Kingdoms Associated Press - London, England


A little over a month ago, Her Royal Highness The Princess Zulita Palidor Westbrooke Dorchester founded a new heraldic body named The Order of Lands and Arms. In response, the Crown announced the attainder of the Princess and other Peers involved in this initiative, stripping them of their lands and titles as reported in our previous article The Heraldic Crisis: From Longjohnsilver to Quinn. Since the publication of that piece, the appeals against these attainders have concluded in the House of Lords, each and every one of them successful. It is as yet unknown if the Queen will heed the House's strong recommendation and rescind her decree.

To better understand the purpose of this new Order and seek answers to some pertinent questions, the KAP sat down with the Order's founder, the aforementioned Princess Royal Zulita. The transcript of the interview is presented here for perusal by the interested public.

---

KAP: Thank you for giving us your time, Your Highness. We believe you would like to begin with a disclaimer?

Zulita: Indeed, before I answer any questions, I would like to clarify that the Order is still being formed and some things are still subject to change. I will form my answers based on how I am currently conceptualizing the Order.

KAP: Certainly. Let's get started then. So as most of our readership is aware, you have recently begun a new initiative called The Order of Lands and Arms. Could you briefly tell us the aims and goals of this Order and what it seeks to achieve?

Zulita: The Order seeks to grant individuals who wish to participate in a nobility system the freedom to exist and have adventures without the fear and threat of unjust treatment by the Crown. In recent years, titles have become a ball and chain instead of a privilege. It has become a means for the Crown to blackmail its peers to comply or have their honors stripped from them after years of service. Why do anything with one's title if it could be taken in an instant? It squelches creativity, activity, and a desire to do more than make a daily appearance in town. The Order seeks to provide English citizens an alternate, and hopefully, an overall better heraldry and nobility system.

KAP: Since the Charter in preparation makes no mention of location, could you clarify if the Order is intended only for citizens of England or for all of the Isles, namely England, Scotland and Ireland?

Zulita: At the moment, the Order's services are limited only to those who reside within England. If there is enough interest, we would be willing to look at expanding.

KAP: At present, in England, these tasks and responsibilities largely come under the jurisdiction of the College of Heraldry, or CoH. Why do you believe the status quo requires changing and why is a new body a better approach than working within the framework of that existing institution?

Zulita: As a former herald, I have tried working within the current system and I have found it to be hostile. The College and Crown will not work with those who challenge their ideals or actions. When Queen Avanni tried to root out the corruption inside the College, its response was to shut down and remove her keys, rendering the body useless until a new monarch rose to the throne. Instead of communicating with us, Quinn decreed members of the Order as traitors, bypassing national law, and attainted us. We were deemed a threat before we could even begin. One can't work with a system that takes such extreme measures in response to accountability or to new ideas.

KAP: In the Charter of the Order that is presently still under development, it is stated in the Preamble, "The Order will not infringe on existing heraldic institutions". Would this be challenging with respect to the CoH or do you think there is ample scope for both institutions to coexist? Is cooperation or collaboration also possible?

Zulita: We believe that there is ample scope for both institutions to exist. There is no reason why they can't. We have seen the KoG have the Badlands for years and Wessex has recently incorporated the Title Emporium with little to no fuss. As for cooperation or collaboration, the Order of Lands and Arms is willing to entertain the idea so long as it maintains its independence and autonomy. But as mentioned in our prior answer, we do not foresee the Crown or the College of Heraldry working with us willingly.

KAP: In connection with that, will there be any differences in the procedures to develop heraldic art between the two institutions? Would it be permitted to have two separate coats of arms, one from the CoH and one from the Order?

Zulita: The procedures, like everything else regarding the Order, are still being discussed and are subject to change, so we ask that all readers bear this in mind. Conceptually, the procedures are relatively similar, but not identical. We want to grant artists more creative freedom when it comes to creating heraldic works, and clients will be allowed to choose which heraldic artist they want to work with. As for having more than one coat of arms, right now, there is nothing that would prohibit an individual from having a coat of arms registered with each institution. The only stipulation is that they must be different. We will have more clearly defined rules soon.

KAP: Unlike the CoH that employs a system of nominations, the Order plans to seek direct applications from individuals interested in holding titles. What do you feel is the benefit of this alternative approach?

Zulita: One of the long-standing complaints of the current peerage system under the Crown of England and the College of Heraldry is that of nepotism. One individual who has gone above and beyond the requirements necessary to obtain an elevation is overlooked for another who has barely lifted a finger, simply because they have good relations with the Counts, heralds, or the Crown itself. Opening the door to applications instead of nominations eliminates this issue entirely, and those who truly want a title, or a title of a higher rank, don't have to beg or hope that someone notices them. They can take action for themselves.

KAP: One may argue that peerage also gains value if given recognition by the populace at large. How easy or difficult do you think such recognition will be to attain for titles granted by the Order?

Zulita: It is hard to say and time will only tell. But as of now, different members of the Order, including myself, have received a surprising amount of letters personally supporting our mission and project, which we are delighted by. Since Quinn attainted members of our Order, support for our cause has only grown. Though not her intent, Quinn helped us by broadening the reach of our message and assisted in spreading the word of the Order. That said, it is not our goal to achieve recognition, but to enhance our world and grant others different avenues to live their lives.

KAP: The Order plans to award deeds to lands and buildings; do you not require rights to these lands and buildings before doing so?

Zulita: Yes, we obtain the land prior to distribution. Once the land is obtained, it is then donated to the Order.

KAP: Another central tenet espoused by the Order is that of transparency. Why is this feature so important in your eyes?

Zulita: I find transparency to be of utmost importance because, as a former herald, I have witnessed the College of Heraldry smear and defame nominees, and repeatedly violate its own charter and rules. When I was a herald, we were expected to swear oaths, agreeing that nothing said within the institution would be shared outside it. I do not know why such secrecy is required, other than to hide the shameful behavior many Kings of Arms and heralds have exhibited since the institution's founding. This is why we believe in transparency and why we will not work in private. If the institution is transparent, such behavior will be far less likely to occur. Nothing regarding heraldry or nobility needs to be done in secret.

KAP: While the present nobility system does have a hierarchy, the concept of vassals rarely seems to be leveraged. Since it appears that the Order has plans to enable landed nobles to appoint vassals, what new opportunities do you think may arise through this?

Zulita: It is our hope that those who choose to use the vassalage system will be able to leverage greater support, relationships, and engagement with those around them. It adds another dynamic to nobility that has not really taken place in England. We will leave it up to the peers on what exactly this means for them and their vassals.

KAP: You are not the only one working on realizing the Order, is it not? Who else is part of this team effort? If someone wishes to contribute or give feedback, how should they go about doing so?

Zulita: I am not the only individual, no. Right now, our current active membership includes Itamar Yerushalmi-Hanley, Aerietta Palidor Westbrooke, Eliodren Palidor Westbrooke, Thancren Palidor, and Grog Strongjaw. We are open to feedback, however, our order has gained much more traction sooner than we anticipated. While our offices are open for public viewing, the Order itself is still under discussion and construction. We are not yet taking feedback, simply because there is nothing to provide feedback on yet. How we will receive feedback will be a discussion for later as, right now, we are simply focused on creating the Order itself.

KAP: Lastly, what is your vision for a future that sees a thriving Order of Lands and Arms? And by contrast, should the Order does not gain significant support and momentum, how would you plan to proceed?

Zulita: We have been pleasantly surprised by the support that we have received. For now, we are simply looking for ways to make things more exciting while also offering an alternative to the community should individuals find the current way of life dull or too restrictive.

KAP: Thank you for joining us to shed some insight and share your perspective, Your Highness.

---

Gervase Greeves
Correspondent, England KAP
The opinions expressed by individuals are their own and do not represent the views of KAP or the reporter.
For responses to any KAP article and to review the International rules of KAP, visit The International KAP offices.

Kingdoms Associated Press - London, England



The House of Lords weighs the fate of titles as history's echoes return to Westminster. The quiet grandeur of the House of Lords has stirred once more. For the first time in years, benches that had gathered only dust now fill with peers, some long absent from affairs, all summoned by a question that cuts to the heart of England's noble order: shall the titles of the following named in a decree, be restored, or do they remain under attainder for having founded the supposed unlawful "Order of Lands and Arms"?

• HRH Zulita Palidor Westbrooke Dorchester


• HRH Itamar Yerushalmi-Hanley


• Eliodren Palidor-Westbrooke of House Palidor-Westbrooke


• Thancren Palidor


• Aerietta Palidor Westbrooke Boot

This moment cannot be understood without tracing the path of heraldry in England, from the iron will of King Longjohnsilver in 1454, through the reforms and rivalries of later monarchs, to Monarch Quinn’s decree earlier this month.


The Founding of the College of Heraldry (1454)

In February 1454, King Longjohnsilver established the College of Heraldry with a proclamation that still echoes through the archives: “By the grace and divine right of his Majesty, the King of England, Long John Silver, this English College of Heraldry is hereby formed and maintained and all members of the aforementioned College will adhere to these proclamations or face discipline as appropriate to their actions.”

The King granted the College authority in all heraldic matters save for the granting of noble titles, which he retained as the Crown's prerogative as fount of honors. Parliament debated whether the College ought to fall under its oversight, but with the King's counsel, it was determined that the House of Lords would supervise, the College would advise the Crown, while the Crown maintained final authority of all titles.

Yet it must be remembered: Longjohnsilver’s reign was one of absolute monarchy. His word stood above law, and the College flourished under his singular will. Today's constitutional monarchy, where the Crown is bound by law, offers no perfect comparison, but the foundation laid in 1454 remains the precedent for heraldic authority.


Avanni and the Royal Institute of Peerage (RIP)

Years later, during her reign, Monarch Avanni Palidor challenged this established order. A source on the declaration of anonymity said that because she was denied admission to the College of Heraldry, Avanni founded the Royal Institute of Peerage (RIP), declaring it subject solely to the Crown. The Royal Institute of Peerage charter promised oversight, rules, and procedures, but without recognition from the College, the titles it produced found no seat in the House of Lords.

The House of Lord's charter was clear: only nobles of baronial rank or higher, recognized by the College of Heraldry, sworn to the Crown, and free of attainder or treason could sit in its chamber. RIP titles, however sanctioned by the monarch who created them, carried no such recognition.

Historians now suggest that Avanni’s exclusion from the College may have driven her to establish RIP. Yet the failure of RIP to gain legitimacy underscores the enduring strength of the 1454 settlement, that heraldic and noble recognition cannot be separated from the College.


The Order of Lands and Arms and Monarch Quinn’s Decree (1473)

The present crisis was ignited when Zulita, Eliodren, Thancren, Itamar, and Aerietta founded the Order of Lands and Arms. Their charter declared a mission to provide heraldic art and confer status, land, and property, "free from unjust seizure or retribution." In doing so, they claimed powers reserved for the Crown and the College states the Monarch Quinn.

On 4 September 1473, Monarch Quinn issued a decree titled Bill of Pains and Attainder due to Usurpation of Noble Authority. It accused the five of acting "in open defiance of the Crown," styling themselves as peers without royal sanction. Their titles were stripped, and their names entered into the annals of attainder.

Further intrigue lies in family ties: several of the accused are of House Palidor-Westbrooke, the same house as Avanni, and Itamar, her former consort. These connections raise questions of legacy, loyalty, and the persistence of rivalry between Crown and College.


The House of Lords Reconvenes

Now, the matter rests with the Lords. Their task: to hear the appeals of the five attainted and decide whether their titles may be restored. Attendance has risen. Peers absent for years have returned to cast their votes, a sign perhaps, of the gravity of the question.

Observers note the symbolism: in weighing these appeals, the Lords are not only judging five individuals, but also reaffirming, or challenging, the centuries-old balance of the Crown, College, and House of Lords.


The Enduring Principle

At its core, the present debate is not about the ambitions of a handful of nobles. It is about the enduring principle set forth in 1454: that titles are the gift of the Crown, and heraldry is safeguarded by the College.

Whether the five regain their honours or remain under attainder, the outcome will echo far beyond Westminster's chamber. It will shape how the realm remembers the lessons of King Longjohnsilver, the experiments of Queen Avanni, and the decrees of Queen Quinn.

And it will remind all of England that while titles may be disputed, the foundations of authority should be remembered.

---

---

Kallist0
England KAP
Editor-in-Chief
The opinions expressed by individuals are their own and do not represent the views of KAP or the reporter.
For responses to any KAP article and to review the International rules of KAP, visit The The International KAP offices.