for the purpose of ensuring, “…the better fulfilment of the functions of the Entities;”.  The envisioned regulations will, it is proposed, enable Heritage Malta to fulfil its function of setting up and managing the Office of the Chief Herald (as per Article 8(4)(o) ).  Although the power to make regulations emanates from the main Act, we had to await the permission for the formation of the actual Office (the Entity) before any regulations to set it up and actually manage it could be made and, as we know, that has only just happened: We know now that, at long last, there has been an amendment to the original Act which was passed into law at the end of July this year (2021) which has now allowed Heritage Malta to set up the office of the Chief Herald (apparently though, according to the information received from the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of Chief Herald can't actually be set up and managed until the Subsidiary Legislation has been made to enable Heritage Malta to fulfil its function of setting up and managing the Office of the Chief Herald so any assumption that the Office was instantly set up is still a tad premature). So, now we await the publication of the Subsidiary Legislation to enable Heritage Malta to fulfil its function of setting up and managing the Office of the Chief Herald. 

 

Subsidiary Legislation does not require Parliamentary assent. It takes on the form of a Legal Notice to begin with and this is published in the Government Gazette.  Following publication it is then generally referred to as subsidiary legislation. Just by way of example subsidiary legislation under the Cultural Heritage Act would be referred to as S.L. 455. [ ]  the space would be occupied by a number assigned to the particular set of regulations. Any new SLs or amendments to them are published on this website LEGISLATION MALTA. I have posted a link to Legislation Malta so that my reader can also keep an eye open for the long awaited legislation actually setting up the "Office" and giving the Chief Herald some teeth. At the time of writing this note, there is nothing yet.

Teething troubles there have undoubtedly been but at long last our efforts to see it all done properly appear to be paying off.

 

The Chief Herald speaks

 

In a post today on the International Society of Commoners Heraldry forum (Face book) Laird Sky kindly lets us know that he has contacted Dr Gauci to ask for his opinion on events thus far.

I was amused to see the amount of “spin” so I have taken the liberty to dissect it and add my own take to his comments [in parenthesis].

“I was curious as to Dr Charles Gaucci's [sic] opinion on this matter so I emailed him last night. What follows are his personal insights on the new Act-

THE FACTS

1. PM & Cabinet appointed me [This appointment of course had no effect as it was ultra vires however, I have no doubt that until I raised my concerns with him soon after (a concern which was dismissed by him and referred to Heritage Malta's legal counsel to “see me off”) I am content to believe that he mistakenly believed that he had some form of authority to act however, I contacted him within weeks and informed him of the fact that the Act providing powers to Heritage Malta did not allow for ad hoc appointments and the Minister needed to table a paper before Parliament to effect any changes to the Act (something which, over a year later they have now done but we still, as yet await powers to be granted).]

2. I wanted to see whether the idea would take off before suggesting a change in the law [hmm. This is almost risible, Right from the beginning, Dr. Gauci has maintained that he had the authority to act as Chief Herald and shortly after my intervention his web pages, on the Heraldry Malta website appeared with a lame and wholly misleading attempt to justify the existence of the office in law. Later, after I had contacted the office of the Ombudsman, I was asked to comment on the assertions on that website and provided a forensic criticism which proved that there was no basis in the Cultural Heritage Act for such an ad hoc appointment by the Prime Minister or Cabinet.]

3. It was a resounding success [I am sure it was however, it had no basis in law and yet the so called Chief Herald continued to mislead his clients that his office was lawful and that he had lawful authority to make grants and registrations. The success was based upon a falsehood.]

4. I suggested a change in the law. This was agreed by government. The Cultural Heritage Act was specifically changed. [It was actually I who right from the beginning suggested to Dr. Gauci and his boss, the Chief Executive of Heritage Malta, that his appointment was ultra vires and that he needed to ensure that the Minister for Culture tabled a paper before Parliament to ensure that proper legislation was in place. I kept asking him to justify his assertions that his office was lawful and asked if he could point me to the legislation (knowing that there wasn’t any): My approach to the Chief Herald was not appreciated and he put the phone down on me so I wrote to his boss pointing out the law as it stood and stating that proper legislation needed to be put in place. So, he can't really state with any truth that it was he who initiated a change in the law; he would have been happy if no one had noticed and he was allowed to "carry on granting".

5. The new law created my Office [Agreed, the new law, passed in July 2021 allowed Heritage Malta to create the Office of Chief Herald, however, as noted by the Ombudsman there is as yet no provision for powers ("This Office observes that the proposed Bill does not include an amendment to specifically regulate heraldry, including the creation of new arms"). And yet, the Chief Herald still writes to those who enquire informing them that he has full powers to grant and register arms!]

6. Secondary legislation has been drafted which details ALL my "powers" and which merges the existing office with the "new" office and which recognises all creations/legislations to date. [If this is true, and I can only hope that it is, then this is indeed good news]

The secondary legislation should be law in a very short time, once it is translated into Maltese!

In any democracy which has an Ombudsman, the latter suggests but does not legislate. This is the job of the government. He made his suggestions and they were duly noted. They have all been dealt with in the secondary legislation which, incidentally was being drafted long before the Ombudsman reported. [The legislation was of course being drafted long before the Ombudsman made his suggestion however, it is disingenuous to lend the impression that this drafting was not as a result of the Chief Herald and the Minister being aware that they were under investigation by the Ombudsman and having been provided with a copy of my forensic examination of their false claims. Legislation was begun because they became aware that they were being investigated by the Ombudsman.]

I really have not the slightest interest in 'others' opinions. [This is par for the course for someone who has throughout misled all who would listen into believing that firstly his office existed when he knew that in law it didn’t and secondly continued throughout to maintain that he had lawful authority when he didn’t - as yet, he still doesn't.] 

The Herald without portfolio.

    The Personal arms of the Chief Herald of Malta with self granted noble additaments.

Further to my post yesterday, having had a long correspondence on messenger with Heraldry Society member Bernard Juby, Bernard has posted on Face Book that he has written to the Chief Herald of Malta. In our conversation yesterday Bernard stated that he had written "asking whether he is salaried or draws income from Grant, Registrations, etc  and whether his ofice [sic] is meant to be self-funding and whther [sic] any surplus fees go to Heritage Malta or to the Government?

Bernard also stated that he had "also told him that since he now holds a Governmentally approved Office ans[sic] since Malta abolished nobility some decades ago it is unwise - at the very least - to use any reference to nobility in any Letters Patent that he may issue."

Bernard has helpfully posted the response:

"Parliament has certainly formally ratified my position.  Secondary legislation has been drafted which merges my initial appointment by the PM with that created by parliament as well as detailing all my 'powers', including the granting of Arms to foreigners.   

The finances are also being dealt with by the Ministry in conjunction with the Treasury.  I will be salaried and not dependant on any income derived from grants/registrations.  At the moment I receive a commission, which, at my insistence, is paid directly to the association for Abandoned Animals in Malta.  The same goes for any fees I am paid for undertaking research for third parties. 

The matter of titles of nobility is specifically dealt with in the secondary legislation to the complete satisfaction of the Ministry.  We will be keeping  an armorial register which we may publish on line and perhaps in hard copy and I will give regular updates in our newsletter.  Also all Arms granted/registered will be regularly published in the Malta Government Gazette.   

The Government of Malta is behind the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms 100%."

I am grateful to Bernard, that sounds promising however, it does not excuse his behaviour. In his replies to potential clients, he is presently not telling everyone that secondary legislation is in progress and all will be well if they just hang on, he is actually behaving as though (and telling everyone that) legislation is already in place. It is a despicable deception. Here we now have it from the horses mouth that he has as yet no lawful authority to grant arms. I don't doubt that the Government is behind his office 100% but his actions are nevertheless, at this point in time unlawful. 

I do wish that from the outset he had done the gentlemanly thing and stepped down until legislation is actually in place instead of spending nearly two years trying to convince anyone who would listen that he was legitimate and already had the authority to act as a herald. Pity it was such a poor start. One thing is for sure, it can only get better.

To summarise, although we are now given the impression that legislation is on the way, it remains, as yet, that any acts by the Chief herald of Malta are still ultra vires; he is a Herald without portfolio. Anyone considering a grant of arms from Malta would be wise to wait until his acts have the force of law.

Is the Chief Herald of Malta wilfully misleading clients or just not understanding the law?

Well, it has happened; Bill No. 229 - Cultural Heritage (Amendment) Bill has now passed into law and become an Act of Parliament. It is now ACT No. XLI of 2021, AN ACT enacted by the Parliament of Malta. AN ACT to amend the Cultural Heritage Act, Cap. 445. 

The Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta is now lawfully in existence. HOWEVER, sadly the Act does not provide any powers for the new Chief Herald at all and the expected 2nd and 3rd readings did not apparently, contrary to the opinions of some, provide any powers allowing for any granting of arms and as a consequence any business transacted by the Chief Herald in regard to the granting and recording of new or foreign arms remains ultra vires - of no lawful foundation and therefore null and void. Useless. All of which is very sad as it has been a missed opportunity. 

Despite the fact that there is absolutely no mention in the Act of anything but the creation of an empty office, I am beginning to wonder if the Chief Herald of Malta is still wilfully misleading potential clients or if he really doesn't understand what is going on. I believe that he is a reasonably intelligent man but today it has come to my attention that he has written to someone asking about a grant in the following terms:  

“My Office, which previously had the protection of the Prime Minister of Malta now also has the protection of Parliament which has confirmed its powers in law.  Thus, any Arms granted are fully recognised by the State of Malta and will be entered, for all time, into the Armorial Register of Malta.” 

Whilst I am please to say that, after my extensive efforts to bring the fact that his office didn't even exist on a lawful basis, there is, thanks to the recent passing of the new  - Cultural Heritage (Amendment) Act, now a lawful office of Chief Herald of Arms of Malta. However, the Act, regrettably, still did not provide for any powers or functions of this office (I have made a thorough search of the Parliament website and there isn't even any reference to heraldry of herald in "Papers Laid" before Parliament).

So, let us dissect the latest communication from the man whose Office now exists in law but has, still, absolutely no powers in law. 

The Chief Herald would have us believe that his Office "previously had the protection of the Prime Minister of Malta" This is a disingenuous statement. He may well be under the impression that the Prime Minister and Cabinet lent their approval to his Office however, I have proved beyond a doubt that the procedures, whatever they may have been, undertaken by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were incorrect and had no basis in law so the Office he thought had been created did not actually exist and, in fact and in law, did not exist until, through my intervention, the Ombudsman advised that proper legislation must be sought. This legislation has recently been passed but it only created the Office. In his latest communication the Chief Herald states that his Office "now also has the protection of Parliament which has confirmed its powers in law ". I should like to know where and when since, according to the Act and everything I can find on the Parliamentary website, there has yet to be anything other than the mere creation of an empty shell of an office with absolutely no powers.

If anyone can point me to where I can find these alleged powers I would be very grateful. The details of the Act in full can be found here:

https://www.parlament.mt/media/113182/act-xli-cultural-heritage.pdf

Office of the Chief Herald of Malta - Ombudsman's Conclusions Published

 

Last week the Office of the Ombudsman (Malta) published its findings following the investigation into the creation of the Office of the Chief Herald of Malta and shortly after I began to receive numerous reports from friends in heraldry who, in the early days prior to my intervention, had made enquiries to the "Chief Herald" about grants/registrations of arms that they had received an email from the present "Chief Herald". All of the emails were exactly the same and therefore appeared to be simply a marketing update. 

Extract from the email update sent by the "Chief Herald" "The Ombudsman in his ruling of 21st July made a number of recommendations. Legal counsel advises that these recommendations are in fact already fully addressed by the draft secondary legislation. I understand that these formalities will be concluded following the parliamentary recess, by Autumn/Winter 2021 and will update you accordingly. " 

The Ombudsman did indeed make a number of recommendations and as I have already stated, there was nothing in the original Bill except the mere creation of an empty office of Chief Herald and although rumour has it that the actual powers for said office will be included in the second reading we really, as yet have no idea what will be included. It is somewhat concerning that the Ombudsman, who presumably has greater access to these things than you or I states, in his report that "This Office observes that the proposed Bill does not include an amendment to specifically regulate heraldry, including the creation of new arms" .

For clarity and openness, I have uploaded the full report of Ombudsman here: https://bit.ly/3y75WvW

Maltese Parliament to establish an Office of the Chief Herald of Arms (Properly?)

I note that, at last, Malta is attempting to do it right and doing what it should have done in the first place. My reader will already know that early in 2020 I brought to the attention of the Chief Investigating Officer at the Office of the Maltese Ombudsman that fact that the actions of the Chief Herald of Arms were ultra vires, unlawful and of no worth, because there was no lawful authority for the creation of the Office of Chief Herald or for anything he was doing. The Minister for the National Heritage, the Arts and Local Government, if he wished to create such an Office should have tabled a paper before Parliament for discussion. 

It seems that in actually attempting to now set up the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta, there is a tacit acceptance of my assertion that everything the so called Chief Herald has done to date is indeed ultra vires and I can say with some pride that my report, which can be found here https://bit.ly/3aWv1yi had some effect in that the Minister has been forced to do what he should have done in the first place.

On the 22nd June, The Cultural Heritage Amendment Bill, presented by the Minister for the National Heritage, the Arts and Local Government, Hon. José Herrera MP received its first reading in the Parliament of Malta. 

"The objects and reasons of this Bill are to update the principal Act according to current practice and standards of heritage management, especially regulatory obligations, edit and correct mistakes, establish an office of the Chief Herald of Arms, provide for compensation of impacts on cultural heritage, better facilitate the State’s right of preference for the acquisition of cultural heritage items, and the formal establishment of National World Heritage Sites Technical Committee." 

I do however, have some reservations as the bill does not actually go so far as to create a "Heraldry Act" like the one South Africa had the good sense to create but only goes as far as amending Article 8 of The Cultural Heritage Act (Article 8 of the Act refers to The Operating Agency and the fact that it is restricted, like all other parts of the Act, to “those elements of the cultural heritage entrusted to it are protected and made accessible to the public as defined in this Act”). The amendment adds the words "to setup and manage the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta."

So, having passed a 1st reading, the Bill now has to pass a 2nd reading, then go to Committee Stage (at which time I shall give it another perusal to see if there is to any actual substantive detail/explanation), then go to Recommittal and on to 3rd Reading. 

So far, all we know is that the Minister has asked Parliament to add the words " to setup and manage the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta." If this is all that is approved, then there will still be doubts over what the Office can and can't do because I have yet to see anything to amend the restrictions in the original Act which only allows Heritage Malta to protect, preserve and record that which is already existing. 

Setting up an Office of the Chief Herald of Malta is one thing (and I am delighted that they are attempting to do so) but, so far, I have seen nothing that will allow any Chief Herald to grant arms anew, to register the arms of foreigners or to grant them arms anew when to do so has nothing to do with Maltese heritage or to invent and assign new coronets to the "non titled nobility" of Malta when non existed before and so can't be classed as "heritage". I have yet to see any retrospective provision or mention of recompense to those who have up to now paid for a grant or registration of arms which is in effect and in law void and worthless. I shall continue to delve into the amendment Bill and watch with interest its progress.

Watch this space.

. 

A despicable fake

I came across this (undated) letter, purporting to be from Garter King of Arms while searching for something quite unrelated. It is such a despicable fake that it just has to be exposed. 

It would seem that this individual has a desire to claim the arms (and Lordship of the Manor) of Baguley despite the fact that the (heraldic) family of Baguley (those believed, but not proved, to have been descendants of Hammon de Massey) are extinct. Certainly the Hall came to the Leighs of Booths via an heiress. The arms are also quartered by Fritton. It is likely that most, if not all, of those with this name today have what is known as a location surname i.e. at the time surnames were adopted they lived in or were from the village, rather than being descendants of the extinct manorial lords.

I placed this fake letter on the Facebook forum of The Heraldry Society and participants in the discussion did a wonderful job of dissecting the elements which exposed it as a fraud. 

Quite apart from the different fonts used, we start with the word "apologize" with a "z". Englishmen tend to use apologise with an "s". But what is the apology for? It appears that Garter is apologising on behalf of York Herald for his lack of knowledge of Thomas Woodcock and his research in the Oxford Guide to Heraldry. I simply don't believe that  York would be ignorant of either the man or his works; this is too incredible to be believed. The comment about any case "in heraldic court" (not in the heraldic court or the Court of Chivalry) is also quite ridiculous as Garter would, if he wished to discuss a case to be brought before the Court of Chivalry, have mentioned his own view that any resurrection of the Court would be practically impossible and he would have cited comments made at the Manchester case.

Garter would know full well that in his judgement (Manchester Corporation v Manchester Palace of Varieties [1955] P 133) Lord Goddard suggested that: “if this court is to sit again it should be convened only where there is some really substantial reason for the exercise of its jurisdiction.” Someone wishing to prove a right to arms would do so by having his pedigree examined by The College, not by bringing a case before the Court of Chivalry. 

The reference to the Earl Marshal as "his grace" in lower case does not further convince us that this letter is genuine.

The next part is meaningless waffle but it is clumsy to write "bare" arms when the real Garter would know full well that a person bears arms. When a person is seeking to prove a right to bear arms, no garter would write, without substantial proof, and suggest that the petitioner simply accept his recognition as head of the family and the bit about nobility is meaningless to an English King of Arms. To suggest that there is a need to simply "accept my recognition and leave the matter alone" (implying that it would be too much trouble to do anything else)  is risible. 

Those of us with any smattering of knowledge about these things would know that anyone claiming the right to bear arms and writing to the College of Arms for guidance would be informed of a proper process, involving a proven genealogy, by which that right must be claimed and we know that the College of Arms would offer, for a fee, assistance in either proving or disproving the claim. The Court of Chivalry would not come into the discussion, nor would any herald suggest anything, without proof, which would indicate a sort of "its far too much trouble to go to these lengths so lets just say that you are the head of your American family and you can use the arms with some cadency marks, call yourself Esquire and be a nobleman"! 

Oh, and we don't end a letter with Yours Sincerely with an upper case S. It should be Yours sincerely.

What an utterly despicable, illiterate, effort to pretend to be something that you are not.   

 

Yet another breach of the law by Malta's so called Chief Herald

Although I have tried my very best to keep up with what’s happening with the Office of the (so called) Chief Herald of Arms of Malta, it has recently been brought to my attention that while its legal status is being investigated by the Maltese ombudsman, the Office of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta has published a document on the System of Maltese Heraldry on its website. This document is undated but was evidently drawn up within the past three or four months.

One commentator has stated that “This document provides interesting insights into the OCHAM's policies, and includes an appendix explaining basic heraldic principles, and rules of blazon, aimed at lay persons. There's a strong emphasis on English practices (including some which the College of Arms has abandoned).”

I will leave it to my reader to digest the full implications of the “System” by clicking on the link which will take you directly there however, I would like to point out that in his allegedly official capacity Dr Gauci is so ignorant of his own country’s laws that he is quite happy to publicly declare that not only will he will accept and register coronets of rank (and supporters of the nobility) but he has also invented his own coronet for “untitled nobility” despite the fact that Chapter 251, Laws of Malta. Article 29(4) states: It shall be the duty of every public officer or authority, and of every body established or recognised by law and of every member thereof, to refrain from recognising in any way, and from doing anything which could imply recognition of, any title of nobility or any honour, award, decoration, membership or office which is not recognised in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this article.

 Whatever waffle Dr Gauci posits to try to convince his reader that in allowing a coronet of rank neither he nor the State is recognising a state of nobility, he surely shoots himself in the foot by stating that he will award the male heir of a Count the newly invented coronet of an untitled noble!

When will this man realise that Malta has laws and its laws should be obeyed?

So called Chief Herald shunned by Maltese Nobility

 

The badge of the Committee of 

Privileges of The Maltese Nobility

I have today received news that The Committee of Privileges of The Maltese Nobility has written to all of their Title Holders and Members of the Maltese Nobility warning them of an unsolicited approach from "an individual styling himself Chief Herald of Arms of Malta" and stating that "The Committee has found no legislation enabling the setting up of this body or authorizing, via Heritage Malta, the official setting up of this body".

I have been contacted by a number of the holders of Maltese titles since I first posted my views on the so called office of the Chief Herald of Malta and it appears that there is considerable disquiet amongst their number, one of whom (not the source of the letter) described Dr. Charles Gauci as a "pretentious upstart". There is huge disquiet about his "titles" and there is a strange irony that a man who claims (erroneously) that he is a Government official and has Government sanction, the sanction of a Government which by statute does not recognise titles of nobility, nevertheless awards himself the additions to his armorial bearings of all of the trappings of a Count. Chapter 251, Laws of Malta. Article 29(4) states: It shall be the duty of every public officer or authority, and of every body established or recognised by law and of every member thereof, to refrain from recognising in any way, and from doing anything which could imply recognition of, any title of nobility or any honour, award, decoration, membership or office which is not recognised in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this article. In short, even if he was a genuine Count, if he were a public official, as he claims to be, he would not be allowed to use his public office to either grant or recognise any of the trappings of nobility such as an eagle supporter and the coronet of a count. Of course, we do not recognise his authority and so these trappings of nobility are merely self assumed and yet another manifestation of his propensity for self aggrandisement. 

It would seem that the so called Chief Herald of Malta is attempting, in a rather alarming way, to arrogate unto himself, in regard to Maltese titles, powers akin to those of the Lord Lyon in Scotland in regard to determining who may or may not be entitled to Chiefly arms. Dangerous empire building without any true form of Government legislation. This is yet another example of his assuming a role which is not permitted in law: Chapter 251, Laws of Malta. Article 29(4) actually prevents him from granting any trappings of nobility (as he did to himself) so he certainly can't, lawfully, take it upon himself to adjudicate upon the right to inherit anything (such as a coat of arms) which indicates that the armiger is a title holder. 

We really do need to be concerned over what this man is aiming to achieve by underhand and unlawful methods. 

A copy of the letter can be found here: 

Letter from the Maltese Committee of Priveleges

The armorial bearings of Dr. Charles Gauci (basic unadorned arms granted in Scotland, 

by the Lord Lyon King of Arms) with the added trappings of self aggrandisement.