The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law

Gov UK-RHOS Commonwealth

The Royal House of Simich

Duchy of Canterbury-Grand Dukedom Pomerania and Livonia

DUCHY OF COVENTRY

Inter-Governmental Organizations

H.I.M. King Sir Kelley Simich 1st Titles:

Emperor of Russia King of Congress Poland and Grand Duke of Finland, King of Austria-Croatia, Sovereign Archduke and King of Germany, Sovereign Prince and King of Denmark, Sovereign Duke and King of England Scotland Ireland and France, King of Spain, King of Sweden, King of Netherlands, King of Belgium, King of Romania, King of Luxembourg, King of Europa, King of Monaco, King of Moldovia, King of Montenegro, King of Greece, King of Lithuania, King of Belarus, King of Ukraine, King of Portugal and Brazil, King of Italy, King of Hungary, King of Bosnia-Herzegovina, King of Czechoslovakia, King of Estonia, King of Latvia, King of Bulgaria, King of Slovenia, King of Serbia, King of Albania, King of Maced, Prince Elector Margrave Archduke Sir Kt of Germany, Archduke of Austria, The Prince of the Royal House of Simich, Prince of Croatia, Prince of Denmark, Duke of Canterbury, Duke of Croatia, The Most Honorable and Noble Duke - Lord of the Manor of Coventry, The Most Honorable and Noble Duke of Coventry, The Most Honorable and Noble Duke Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Duke of SeaLand, Marchese DI Croce Grande, Baron of Luxembourg, Barone DI San Giorgio, Baron of SeaLand, Honorific Lord of Hougun Manor, Lord of England, Lord of Glencoe and Lochaber

Knighthoods:

Grand Master, Supreme Grand General, Supreme Grand Commander of the Canterbury Knights of Ethelbert - Royal and Imperial Sovereign Order of the Knights of The Grace of Christ Chancellor of Texas USA - Knight Commander Order of St. George Austria - Noble Knight of the Order of Saint George Austria - Hereditary Knights Templars of Britannia - Great Britain (2013) and USA (2015) - Knight Pryor of the Teutonic Order of Livonia - Knight Pryor of the Sacred and Military Order of Merit Livonia - Knight of the Scared Military Order of Merit Livonia - Knight of the Teutonic Order of Livonia - Knight Sir of Europa - First Honorary Knight of Merit Moorland

Ambassadorships:

Ambassador of Peace and Humanity (North America)

Ambassador at Large and Vice-Chancellor (North America)

Imperial Diplomat Sir Kt of the Empire of Europa

Lifetime Senator of the Kingdom of Pomerania and Livonia

Military Ranks:

General and Vice-Commander (USA)

Honorary and Hereditary Field Marshall (Germany)

Honorary and Hereditary Grand Admiral (Germany)

Honorary Colonel of Denmark (Denmark)

Honorary Captain 2nd Army Division (Great Britain)

Memberships:

Member - Future Farmers of America Alumni

Member - Alpha Beta Kappa National Honor Society – Beta Gamma of Texas

Member - NCCT; Kelley M. Simich, NCICS

Member - PeaceFul Mind Foundation

Lifetime Member - Title Nobilis in Great Britain for History

Member - United Empire Club

Titular Member - The International Commission and Association on Nobility (TICAN)

Member - Tabularium Nobilitatis Americanus a registry of American Nobility and Fons-Hononrum

The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law

He who exercises imperial [that is, the sovereign] prerogative, is a sovereign, equal to other kings, whatever may be his or their title [be he prince, lord, duke, count or a baron]. He enjoys regal dignity. It is not the shape of a crown, or the value of its jewels, or the formal style attached to a name, or the size of a dominion, or the large extent of political power, which constitutes sovereignty. [2] In other words. “all sovereigns are equal, not of course in power, but in rank.” [3]

Certainly not all nation-states are equal in their capabilities, but the formal equality of sovereignty means that they are legal equal in term of their rights…[6]

“If the pope [or some other monarch] is sovereign, whether his state [is]…great or small, he is, as a prince, the [legal] equal of the emperor of the French or the emperor of Austria…”[5] Sovereign equality under the law was a part of the Treaty of Westphalia 1683 and is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations as law.

“…All sovereign princes, regardless of wealth or military might, enjoyed the same legal status – to lead an independent existence.”[7] International law recognizes all monarchs [including dethroned monarchs] as equality sovereign…”[8] This is true because the deposed royals legitimately hold legal, non-territorial sovereignty. “…the smallest and least power nation [even a non-territorial one]…is the equal of the strongest. Whatever rights belong to one belongs to all.

Royalty always pertains to”…a king, queen, or other sovereign.[11] These other sovereigns include any kind of sovereign. All sovereigns and all monarchs are royal no matter what their titles, high or low. They are all intrinsically royals, and so are the members of their immediate families if they are hereditary in nature.

Reckoned as ‘royalty’ in the sense of being treated as sovereigns, entitled to marry with reigning dynasties [as equals].”[12]

Just as the mouse is as much numbered among animals as is the elephant, so the [the small government] is just as much a commonwealth [or a nation] as a great empire.

Even though a deposed monarch, or government-in-exile, is under the regulations in whatever country in which they are denominated, they are still legally sovereign and still have profound rights and authority. (See the sub-chapter “The Extensive Legal Authority of Deposed Monarchs” in this chapter)

The Kings, Princes or etc… of sovereign houses became “international public persons,” not mere private citizens under domestic law, but sovereigns holding supreme influence and power impacting other nations. They possessed the right of succession to the most important subjects of international law i.e., the State. The relations of princes and their decisions, including serious impact of dynastic marriages, were of such import that the law of nations centered around them as the most important international actors.

The princes of sovereign houses became “international public persons.” Not mere private citizens under domestic law, but sovereigns holding supreme influence and power impacting other nations. They possessed the right of succession to the most important subjects of international law i.e., The State. The relations of princes and their decisions, including serious impact of dynastic marriages, were of such import that the law of nations centered around them as the most important international actors.

“…States…alone are vested with international personality….”[27] And inasmuch as the sovereign is the personification and embodiment of the State, he is a subject of international law as a public individual. In other words, “The person of the prince is necessarily identified with the State itself. Hence…the terms sovereign and State [are used] as synonymous.”[28] However: Only sovereign States [or sovereign princes] are legal subjects of international law in the fullest sense. International law does recognize other legal subjects, such as International organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Vatican and soldiers who are directly bound by the International law of war, however they are only the bearers of rights and obligations under International law in a restricted sense. States [or sovereign princes] on the other hand, are not merely passive bearers of rights and obligations under International law, they can by bilateral and multilateral treaties also actually actively participate in the creation, amendment and development of international law.[29]

“The term international personality is widely used to signal the capacity of an entity to act on the international plane.”[30] A deposed monarchy or legitimate exiled government can become “a party to a bilateral or international treaty” among other things.[31] It is highly acknowledged that “only sovereign entities may negotiate and conclude treaties with other sovereign entities.” [32] Therefore, holding de jure or rightful sovereignty as they do, the head of a deposed royal House or an exiled government have this power, even though they have no control of the territory of their nation or kingdom.

Nevertheless, it is this government – and not the government of the occupying state – which is competent under competent International law to exercise, as organ of the occupied state, all the functions of a state in relation to other states, such as sending and receiving diplomatic envoys, concluding treaties, especially a peace treaty with the occupying state. It may even exercise legislative, administrative, and judicial functions… All this in spite of the fact that the government in exile has lost control of the territory…[33]

Governments-in-exile and deposed monarchs, both before and during World War II, performed individual acts that would, by the constitution of the territory when they ruled, normally require the consent of an organ of government, such as a parliament. These acts were performed without this consent because the governmental organs were unavailable due to the usurper’s overthrow. Therefore, the consent of these organs were suspended, and the governments-in[1]exile and deposed monarchs acted lawfully without consent. This is because the governments-in-exile and deposed sovereigns retained the de jure authority. That is, they retained the legal right to rule and were still implicitly International persons despite their lack of territorial control. Consider the following:

The view that exiled governments were organs [and sovereigns] of the occupied States, acting on their behalf and on the basis of their own legal order, was forcefully and uniformly upheld by all judicial decision on the subject. [34] The most important of these [examples demonstrating that a deposed sovereignty can be subjects of public International law] is the Papal Church, which, even after the loss of the Papal States, through the Italian Law of Guarantees of the 13th May 1871 is recognized as sovereign… To this category of subjects of International law belong also dethroned sovereign princely Houses… as long as the princely Houses has not given up its claims, the question of its rights is left open [still intact or unforfeited], even when the actual head of state, who has come in its place, is recognized as the actual representative of the state in question.[35] (emphasis added)

As seen earlier, under the rules of the Congress of Vienna, heads of formerly ruling Houses are legally equal to reigning or ruling heads of state. That is, a legitimate head of a royal House is a head of state, but he or she is the head of an exiled or deposed sovereign government rather that a currently reigning government. The non-reigning royal’s de jure rights are the same as reigning royal, but his or her externally-recognized rights before the world community are obviously diminished. This is because the non-reigning royal has no current control or power over the territory his or her forefathers once ruled. But the non-reigning royal is still a rightful sovereign. The situation is similar to what has been established about sovereign protectorates under the law of nations. That is, they do not have an absolute fullness of external recognition, but they are fully internally sovereign.

That they cannot be full, perfect, and normal subjects of International law there is no doubt [because their external sovereignty is limited]. [But] it is inaccurate to maintain that they have no international position whatever. Once it is appreciated that it is not so much the possession of [external] sovereignty [or territory] which determined the possession of International personality but rather the possession of rights, duties, and powers in International law, it is apparent that a [deposed] State which possesses some, but not all, of those rights, duties, and powers, is nevertheless, an International person. In fact, such [exiled] states often enjoy in many respects, rights and fulfill in other points duties, established by International law.[36]

Hence, some members of dethroned princely or royal Houses have been explicitly recognized as subjects of International law. For three examples, consider Prince Sigvard Bernadotte, Princess Caroline of Hanover (nee of Monaco), and the former King of Greece, HM King Constantine II. What is accorded to one non[1]reigning royal, of course, is precedence for what is applicable to all legitimate deposed Houses. The head of a royal House is the personification and embodiment of all the sovereign rights and privileges of a government-in-exile. As quoted before on the legal competency and rightful jurisdiction of exiled governments, it is important to remember that:

They are true governments set up and organized to protect the interests of their nationals, and their powers with regard thereto are recognized and respected… They exercise sovereign power, moreover, not only with respect to their nations, but also with respect the vessels of the countries…[37] (emphasis added)

The International rights of deposed sovereignties are explicit as well as implicit in International law.

…Subjects other than [de facto or actual reigning] states can also act as subjects of public [International] law… This is however not generally recognized in public law literature.[38]

This aspect of public International law is a neglected or generally ignored area, but “[International] personality…is [recognized as] a flexible open ended concept that can mean different things in different circumstances.”[39] For example, “Today…International law is also a law for humanity: individual people [including deposed monarchs or their heirs] are International legal subject.”[40]

Thus, dispossessed royals who have maintained their rights by prescription are subjects of International law, whether they are formally recognized as such or not. But, as seen earlier, outside political, or external recognition is not the deciding factor as to whether a sovereign entity has true sovereignty or not.

REFERENCES:

[2] Ibid., no. 27, 1829, p. 301.

[3] Mighell vs. Sultan of Johore, A Selection of Cases on the English Law of Contract, 1893, p. 377.

[6] James Roberts. Encyclopedia of International Relations, “Sovereignty,” Department of Political Science, Townson University, 2011: http://www.towson.edu/polsci/irencyc/sovereign.htm

[5] Orestes Augustus Brownson, The Works of Orestes A. Brownson: Politics, vol. 16, 1885, p. 559.

[7] Robert A Klein, Sovereign Equality among States: the History of an Idea, 1974, p. 7.

[8] Lassa Oppenheim, Sovereign Equality Law: a Treatise, vol. 1, 2nd ed, 1921, p. 429.

[11] Dictionary.com, Royal, 2014: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/royal

[12] Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, 2014: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire.

[27] Henry Wheaton, Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, Coleman Phillipson, ed., 5th ed., 1916, p. 34.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Thomas Fleiner and Lidija R. Basta Fleiner, Constitutional Democracy in a Multicultural and Globalized World, 2009, p. 320.

[30] Shabtai Rosenne, The Perplexities of Modern International Law: General Course on Public International Law, 2002, p. 261.

[31] U.S. Legal, Government-in-Exile Law & Legal Definition, 2011: http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/government-in-exile.

[32] Thomas R. Van Dervort, International Law and Organization. An introduction, 1938, p. 325.

[33] Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1959, p. 289.

[34] Krystyna Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, 1968, p. 325.

[35] Carl A Reuterskiold, Folkratt, Sarskildt sasom svensk Publik Internationell Ratt, 1928, p. 47.

[36] Lassa Oppenheim, Oppenheim’s International Law, Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts, ed., 9th ed., 1992, p.123

[37] Moraitis v. Delany, Annual Digest, 1941-1942, case no. 96.

[38] Quote from the 2nd edition of Halvar Sundberg’s textbook on the international literature of public law as cited in Jacob W.F. Sundberg, Regarding dethroned princely Houses and their legal rights, 2012: http://www.mocterranordica.org/Sund_Eng.pdf.

[39] Martin Dixon, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., 2007, pp. 125-126.

[40] Robert Jackson, Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea, 2007, p. 123.

Is a Fons Honorum Necessary?

An interesting debate in the Knights Templar world is whether a Fons Honorum (fount of honor) is necessary in a

Knights Templar Order?

(1) The fount of honour (Latin: Fons Honorum) refers to a person, who, by virtue of his or her official position, has the exclusive right of conferring legitimate titles of nobility and orders of chivalry to other persons. There are several types of Fons Honorum. Two examples are that of a Sovereign Order administered by a Monarch and an Ecclesiastical Order that has a religious figure as its protector

(2) Until sometime in the thirteenth century there were parts of Europe where a baron, lord or enfeoffed knight might dub an esquire, the par rain thus raising the young man to knighthood. In most of western Europe this practice was abolished by 1250. When Frederick II, who ruled a wide swathe of Europe from Saxony to Sicily, declared that only the son or grandson of a knight could become a knight except by his royal license.

(3) Thus, it is problematic when an order is founded by a formerly sovereign, but no longer regnant House. By the same token, the patronage of a former reigning dynasty has to be considered as merely decorative and does not bestow any rights. An “order” thus requires a sovereign act of creation and ensuing sovereign recognition. Only if this prerequisite is met, can the order be considered to be a recognized order by nature.

[1] https://www.theknightstemplar.org/fons-honorum-fount-of-honor/

[2] http://www.regalis.com/malta/knights.htm -- click on number one

[3] http://www.st-lazarus.us/GPA/References/Docs/fons_honorum.pdf -- click on number one

Only Royalty and the Knights Templars have "Fons Honorum" (Letters Patent) the right to Grant titles.

Can an American receive a knighthood?

President Eisenhower received a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II an American can receive a knighthood. Americans who have been knighted by the Queen of England Over the years, some prominent Americans who achieved great things were given the great honor to be knighted by the Queen of England. Some of the very famous Americans who have been knighted include the following:

The Titles of Nobility Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The 11th Congress passed it on May 1, 1810, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It would strip United States citizenship from any citizen who accepted a title of nobility from an "emperor, king, prince or foreign power." On two occasions between 1812 and 1816, it was within two states of the number needed to become part of the Constitution. Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, so the amendment is still pending before the states. Ratification by an additional 26 states is now needed for its adoption. If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

Failed to adopt so we can people in government cannot…If Congress acts it will not affect me as I am Grandfathered in already…

However, the Constitution does not ban American citizens from receiving titles of nobility from other countries, and a child could actually-be born into both.

Section 9 of the same article has the same prohibition for the federal government. So, an American citizen cannot be named a Prince, Duke, or any other noble title by our own government.

However, the Constitution does not ban American citizens from receiving titles of nobility from other countries, and a child could actually-be born into both. As you probably remember, a person who is born as the child of an American citizen typically is automatically a citizen (I say typically, because it is determined not by the Constitution, but rather by the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which can be changed by Congress).

So, an American citizen could marry a person of nobility, and have a child who was both a citizen due to one parent, and a titled noble from the other parent.

Fons-Honorum Definition

A person who, by virtue of sovereignty, holds the exclusive right to create and confer legitimate titles of nobility and orders of chivalry.[1]

https://www.yourdictionary.com/fons-honorum

COATOFARM - fonshonorum.com

All monarchs have fons honorum by their sovereignty, so they are entitled to grant coats of arms. However, current practice shows that it is very rarely seen, just in the United Kingdom, Belgium and even more rarely the Kingdom of Spain. [1]

https://www.fonshonorum.com/coatofarm.html

1.) Royal | The Royal House Of Simich (the-royal-house-of-simich.com)

Emperor Kelley Michael Simich the 1stt