SMOM and the other order of the Knights

For the benefit of Umberto di Capua (The Order’s Unique Place In History, June 28), I must explain that although I am not (and do not intend to be) a member of either the Sovereign Military Order of Malta or the locally based private order His Excellency is complaining about, I am fortunate enough to know people in both “camps”. By and large both have some outstanding local personalities as members and I have nothing but praise for people who contribute towards the nobility of altruism.

As far as I am aware the order complained of does not say it is the SMOM. If it were to do so it would be foolish. I am also aware that the order complained of does charitable work and that is commendable in itself.

Its claim to be a continuation of the old order may, naturally, be something of debate but meanwhile I see no reason for a perfectly well-intended group of do-gooders to work separately from the SMOM and I think it most infelicitous of Dr di Capua to have made an assumption that that group has used a false pretence.

To the ordinary layman calling the other “false” has sinister, or even criminal implications. What little good someone may have achieved (whatever his opinion albeit acting within the terms of our law), is suddenly outweighed by cat-calling from an imperious embassy.

In my books, this is unacceptable and I do not accept Dr di Capua (who is writing in his formal capacity as ambassador) implying that any Maltese is a criminal unless he has proof to that effect. He may wish to take a leaf out of the history of the order in Malta when the Grand Masters of old were obliged to wear two hats: One as sovereign prince of an Order, the other as limited feudatory of the Sicilian throne. When writing in his official capacity, as representative of a state, he may not be partisan and should use the correct channels rather than using his privileged position to slate ordinary Maltese in the press.

My suggestion is Dr di Capua uses a less strong language in regard to these people (some of whom are even friends with individual members of the SMOM). As an Order undoubtedly recognised under the Gieħ ir-Repubblika Act, SMOM could even consider using the legal tools already at its disposal. That would be the preferable option because as Dr di Capua rightly points out, there is a strong affinity between Malta and the Order (so much so we even share the same cross) and our country does not need to suffer any overkill of what is already known.

Turning to the separate matter of historical continuity claimed by the SMOM, there are ample arguments in favour and against this claim. Although I have certain reservations on what is published by the SMOM including that stated by Dr di Capua, I could relate to the justification for its case in preference to others. However, even in such an eventuality I find it difficult to understand why the members of its local association of SMOM, who are selected purely because of private considerations, appear to be given more prominence at certain national festivities than a member of our country’s own Order of Merit. This is a stonatura which should be addressed separately and expeditiously.