Talk:Rudolph de Landas Berghes

Burial

JamesReyes wrote, when he created this article, that Berghes "was buried in the Community Cemetery at Villanova with full episcopal honors by the Roman Catholic Church". This contradicts what Irish Melkite wrote on this talk page:

When he submitted to the authority of the Roman Church in 1919 at St Patk's Cathedral in NYC, it likely represented the last public (if not last formal) usage by the Catholic Church of the ancient Ritual for the Degradation of a Bishop - which is a pretty telling consideration of the fact that Rome gave credence to his episcopal orders.

According to Edward Peters translation, in The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, 1917 CIC canon 213 states that those returned to the lay state "lose all offices, benefices, clerical rights, and privileges and are prohibited from going around in ecclesiastical garb and wearing the tonsure". Berghes could not have both been "prohibited from going around in ecclesiastical garb" and buried "with full episcopal honors" as he was no longer a cleric but a layman. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, though stripped of his episcopal orders, he remained a cleric. His tombstone at the Augustinian Community Cemetery at Villanova reads: "R Augustine Deberuhes, Prof. Cleric" Find-A-GraveIrish Melkite (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleric has a different meaning here. It does not mean that his ordination or his consecration were recognised after his death.

While cleric in its strict sense means one who has received the ecclesiastical tonsure, yet in general sense it is also employed in canon law for all to whom clerical privileges have been extended. Such are the members of religious orders: Monks and nuns, and even lay brothers and novices. It is also applied to tertiaries of the mendicant orders. If they be men, however, they must live in community, [...] celibates whose vows are approved by the bishop, have likewise clerical immunities. [...] The meaning of the word has been so extended as to include even laics, men or women, who render service to a regular community, such as by begging, provided they wear a clerical dress and reside near the monastery or convent.

— William Fanning, Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1908). "Cleric". Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

It just means Berghes may have professed vows. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Education

To date no records of his education have surfaced but he was indeed an educated man from all other evidence. He wrote well and had a penmanship evidenciary of his times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonvsc (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Anson wrote, in Bishops at Large, that a facet of this subculture, that Berghes became part of, was the collecting of multiple degrees "from obscure sources" (p. 28). I do not think that there is published information about his education from sources that are not derived from Berghes' own narative. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Military Career

To date no hard core evidence has surfaced regarding the claims to a military career. However, that is a matter that I have not yet gotten to <grin>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonvsc (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability

His claim to the titles of Prince of Berghes and Duke of Saint Winock (and apparently Bishop in the Old Catholic Church) are unsubstantiated. The noble titles and lineage, at least, should be removed unless someone can find a genuine genealogical affiliation. My suspicions were aroused by the claims to dormant titles, to royal kinship with long extinct dynasties (including that his relatives in the British Royal Family helped spirit him to the United States during the Great War!), as well as to the claim that he held significant rank in no fewer than three churches — yet died at age 47. But I didn't have to research far to confirm that much about this man is bogus: These claims were discussed and debunked, following inquiry into several authoritative texts on noble history and titles, in 2002 in the alt.talk.royalty newsgroup. The question is, what should be done? Undoubtedly, he is well known in Old Catholic history by his surname and titles, yet these were clearly fraudulent and it is not clear who he really was or how much of his pre-USA religious career is fiction. Does he deserve an article in Wikipedia at all? And if so, as a prelate or a prankster? —Lethiere (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

De Landas Berghes' episcopal standing within the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Confession and, subsequently, in NA, is undisputed. When he submitted to the authority of the Roman Church in 1919 at St Patk's Cathedral in NYC, it likely represented the last public (if not last formal) usage by the Catholic Church of the ancient Ritual for the Degradation of a Bishop - which is a pretty telling consideration of the fact that Rome gave credence to his episcopal orders. His lineal descendants in the Old Catholic-type hierarchy in the US gave, for several generations, legitimacy and validity, if not licitness, to the ordinands who came under their hands and to the sacraments served by them.

So, the short answer is yes, he deserves the article and as a prelate. As to his genealogical right to the noble titles, I have no idea — albeit the genealogical and heraldic experts who populate places such as alt.talk.royalty and who invariably are able to find a royal line connecting any newly elected dogcatcher to those who preceded him or her in the same office, 6 generations prior, are quick to seize on any and all obscure titles when those support the theory of their day. So, who cares? As to the titles, they are certainly those by which de Landas Berghes is commonly, broadly, notoriously known in the Old Catholic, independent, and vagante worlds in which his name is commonplace. —Irish Melkite (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In his sworn testimony in the Superior Court of New York County, New York, NY, de Landas Berghes stated that he had personally never claimed to be a "prince" nor used the title of "prince". He states that others called him that but not he himself. He states that all he had ever claimed was that he had a right to the title but had never claimed it because at the time he became eligible he was in a religious order and unable to assume a royal title. (That would have been correct for one of the mendicant orders but he does no say which one and investigation is still under way to determine which it was.) The title should have gone to his older brother who had died so he was next in line; he stated. His mother, according to his death certificate submitted by the Augustinian friars of Villanova, Pensylvania, was indeed a member of the ennobled (mediatized) "Gramont" (French) family. So he may well have had a claim to the title of the Gramont line when it became extinct but he did not claim it; the Gramonts had been ennobled and granted the right to use the title "Prince" by the Bonapartes and the French government; this title is not the same as "Prince" as used in the English speaking world. Also according to two sources, C.B. Moss, and his death certificate, he was a member of the Hapsburg family. His father was a Count of Burgundy and his grandmother was a dutchess in Baden-Baden, Germany. He was also born in Naples, Italy, which was a part of the Hapsburg Empire at the time and the overseas home of many British "nobless". Lord Kirchner also spent his entire career in Italy and Africa ... perhaps there is a connection. Something to research.

While Mathew may have posted his thesis of dissatisfaction with the Utrecht Union ... the ties were not firmly broken at that same time. Also, things were very confusing in the continental church at that time and it was still developing. There were frequent political pressures from continental authorities as well as from Canterbury. (While the continental pressures have subsided, the pressures from Canterbury are still there and the main reason for the continued schism among the Old Catholics, in my opinion.)

In spite of this, there is no denying that Mathew did ordain De Landas Berghes to the order of Bishop. There is also archival evidence in both the archives of the Utrecht Union and in the Anglican Archives (Lambeth palace) that attest to this fact. So, yes there was some sort of understanding among the powers that were that de Landas Berghes was to be made a bishop. In fact, it was the schism that was developing between Mathews and Utrecht that drove de Landas Berghes to the Anglicans in the first place. (Again there is archival evidence in Lambeth Palace archives.) In one piece of correspondence, de Landas Berghes reminds the Archbishop of Canterbury that he (de Landas Berghes) had broken off with Mathew because Mathew had began to 1) abandon the Utrecht Union and 2) introduce "Romanisms" among the British Old Catholics. It was for this reason that de Landas Berghes had approached the Archbishop of Canterbury about perhaps affiliating with the Anglicans. Subsequently, the Archbishop of Canterbury had refused de Landas Berghes as a potential clergymen due to the bad press created by Mathew; and had suggested that de Landas Berghes might have better luck among the Episcopalians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtonvsc (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This dismissiveness boils down to "Well, genealogists in general can't be trusted so the specific critique given on alt.talk.royalty should be ignored, thus who knows or cares if Rudolph made up his royal descent and titles?" But such mendacity must cast doubt on the other parts of Rudolf's extraordinary biography. And it is mendacity: as the discussion at alt.talk.royalty clearly shows, he allowed himself to be referred to by titles of duke, prince and consecrated bishop, yet none of the bodies authorized to confer such titles recognizes Rudolf's right to them. He obviously read the entry on the extinct St. Winock dukedom in the Almanach de Gotha and fabricated an affiliation with the family, gilding it, as impostors are wont to do, with implausibilities:

• If the original Berghes St. Winocks were bastards of the Dukes of Brabant, they were never Habsburgs, nor dynasts.
• Nor is there any known marriage in the family with a Baden "duchess" or a Gramont heiress.
• But in any event ducal (and princely) titles could no longer pass through the female line in Restoration (or Bonaparte) France, so Rudolph could not have legitimately claimed them (and the Gramont dukedom is still extant, although the family never exercised any sovereignty and so has never been mediatized).

That he was widely known by these phony titles means they should be mentioned in the article — but they should also be explicitly debunked there. —FactStraight (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Ashtonvsc's comments.

Berghes stated that he had personally never claimed to be a "prince" nor used the title of "prince". He states that others called him that but not he himself. He states that all he had ever claimed was that he had a right to the title but had never claimed it because at the time he became eligible he was in a religious order and unable to assume a royal title.

This is internally inconstant – the lawsuit, c. 1916, took place before he entered the Augustinian St. Thomas Monastery, c. 1919, so he lacked the integrity to correct others who described him as having a noble title years before "he was in a religious order".

While Mathew may have posted his thesis of dissatisfaction with the Utrecht Union ... the ties were not firmly broken at that same time. Also, things were very confusing in the continental church at that time and it was still developing. There were frequent political pressures from continental authorities as well as from Canterbury. (While the continental pressures have subsided, the pressures from Canterbury are still there and the main reason for the continued schism among the Old Catholics, in my opinion.)

Mathew "posted his thesis of dissatisfaction with the Utrecht Union" in what he labeled A Declaration of Autonomy and Independence which explicitly announced separation from the UU Old Catholic communion. These "political pressures", "continental pressures", and "pressures from Canterbury" are just vague concepts. What kind of "pressures" could there possibly be on a bishop, without a church or a congregation, who a 1913 "jury found that 'the words were true in substance and in fact' that Mathew was, among other things, a 'pseudo-bishop'", and repeatedly involved in scandals which included his apostasy? I think a better place to discuss this and other content in the Arnold Mathew article is the Talk:Arnold Mathew page.

Mathew did ordain De Landas Berghes to the order of Bishop. There is also archival evidence in both the archives of the Utrecht Union and in the Anglican Archives (Lambeth palace) that attest to this fact. So, yes there was some sort of understanding among the powers that were that de Landas Berghes was to be made a bishop.

The premise that there is "archival evidence" of Mathew's consecration does not lead to the conclusion that "there was some sort of understanding among the powers that were that de Landas Berghes was to be made a bishop". I wrote on Talk:Old Catholic Church (this edit) that it "seems like a fringe theory or a pious fraud from the early 20th century. Is there a verifiable and reliable source for this? That is, after they had announced that Mathew had 'given up communion with the other Old Catholics' when he acted against the Convention of Utrecht in 1910, those same UU member Churches, or their IBC bishops, actually conspired with Mathew to violate their own protocols and authorized a non-member, i.e. Mathew, to consecrate a non-UU bishop" such as Berghes?

it was the schism that was developing between Mathews and Utrecht that drove de Landas Berghes to the Anglicans in the first place. (Again there is archival evidence in Lambeth Palace archives.) In one piece of correspondence, de Landas Berghes reminds the Archbishop of Canterbury that he (de Landas Berghes) had broken off with Mathew because Mathew had began to 1) abandon the Utrecht Union and 2) introduce "Romanisms" among the British Old Catholics. It was for this reason that de Landas Berghes had approached the Archbishop of Canterbury about perhaps affiliating with the Anglicans. Subsequently, the Archbishop of Canterbury had refused de Landas Berghes as a potential clergymen due to the bad press created by Mathew; and had suggested that de Landas Berghes might have better luck among the Episcopalians.

This, for me, is interesting. I would like to read more about this but searches for "Berghes" Canterbury, "Berghes" Lambeth, and "Berghes" Romanism do not include links to any Church of England related sites.

I agree with FactStraight that "they should also be explicitly debunked" in the article. Regardless whether Berghes was an impostor, Irish Melkite is right,

they are certainly those by which de Landas Berghes is commonly, broadly, notoriously known in the Old Catholic, independent, and vagante worlds in which his name is commonplace

but it is a logical fallacy to say that if some people believe Berghes claims to be true that Berghes claims are in fact true. I believe that Berghes' noble claims were fabricated by Berghes just as I believe Mathew's noble claims were fabricated by Mathew. Henry St John identified, in Peter Anson's Bishops at Large, that a "marked characteristic of this dream-world is a folie de grandeur of high sounding titles and more than extravagant pretensions" (p. 16), so fake noble titles seem to be a facet of this subculture, that Berghes became part of, along with collecting multiple degrees "from obscure sources" according to Anson (p. 28). The delusions that may be part of a psychiatric condition.

But I disagree with some of Irish Melkite's other premises.

Berghes' episcopal standing within the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Confession and, subsequently, in NA, is undisputed.

This requires careful parsing to understand what Irish Melkite actually wrote. The phrase "within the Old Catholic Churches of the Utrecht Confession" does not mean a member church of the UU. It just means a group which accepts the "Utrecht Confession" (which I believe is another label for the The Declaration of Utrecht) not that the group is an actual member of the UU which annulled Mathew's consecration in 1920. The UU does not consider orders derived from Mathew, such as Berghes', as valid.

When he submitted to the authority of the Roman Church in 1919 at St Patk's Cathedral in NYC, it likely represented the last public (if not last formal) usage by the Catholic Church of the ancient Ritual for the Degradation of a Bishop - which is a pretty telling consideration of the fact that Rome gave credence to his episcopal orders.

According to Edward Peters translation, in The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, 1917 CIC canon 211 states that "sacred ordination, once validly received, can never be invalidated, nevertheless, a major cleric can be returned to the lay state" and canon 213 states that those returned to the lay state "lose all offices, benefices, clerical rights, and privileges and are prohibited from going around in ecclesiastical garb and wearing the tonsure". This is not a judgment of which order was validly received but a removal from the clerical state; in other words he was, according to this canon, no longer a deacon, a priest, or a bishop.

His lineal descendants in the Old Catholic-type hierarchy in the US gave, for several generations, legitimacy and validity, if not licitness, to the ordinands who came under their hands and to the sacraments served by them.

These "lineal descendants" must have been aware that the churches which consecrated Mathew also annulled Mathew's consecration in 1920. That "lineal descendants" "for several generations" gave purported "legitimacy and validity, if not licitness, to the ordinands", does not change the fact that these "lineal descendants" ignored the judgment of the churches which declared that Mathew's consecration was annulled. In other words, the churches which consecrated Mathew declared that Mathew's consecration was invalid, yet people outside those churches continue to ordain and consecrate in a sequence of apostolic succession derived through Mathew knowing that those sacraments' validity is dubious and declared invalid. For discussions about challenged content in the Arnold Mathew article, see Talk:Arnold Mathew. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Real name?

Under what name was he baptized? Under what name did he go to school? Under what name was he an officer in the Army? Under what name did he testify in New York? Under what name did he immigrate to the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.14.147 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Buried under R. Augustine DeBerghes (R. presumed to be Reverend) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.243.32 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The augustinian.org necrology lists his name as "Rudolph deBerghes". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Travels

The article suggests that the British Foreign Office made arrangements for de Landas Berghes to take refuge in the USA during WWI. While it is generally known when he left England and when he arrived in the USA, no evidence has as yet surfaced supporting this claim. Somehow, he got to the USA but how is still a mystery. His name has not yet surfaced on any of the manifests showing arrival in the Port of New York in the specified period. So he may well have traveled incognito. A claim was made during one legal battle in the New York courts that he had arrived in the steerage but no ship is named. This bit of research is ongoing. The allegation was also that he was in fact not de Landas Berghes but rather an impostor. The archival evidence in the courts are not complete and have been tampered with over the years. While they answer some questions, they raise others. —Ashtonvsc (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Origins…

… Rudolph de L… proclaimed himself as an "Austrian". If it is so, and as far as he was born in Naples, his father should be Austrian or better at this time from a country under "austrian rules" : Austria, or Hungary, or Bohemia (Czech), Illyria (now Croatia or Slovenia) etc… was it so ? Nothing appears …

Landas, Saint Winoc, Berghes (associated with St Winoc, quite different from another Bergen : Bergen op Zoom, NL) were locations and feudal families of northern medieval France (Flanders) they never were entitled as duchies…. The old noble lines of Landas were extinct soon as the XVIth Cent. the Bergues (holding the old fortress of Olhain, Pas-de-Calais, France north) vanished definitively in their male lines in 1908… As far as the old nobiliary tradition in France did not permit the transmission of the name to a female line and as Mr. Rudolph's pedigree (so poor !) gives no explanation in the way h his relative to the old "Bergues-Saint-Winco" we can not take all the allegations for genuine.

All this seems to be a golden story forged by Mr. Rudolph or his supporters, without any accurate beginning of a genealogical proof of any sort. The mention for the death record gives only the late mark of the career but brings nothing about the origins.

D. M. Delgrange France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.202.228 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof. His claim is, like similar "counts" and "dukes" and noblesse, from a time when verifying identity was difficult. Books about this subculture conjecture these ephemeral noble titles and pedigrees as part of a pathology. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IBC

I see that IBC has a Wiki-ism to indicate an abbreviation the first time it occurs. Could this be changed to a link to the Wiki article International Old Catholic Bishops' Conference? Piped as IBC--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

St. Winock

Is there biographical information that indicates that his name was changed from Saint Winoc as per the first sentence in "In Europe" to St. Winock?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"prince dukedom"

This phrase implies that it is a thing, but the words are individually linked to separate Wiki articles. Is this "prince dukedom" related to "dux et princeps Francorum" discussed at Duke of the Franks?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)