The following came as part of a discussion with a former student when he asked me about the Bobrinskoy Orthodox Order of Saint John (OOSJ) and a newer Russian Grand Priory Association of the British Isles. My earlier understanding was that the Russian Order came in the aftermath of the so-called Ostrog case but that in 1810, the council of the Grand Priory of Russia in St Petersburg voted its own dissolution and surrendered most of the regalia and archives.
The alleged Russian Orders of St. John
A remarkable burgeoning of chivalric "orders" of all kinds on both sides of the Atlantic began in the late nineteenth century and continued to this day. Many of these orders took on the appellation "of St.John", claiming to be continuations of various alleged offshoots of the Russian Orthodox priory, which was broken up in the early 1800s. First its property was seized by imperial ukase in 1810 and then in 1817 another decree proscribed the wearing of the insignia of an order which does not exist in Russia.
And as we shall see below, the small group of Russians in Paris 1928, who wanted to revive the Russian Grand Priory, understood this perfectly well, which is why they asked the grand master in Rome to revive the grand priory in the late 1920s. The grand master and sovereign council refused because without any capital and no means of raising any it was a pointless organization, aside from not being Catholic. Probably these by now impoverished Russian nobles were looking for something to restore the status they had lost after the 1917 revolution.
In the USA, the presumed St. John titles in Russia then once again became a discussion point when Charles Pichel used it for the creation of his Shickshinny Knights of Malta. The large passage fees (alleged in some cases to be in the region of $50,000) collected by the Catholic American Association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) in the early 1950s may well have tempted Pichel to create his own "Sovereign Order of St John of Jerusalem, Knights Hospitaller" in 1956. Pichel avoided the problems of being an imitation of "SMOM" by giving his organization a mythical history by claiming the American organization he led was founded by Russian Hereditary Commanders living in, or visiting, the USA and dated to 1908; a spurious claim, but which nevertheless misled many including some academics. Others, like the Bobrinskoy Orthodox Order of St. John and to a lesser degree the British Order under discussion can be seen to be somehow inspired by Pichel's attempt. Two offshoots of the Pichel Order even were successful in gaining the backing of two exiled Monarchs, the late King Michael of Romania and King Peter II of Yugoslavia (see "Peter Order" below).
Then, in 2006, the thesis by Hendrik Johannes Hoegen Dijkhof, in defence of Pichel's construct, was released on the internet. Now Dijkhof soon was referred to in various Wikipedia articles to defend the alleged survival of the Russian Order (a good example of such a construct apparently influenced by the British Order below can be seen here). Yet not having been published in book form there never was a review of Dijkhof’s arguments by a historian. Hence, I asked a prime expert on related subjects who commented:
Dijkhof’s text is beyond me how it was accepted as a Ph.D. thesis – I suppose because none of these examiners at Leyden university knew anything about the subject. I do not have time to write a rebuttal and, frankly, Dijkhof’s thesis is so easily dismantled and his claims as matters as of fact so easily dismissed that no-one with any knowledge of this rather particular history would give it any consideration. There is nothing of original interest in his study of the Order before the late 18th century (although he does not understand the status of institutions operating as subjects of canon law) and then it frequently dissolves into fantasy.
Dijkhof does not understand that the office of Grand Master has a dual function – thus, Paul could be elected Grand Master and act de facto as such admitting knights, but what he could not do and the Holy See never in any way recognized him as being able to do, was to receive or delegate the reception of professed knights of Justice, since he was neither Catholic nor celibate so could not himself act in the capacity of religious superior. This is very basic, but apparently either never understood by Dijkhof or deliberately ignored. Neither does he understand that while the Order’s composition changed during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods, its status as a subject of canon law did not change – in canon law an institution remains valid as long as it has professed members properly received and for 100 years after the death of the last such professed member. The Order never ceased to have professed members properly received, and even if there were no new professions between 1798 and 1802 – this did not matter at all. The Order did not cease to exist just because Paul was de facto grand master, nor did it lose its status because it was governed by Lieutenant grand masters. The professed knights are and where the heart of the Order and make it the Catholic religious Order that it was and that it remains. His assertion that it is not and never was a religious Order is simply preposterous.
As for his claim that the Protestant Bailiwick of Brandenburg remained part of the Order, that is clearly wrong since although the Johanniter knights periodically sent responsions to Malta, and Frederick the Great and Pinto both wanted it to be somehow reintegrated, the Holy See refused and so it did not happen. The Johanniter was dissolved in 1810 without the Lieutenant or the Order’s government having any say in the matter, and it was reformed as Prussian Royal Order of Merit in 1812, only being restored as an Hospitaller Order in 1852. The fact that there was a small handful of knights who had been received before 1810 gave the Johanniter continuity, but it did not make it part of a wider, supposedly ecumenical Order.
It is also incorrect to write that the Order assented to the separation of the Spanish priories. The real issue with Spain was that the Spanish knights had assisted the French under Napoleon in the capture of Malta, in return for a promise by the French that they would help recover Minorcan that had been re-occupied by the British in 1798. Spain needed the revenues from the Spanish priories, and in 1808 when Joseph Napoleon became King of Spain they were dissolved. In 1814, they were restored but under the Spanish Crown and then later converted into a state merit Order until the 1880s when they were once again reformed and restored as part of the SMOM. Dijkhof’s recitation is simply wrong and easily shown to be.
He claims that canon law allows for several Orders of St John. This is absolute nonsense – there cannot be several Benedictine Orders, for example, or Dominicans.
Using “estoppal” in the context he does is just plain stupid. The Pope was a prisoner of the French and, of course, was not in a position to say very much about anything – what he never did, however, was recognize Paul as Grand master. Equally, it is quite obvious that Emperor Alexander I could undo anything done by his father and to argue otherwise is nonsense. Dijkhof claims the “original Order was dissolved” without any evidence of such a bizarre claim – and completely contrary to canon law. In his argument for so-called “hereditary commanderies” he ignores the fact that a commandery was real property, not a title, and also that to take possession of a commandery whether by succession or otherwise, one had to have been received as a qualified member. The Russian Priory statutes (ignored by Dijkhof), require two years of military service, etc. to qualify. Sherbowitz and Toumanoff do not admit that anyone was a hereditary knight – in that this suggests knighthood in the Order could be inherited. It could not; would-be knights who were the sons of knights had to fulfil the same requirements as any other knight.
And Russia’s Emperor Paul I, was not the only “Protector” of the Order – this title was accorded several European sovereigns, not least the King of Sicily who was feudal overlord of Malta and Gozo. The fact that the British and Prussian Crowns founded their Orders of St John, which are not religious institutions, is entirely irrelevant to the status of Emperor Paul. The Dutch and Swedish Orders split off from the German as a result of the Second World War. In actuality, the SMOM did not recognize these Orders until 1961 when they all signed an agreement to counter the self-styled Orders.
Dijkhof refers to dispensations from celibacy – there had been knights of devotion since even before the 16th century who did not make the religious promises. These, however, could not hold commanderies nor any office in the Orders administration. This is again entirely irrelevant to the case of the supposed Russian survival.
There is barely a single page in the post-1798 history where Dijkhof does not, what appears to be deliberately, misrepresent the facts to justify the so-called “ecumenical” Order. And he ignores the legality of the Bull of Urban VIII, which permits the Pope to nominate a grand master in certain circumstances. ---
I also asked Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard and apparently agreeing with the above he added: "Dijkhof’s work is very poor and can only have passed as a thesis because so few people know anything about these matters." Kurrild-Klitgaard is the author of “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” (2002).
The 1977 Bobrinskoy Order
The Bobrinskoy Orthodox Order of St. John (OOSJ), was created in 1977, as what appears to be a split off from the Peter Order led by Sergei Troubetzkoy.
When initially trying to do research on the OOSJ one frequently ends up with information on the website of the lofty titled "The Russian Grand Priory Association of the British Isles."
When I asked the leading author of the latter website, Rev'd Dr. Michael John Foster answered: Yes our group in England was part of the Bobrinskoy Order. In undertaking historical research, I discovered that the Bobrinskoy Order was never a continuation of the Parish Group, which revived the Order in 1928.
Having examined a large number of relevant documents(1) Michael Foster details that Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy, rather than having had a relationship the historic Russian Grand Priory, joined some self-styled Orders. And that: "Of the 11 founders of the Bobrinskoy 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. 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."
Charles Pichel’s order in 1962, as is known split into two, the schismatic half being led by the Lieutenant Grand Master, Colonel Paul de Granier de Cassagnac, who was able to gain for his group the Royal Protection of King Peter II of Yugoslavia. In January 1965, King Peter came to oppose Cassagnac and with the help of Otto Schobert and a Maltese Professor, Gaston Tonna-Barthet created his own Order.
According to Guy Stair Sainty (author of “The Self–Styled Orders of Saint John,”), Nicholas Bobrinskoy was also involved with the Tonna-Barthet group to which he donated several hundred US dollars in the mid-1970's. And that: A nephew of Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy, also called Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy, was until recently Prior of Russia and since his death has been succeeded by his son, Count Alexei; Prince Michael Romanov (alias Prince Michael of Russia, morganatic son of the late Prince Andrew of Russia) is now "Protector" of the OOSJ. The OOSJ also claims the protection of the Patriarch of Moscow, who has conferred his patronage as this Order has done some charitable work in Russia, but His Holiness does not claim that this patronage gives any legal validity to the body's claims to be an "Order of Knighthood".
It is also no secret that upon the death of his Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia rejected “all” of the King Peter Orders. (André van Bosbeke’s “Ridders van nu:” 1987, p.173. Van Bosbeke’s book was translated in 1988 as "Chevaliers du XXème siècle"). A more recent 2003 statement can be seen here.
According to Michael Foster, initially, Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy joined the 'Order' led by a "Prince" Brancovan in 1972, and after that joined the ex-King Peter Order, which in turn was an offshoot of the above mentioned Thourot-Pichel’s Shickshinny order.
The correspondence of Prince Troubetzkoy states, that the State of New York Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy, was recruited into the ex-King Peter Order as led by Prince Sergei Troubetzkoy, and is listed as the Prior of a New York Priory in 1972.
In 1977 then Bobrinskoy incorporated his own the "The Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of Saint John of Jerusalem" as a revival of the Russian Grand Priory, shortly afterward, according to Troubetzkoy, resigning from the group Troubetzkoy led.
And Rev. Michael Foster concludes that: 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 also seems clear that Count Nicholas Bobrinskoy was never a Hereditary Commander, as that dignity passed to his elder brother the first born, and then potentially on to his elder brother's son. He claimed he inherited the title from his brother - even though his brother had a son.
As this discussion further shows course is that the whole issue about 20th century so-called Russian Hereditary Commander’s is, in itself, faulty.
About Bobrinskoy see also Volume 2, of "the World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" published by Burke's Peerage & Gentry 2006, where the Bobrinkskoy Order is covered in detail - pages 2032-2035, (25) Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller". The article clearly states that Nicholas Bobrinskot first joined the "Order" as led by Brancovan Badische, then by a faction of the King Peter Order (after the King died) led by Prince Troubetzkoy. In 1977, Bobrinskoy split from Troubetzkoy to form his new Order. Then followed a series of negotiations with various self-styled groups, with mergers and splits.
The new Russian Grand Priory Association of the British Isles: Finding Dachia
The Dachia Order is listed by the Australian Government as a self-styled Order of St. John.
According to James J. Algrant, this body was founded in 1946 by Mr. Grundall Sjallung. In 1923, Sjallung had joined the Charles Pichel group and in 1948 was to start a priory in Denmark.
As for the new English Order, created by Alexandre Tissot Demidoff apparently with the help of Rev'd Michael John Foster it seems that the initial idea was to form a new Union of Descendants.
According to Guy Stair Sainty* it was proposed to him, that they would not pretend to be an Order or make knights – that proved false so Sainty; within less than a year this body was already investing “Knights” and giving out crosses.
For this Demidoff and Foster rely on the above Danish Dachia Order, which in turn refers to papers by Professor Baron Michael de-Taube. The latter is known an activist whose post-revolutionary life was dedicated to sustaining the idea that the grand priory had survived, but without actually having access to the key documents. Taube is also explicitly contradicting earlier statements. In the 1938/39 (when he was already secretary of the Paris group) he wrote explicitly that he Russian Grand Priory had disappeared; in the 1950s, he supposedly stated that it had survived. This is, at least, odd and somewhat suspicious.
Also, when the Dachia, and new British Order, refer to the 1810 Ukase, in article1, it already clearly states: “no new appointments are to be added”.
The existing members who had been paid from the Order’s property were to be paid from the state treasury but only those existing members.
The state now wanted the money to go to the Treasury instead of to the Order in Italy – what is interesting is that the responsions from the Russian Grand Priories were paid to the Lieutentant’s administration until 1810.
The commanderies (who could only exist under the statutes as endowed properties) had either to pay the entire revenues all at once (1/3rd of the capital) to the state treasury which would permit the property to return to the family (and the end of the Commandery) or go on paying annually until they died at which point the Commandery would revert to the family. Either way, once they reverted to the family they ceased to be commanderies of the Order and the pretence that these were hereditary titles is demonstrably untenable.
The statement that these funds were to be used to pay the expenses of the Order did not mean that they all were – in fact; these expenses were minimal and involved primarily keeping the records of the winding down of the commanderies, etc.
No admissions were made after 1811, and there is not a shred of evidence to support the suggestion that there were. The Russian archives have been gone through with a tooth comb. And what is mentioned above in reference to the thesis of Hoegen Dijkhof is also valid here.
Emperor Paul’s son seems to have no interest in his father’s pipe dream of a Russian base on Malta, which they and their governments considered completely unrealistic.
A handful of individuals who descended from the founders of family commanderies (not “hereditary”), obtained permission to wear the badge of the Order from the second half of the 19th century until the last years of the empire – but this was not any revival of the Order. They were not and never could be “hereditary” members. The best comparison would be with those people who wear their parents’ or spouses decorations at ceremonies on the right side, rather than the left. This is legitimate, of course, when used appropriately.
The British Dachia related group; however, seems to think the Order was like a merit award with some functions added on. But the functions and the funding for them were essential co-elements. The Order ceased to exist in those countries where the Orders funds were confiscated during the Napoleonic period – as it did, for example, in England where with the confiscation of the estates of the grand priory of England it was impossible to receive new English knights – the Order’s structure prior to the later 19th century reorganisation required that each Langue was responsible for its members and an English knight, for example, could not be granted an Italian commandery.
The reform of 1810-11 did not deprive any knight of either their membership or title. The same had happened in Prussia with the Bailiwick of Brandenburg of the Protestant Johanniter Order – the property was taken (to pay for the Napoleonic wars, as in Russia) and the Order suppressed in that case, but those who were knights remained such and, indeed, the membership of the few surviving knights living when the Bailiwick was restored in 1852 allowed it to claim continuity as they were automatically enrolled in the re-foundation.
There is no listing of the Grand Priories as part of the Chancery of Orders or any other form of existence in the imperial almanacks, and those so-called “hereditary commanders” who asked and received permission to wear the cross did so not as members of any Order or Grand Priory but rather like people wear their parents decorations at public ceremonies today.
As for 1817 there was only one Order, not two, but two grand priories – at no time did the Emperor claim there were two separate Orders. The whole point of Paul’s grand mastership was to have a grand priory that was part of the Order for his nobility, even though non-Catholic. The pretense otherwise is specious and dishonest.
The Emperor did not have the power to abolish or suppress the Order anyway, nor even (de jure, although he could de facto) the Russian grand priories; Alexander had clearly and specifically recognized the grand mastership of Tomassi (for which both Russian grand priories had voted) and then the lieutenancy in Sicily. As there was only one Order, and as the Russians recognized it without reservation, all he could do was deprive the grand priories of their funds and prevent them from sending any funds to Sicily – the Lieutenant was very disappointed, needless to say, as they needed these funds and were perfectly happy to go on having Russian members.
This is all quite obvious. One Order, with numerous grand priories, etc. of which two were Russian. The French Republic could not abolish the Order; it could only confiscate the estates and suppress the grand priories of France. No more could Emperor Alexander and neither did he have the will or intention. He just needed the money, as did the King of Prussia.
Alexander had no desire to punish those Russian nobles who had qualified for the Order and given it material wealth. But he needed the funds and Paul’s original purpose – to gain a foothold in the Mediterranean was quite obviously never going to be achieved as Malta was securely under British rule.
What the new British Order does not list are the statutes of the Russian Grand Priories, which required that all candidate, including the heirs to family commanderies, serve two years in the military, etc. These requirements could not be fulfilled in the post-Imperial Russian world and that alone makes the continuity (and indeed original purpose of Paul’s foundation) impossible.
Contradicting the above Dacia once more is also James J. Algrant who reported that:
“We personally asked H.I.H. Grand Duke Wladimir [Kyrillovich] 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.”
In fact, there is no evidence at all that Grand Duke Alexander was ever told by Grand Duke Kyrill to re-found the Grand Priory – they were not, in fact, on particularly good terms. The Grand Duke’s wife was the sister of Emperor Nicholas II and her mother, the Dowager Empress, was furious that Kyrill proclaimed himself Emperor in 1924 – she always wanted to believe her son and grandchildren had survived. To this one can ad that the so-called Grand Duke Wladimir Kyrillovich (as seen mentioned by this new British Order) was not a Grand Duke. To be a Grand Duke under the imperial law meant that you were the son or grandson of a Tsar, which was not the case here.
The example Guy Stair Sainty* gave is that; “even if Grand Duke Kyrill had signed a decree in his blood purportedly reviving the grand priory, it would have had no more validity than, say, Prince Michael of Kent trying to revive the Order of St Patrick. I am sure there were those who wanted to turn the Union into a pretended grand priory, but it did not happen, since the original grand priory was not some separate, independent Order but a part of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – that was the whole reason why Paul founded it in the beginning! Emperor Alexander did not even have to abolish the grand priory; all he had to do was (as he did) remove its funding and refuse any further admissions since the sovereign still had the right to forbid his subjects from joining the Order. It is inconceivable that in autocratic Russia any group of people could have secretly maintained such a body and it is totally improbable that any Grand Duke could have taken upon himself powers that belonged exclusively to the Emperor.”
And ads: The original Russian grand priory for non-Catholic subjects did have some Catholic members, as it happens and like the Catholic grand priory it was part of the Order governed by the Grand Master and then by the Lieutenant Grand Masters. That is why it participated in the election of Tommasi, and that is why Emperor Alexander I recognised Tommasi as Grand Master and returned the archives and regalia of the Order to him. The two Russian grand priories were both part of the Order, even though the non-Catholic grand priory was an “irregular” part. However their constitution was dependent on their capital foundation and once that ceased to exist, they could no longer exist either. That is why the grand priories of France, etc. all ceased to exist when their funds were confiscated in the revolution – the existing knights, of course, continued to be knights of the Order and after the French restoration formed a new organisation which the French government duly recognised as being under the authority of the Lieutenant Grand Master. The surviving grand priories in Italy, Austria and Bohemia, all have substantial assets. The SMOM can, of course, establish associations of knights anywhere it pleases unless prohibited by some local, national law. There have been numerous requests by Russian offering very large sums of money for a revival of the Russian grand prior, but the Order has always refused because of the lack of qualified candidates for membership.
Those who wanted to revive the Russian Grand Priory understood this perfectly well, which is why they asked the grand master in Rome to revive the grand priory in the late 1920s. The grand master and sovereign council refused because without any capital and no means of raising any it was a pointless organisation, aside from not being Catholic.
The various Russian nobles who wanted to revive the grand priory were looking for something to restore the status they had lost after the revolution. At least, they were gentlemen. Today there are hardly any Russian nobles among the membership of this organisation nor are any descendants of the Imperial family involved. The kind of people who join these so-called Russian original grand priories would probably not qualify for membership in either the Sovereign Military Order of Malta or the German, Dutch or Swedish Orders of Saint John (the Johanniter Orders) or for the British Most Venerable Order. Or, they would never attain the high-sounding ranks they claim for themselves in these multiple “revivals”.
And how even an American Judge can be dumbfounded when it comes to historical facts, became evident when the judge who decided a trademark lawsuit between two groups calling themselves the Knights of Malta misapplied the law, relied on inadmissible evidence and misinterpreted the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' instructions from an earlier remand, a unanimous panel of the appellate court decided.
More or less rounding of the subject one informed commentator wrote to me: Paul I’s Russian branch could not represent the true Order of St John because 1. it is not a Catholic institution and does not recognize the authority of the Pope, 2. Paul, I wanted to become a Grand Master to secure also for himself a base in the Mediterranean (at the expense of the French and British), and whatever agreements he had with Grand Master Hompesch are null and void. When Hompesch died, he was replaced by Lt GM Tommasi, and that's where the legitimacy continued. A Grand Master cannot nominate his successor. In part, I understand Hompesch's dilemmas as the Order had lost most of its European connections which had allowed it to exist for so many years. On it's own, Malta could do little against the might of European powers.
*Some of the books by Sainty are:
Sacred Military Order of Constantine of Saint George, 1976.
The Orders of Chivalry and Merit of the Bourbon Two Sicilies Dynasty, a historical survey with the statutes and recent documents, 1989.
The Orders of Saint John, 1991.
World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, 2006. A major two volume work.
1) 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.