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.