Comments on the Monograph
"Kurrild-Klitgaard, Dr Peter,
Knights of Fantasy - An Overview, History, and Critique of the Self-Styled 'Orders' called 'of Saint John' or 'of Malta', in Denmark and other Nordic Countries,
Center for Chivalric Studies University of Turku, 2002".
by the Rev'd Dr Michael John Foster.

Overview.
Limit of Comments: These comments only deal with Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph as far as it touches upon the Russian Grand Priory - but within this, the methodology adopted by Kurrild-Klitgaard in relation to source material on the Russian Grand Priory is questioned. An integral part of the publication is the Foreword by Luigi G de Anna, and this also draws comment.

Whilst Kurrild-Klitgaard sets out in his Introduction certain criteria from which he moves out, these also should be opened to question. For example the historic pedigrees of the Johannine Orders which he accepts as genuine, are not open to any real scrutiny - and although it could be argued such as task in outside of the scope of the Monograph - which is to examine the Nordic "self-styled" Orders. This approach opens such a monograph to criticism - the task of these Comments.

The feature for which Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard must be thanked is the unravelling of the complex history of the "Orders" which operate under the St John banner in the Nordic Countries. With the passage of time, it is so easy for factual history to be lost, and the gaps made good by mythical accounts. Kurrild-Klitgaard's work goes some way into guarding against this process. The research involved in this cannot be underestimated. However his analysis of the history in evaluating the question of historical legitimacy appears to suffer from a bias which is revealed by his choice of guest contributer who has written the Foreword.

The Monograph may have the appearance to some of being entirely pro SMOM (The Roman Catholic 'Sovereign Military Order of Malta' founded in the early 1800s as a successor organisation to the Order headquartered in Malta pre 1798). This view would be difficult to escape, as the reader only has to venture into the Foreword by Luigi G de Anna, and could be forgiven if he or she thought they were reading a publication by SMOM and/or its Alliance Partner (The Chivalric Alliance of St John Orders - the non-Roman JohanniterOrden and the British Most Venerable Order).
Even in the Acknowledgements - page 11, by Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, the monograph is dated as "Day of All Saints of the Order, 19th November 2001" (bold italics and underlining added), this follows the dating of the Foreword by de Anna; "20th February 2002 The Anniversary of the Dedication of the Conventual Church of Saint John the Baptist in Malta Feast of the Sovereign Order of Malta".

The Foreword to the Monograph by Luigi G. de Anna certainly pre-judges the so-called self-styled Orders. The plot is simple, SMOM and the St John Alliance are legitimate and thus are the 'goodies', any other "Orders" which claim the Johannine tradition are not legitimate. de Anna writes at the beginning of the Foreword;

"The only Orders which can be considered as continuing the inheritance of the Order of Saint John are the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (SMOM) and the four Orders which are members of the Chivalric Alliance of Orders of Saint John" - page 7.

Certain practices of the so-called "self-styled" Orders, and of the genuine Russian tradition are criticised;

"They also occasionally sell memberships at a very high price. Today, a self-styled Order of Saint John may charge at least 3,000 dollars for becoming a member, and even more for a rank higher than that of Knight." - page 9.

Completing his Foreword, de Anna provides these (inter alia) sweeping generalisations;

"Finally, a reason for the popularity of self-styled Orders is the commerce made by people with no scruples, who gain considerable sums of money by selling these memberships ......... None of these organisations fight to maintain in our Western society the pillar of its civilisation: the love of its Christian Traditions".

Can these comments be taken as scholarly, unbiased, and true? Is this not an argumentum ad hominem? - especially when many examples of Christian Charity can be found among the organisations to which he refers!

Of course high "passage" fees, or joining fees, do not themselves provide an adequate argument with which to invalidate the organisations under scrutiny. Defrauding a charitable cause, is a grave concern and should incur the penalties of the law, but even then, this does not alter any argument concerned with historic pedigree. Indeed this would be an argumentum ad hominem. To illustrate, at the risk of the same accusation but only given to point out the logical fallacy - on the subject of passage fees charged by the so-called "self-styled" Order, comparisons can be made against SMOM. Roger Peyrefitte in his book "Knights of Malta" leads his readers to believe that a figure of up to $50,000 was paid by some Knights who joined the American Association of SMOM when Cardinal Spellman was the spiritual protector [1]. It must also be remembered that the Most Venerable Order in the USA has also been criticised by two dissident members of the London organisation over the alleged sale of Knighthoods by the American branch of the Order [2] - this is not to forward such criticisms, but that these Orders which are counted by de Anna as genuine Johannine Orders are not immune from criticism. Also there is a real sense of irony. It was following the period when the American Association of the Order of Malta was receiving large amounts of money (if Peyrefitte's version of events is accepted), that Pichel began his trade in the U.S.A. with his self-styled Order of Malta using a mythical claim to the Russian tradition in order to establish a pedigree!

The position allowed for SMOM in the monograph is that of an absolute and given position - all others including the Alliance Orders are relative. Specifically, Kurrild-Klitgaard on page 12, describes SMOM as being "the direct, historical continuation of the medieval order founded in the 11th century", and the Alliance Orders as relative to SMOM (- pages 12 to 13).

This prime position given to SMOM by Kurrild-Klitgaard is not without any academic debate and - just as Kurrild-Klitgaard uses the term "Russian Legend" (pp 22, 24, 26, 27, 34, 45, 51, 56), which provides a descriptive slant, (instead of a more neutral description of "Russian tradition") so too, a SMOM legend or myth can be argued for, in creating the absolute position it claims to hold. Even those who are sympathetic to SMOM, have raised certain questions;

Henry Sire in his monograph "The Eclipse of the Order of Malta (1801-34)" admits that;

"...the Lieutenancy was itself governing without any regard for the Order's traditional constitution. That constitution provided for a ruling Council formed by the heads of the Order's eight Langues, and although there might be no Grand Master there was no reason why this should mean the absence of the eight great officers. The Lieutenancy had been failing in its constitutional duty by not arranging for the Langues to elect their heads, who could then have formed the legitimate governing Council in Catania. The only Langue which was wholly unable to take part was that of Aragon, because of its annexation by the Spanish Crown. In fact in at least one case, that of Bavaria, no election was necessary, since the head of the Langue, appointed in 1783, was still living at the time of Napoleon's fall; this was the distinguished Alsatian royalist Baron Flachslanden, who lived till 1823. Instead, we find from a list of the Order's government in 1829 that the eight great officers were being "represented" by Lieutenants, all of them Italians, one of whom had the glory of representing in his own person all three of the French offices, which were the three senior one in the Order…" and that it was " an exceptional regime, truncated by the arbitrary will of the papacy" [3] .

Earlier in the essay Sire had noted of the officers of the government of the Order that;

"they were kept where they were only by the support of the Holy See, which viewed the impotent state of the Order of Malta with complacency, and may well have wished to perpetuate it. The motive, so far as one can detect any, would have been to maintain a weak, unrepresentative, almost wholly Italian government dependent on papal control and ultimately to reduce the Knights of Malta to a papal order of chivalry". [4].

Given Sire's comments, it is understandable that some critics of SMOM argue that it is no more than a Papal Order, and given the constitutional irregularities in the period 1801-1834 and beyond, some would also argue that there is no absolute survivor of the medieval Order of St John/Malta.

Dr Michael Brett-Crowther, in his Lambeth Diploma Thesis (Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church) in a considered and academic manner challenges some Toumanoff's specific assertions (a spokesman of SMOM), but spots the absolutising tendencies of Toumanoff ;

"Toumanoff makes strange play with the notion of legitimacy. He uses it in the manner of its nineteenth century originators, who argued for the divine right of dynasties to rule regardless of the will of the people, and so justified the aims of the Holy Alliance (including Orthodox Russia, Catholic Austria, and Protestant Prussia); but he fails to apply the notion to the conduct of Paul I and Alexander I in regard to the Russian Order of St John. Toumanoff denies the Russian tradition a proper frame of reference; but he asserts for the SMOM the ultramontanism which accompanied legitimism! And finally, he fails to see that today legitimism is the authority of the public will: a view in politics of 'legitimate diversity' which his co-religionist Basil Hume endorses in an ecclesiastical context (Ch 3)" [5].

In Kurrild-Klitgaard's introduction he asserts that SMOM is "an internationally recognised sovereign entity" (page 12) - however he remains silent about any debate over that particular claim! Even within the Roman Catholic Community, there was heated debate about SMOM's claims i.e. with the Holy See in 1953, which ended by the Holy See proclaiming "IN THE LORD'S NAME" that SMOM was only a "functional sovereignty" - due to the fact that it did not have all that pertained to true sovereignty.

What assists SMOM in making its claim of being a truly sovereign organisation is that it is allowed ambassadorial status with a large number of nations. Earlier in his thesis, Brett-Crowther discusses the issue of SMOM's claims to "Sovereignty";

(of SMOM) "this chivalric order is in international law not at all a state" [6].
"SMOM is not a sovereign state; nor can any number of her benefactions and initiatives, however sacrificial, change her nature. SMOM is in international law an institution with limited legal capacities because she lacks demographic and territorial characteristics of a state. Yet she pretends to this status" [7].

Dr Brett-Crowther goes on to discuss the analogies of medieval states which were dependent upon the Papacy as being useful in considering SMOM's case. He writes concerning their claim to sovereignty;

"it was not sovereignty as the term should be used and understood currently" [8].

In an Essay on the Order of St. John (S.M.O.M.), "Chevalier Paul" remarks;

"if autonomy is defined as "the ability to govern one's self by means of one's own laws", then the Order was not autonomous, since its laws were imposed on it by the Holy See, its sovereign master. Carrying the argument a bit further, it is difficult to see how it could be said to be sovereign since its religious character places it under the direct and exclusive authority of the Holy See."[9].

However, to maintain the notion that SMOM is an Order of Chivalry in the sense that was true under the old regime, (i.e. it is an Order of Knights, as understood in the middle ages), it either needs to be a sovereign power/entity - and thereby posses a "fons honorum" - a fountain of honour - a Head of State, or it needs to be acknowledged or supported by a Sovereign Power (i.e. The Most Venerable Order in the British Realm does not claim to be Sovereign, but has the British Monarch/Sovereign as its head).
If it is not a sovereign power, it cannot pretend to have a Head of State as is accepted in the notions of a nation state. Not to maintain the notion that SMOM is a 'sovereign entity', and as it does not claim to be a Vatican Order of Knighthood (and thus accept the Pope as Head of State), this would mean that it lapses in definition to a self-styled, or self-accepting Order. The pressure is on to maintain the claim perhaps regardless of whether the claim is true or otherwise!

Professor Dr Ian Brownlie, CBE, QC, writes;

"Even in the sphere of recognition and bilateral relations, the legal capacities of institutions like the Sovereign Order of Jerusalem and Malta must be limited simply because they lack the territorial and demographic characteristics of states. In the law of war the status of the Order mentioned is merely that of a 'relief society' within the meaning of the Prisoner of War Convention, 1949, article 125."[10].

In his article on Sovereignty in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Professor Dr. Helmut Steinberger states;

"With the historical exception of the Holy See, which maintains diplomatic relations with more than 100 States, in contemporary international law only States as distinguished from international organizations or other subjects of international law are accorded sovereignty." [11].

Dr Michael Brett-Crowther asks;

If the SMOM is not a state, can its Grand Master be a prince except by courteous allowance? Can the present Grand Master, Fra Andrew Bertie, believe that post-Vatican II Roman Catholics, secular fellow Britons, or the British government will ever regard him as a prince and a head of state? Can he be more valid as a fount of honour than a king in exile, even if the king (Peter II) was never permitted to reign within its own borders? [12].

It is beyond dispute that SMOM has gained recognition by Ambassadorial status with 90+ nations. SMOM began with a much smaller list in the 1950s - a list that has grown. It does not necessarily prove true sovereignty. It is perfectly perceivable that another rich or powerful international entity could achieve the same sort of recognition amongst various nations. In fact those "Orders" which are accounted as "self-styled" have and do gain such status with Nations [13].
The form of sovereignty claimed by SMOM has not been uniform throughout the centuries. The status of the Order in Rhodes, differed from that in the Holy Land. Malta differed from Rhodes, where the Order's statehood was finally divested with its ejection from Malta. The claim to the sovereignty of Malta was handed to Great Britain by agreement of Sicily, in whose Monarch the actual sovereignty of Malta was vested. It can be argued that after Malta the Order was a sovereign in exile, a quality maintain after 1814, when Malta was ceded to Great Britain. This viewpoint misappropriates a doctrine of "blood royal" jure sanguines and to strain it as being applicable to a Corporation! The reality is that the present claim is very much a re-inventing, or re-investing of a form of Sovereignty.

Professor Dr Wilhelm Wengler a German Professor of International law, takes up this specific point in his book "Volkerrecht", and rejects the notion that recognition of the Order by some states can make it a subject of international law [14]. Given such an opinion as this, if such recognition is evidence of sovereignty - then the word as is suggested by Dr Michael Brett-Crowther takes on a much looser meaning then is generally understood.

In providing a summary on the issue, Dr François Velde writes;

"The sovereignty of the order of Malta is a controversial topic in international law. Many prominent treatises reject it, or take a neutral position. It is hard to find any textbook or treatise that affirms it." [15].

It is to be also noted that some authors argue that SMOM is sovereign, but the above academic opinions are sufficient to demonstrate that the issue is controversial. Concomitantly, such controversy somewhat lessens the claim for sovereignty.

To shift from SMOM to a discussion of the British Royal Order, which has a Monarch at its head, it must be noted that even where the Queen of the United Kingdom is the head of the British Most Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem, she is not head as 'Head of State' and it is not a State Order. Whatever privileges the institution (an Incorporation by Royal Charter) may share with State Orders of Chivalry (Decorations worn at Court etc) it is not a State Order of Chivalry. Its Knights do not rank as knights in English law - they cannot use the designation "Sir", these are facts! Yes perhaps under the pre-reformation "ancien régime" the British Order would count as a true Order of Knighthood. Today, the Monarch (literally - rule by one) in England is anything but that - it is a constitutional monarchy and subject to the British Parliament. Thus where there is a St John Order, within a nation state, and the Monarch is the head, the issues are not as absolute as some may wish, or maintain!

In the same way that the British Order of St John, is not counted as a State Order, is also true that a further member of the Alliance of St John Orders, the JohanniterOrden of Germany, according to the German Government is not a German State Order of Chivalry, and that it is seen as a "charity organisation" [16].

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard should be well aware the fraternal relationship between the Alliance and SMOM was celebrated by the London Declaration of 1987 [17]. The opening paragraph states of the Alliance members (along with the SMOM); "They are the only Orders of St John which can legitimately use that name". This would suggest at first glance, that there was an acceptance of the Alliance Orders as being part of the historic Order, however the following paragraph describes the origin of the historic Order; "The Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem had its origins in Jerusalem in the late eleventh century and was recognized as an Order by Pope Pascal II in 1113...". Then in the third paragraph, the agreement credits the SMOM alone as the Historic Order; "The Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (generally known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta) is this Order". All that is accepted about the Alliance members in the Declaration, is that they "have a common devotion to a historic tradition", and that they are "recognised by the sovereign authorities in the countries in which they are based". The "common devotion" by-passes the issue of lineal descent, and the recognition given by the sovereign authorities is not qualified. The irony is that the Declaration has meant that the Alliance members have abandoned their claims to lineal historic descent.

It is important to note that in all the arguments above, I am not seeking to create a "tit for tat" in questioning SMOM's pedigree, and the British Order's legal status, or the Alliance's claim to the Johannine tradition. These questions are more than ably defended, both in books and on the Internet. What I am suggesting, and hopefully illustrating, is that the issues are wider and more complex then that for which Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard appears to have allowed.

Kurrild-Klitgaard's methodology.
The method of handling source texts and other documents, to which certain parts are referred, agreeable to the author's thesis but omitting other items which may contradict that thesis is questioned. How far is this true of Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard?

Example.
Kurrild-Klitgaard suggests that "the exact nature of" the Paris Group of 1928 "is in dispute" and due to the fact that they asked Baron Michael de Taube to seek the authorisation of the Grand Master in Rome, he offers that;

"This would suggest that the initial foundation was no more than a "philanthropic" body, and that its organizers recognized that any revival could only be within the framework of the SMOM. Such a view is also in agreement with statements as late as 1939 by Taube that the Order had been extinct in Russia since Emperor Alexander" (page 15, footnote 9).

What Kurrild-Klitgaard does not tell us, is that by 1950, (or to use Kurrild-Klitgaard phrase "as late as 1950") some eleven years later, and therefore more recent than 1939, Taube had revised and in fact reversed his opinion. In 1939 Taube held that in 1817 Alexander annulled the Order (adding that he had no right to remove his subjects rights, which were acquired by an "Acte Legal") [18]. This original first statement by Taube was made without reference to the actual Ukases of 1810 and 1811, or the Ministerial decision of 1817 [19], and relied on the SMOM's view of events. Baron Taube, a Roman Catholic, had trusted SMOM's account of the facts. After World War II had ended, Taube engaged on research to consult the relevant Russian Imperial Ukases of 1810 and 1811 and the Ministerial decision of 1817. From this research he was able to refute the view held by SMOM. Specifically Taube claimed in 1950;

"the pretended suppression of the Russian Grand Priory by Alexander I (in 1810, asserted in Rome by the Chancery of the Order of Malta) being devoid of all foundation and can be easily refuted" [20].

The information providing the 1939 notes on Dacia are easily gained on the Internet copy of the Danish Historical Notes. These notes hyperlink the 1950 amended view. Even if the actual Documents held in the National Archives in Copenhagen, are consulted, Taube's 1950 statement is found in the same folder as the 1939 notes! Thus, Taube's revised views are easily available and are archived with his original views! Why ignore Taube's fuller notes and explanations of 1950? Is it that this later and researched opinion of Taube is inconvenient to Kurrild-Klitgaard's thesis?

There are other examples, which will be examined in assessing Kurrild-Klitgaard monograph as it affects the claims of the exilic Russian Grand Priory and the dependent Priory of Dacia. The Monograph itself covers a wider field and includes all those groups which claim to be Orders, and operate under the St John banner in the Nordic Countries, but excepting the SMOM and its Alliance Partners.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.
Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard outlines what he calls "The Union 'orders" - which he defines as;

"A handful of organisations claiming to be directly or indirectly derived from the so-called "Union of [Descendants of] Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Grand Priory of Russia of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem," founded 24 June 1928, Paris, by descendants of some of those who had erected family commanderies as part of the non-Catholic Russian Grand Priory of SMOM" Page 15.

Comment.
The first correction, is that the non-Catholic Russian Grand Priory was not "of SMOM" - it was a Grand Priory attached to the preceding organisation, to which SMOM owes its origins. It can be argued that SMOM is the modern successor to the Medieval Order, but with a much changed identity. It was on the remnants of the Medieval Order, exiled in Russia, that the Russian Priories were attached. The murder of Paul I, and the subsequent appointment of the new Roman Catholic Grand Master, followed by a succession of Lieutenants under the close control of the Papacy that marks the beginning of the "Sovereign Military Order of Malta". In those years in reality it was not "Sovereign", it was not "Military" and it was no longer of "Malta"!
Secondly, the description of a "handful" of organisations emerging from the Paris group can be challenged. There is the Paris group (not included in the "handful"), which then allowed the creation of a Priory in Denmark, known as the "Dacia" Priory. That is the sole extent of the "Union" Orders!

From late 2004, into the beginning of 2005, the author of these comments has had the benefit of examining numerous documents not examined by Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard [21]. The conclusion drawn from this recent research is that although the brother of Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy, Count Alexis Bobrinskoy was a member of the Paris Group (he was the Representative of the Council in England 1964 to when he died in 1971), the organisation in New York known as the "The Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of Saint John of Jerusalem" founded by Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy in 1977, has no proven succession from the Paris Group of Commanders, and must be considered a separate organisation, which lays claim to be the succeeding organisation [22].

Included in this "handful" by  Kurrild-Klitgaard is the Bobrinskoy Order, the Dacia Priory, and the short lived Rutz/Falekenlowe group. Even if we include the Bobrinskoy Order, this would have only given three organisations - the Bobrinskoy Order and the isolated Dacia Priory, with a schismatic and short lived swedish commandery. The Rutz/Falekenlowe led Danish group was short lived, and was directly attached to the HQ in New York - thus not a separate Organisation. If we were to consider each dependent Priory as a separate Order, then for example the American Priory of the British Royal Order along with other National Priories, could be considered as separate organisations - and the British Royal Order could be described as a 'handful' of organisations! The same would be true of the Roman Catholic Order! As it is the only organisation to emerge from the Paris Group is the Priory of Dacia.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"The exact nature of this body and title is in dispute; proponents of the Russian succession claim that it was an independent Union, effectively autonomous because of the events of 1801-1811, and the legitimate precursor of a revived Russian Grand Priory, but its own history suggests otherwise. On 21 September 1929, the Grand Duke Alexander along with several descendants of hereditary commanders (Prince Demidoff, Count Stoltykoff, Prince Bariatinsky and Count Oulsoufief) wrote on stationary of the "Association Philanthropique Russe des déscendants des commandeurs héréditaires de l'Ordre Souverain de Malte" to ask Baron Michael Taube to "solliciter l'autorisation du Grand Magistere de l'Ordre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem à Rome de reconstituer la branche Russe de l'Ordre." This would suggest that the initial foundation was no more than a "philanthropic" body, and that its organizers recognized that any revival could only be within the framework of the SMOM. Such a view is also in agreement with statements as late as 1939 by Taube that the Order had been extinct in Russia since Emperor Alexander." Page 15, footnote 9

Comment.
"is in dispute" - with whom? Whilst there has been some discussion on the exact nature of the 1928 foundation, this discussion has not been by members of the original group, but by those outside of the group, for example by members of SMOM and the Alliance - and by at least one ex-member who was also a holder of a SMOM decoration.
Kurrild-Klitgaard states that the proponents of the Russian succession claim the organisation to be; "an independent Union, effectively autonomous because of the events of 1801-1811". The facts are very clear. The Ukases of 1810, and 1811, legally placed the Russian Priories under Russian State control. This was a real legal separation from the Roman Catholic HQ! The concept of creating an autonomous Russian tradition was not new, and had its beginnings in 1802, with Russian dissatisfaction over the Treaty of Amiens. In that year the British Ambassador at St Petersburg sent these comments to Sir A Paget ;

"The Russian Ministers....have seriously in contemplation the breaking off all connection between the Russian Priory and the body of the Order, by creating the former into an independent and separate community" [23].

Thus the Russian Grand Priory was not "effectively autonomous" but legally autonomous of the St John Order as under the Roman Catholic Magistracy. Kurrild-Klitgaard goes on to quote the stationary of the exilic Hereditary Commanders in 1929, and states that;

'This would suggest that the initial foundation was no more than a "philanthropic" body'.

It is quite clear and inescapable from the 1928 foundation document, that this group claimed to be the Russian Grand Priory in exile! It is also true that their purpose was that (and is that) of a philanthropic organisation (as is true of SMOM), and it must be noted that the Commanders were an institution within the Russian Grand Priory.
The stationary in question, is described by Baron Michael Taube, as coming from Grand-Duke Alexander of Russia and the Council or the Committee of initiative of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem. The identity of the Hereditary Commanders corporately as an association, historically and legally was not co-terminus with the Russian Grand Priory. Indeed, they were a part of the Russian Grand Priory, and as an Association, they formed the Council of the Grand Priory, as it is they which had continued the activities of the Russian Grand Priory into exile.
Such a description of this Council, gleaned from a letterhead, as the "Association Philanthropique Russe des déscendants des commandeurs héréditaires de l'Ordre Souverain de Malte" does not negate the claim of the Association to be representing the Russian Grand Priory in exile.

Kurrild-Klitgaard is working from the documents he has examined. It is suspected that like most historians, a 'best guess' has been made on the basis of the material at hand. This is reasonable. However, when a best guess is dressed up to become fact, there is the danger of creating the mythical history, that Kurrild-Klitgaard sees in the histories of the organisations he reviews. There are other letterheads in existence, and one dated 16th April 1953 is headed "LE GRAND PRIEURÉ RUSSE DE L ORDRE DE SAINT JEAN DE JERUSALEM [24]. Whilst this copy of the letterhead was not available to Kurrild-Klitgaard, the foundation document of the 1928 Paris Group was available which employs the term "Grand Prieure russe de l'Ordre de St. Jean de Jérusalem"! What the letterhead of 1953 demonstrates is a consistency of claim.

Why did the group approach SMOM? The approach was not made until September 1929, and seven months after Taube had joined the group in the February of that year. A letter of authorisation to act for the group was given to Taube, who never acted without such correct authorisation. Baron Michael de Taube's motive in pushing for recognition from SMOM between 1929 and 1932, was not that he thought that the group needed recognition, but due to a higher cause he had sought to advance. He was a Roman Catholic, and during all his life, he sought to further the Roman Church in seeking reconciliation with the Orthodox. In his early days he had been admired by Pope Leo XIII, for his work on reconciliation between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. Just before Leo XIII died, he sent Cardinal Rampolla to bestow upon Taube, his apostolic blessing [25]. For Taube, linking the mainly Orthodox Russian Priory with SMOM, would have been some small way of furthering Christian unity. What he was offered, was in order to gain recognition was that all of the members had to convert to Romanism - totally unacceptable to those Orthodox believers. The end result was a great sadness to Baron Michael de Taube.

Professor Baron Michael de Taube's writings make it very clear that the Association (or Union) of Hereditary Commanders, was an organisation within and part of the Russian Grand Priory in exile. These Commanders were acting on behalf of the Russian Grand Priory. As is true of the document establishing the Russian Grand Priory in exile, in 1928, this position was also true when the Paris Group obtained an Incorporation in France in 1955, under the title "Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem". However, almost in self contradiction Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard notes that;

"The group elected Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich (1866-1933) as "Grand Prior," and he was eventually succeeded as such by his nephew, Grand Duke Andrei Wladimirovich (1879-1956)" - page 15/16."

An "Association" or "Union" does not need a Grand Prior!! A Grand Priory does!!

Kurrild-Klitgaard relies upon information from James Algrant a member of the British Royal Order. In particular much is made of an interview between Algrant and H.I.H. Grand Duke Vladimir in 1988. It is from Vladimir's statement to Algrant that provides the seed for the thesis that the claims of an "Association of Family Commanders" was later inflated to a claim to be the Russian Grand Priory in exile. A web page on the Caltrap website provides the details;

"We personally asked H.I.H. Grand Duke Wladimir in August 1988 about his protection of the Union. He confirmed that both he and his father had indeed been its protector but that it never was or was ever meant to be a revival of the Russian Grand priory. Rather it was, what its name implied, merely a union of descendants of the original "family" or "hereditary" commanders." [26].

There is no specific evidence that Grand Duke Vladimir's father (Grand Duke Kirill) was the Protector in any active way. Following the death of Grand Duke Alexander, Vladimir's father handed over responsibility to Grand Duke Andrew. Thus, his Protection was not by direct involvement. Grand Duke Vladimir was from 1961 also a Grand Cross of SMOM. As Grand Duke Vladimir had in 1977, appointed a member of SMOM to act against "false" Russian Orders in his name, his testimony in this matter (which was made a number of years after he had ceased to be active [27]) must be considered measured against the weight of the historic evidence. The facts in what the Paris group claimed, (to be the Russian Grand Priory in exile) remained consistent in 1928, to 1955, and to the present. There has never been an inflation of claims - rather the opposite - a deflation of claims made by an ex-member! There is however within the Grand Priory and occupying a special place, the Association of Hereditary Commanders.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"The organisation seems initially primarily to have been a private charitable association of descendants of Russian commanders, but it later turned itself into a self-styled 'order,' often called the "Grand Priory of Russia of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem." A central person in promoting the organisation as an 'order' was a certain exile Russian, Baron Michael de Taube, a former Senator and Professor, whom Grand Duke Andrei Wladimirovich 21 September 1929 authorized to act on behalf of the "Comité d'Initiative" of the "Russian Grand Priory of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem (called Order of Malta)". Page 16.

Comment.
First, an error needs to be clarified - the authorisation was by Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch (not as Kurrild-Klitgaard gives; Grand Duke Andrei Wladimirovich) - Grand Prior from 1928 - which makes the matter abundantly clear, that as "Grand Prior" he acts for the "Grand Priory".  In the 1928 Declaration of the Hereditary Commanders [28], they pledged to;

"Re-establish as a fact the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a Concordance signed on the 4th-15th January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta".

Also to;

"Solicit H. I. H the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch, great grandson of Emperor PaulI, Russian Grand Master of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, to assume for life the functions of Grand Prior of Russia".

Furthermore the language is explicit;

"Invest for life our H. I. H. [Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch] as our superior elected with full and with unlimited powers for life in all decisions relative to the regular re-establishment of the Grand Priory of Russia as well as its statutory regulations in conformity with the fundamental charter of old with eventual amendments necessitated by the exceptional conditions of Russian migrants abroad."

The Declaration by the Russian Hereditary Commanders with its specific clauses was made a year before Baron Michael de Taube joined the group. In those specific clauses Baron Michael de Taube could not be "a central person in promoting the organisation as an 'order' ". He was not involved in the group at that stage! The Committee of initiative of the Russian Philanthropic Association of the descendants of the hereditary commanders, was clearly an instrument within the Russian Grand Priory.
Whilst Kurrild-Klitgaard is happy to pass on certain details about Baron Michael de Taube, other details are omitted which would clarify the matter, such as a letter to the King of Spain Alphonse XIII, 22nd August 1928, a copy of which is included in Taube's book of 1955, where we find this information;

"Grand-Duke Alexander in his capacity of elected Protector of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order Saint John of Jerusalem informs His Majesty of the formation in Paris, of an association of hereditary commanders of this Grand Priory, in conformity with their declaration of 24 June 1928" [29] (Italics and bold added).

Thus there is no shift of view or claims. There is no inflation of an Association/Union to become a Russian Grand Priory, Order of St John, as this was the original claim! In the letter quoted above, the co-existence of the Grand Priory and its dependent Association of Hereditary Commanders can be noted!

Kurrild-Klitgaard mentions a "certain exile Russian" - Baron Michael de Taube. Taube was Professor of Law at St Petersburg University. He was a member of the Council of the Empire, and the First Legal Adviser for the Russian Foreign Office. He was also acting Minister for Education. The qualifications of Professor Michael de Taube are to be found in the same document as the 1939 comments by Taube - quoted by Kurrild-Klitgaard. Thus in terms of the whole legal issue, Taube is an expert witness, and was certainly more qualified to judge the matter, than most modern westerners. What is certain is that the qualifications of Taube are relevant to the debate, especially as the debate is not so much about the facts, which are often quite neutral, but about opinions based on those facts.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"The organisation later died out [the Paris Group], while some members joined various self-styled 'orders' of Saint John. The most prolific of the groups claiming such an origin is one founded in 1977 and now headed by Count Nicholas A. Bobrinskoy as "Grand Prior" (himself only a female-line descendant of a family that had jus patronatus to a family commandery), and with a certain "Prince Michael of Russia," also known as (Prince) Michael Romanov (1920-), a son of the morganatic marriage of the late Prince Andrei Alexandrovitch of Russia (1897-1981), as "Protector." However, the claims of these groups are spurious; the Russian Grand Priory was legally left to die out through a number of decrees and actions by Emperor Alexander I in 1810-11/1817, and has been consistently unrecognised by the SMOM." Page 16.

Comment.
In terms of the Bobrinskoy Order ("The most prolific of the groups claiming") "claiming" is the right participle. It is here that perhaps the author of these comments has an advantage having researched the subject in greater depth. The Bobrinskoy Order was founded by Russian Nobles four of which had relatives in the Paris Group. It was on this identification that the Bobrinskoy Order claimed to have succeeded the Paris Group. There was no legal succession, and no moral succession in-as-much as no member of the Bobrinskoy Order had ever been a member of the Paris group. The Bobrinskoy Order made its claim, as suggested by Guy Sainty "by filling a void left by its disappearance rather than any direct connection." [30]. It is true and not denied that members of the Bobrinskoy Order had belonged to other self-styled Orders, but that is not the point at issue. The claim is that some members of the Paris Group "joined various self-styled 'orders' of Saint John". No members from the Paris group joined any self-styled Order. If so who? Kurrild-Klitgaard does not provide a single name. The only evidence of a person leaving the Paris Group and joining any other Order is that of Count Vladimir Borch who left the Paris Association and joined the Polish Association of SMOM [31]. Has Kurrild-Klitgaard got Borch in mind before recording his comments?

The comment about Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy "himself only a female-line descendant" may or may not be meant to diminish the importance of descent in this way. However such Commanderies could indeed by passed on via a female line, or by nomination to an unrelated family; see Ukase 19.044. of 1799 concerning the establishment of Hereditary Commanderies [32], Article II is clear; "The Founder of an Ancestral Commandery may extend the right to all branches or generations of his lineage... ...the Founder may also name two other families which are obligated to present the same proofs of their Nobility as the very family as the Founder..
In 1962, by diploma, Grand Duke Vladimir (claimant to the Russian Throne) had affirmed by signature the right of Count Alexis Bobrinskoy to succeed as Hereditary Commander, via the female line. This latter fact is entirely ignored by Kurrild-Klitgaard. The details are available on the Internet.

Again Kurrild-Klitgaard uses the phrase "a certain" in reference to Prince Michael Romanoff. He reminds the reader about Prince Michael father's "morganatic marriage" - this does not diminish the fact that Michael is the senior grand nephew of Nicholas II, and is by family a Romanoff.
In his introduction Kurrild-Klitgaard mentions the JohanniterOrden in Germany - as an independent institution, regulated by the German State, and with a Herrenmeister; HRH Prince Oscar . The latter Prince is NOT the successor to the Prussian Throne and is a Prince via a morganatic line. Kurrild-Klitgaard is happy to inform us of Prince Michael's morganatic status, but omits such detail in regard to Prince Oscar - is this evidence of bias? By defending Prince Michael, the author of these comments is not seeking to defend the claimed status of the Bobrinskoy Order, but to raise the question, that if the status of a leading official of an Order, somehow reflect's the status of the Order, then fairness and equity of treatment is required. It could be asked; "why mention Prince Michael's morganatic status"? Is it to diminish the importance of person under discussion? If so, this is not exactly an academic method of seeking to establish the truth! It can also be noted the phrase "a certain" is used some 12 times by Kurrild-Klitgaard to describe individuals who are members or officials of what he considers self-styled Orders. What is meant by the device "a certain"? Is it pejorative? It can be noted that in all 12 cases, the text can be understood without it.

Cyril Toumanoff is one of the authorities quoted by Kurrild-Klitgaard. The former held that the Ukases of 1810/1811 had brought an end to the Russian Grand Priory. This view has been held and quoted by members of SMOM. As late as 2001, Kurrild-Klitgaard also held this view as it is quoted in his preliminary draft of this monograph privately circulated [33]. However, once the texts were translated in English, and published on the Internet, such a view was no longer tenable - a fact recognised by Kurrild-Klitgaard hence that particular claims removal in the final document! As the text of the Ukase state that the expenses of the Priory can be met by the Imperial Treasury, the suppression theory was bankrupt!
Even though Kurrild-Klitgaard regards Toumanoff's publication of 1979 [34] as "the authoritative study" [page 16, footnote 11], Toumanoff's assertions concerning the alleged (but mythical) suppression of the Russian Grand Priory are not only rejected by his critics, but now by such scholars as Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard! The revised thesis adopted by Kurrild-Klitgaard shifts to a view that the Priory was "legally left to die out" [page 16]. There is nothing in the Ukases of 1810, 1811, and 1817, which suggests that the Russian Grand Priory was "legally left to die". In fact by the Ukase of 1810, the Russian Grand Priory had become subject to a Russian understanding, and subject to the Imperial protocols, which in addition to granting the Hereditary Commanders permission to wear the decoration, also allowed the hereditary rights of primogeniture.
So for example, in the official Court Almanacs, members of the Russian Grand Priory are found listed until 1914 (the last issue). How can an account be given for these? It was once argued by some, that the later mentions were those admitted in infancy. 1811 to 1914 is in excess of 100 years - had these Commanders discovered longevity! Especially as one member was a signatory to the Paris group document of 1928! Prince Paul Alexandrovitch Demidoff who was listed in the Almanach de St Petersbourg 1913-1914 page 178 as "ancien officier du reg. des chevaliers gardes, commandant Héréditaire de l'Ordre de Malte" was one of the Hereditary Commanders who re-established the Russian Grand Priory's activities in exile, thereby providing unquestionable proof of the continuous existence of those of the Russian tradition of the Order of St John of Jerusalem. In 1912, under a "Monarchal" decision of Emperor Nicholas II, not only does Count Alexander Vladimirovitch Armfeldt get permission to be recognised as a member on the basis that his grandfather held that honour, but that after his death, his firstborn son, Count Vladimir Alexandrovitch Armfeldt was to succeed him [35] !

All the domestic Russian Orders were regulated by the State, and in reality were but one Order. From 1797 to 1810, the Order of St John in Russia, was separate, and had been considered by Paul to be of more importance than the domestic Orders - a fact which angered some - and was yet another factor in the motives for those who wished to get rid of Paul! Following the Ukases of 1810, 1811, the Johannine Order, in like manner to all other Russian Orders came under State Chancellor. So for example, evidence is found in the biography of Prince Pierre Ivanovitch Tufiakine taken from State records which provides this statement;

"Prince Tufiakine emigrated abroad, where he passed the rest of his life. In 1841, he was stripped of his functions of Current Chamberlain, and of his dignities of Master of the Court and of Commander of the Order of Malta. He spent his last years in Paris, where he died on 19 February 1845" [36].

Contemporary to the actions of the State to the official positions held by Prince Tufiakine is a Belgian publication of 1844 by Nicolas Loumyer; Histoire, Costumes et Decorations de tous les Ordres de Chevalerie et Marques d'Honneur, published in Brussels. Loumyer was a classicist and historian, worked in the Belgian Ministry of foreign affairs. He wrote his book in his function as registrar of the heraldic council, under the aegis of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In other words he had access as part of his employment to reliable information. Loumyer notes that all the Russian Orders come under a Chancellor, who has a voice in the affairs of the Russian Orders, amongst which he places a Russian Order of St John. Louymer's information provides additional confirmation of a continued State role in the affairs of the Russian Johannine tradition.
Dr. Michael Brett-Crowther has noted;

"In no case is the Order of St John listed before any other Russian imperial order; only after them; ......The Russian Order of St John is listed in the .... Almanach in a manner resembling that by which all other Crown honours in Britain precede an honour in the Venerable Order: they are not on an equal footing." [37].

This means under Alexander I, there was a redress of the grievances held by Russian Nobles toward Paul's premier Order, it now occupied a minor position. We can also note that the numbers in the almanac diminish over the years (it no longer carries the previous prestige) but never-the-less citings are found as late as 1914. Part of the debate that Dr Kurrild-Klitgaard has joined, surrounds the claim that the tradition even survived into exile, which  Kurrild-Klitgaard dismisses as evidence! All of this puts into question the dying out thesis!

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"The claims that the family commanderies were automatically hereditary and had a legal-institutional existence beyond those who had received them is historically un-sub-stantiated; the claim that descent from commanders should make the descendants knights too (or enable them to create new knights) is legally nonsensical, as is any claim that it should enable them to constitute a new 'order'. Finally, it has been impossible for anyone to come up with something remotely resembling a continuous historical connection between the Russian Grand Priory and the organisation founded in 1928." Page 16.

Comment.
Ukase 19.044. of 1799 concerning the establishment of Hereditary Commanderies, is the document to regulate the Ancestral Commanderies. This Ukase in addition to using the phrase "Ancestral Commandery" specifically uses the term "Hereditary Right" in Article IV of the Ukase. Further reinforcing the issue is the fact that the hereditary rights of the "Ancestral Commanders" extended beyond the holder. All those entitled to succeed to the "Ancestral Commandery" but not yet incumbents of the Commandery could under Article XI of the 1799 Ukase, "by payment for admission in accordance with his age, obtain a place among the Knights by right of Nobility" - in other words although the Commandery was not yet available (as it was still held by an Incumbent), Hereditary Rights could still be enjoyed by the Commander's heirs! [38].

The Russian Grand Priory continued, and with the specific blessing of Grand Duke Andrei, who had been assigned the task of looking after the matter of the Russian Grand Priory by Grand Duke Kirill, allowed the entry of new members. This began initially with the creation of a "Dacia" Priory to serve Scandinavia. The Hereditary Commanders did not argue to create a "new" Order" - but simply to continue the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, which had been legally separated from the Order of Malta as a result of the Ukases of 1810 and 1811 (By these Ukases Emperor Alexander I prevented any monies going to the Roman Catholic HQ). Already noted is the fact that Prince Paul Alexandrovitch Demidoff bridges the gap between the pre-exilic Priory and the Priory in exile.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich (1917-92), and the latter's explicit support for the SMOM and active opposition to all self-styled orders. 32" & footnote 32; Cf., e.g., letter of 6 January 1944, reprinted in Reitzel-Nielsen 1991 III: 136-137. Grand Duke Wladimir was himself a Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of SMOM." Page 24.

Comment.
Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich only sought to act against those "Orders" which pretend to originate from the Russian Imperial House - i.e. imitation Russian Orders (not ALL imitation Orders);

"d'agir contre les faux ordres, lesquels, usurpant les noms appartenants à l'ordre Souverain de Malte, se prétendant de provenance Impériale Russe".

"to act against the false orders, which, usurping the names belonging to the Sovereign order of Malta, pretend themselves to be of Russian Imperial origin".

The Paris group had emerged from an Imperial tradition - it did not have to pretend to be. The letter was not dated 1944, but 33 years later in 1977 (6 January), and is reproduced by Toumanoff in one of his books.
Essentially Vladimir sought help from SMOM to combat "false orders", which, usurp the names belonging to the SMOM and pretend to be of Russian Imperial origin. Vladimir is not the first to issue a note about mimic Russian Orders, Taube and Grand Duke Andrei did so in 1950. Ten years later the Union of the Russian Nobility sent a similar letter in 1960 to SMOM.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.
Of the Priory of Dacia, which was a full part of the Paris Group, and was accepted as such by Grand Duke Andrei, Kurrild-Klitgaard records;

"At some later point-probably after the death of Grand Duke Andrei, and after Grand Duke Wladimir distanced himself explicitly from self-styled orders of Saint John-the Danish 'order' began electing others as "Protectors." In 1978, for example, the "Protector" was the Danish exile-Russian, Prince D. Myschezky." Page 52.

Comment.
Whilst Grand Duke Vladimir wrote his letter appointing a member of SMOM to act against false Russian Orders which pretend to originate from the Russian Imperial House, when he wrote this in 1977, the Paris Group was no longer active (and therefore he is certainly not writing about the Paris Group). The Priory of Dacia, which still existed, did not pretend to originate from the Russian Imperial House, but from the Paris Group and backed by the senior dynasts at it creation, as was its parent organisation, the Paris group [39]. The Danish group originally asked Prince Daniel Myschezky to be an Honorary Prior in 1961, some 16 years before Grand Duke Vladimir's letter. With the demise of the Paris Group in 1975, Prince Daniel Myschezky took on the role of Protector/Patron. His appointment was not after the writing of the letter, as is claimed by Kurrild-Klitgaard. Of course in 1978, Prince Daniel Myschezky was the Patron, as he had been from 1975 to when he died in 1981. [40].

"began electing others as 'Protectors.' " This is cast in the plural, whereas Kurrild-Klitgaard supplies but a single name. Why leave out other examples if the plural is to be claimed? The reason for this is simple, there were no others [41]! Essentially Kurrild-Klitgaard is claiming that a single occurrence is indicative of a trend, a dubious way of advancing an argument, which has for its basis exaggeration and overstates a claim to strengthen it.

Before commenting on Prince Daniel Myschezky, it is worth considering the role of a Protector.
Before the 19th Century, in terms of the Order of St John, a Protector was a powerful figure, inevitably a monarch. Such a Protector could assist the Order within the international arena it terms of its dealings with other nations, even to the point whereby military assistance could be given. For example, Paul I of Russia, a Protector to the Order who provided refuge for the Knights in St Petersburg following their ejection from Malta. In return, the greatest number of Knights elected him as Grand Master. Whilst the status of his Grandmastership is disputed, his Protectorship was not. He threatened to lay waste to Bavaria, unless the Elector, Maximilian IV Joseph restored the Grand Priory of Bavaria that he had abolished. The Elector acquiesced [42]!
Protectors of the twentieth Century onward are of a different nature, even where such is a monarch, for both the nature of monarchy, and the nature of the Order, have changed. In Europe at least, the monarch can no longer command armies to do their bidding, as these are subject to the national parliament. For the Roman Catholic Order SMOM, a Cardinal of the Roman Church serves as a Protector. For other Johannine Orders, Constitutional Monarchs serve as Protectors, and in the case of the German JohanniterOrden, a junior Prince. In reality these are 'Patrons' and not 'Protectors'. Various organisations especially those involved in charity seek to gain the patronage of Royals or Nobles or the well renowned and respected. Claims to have such Patrons are found on their letterheads and advertising literature. In some ways it is a matter of kudos, especially where the monarch is patron.

The Priory of Dacia, was created as a full part of the Exilic Russian Grand Priory. It was also given autonomy and could and did choose its own Patron. However, in December 1964, and therefore after Prince Daniel Myschezky's appointment in an honorary position, the Union reconfirmed the membership of Dacia [43]. There was no conflict. Prince Daniel Myschezky had made his home in Denmark, and was related by family to Paul Alexandrovitch Demidoff who was listed in the Almanach de St Petersbourg 1913-1914 page 178 as "ancien officier du reg. des chevaliers gardes, commandant Héréditaire de l'Ordre de Malte". Demidoff was one of the leading figures in the establishing of the Russian Grand Priory in exile. Myschezky's Patronage assisted in emphasising the Priory's Russian roots, but importantly he was not  a remote figure who had just lent his name as a titled noble, but was someone who was keen to assist the Danish group in its charitable work. Thought he was given the title of Honorary Priory in the 1960s, to avoid confusion with the position of Prior, this was changed to 'Protector' following the demise of the Paris group in the mid 1970s.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"According to some sources (e.g. Foster 1999) some of these, who came to Denmark and as early as 1928 "formed an extension to the Paris Group," supposedly included: Prince F. Ladischensky, Leonid Koitchef, Colonel Kuliakowsky [sic], husband of Grand Duchess Olga, "The Duke of Oldenburg," Baron Nicholas von Gersdorff and a Holger de [sic] Lassen. The current organisation rejects any such pre-1938/39 existence as a myth…… Foster has indeed later (in an e-mail to the present author) stated that he had now come to believe that this information is false." Page 55, footnote 137.

Comment.
The information originally given (Foster 1999), was via papers sent from Malta, but originated from "Baron" Michael Rutz (alias Falkenlowe)". By 2000 it was clear this information was indeed for the most part, mythical, and accordingly, the web page concerned was corrected.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"the 'order' [the Danish Priory founded in 1929, by Authority of the exilic Russian Grand Priory] claims to derive its legitimacy from a continuation of the Order of Malta in Russia. This is evident from the official history of the 'order,' as well as from the letterhead, which (translated from Danish) reads "Founded in 1939 in Dacia of the Imperial Russian Grand Priory of 1798 in Exile in Paris."
However, this is-as pointed out above-at best wishful thinking and without any historical foundation. The Emperor legally and definitively through decrees and actions let the non-Catholic Russian Grand Priory die out and it did not exist up to 1917 such as claimed." Page 56.

Comment.
Successive Emperors acknowledged the existence of the Russian Grand Priory through its Hereditary Commanders, and as late as 1914, one such Commander is listed in the official Court Almanac! [44], who is also a signatory of the Document establishing the activities of the Russian Grand Priory in exile in 1928. There is also the example mentioned above of Nicholas II, in 1912 giving permission for one member, Count Alexander Vladimirovich to wear his decoration (there may have been more such permissions) with this right extending to his Son as an inheritance. This somewhat questions Kurrild-Klitgaard's definite assertions that;

"The Emperor legally and definitively through decrees and actions let the non-Catholic Russian Grand Priory die out and it did not exist up to 1917" page 56.

The very clear historical evidence (and not conjecture or hypothesis) is that this "dying out" did not happen.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"Even if the non-Catholic Russian Grand Priory had existed up to present times, every single person admitted to the Danish organisation would still be in direct violation of several of the explicit rules laid down by Emperor Paul, when he founded the Grand Priory in 1798."

Comment.
What "explicit rules laid down by Emperor Paul"?
Yes Paul did lay down rules for the foundation of the Russian Grand Priory - rules which gained additions in the remaining period of Paul's short reign. On the 1st January 1799 (New Style), Emperor Paul issued this declaration "WE invite each and every one of the brave and valiant men of Christianity, from whichever part of the world they may be, who would have acquired their nobility by arms or by other important services rendered to the State, to take part in this noble Institution." [45]. With reference to the exceptions toward non-nobles, it can be noted that "Knights of Grace" were found in the pre-1798 Order and such exceptions today by the Russian Grand Priory are no more, or no less than the grade which is found in the present day Roman Catholic Order with their "Knights of Magisterial Grace" !
As to the issue of married Knights, the precedent had been set by Pope Alexander VI in 1503 [46]. Paul I had introduced very little that was new to the Order. His aim was to give the Order new vitality, by an enlarged membership, through his Russian Grand Priory - a vitality which it clearly lacked in its dying days on Malta!

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard deals with the Rutz group on pages 61-63. The essential details are that for the period of 1999-2000 Michael Rutz (Alias "Baron" Michael Falkenlowe) headed a sub Priory of the 'Order' as led by Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy.

Comment.
The Rutz group represents a painful episode for the leaders of the Bobrinskoy Order in being misled. It must be noted that this only concerned the Bobrinskoy Order and its expansion into Denmark. This episode neither concerns the Paris group, nor the Dacia Priory which was a part of the Paris group.

Rutz had been a member of the legitimate Dacia Priory, which in the mid 80s sent a delegation to the "Grand Priory of Malta" a part of the Order once led by King Peter II. Later, in 1995, Rutz (having left the Dacia Priory in 1988) under his alias of "Baron" Falkenlowe approached one of the gentlemen he had met in Malta, who was now a member of the Bobrinskoy Order. Rutz was accepted as a legitimate person, and was then introduced to the New York HQ of the Bobrinskoy Order. In 1999, a Priory in Denmark was authorised by the Bobrinskoy Order, but Rutz failed time and again to supply the documentation to back his claims as to his nobility and the beginnings of the Priory, and the information issued on a web page about the Dacia Priory was amended in 2000. As a result of the question as to his claim to be a noble, a short time later Rutz had ceased to be a member of the Bobrinskoy Order. What must be taken into account is that Rutz knew enough of the real history of the Dacia Priory, to make any mythical additions credible. Whilst criticisms are easy, examples of bona-fide organisations being duped by individuals abound. The Rutz group only had a short-lived membership of the Bobrinskoy Order of less than a year.
It is instructive to note that Rutz's claims (which were mythical) had been given publicity on the Web Site edited by the author of these comments. These were read by the members of the original Dacia Priory who contacted the author, and then comprehensively exposed Rutz's career as a false Baron by alerting the Press and media to his activities. The unfavourable publicity was a necessary price of fulfilling a public duty. The affair was not quietly dealt with. The kind of exposure given to the events will hopefully reduce the chances of any further misleading of the members of the public.

To suggest that the legitimacy as well as the bona-fides of all the groups claiming descent from the Russian Grand Priory founded by Emperor Paul I rests on questionable practices, or even on criminal activities by members of certain groups, is a two edged sword, and is an 'argumentum ad hominem'. Henry Sire reports the conviction of the Roman Catholic Order's Ambassador to Uruguay for being an accessory to fraudulent bankruptcy. Perhaps more serious are the allegations that high ranking members of the SMOM assisted the emigration of Nazis following the end of the war [47]. In like manner, these events or allegations of themselves do not invalidate the claim of the Roman Catholic Order, to be a continuation of the historic Order.

Unfavourable activities in the name of the Order of St John, do point to the need for the regulating authorities of each bona-fide group to ensure that the dubious are not kept in membership, and criminal, or even questionable practices are not continued, and that the general public are warned about individuals and groups involved in illegal activities.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"..it seems to be almost a 'law of nature,' that when a self-styled order is established, it invariably at some point suffers a schism and splits into two (or more) pieces." - page 67.

Comment.
If schism is a test of a self-styled Order, then it could be argued that the creation of the JohanniterOrden in Bradenburg following the Reformation created schism in the historic Order, although it has to be admitted that the Headquarters did find a way to contain the schism. Nearer in time some Spanish members of SMOM set up a Spanish Order of St John [48].
Perhaps also, Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard might find it useful to reflect that the French Council/Commission set up following Napoleon's final defeat, was not considered a part of the Order, and as set up by former members could be considered schismatic. It was the French group which gave birth to the English Order. Also sometime before its Incorporation by Royal Charter, the British Organisation was subject to a schism between 1832 and 1837 [49]. Of the two competing organisations it was the unofficial English Langue (the one not accepted by the French parent organisation) that survived 1837, which became a Royal Order, and so gain legitimacy in the United Kingdom.
It is instructive to note that the Church from its earliest of days found itself in schism, resulting in the Roman, Eastern and Protestant divisions. There have been further schisms in the Roman Church with Vatican I seeing the rise of the Old Catholic Church, and Vatican II giving rise to the Traditionalist Catholics. The Orthodox Church has seen divisions over doctrine, and the Protestant Church is not one but a series of Churches resulting from further divisions!  - does this invalidate the existence and legitimacy of the Church?

Such an argument is of course a logical fallacy and all human institutions can be faced with schism. In other words Kurrild-Klitgaard's "law of nature" is exactly that, and it applies to all, without fear or favour, and thus is neutral in terms of a tool to analyse legitimacy.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"However, the bottom-line is that all of these organisations are entirely private entities without any historical connection to the ancient Order of Saint John" - page 67.

Comment.
Kurrild-Klitgaard earlier in the monograph has modified this assertion and admitted;

"It is, however, worth noting that as opposed to the other Danish 'orders' claiming a "Russian" origin, this organisation [the Priory of Dacia found in 1939] actually does have historical connections with Russians, i.e., the 'order' claims descent from the "Union of Hereditary Commanders," who again base their claims on the supposed survival of hereditary commanderies." Pages 56 and 57.

Whilst Kurrild-Klitgaard aims his "bottom line" at all the Orders he considers 'self-styled', in relation to the Russian Grand Priory he compounds one hypothesis on top of another. First the Russian Grand Priory died out, and that there are no Hereditary Commanders - only their descendants! In his view as the first hypothesis is true and proven, therefore as a second hypothesis any group connected to the Russian "descendants" cannot be historic. Already discussed supra is that the Russian Court via its Almanac admitted to the existence of Hereditary Commanders as late as 1914 (plus permissions granted to wear the Order in 1912). The assembling of such Commanders in 1928, following the exile of Russian Nobles post 1917, with their claims (which are consistently reduced in status by Kurrild-Klitgaard throughout the monograph i.e. they are only a "union" of Commanders and not a Grand Priory) also deserve serious consideration. His first hypothesis is not incontrovertible, and as a result the second unproven.

Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's Monograph.

"It is a pity that so many individuals, who supposedly are genuinely interested in the ideals of chivalry and in helping their fellow men, should choose to do so by adopting the name, symbols and traditions of one of the noblest charitable institutions in the history of Western civilisation. If they truly wanted to perform good deeds, they should be able to do so in numerous other ways." Page 72.

Comment.
In this advice he offers, Kurrild-Klitgaard is not original - compare Guy Sainty 1991-

"If the members of the self-styled "Orders" of Saint John wish to demonstrate a truly charitable and humanitarian spirit, but they are not qualified for membership in the Alliance Orders, then surely they should be just as willing to give their time and money to those many other worthy causes which would be glad of such help." [50].

The irony is that the same sort of comments were said about SMOM some fifty years ago in an Italian Newspaper, which recorded that the Order of Malta was;

"an institution which has discovered the most absurd and complicated means of doing a little good" - [51] .

Almost the same sentiments as Kurrild-Klitgaard and Sainty use, were voiced over a hundred years ago by Cecil Torr, when he remarked about the British Royal Order (just after it achieved incorporation by Royal Charter);

"It certainly does seem strange that a number of ladies and gentlemen could not form a charitable society without doing things calculated to create the impression that they are members of a venerable Order, to which they have no claim to belong." [52].

Conclusions.
Leaving aside legalistic formulæ, based on mediæval or Roman Canon Law, or State Protocols, the social historian would see most, if not all the organisations discussed in Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard's monograph., as emerging from a definite historical tradition, even as imitators, and therefore as part of it. Even where a historical pedigree is absent, or in doubt, the organisations still give witness to the historical tradition of the Hospitallers. One of the important features is the humanitarian vocation of the Order. Even where schism has been the unfortunate hallmark of some groups under review, and they do not have an historical pedigree, what is not lacking is evidence of humanitarian endeavours, beyond the scope of this review to list. Those in desperate need and receiving such aid, will not be worried about the issues of technical legitimacy.

It is acknowledged that these Comments are very limited in scope, and I have only touched upon the claims of Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard which concern the Russian Grand Priory and breifly on a few points which concern the Dacia Priory founded in 1939. I have not been able to comment on the Danish self-styled Orders. If however the omissions and opinions are uniform throughout the Monograph (and the reader accepts this to be, or likely to be, the case), then this needs to be kept in mind. Despite these misgivings, the work yields the uncovering of a complex history of groups operating under the St John Banner in Scandinavia. This is the first clear historic picture in print of such groups and presents no mean undertaking.

The purchase of a copy of the Monograph is highly recommended, so the reader can judge my comments against the full original, and Dr Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard is to be commended for the excellent historical survey contained within its pages.

1. Peyrefitte, Roger. Knights of Malta. Translated from the French by Edward Hyams. Secker & Warburg, London, 1960, page 104.
2. "Royal honours for sale in the US", The Sunday Telegraph [UK], 14th April 1996 front page.
3. Sire, Henry.J.A. The Eclipse of the Order of Malta (1801-34) in St John Historical Society Proceedings, Volume VII, pages 5-17, St John Historical Society London 1995, page 14.
4. Sire, Henry.J.A. The Eclipse of the Order of Malta (1801-34) in St John Historical Society Proceedings, Volume VII, pages 5-17, St John Historical Society London 1995, page 12.
5. Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church. Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology (S.Th.) Thesis, 1st December 1990, page 84.
6. Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church. Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology (S.Th.) Thesis, 1st December 1990, page 46.
7. Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church. Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology (S.Th.) Thesis, 1st December 1990, page 47.
8. Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church. Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology (S.Th.) Thesis, 1st December 1990, page 48.
9. Chevalier Paul, An Essay on the Order of St John (SMOM)
http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/anessay.htm
10. Brownlie, Professor Ian, CBE, QC, Principles of Public International Law, 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 64.
11. Bernhardt, Professor Dr Rudolf ed, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 5th Edition North-Holland Elsevier, USA, 2000, Vol. 4 page 512.
12. Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church Part 4, in CR number 342 Quarterly review of the Community of the Resurrection, Michaelmas 1988 Mirfield 1988, page 31.
13. For example, the Order as led by "Lieutenant Grand Master" "Baron" Emilio Lobera - who are accredited an Ambassador with the Democratic Republic of Sao Tomé e Príncipe -
see http://www.orderofsaintjohn.comq/foreign_representations.htm 
14. Wengler, Professor Dr Wilhelm, Volkerrecht (2 Volumes), Berlin, Springer ,1964, pages 165-6.
15. Velde, François http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/malta/maltasov.htm
16. Official correspondence from Antje Leendertse, Political Counsellor, Botschaft, der Bundesrepublik Duetschland (German Embassy). 23 Belgrave Square, Chesham Place, London SW1X 8PZ, 16th November 2005 and 15th December 2005.
17. http://www.allianceofstjohn.org/about/annexb.html
18. Taube, Professor Baron Michel de. m.s. Notice Historique sur le Grand-Prieuré Russe de l'Ordre de Malte fondé en 1798, Paris 24 September 1950, page 1.
19. Ukase 24.134. of 1810 concerning the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Volume 31 page 74 - The British Library Ref: SN142 (1810): Ukase 24.882. of 1811 concerning the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Volume 31 page 908 - The British Library Ref: SN142 (1811): Ukase 26.626. of 1817 concerning the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Volume 34 page 29 - The British Library Ref: SN142 (1817).
20. Historical Notice on the Russian Grand Priory - Danish Committee. Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. h. litra P nr. 1006-1, page 2 and following Notes.
21. These documents are as follows;
#Bobrinskoy Count Nicholas A, Informal and Confidential History of the Revival of the Order of the Orthodox Knights Saint John of Jerusalem by Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy" - not dated but circa 1994;
#Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, The Hospitallers, Knights of Malta, Bulletin, Special Issue in Honor of the newly elected Lieutenant Grand Master H.S.H. Prince Serge Belosselsky-Belozersky, 475 Fifth Avenue - New York, N.Y. 10017, U.S.A. 1968;
#Cardile, KSJ, Dr. Paul J, The Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem, A Short History. International Headquarters and Secretariat, New York, 1993;
#The Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of Saint John of Jerusalem Chronological account of its revival in USA, circa 1998;
#Minutes of the Convocation of the Bailiffs, Grand Priors. Priors, and Independent Commanders of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem and the Sovereign Orthodox Order of Knights Hospitallier of St. John of Jerusalem. New York Athletic Club, 180 Central Park South, New York City, U.S.A . March 31, April 1 and 2, 1978. Archives of the King Peter Order in Belgium;
#Conference Report. Report of Conference on June 28, 1994 between Representatives of the Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of Saint John of Jerusalem and the Order of St John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitaller, Under the Constitution and the Royal Charter of his late Majesty, King Peter II of Yugoslavia, Russian Grand Priory, Malta. July 5, 1994;
#Letter from Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy to Professor Tonna Barthet of Malta proposing a merger between the OOSJ and the King Peter Order, as under Prince Andrei Karageorgevitch, 9th August 1981;
#(Former Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta in St Petersburg) Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem Knights Hospitaller, Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Grand Council. Spa Hotel California U.S.A.28March 1980 - 30 March 1980;
#The letters of Prince Sergei Troubetzkoy to Dr John Grady.Prince Sergei Troubetzkoy wrote a series of letters to Dr John Grady (Grand Master of a traditional Catholic Order of St John which broke from the Pichel Order in the 1980s) in the period 1983 to 2001. These letters mention Troubetzkoy's relationship with Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy and provide information on the foundation of the Bobrinskoy Order. They are held in the archives of the Grady Order.
22. Essentially, there were three claims connecting the New York group (The Sovereign Orthodox Order of Knights Hospitaller St John of Jerusalem, or "OOSJ" aka "Bobrinskoy Order") to the Paris Group of Russian Hereditary Commanders (which was without dispute acknowledged by all the senior Dynasts to the Russian Throne). The three claims were;

(i) That Prince Serge S.Belosselsky-Belozersky was both a founder of the Paris Group and the New York Group - and thus continued in his person the Paris Group in New York.
(ii) That Count Nicholas succeeding his brother, as an Hereditary Commander.
(iii) That Prince Serge Troubetzkoy was a Russian Hereditary Commander.

Furthermore, the Bobrinskoy Order claimed that there were two meetings of Russian Hereditary Commanders in New York. One in 1973, to set up the New York Priory, and one in 1977 to set up the OOSJ, following the demise of the Paris Group.
The following facts have come to light ;

(i) Prince Serge Belosselsky-Belozersky of New York was not the Prince Serge Belosselsky-Belozersky who was a co-founder of the Paris Group in 1928. It was his father who had taken part (Prince Serge Constantinovitch Belosselsky-Belozersky), who had died in 1951, at which point, and only at which point, Prince Serge Serguiévitch Belosselsky-Belozersky became entitled to be the Hereditary Commander. In other words he could not be the Hereditary Commander at the Paris meeting. Baron Michael de Taube indicates in his book of 1955, that the Prince Serge Belosselsky-Belozersky, founder member of the Paris Group had died before 1955. There is no evidence that Prince Serge Serguiévitch Belosselsky-Belozersky ever followed his father into membership of the Paris group.
(ii) Concerning the claim that Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy inherited the title of Hereditary Commander from his older brother, under the Russian laws, the oldest male son, is the heir, and only if there are no male heirs, does the line step sideways to a brother. The genealogy of the Bobrinskoys (http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ascania/ascan13.html) reveals that his older brother had three sons (Oldest to youngest; Lev, Paul and Boris). From discussions with one member of the Bobrinskoy Order, it has been claimed that Count Alexis Bobrinskoy had disowned his son(s) and that he had given his title to his half brother Count Nicholas. This cannot be, for two reasons. (a) The alleged disagreements between Count Alexis and his sons cannot alter the laws of succession of the Commandery without Imperial agreement. These were specific rights given by a specific Law. In addition no legal evidence concerning the alleged disinheritance has been offered;  (b) Count Alexis Bobrinskoy died in January of 1971, and Count Nicholas did not get involved with the St John tradition until 1972, a year after his brother died. When Count Nicholas did get involved at first he joined the Brancovan Order for about a period of one month. This seems to suggest, that Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy had no knowledge of the Paris Group (still in existence in 1972), in that he joined a self-styled Order with no connection to the historic Russian Grand Priory, or the exilic Grand Priory to which his brother had belonged. Had the mantle of his brother passed directly to him, surely he would have continued wtihin the Paris group, of which his brother was a member?
(iii) The Troubetzkoy genealogy (http://genealogy.euweb.cz/russia/trubets1.html) [leads to four other pages] demonstrates that Sergei was not a direct descendant from Prince Vasili (Basil) who was the first Hereditary Commander, but was in fact a distant Cousin of the members of the direct line.
As to the two meetings of the so-called Hereditary Commanders, out of all the names it appears that only Prince Serge S. Belosselsky-Belozersky was entitled to be a Hereditary Commander. Two others belonged to families connected to the Hereditary Commander lines but who appear from the evidence not entitled to be Hereditary Commanders themselves [Troubetzkoy and Bobrinskoy (via Samoiloff)], and the others of the founding group were too remote from any Hereditary Commander lines.
It seems that so long as there is not a valid claimant occupying the post, any Russian Noble who is in some way connected to a Hereditary Commander's line (even without a direct line) can count as a Hereditary Commander. Certainly without this methodology (which appears to have no basis in Russian law), the OOSJ would be forced to concede that there was not a meeting of Hereditary Commanders.

It is interesting to note that of the 11 founders of the OOSJ listed in the names given on an OOSJ information sheet issued in 1998, 9 are confirmed as being members of one of the so-called 'Orders' emerging from the King Peter Order following the King's death in 1970 (also known as a 'King Peter Order'). This confirmation is found in lists given by Robert Formhals, Prince Sergei Troubetzkoy, the King Peter Grand Priory of Malta, and the Sovereign Council minutes, of the 'Order' concerned. This means that 82% of the founding members appear to have belonged to the ex-King Peter Order as led by Prince Sergei Troubetzkoy - providing strong evidence to suggest that the Bobrinskoy group at its foundation was a repackaged King Peter Order!
23. Diplomatic and other Correspondence of the Right Hon Sir A. Paget. G.C.B., 1794-1807, 2 Vols.1896, Longmans, Green and Co. New York, Volume 2 pp 50ff.
24. As held in the Archives of Alexandre Pavlovitch Demidoff, the grandson of a founding member of the Paris Group. There is a further copy of the letterhead dated 16th April 1954. The letters are signed by the Secrétaire Général, General Georges de Rticheff.
25. Taube, Professor Baron Michel de. L'Empereur Paul I de Russie, Grand Maître de l'Ordre de Malte, et son Grand Prieuré Russe, Paris 1955, page 7.
26. Caltrap's Corner Website; http://www.caltraps-corner.com/
see http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/prolifer.htm
27. The main leaders of the Paris group had all died by 1975. Of the examples of the Diplomas that exist from the Paris Group, Grand Duke Vladimir does not appear to have signed any after 1964. From 1961, Grand Duke Vladimir was a Grand Cross of SMOM.
28. Taube, Professor Baron Michel de. L'Empereur Paul I de Russie, Grand Maître de l'Ordre de Malte, et son Grand Prieuré Russe, Paris 1955, page 51-52.
29. Taube, Professor Baron Michel de. L'Empereur Paul I de Russie, Grand Maître de l'Ordre de Malte, et son Grand Prieuré Russe, Paris 1955, page 53.
30. http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/selfsty1.htm as seen 5th April 2000. The page has been revised since.
31. The details concerning Borch are given in; Historishe Notitser : Beretning om Furholdet til det Kejserlige-Russiske Storpriorat af 1798-i-Paris. Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. h. litra P nr. 1006-1.
32. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Volume 30 page 733 - The British Library Ref: SN142 (1799).
33. The full details cannot be given as the document was received with the following comments; "Preliminary version, For private circulation only, Not to be cited or quoted without explicit permission from the author".
34. Toumanoff, fra' Cyril (1979): L'Ordre de Malte et l'Empire de Russie. Rome: SMOM.
35. http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/petition.htm
36. See; Mikhailovitch, Grand Duke Nicolas, Portraits Russes, Tome III, Fascicule 1. St Petersbourg 1907 (the information in the book is "manufacture des papiers de l'etat" - created from the State Documents).
37. Brett-Crowther M.Sc., Ph.D., D.I.C. S.Th. , Dr. Michael Richard. Orders of Chivalry under the Aegis of the Church. Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology (S.Th.) Thesis, 1st December 1990, page 87.
38. Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Volume 30 page 733 - The British Library Ref: SN142 (1799).
39. For the full documentation see; http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dacfp.htm
40. As reported by Finn Skougaard Ebenhecht a representative of the Priory of Dacia in an email to Fr Michael Foster 21st June 2005, and clarified by telephone 24th June 2005.
41. As confirmed by Finn Skougaard Ebenhecht a representative of the Priory of Dacia in an email to Fr Michael Foster 26th June 2005.
42. See the Treaty of Restoration at http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/bavaria.htm
43. The original letter from the Union, signed by the Secretary Georges de Rticheff, dated 12th December 1964, was written in Russian. It has only been a copy of the letter translated into Danish which has survived. However as an additional matter in the letter was referred to Grand Duke Vladimir (the Danish Priory petitioned for Grand Duke Vladimir to be considered as their Protector), there should be verification in Grand Duke Vladimir's Chancellery Archives. see http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dac1964.htm. No reply was received concerning the matter of the Protectorship of Grand Duke Vladimir.
44. Almanach de St-Pétersbourg for the years 1910-1914 British Library Ref: 2458 yaa.1913/1914, Page 178; DEMÍDOV, (Demidoff), Paul Alexandrovitch. ancien officier du rég. des chevaliers-gardes; commandant héréditaire de l'Ordre de Malte.
45. http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/appeal.htm
46. Vertot, Monsignor l'Abbe de. The History of the Knights of Malta. Printed for G. Strahan, 2 Volumes, London, 1728, Vol I, page 410.
47. Sire, Henry.J.A. The Knights of Malta, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994, page 276.
48. http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/prolifer.htm & http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/spain.htm
49. Riley-Smith Jonathan, The Order of St John in England, 1827-1858, in; Baker, The Military Orders - Fighting for the Faith & Caring for the Sick, Variorum, Ashgak Publishing Ltd. Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot 1994, pages 125 and 126.
50. Sainty, G.S. The Orders of Saint John, American Society of the Most Venerable Order of St John of Jerusalem, New York 1991, page 166.
51. Peyrefitte, Roger. Knights of Malta. Translated from the French by Edward Hyams. Secker & Warburg, London, 1960, page 98.
52. Torr, Cecil. The Hospitallers in England, in The Athenæum, John C. Francis, Athenæum Press, London, No 3245 January 4th 1890, page 16.