Posted by: Sk | February 13, 2009

8 Induction into error: the story of the Coat of arms of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

Making a picture may give birth to all sorts of thoughts, investigations and even discoveries concerning the most unbelievable subjects. It’s true that it was weeks I had thought of some kind of construction on the Duchess of Cornwall, filling my eternal list on works on women affected by what I called the German gossip tendencies and other political and financial currents of the last 30 years. It’s true also that the same had always looked more sympathetic to my eyes than Diana of Wales, although I could not but feel greatest concern by the destiny of the second (Le pont de l’Alma, to Diana of Wales).Very happy of the constant effort of clarification concerning rights of author made by Wikipedia, usually my main source, I thus started my investigation with the happy finding of a picture of the same belonging to the public domain. (See below). In fact, the question was why I had always thought the Duchess of Cornwall much more sympathetic than Diana, almost against all popular belief and mass media influence. Finally, she was not very well known and although I tended not to put too much belief even into Diana’s sayings (as even, yes, even having had some story with the Prince, it was actually no one’s concerns so that it was easy to banish such an information to the realm of low class gossip) the almost virtual possibility of such a fact did strangely nothing but increase the sympathy in question, for unknown reasons.

Finally, some information appearing in a Spanish wikipedia (if I’m not wrong) confirmed that I was very right in my intuitions, as someone who says to the Prince of Wales something like: “Did you know my grandmother was a lover of your grandfather at those times?” the first time they met, could nothing but inspire the most tender admiration as inserting into such frozen protocols an almost improper and undue, spontaneous and humorous touch. Which is to say, very British. In fact, even if she was (or is) catholic, Camilla appeared to my eyes as the incarnation of the British in something that attached Miss Marple to Lord Byron, and the almost dry British humor I knew very well from my teacher Dr Nield, to our contemporary world. Thus, I continued my investigations trying to know if there was not a possibility to discern a character even through accidental characteristics as the acquisition of the title of Duchess of Cornwall after her marriage. Walking down Wikipedia, I discover thus that the English version has been invaded by nationalistic feelings that concern though only two members of Parliament, while the French gives exhaustive explanations on origins of titles, customs and flags, among which, that the one who is made Duke of Cornwall, receives among other some pound of ‘cumin’ and other spices, some dogs (lévriers or galgos) and many other medieval smelling objects, which I found interesting enough so as to put one of them on my picture. (The dog, belonging to the public domain, too: well, the picture.) After, I’m informed that Arthur was King of Cornwall, and that actually he became King of England after having killed the then King of England because in love with his wife. A statue of Arthur will thus point at the ancestral origin of tormented love stories through its very presence which will though give place to a horrible quid pro quo, which will put the property of my picture in danger. The beautiful yellow coins (flag of Cornwall) on black ground will finish by composing my inspiration together with … the coat of arms. After I disappeared in a deep investigation of the Mountbatten branch, which I knew (my mother had explained thousands of years ago, because she was a deep admirer of some aspects of the British Crown) being of German origin. Now, where did Battenberg actually come from? The genealogy shows a branch born at the beginning of the XVIII around Hesse (Grossherzogtum) inside of the Kingdom of Saxony which was born around the same time.  Which seems to point at some bought up aristocracy, quite common at those times, and way the titles King of Prussia and Saxony were acquired from the Imperial Crown in Vienna or France (for the second, from Napoleon). But no, finally. Battenberg are said a ‘morganatic’ branch from the Saxe Coburg Gotha, one of the oldest German families (XIth century) and actual providers of the Kings of Sachsen (Saxony). As I don’t understand what ‘morganatic’ does actually mean although I know that Morgan in the Arthur stories is the one who bewitched not only Merlin but also Arthur, as pretending to be his wife and giving birth to a son who will make war against Arthur (story of ‘Excalibur’), I guess that the morganatic branches are more or less well covered adulteries (to say that they’re horribly frequent in those genealogies). An adultery branch of Saxe Coburg will thus become Battenberg, which fleeing to England will become Mountbatten. The name itself ‘Saxe Coburg’ is related to ‘angle Saxons’ the original invaders of Britain some time before Arthur appeared. The British nobility is thus apparently constantly linked to this House, as most recurrently (I discover) British Kings or Queens get married with people directly or indirectly linked to the same. Thus, when Saxe Coburg invades Prussian territory (marriage to Hohenzollern or House of Hanover, later Kings of Prussia) even Hanover lands in England: King Edward is the son of Victoria and a Hanover Prince. For whoever interested: see the apalling resemblance of King Edward with the actual Prince of Hanover. Having thus linked Camilla to the oldest interrelated British nobility through its Saxon sources, I stamp the Coat of Arms of the same on the flag of Cornwall, and quite happy with the result, and pretty sure that I have respected all sorts of international regulations concerning rights of author I go home for a rest. Something is though troubling me.

The note concerning my Arthur statue showed some strange indications which bother my mind: actually it has changed (must have been some telepathic communication), but yesterday it looked like the following: valid only in the US and other countries in which law determines that intellectual property falls into the public domain after 75 years. Except, Germany and some other countries. It had fallen though under my attention that the original book where the picture was to be found was French, or English (finally it was German, although with an English and French translation). And if it were so, US legislation could hardly affect the picture in question. I quickly think the French legislation through and finally thinking that it is more or less the same, I say myself secure at least concerning this aspect of the picture. Error. I’ve forgotten the Coat of Arms. Which will make me think after that the induction into error through the statue, confuses my attention which thus forgets to verify what concerns the Coat of Arms. Unluckily, the same, categorized under ‘logo’ (of an organization) is not of free use, and as can be seen below “needs of a permission for its only possible use which is called ‘fair use’”. Not that I think that the use is not fair, after all, but I don’t have the permission in question. Consequently, possible claims may arise from the misuse of such a ‘work of art’, which, although intelligently hidden away in appearance through some Adobe Photoshop magic, as if driven by intuition to keep secret such an ignominious theft, may still be detectable through the electronic mark left usually on those images and creations. Difficult to solve. Even if I may claim that it is a personal creation for personal use (I will have to), the brilliant solution found in order to be allowed selling my wonderful creations falls into the water.

Having taken care with such an incredible amount of elements, one makes the passing from my hooligan status to a recognized artist … impossible. Not that I don’t think that such kind of mistakes, inherent to all creation, finally, may not be significant after all. In a certain way, characters as living people or living people as characters have some psychic determination that involves some influences, attachments and even substitutions, copies or imitations. The way a psychic character reflects itself in a picture should thus necessarily involve some ambiguous game with laws and regulations that allow to properly reflect the identity of the same as it is or it is seen by someone else. Thus, I remarked that very often the absolute adequacy to the representation we have of someone derives even from obvious transgressions of law (in the field of rights of author) as if it became evident that the submission to those would harm in its general context the very environment someone moves in. But, what? Can I not sell then, after such an effort. Or is it possible to obtain an a posteriori permission for ‘fair use’. After all. Who determines how fair the use can be. Because depending on who determines, it is perhaps easy to get even an ’a posteriori’ permission. See, how many investigations are of need in order to legalize some activity. As, in the worse of cases, the concerned may appropriate themselves of my creation either as compensation or simply following law: usually, all work having the electronic mark of a precedent work is the property of the original owner of the picture. Except if I’m lucky and the Coat of Arm’s electronic mark has been wickedly erased by Adobe Photoshop. But what, what a damage to image if it ever becomes known that the Crown of England appropriates itself the work of a hooligan obtained with so much sweat and wandering inside of the jungle of so many legislations … No choice, then. Hope they like the present …!Concerning: the picture of the Duchess of Cornwall

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, walks to the White House with Laura Bush, following the arrival of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess for lunch at the White House, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005. White House photo by Shealah Craighead. [1]

 

This image is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made during the course of the person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

 

Concerning: the coat of arms of the Duchess of CornwallThis is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law.

Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.

This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization.

Concerning: the Arthur statue to be seen in ‘pictures/Camilla, duchess of Cornwall’

This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Description

King Authur by Peter Vischer in Hofkirche (Innsbruck)Taken from the German Wikipedia and then removed gray around figure Deutsch: Artus-Statue (en:Peter Vischer) aus dem Grabdenkmal für Kaiser Maximilian in der Innsbrucker Hofkirche. Entwurf von en:Albrecht Dürer. Gesamtansicht der Figurenreihe hier.English: King Arthur from The Book of Knowledge, The Grolier Society, 1911. From en:Image:Arthur3487.jpg

Français : Le roi Arthur depuis The Book of Knowledge, la Société Grolier, 1911. Une sculpture de l’ère victorienne.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: