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

 

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. 

"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.  

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.   

 

Oh dear, Burke's have upset the Booths!

It has come to my attention that there is considerable disquiet in the households of the various collateral descendants of the Booth baronets of Allerton Beeches over what is believed to be the latest faux pas committed by the nouveau owners of the Burke's brand; one of them used the term "ignoramuses!".

So, what is all the fuss about?

The substantive content of the Burke's Peerage website hides behind a paywall so this matter has only come to my attention via outraged family members who have reported the matter to me. Readers of my weblog will recall that way back in August 2008 I reported that the present baronet had asked that the image hitherto shown on the family entry in Burke's Peerage be redone. Garter had confirmed that Sir Alfred Allen Booth's grant of arms in 1916 was not "in lieu" of the ancient arms thus, since Sir Alfred seemed to be something of a revisionist, Sir Doug (the present baronet) wished to revert to the old arms but with the same motto as used by his family.

My modest contribution to the updated entry was this new image which reverts back to the original arms used by the family. Garter was quite content that cadency marks were unnecessary as it was felt that the arms were adequately identified by the inclusion of the baronet’s escutcheon.  

  

Image used by Burke's Peerage (website) from 2008 to date.

Apparently, my modest contribution has now quietly been replaced by this one:

Image used by Burke's as at October 2020.

It would appear that the present baronet has been heraldically demoted!

The present image is most inappropriate for a baronet, as anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of heraldry should know. Gone has the baronet's escutcheon. Gone has the open faced helm appropriate to a baronet. The heraldic display has been reduced to that of a mere gentleman.  It no longer complies with Garter's guidance that cadency marks were unnecessary as it was felt that the arms were adequately identified by the inclusion of the baronet’s escutcheon; it no longer displays the baronet's escutcheon.  

What one earth are the new owners of the Burke's brand thinking of? The brand may well have some antiquity but the newly established company that owns it are, at least in this reported instance, failing in their duty to the brand and showing their complete lack of experience. Let us hope that the complaints are heeded and that Sir Doug is heraldically reinstated. 

 

It doesn't wash (well not with me anyway)!

It  has come to my attention that a letter, from Dr, Jose Herrera, Malta's minister for National Heritage, Arts and Local Government is being sent to those who are making enquiries about the status of the so called Chief Herald of Arms of Malta.

This letter is of course a complete nonsense. The very Act of Parliament which created Heritage Malta demands that the Ministry of Culture presents a written paper to Parliament, so that Parliament can decide when changes such as this are made. Of course it is a matter for a Sovereign State to decide how it appoints a Chief Herald but how does a Sovereign State decide such matters - by a decision of or an Act of Parliament. It is preposterous for any Minister, let alone a Minister of Culture, to pretend to have assumed the powers of State without any authority of Parliament. Section 10 of the Act of Parliament which created Heritage Malta does not allow the Minister of Culture any such delegated powers. That is the crux of the matter. 

The full details of my forensic examination of the FAQs is available here: Examination into the claims of the "Chief Herald of Malta".

I await the findings of the Chief Investigator.

Heraldry Hall of Shame

There appears to be an article about heraldry in today's Times newspaper. I can't read the whole article because to do so requires a subscription and I've no intention of subscribing to the Times however, their headline banner shows an appalling coat of arms. If this is an example of the work of the design company mentioned in the article, I'm ashamed of the Times for featuring such rubbish. There are countless wonderful heraldic artists out there and they have to use this as an example!

Headline banner from the Times newspaper Saturday 11th July 2020.

If this is an example of Downey's work (the design company featured in the article), I won't be commissioning them!