SOVEREIGNTY & THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND ROYALTY

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=185 BGCOLOR="#003333" TEXT="#F7F7FF" background="040b9c00dduajq.jpg"> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="0" WIDTH="70" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 76 WIDTH="66"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="76" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="66" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <div> <B>The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty</B></div> <bR> <div> <B><IMG SRC="2da697ac0.png" border=0 width="151" height="172" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> The promotion of the  ideals of true nobility, royalty, chivalry and monarchy. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>               PLUS:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The certification of honors, that is. authenticating that one—</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>1. Has illustrious ancestors, royal and/or noble, </B></div> <div> <B>2. Is an actual member of the nobility  or a royal or imperial house, or</B></div> <div> <B>3. Bears a true title of  knighthood, and/or an authentic and genuine noble, royal or imperial title.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>All built on  solid evidence so all can tell the true and the real, from the imposter or counterfeit.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>© Copyright 2005/2009</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFBF0" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#333399" FACE="Arial" >    |    </FONT> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The International Commission on Nobility"><U>home</U></A></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Brief Facts on the Commission"><U>Brief Facts on the Commission</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id81.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Briefly, the Benefits of Constitutional "><U>Briefly, the Benefits of Constitutional Monarchy</U></A>   |   <A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U>IDEALS</U></A>   |   <A HREF="criticisms_and_benefits_of_monarchy.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ADVANTAGES"><U>ADVANTAGES</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id59.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Royal Families of the World"><U>Royal Families of the World</U></A>   |   <B>SOVEREIGNTY & THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND ROYALTY</B>   |   <A HREF="id49.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Royal News"><U>Royal News</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id18.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Supporting the Cause Thru Contributions "><U>Supporting the Cause Thru Contributions & Membership</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Orders of Chivalry"><U>Orders of Chivalry</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id56.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Heraldry"><U>Heraldry</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id58.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Nobility"><U>The Nobility</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ROYAL NOBLE GENEALOGY"><U>ROYAL & NOBLE GENEALOGY</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="MONARCHY AND NOBILITY: DIVINE RIGHTS RE"><U>MONARCHY AND NOBILITY: DIVINE RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="General Philosophy Practices"><U>General Philosophy & Practices</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id19.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Membership Categories, Fees, Evidence Re"><U>Membership Categories, Fees, Evidence Requirements and Standards</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id24.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Examples"><U>Examples</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Benefits"><U>Benefits</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="May 2008 Other Policy Changes"><U>May 2008 & Other Policy Changes</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id39.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Counterfeits"><U>Counterfeits</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id64.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Scams and Suspicious Claimants"><U>Scams and Suspicious Claimants</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id63.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="February 2009 Public Newsletter"><U>February 2009 Public Newsletter</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Officers of the Commission"><U>Officers of the Commission</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id32.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer, Obligatory Contract Invitat"><U>Disclaimer, Obligatory Contract & Invitation</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Books"><U>Books</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id41.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Helpful Links"><U>Helpful Links</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id61.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Survey"><U>Survey</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id29.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Frequently Asked Questions"><U>Frequently Asked Questions</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Subject Index"><U>Subject Index</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ARTICLES OF INTEREST AND IMPORT"><U>ARTICLES OF INTEREST AND IMPORT</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id48.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact "><U>Contact </U></A></div> <div> <B>SOVEREIGNTY & THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND ROYALTY</B><B><IMG SRC="3614616b0.jpg" border=0 width="609" height="363" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> <B>History and the </B><B> <A NAME="_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <B>Future of Non-reigning Sovereigns and Royal Families</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" >(Note: </FONT><B>Even though history abounds with various contradictions and scholars disagree, the following ideas are considered universally applicable despite shifting opinions. The following article is built on a traditional sense of Western European justice, history and philosophy as well as the law of nations</B><B> which</B><B> affirms that under certain circumstances, that are well-defined. former ruling families possess permanent, unending and inalienable rights---the right to legal and rightful sovereignty and the right to honor and be honored as such.</B><B>) </B></div> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="215" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 183 WIDTH="203"><div> <B><IMG SRC="425560520.gif" border=0 width="96" height="82" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">(Note: If the pictures do not align up on the right side of the screen, please enlarge the print by going to "View" or "Page" and then "Text Size" and choosing a larger text. Or, narrow the screen in one of several ways till the pictures are all on the right side.)</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> <B>Subheadings</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Click on whatever is of interest to you:</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><IMG SRC="439e27460.jpg" border=0 width="295" height="326" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Introduction to Sovereignty:</B></div> <div> <A HREF="#sovereignty" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#and_sovereignty" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Secession, Rebellion, Referendums and Sovereignty</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#protective" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty as Protective</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#law" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>International Law</B></U></A><B>  /</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Royal Rights and Sovereignty:</B></div> <div> <A HREF="#rights" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Rights</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#ownership" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty and Ownership</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#restored" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Legal & Moral Right to be</B></U></A><A HREF="#restored" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B> Restored</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#forever_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty is Permanent</B></U></A><A HREF="#forever_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B> and Forever</B></U></A><B> /  </B><A HREF="#annexations" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Abdications, Renunciations and Annexations</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#nations" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Tiny Sovereign Nations</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#mediatization_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereign</B></U></A><A HREF="#mediatization_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>ty and Mediatization</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#rights_2" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Permanent Rights</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#tibet" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Exiled Sovereignty:</B></U></A><A HREF="#tibet" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B> Tibet</B></U></A><B> </B><B> /  </B><A HREF="#india" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Exiled Sovereignty: </B></U></A><A HREF="#india" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Maharajahs and Princes of India</B></U></A><B>  / </B><A HREF="#examples" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty: Ethiopia</B></U></A><A HREF="#examples" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B> and other Great Examples</B></U></A><B> /  </B><A HREF="#popular_sovereignty" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Myth of Popular Sovereignty and the Rule of Law</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#constitution" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The King and the Constitution</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#rights_1" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Ownership and Property Rights</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#adoptions" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Royal</B></U></A><A HREF="#adoptions" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B> Adoptions</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#royalty_1" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty and Royalty</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#equality" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereign Equality</B></U></A><B>   /  </B><A HREF="#sovereignty_1" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Buying and Selling of Sovereignty</B></U></A><B>  /  </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Conclusions:</B></div> <div> <A HREF="#conclusions" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Legal Realities</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#royalty" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Future of Nobility and Royalty</B></U></A><B>  /  </B><A HREF="#references_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>References</B></U></A><A HREF="#references_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B> </B></U></A><B> /</B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Introduction to Sovereignty</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Sovereignty</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" > <A NAME="sovereignty"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></FONT></div> <bR> <div> From the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth, there seems to have been a rather noticeable variation in the basis of sovereign legitimacy from a ruling monarch to a republic. Another shift or focus appears to be from an emphasis on sovereign state's rights, to individual human rights. However, at this point in history, despite these movements, "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty in an ex-monarch and his lawful heirs is still defendable as they represent rights and privileges that are permanent and inalienable. This is chiefly because "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="TimesNewRoman" ><B>the principle of sovereignty, whatever its precise scope, still thrives in international law and international relations.</B>" (</FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publications/pdf/sov.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publicati"><U><B><U>www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publications/pdf/sov.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="TimesNewRoman" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> For example, from 1962 to the present, based upon current international laws and conventions, the "<B>International Commission on Orders of Chivalry</B>" concluded that, “<B>an exiled</B><IMG SRC="2db5d17c0.jpg" border=0 width="209" height="380" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> sovereign retains the right to bestow honours, dynastic, state or however styled. This right extends to their lawful successors.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.icocregister.org/principles.h"><U><B><U>www.icocregister.org/principles.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) As a result, they have approved as valid over 40 some "<B>de jure</B>" titular Emperors, Kings, Princes and Dukes, heads of various royal families throughout the world, as rightfully presiding over 50 some dynastic orders of legitimate and authentic knighthood. In this, these men are exercising one of their most important privileges--the right to honor and reward merit by the authority of their ancient royal status. This Commission stated that even though these rights "<B>may not be officially recognized by the new government [that in itself] does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.</B>" (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> Sovereignty has been defined as:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . the supreme, absolute . . . power by which any independent state is governed [which encompasses] . . . the power to do everything in a state without accountability, --to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.</B>" (Black's Legal Dictionary: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.htm"><U><B><U>http://</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.htm"><U><B><U>hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> These powers are generally exercised, by delegation, to an oligarchy, a small group of trusted rulers in a democracy or republic, or to a king, his ministers and a parliament, in a monarchy, both being invested to a greater or lesser degree with the sovereign rights and privileges of each individual citizen.</div> <bR> <div> In spite of the changes that seem to be taking place in international law, sovereignty itself is not becoming less relevant or important. It is, in fact, the mainstay--the chief or most prominent<IMG SRC="2db82aff0.jpg" border=0 width="298" height="255" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> structuring principle in this world. The concept that sovereignty is inviolable, expressed in the United Nations Charter as “<B>noninterference in the domestic jurisdiction of states</B>” has been universally accepted and supported by UN member nations.<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>It has been called "<B>the defining doctrine,</B>" "<B>the primary cause</B>" from which flows all effective government, "<B>the defining feature of statehood,</B>" "<B>the glue or cement that holds all society together,</B>" "<B>the one and only true stabilizing principle,</B>" "<B>bedrock,</B>" "<B>the foundation stone,</B>" "<B>an indispensible concept,</B>" "<B>of cardinal importance,</B>" "<B>the central organizing principle,</B>" "<B>the soul</B>" of civilized society, "<B>the reference point,</B>" "<B>the central concept for the preservation of world peace,</B>" "<B>the most basic principle,</B>" "<B>the dominant world order framework,</B>" doubtlessly "<B>the most precious</B>" of all governmental rights, "<B>the cornerstone,</B>" "<B>the key constitutional safeguard,</B>" "<B>the final and ultimate matrix of a stable society,</B>" the "<I><B>sine qua non</B></I><B> of international law,</B>" that is, the indispensable condition that cannot be done without, for it is "<B>the building block,</B>" or as Algerian President Boueteflika, while addressing the UN General Assembly in 1999, said, sovereignty is "<B>our final defense against the rules of an unjust world.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28492-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28492-201-1-DO_"><U><B><U>www.idrc.ca</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28492-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28492-201-1-DO_"><U><B><U>/en/ev-28492-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Everything of real importance in government revolves around sovereignty. </div> <bR> <div> Robert Lansing (1864-1928), a U. S. legal authority and author, declared that the "<B>Sovereignty</B>" is <B> </B>"<B>. . . </B><B>the fundamental authority which controls, restrains and protects man as a member of society.</B>" (Notes on Sovereignty in a State, 1 AJIL, p. 105 (1907) Jeremy A. Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell for 27 years, concurred that sovereignty, "<B>. . .</B><B> </B><B>is</B><IMG SRC="399b00a90.jpg" border=0 width="256" height="169" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> central to the maintenance of effective, constitutionally constrained political systems . . . [and that it has the important power to] protect individual liberty.</B>" (<I>Law Without Nations? Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States,</I> 2005) (Review: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=50&articleID=649" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.independent.org/publications/"><U><B><U>www.independent.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=50&articleID=649" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.independent.org/publications/"><U><B><U>/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=50&article</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=50&articleID=649" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.independent.org/publications/"><U><B><U>ID=649</U></B></U></A></FONT>) He concluded in a lengthy article that "<B>. . . </B><B>the American Constitution [which guarentees basic human rights] rests on the premise that sovereignty is the precondition to decent [or harmonious] politics.</B>" ("Recalling the Case for Sovereignty:" <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law/994876-1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/interna"><U><B><U>www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law/994876-1.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Sovereignty is a critical principle needed to safeguard the nations and protect our basic and most important fundamental rights from usurpation and encroachment. It is well entrenched in legal and political discourse. Its roots go back for hundreds and hundreds of years. This<IMG SRC="2dbf39eb0.jpg" border=0 width="313" height="235" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> concept is a close cousin to the legal principle of the divine right of kings. In fact, sovereignty was created to protect the right of kings or the right to rule independent of outside forces. It is still used to protect nations from each other and promote decency and justice. The whole idea of sovereignty is a fundamental anchor essential to the peace, well-being and cooperation of all nations. Jeremy A. Rabkin, mentioned above, in his book, <I>The Case for Sovereignty</I> (AEI Press, 2004), describes a study that shows that a "<B>post-sovereign</B>" world would embolden and encourage terrorism, depress economic development and growth, erode national loyalties, promote lawlessness and crime, destabilize fragile countries and spur even greater international conflict and atrocities everywhere. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.ashbrook.org/books/0844741833.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ashbrook.org/books/0844741833"><U><B><U>www.ashbrook.org/books/0844741833.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In fact, members of the Overseas Development Institute in 2005 declared the for the future of mankind, "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="TimesNewRoman" ><B>The [real] challenge is to harness the international system behind the goal of enhancing [promoting] the sovereignty of states</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="TimesNewRoman" > </FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="TimesNewRoman" ><B>– that is, to enhance [strengthen and build] the capacity of these states to perform the functions that define them as states.</B>" (Working paper 253: </FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="TimesNewRoman" ><A HREF="http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working-papers/253-sovereignty-gap-state-building.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/worki"><U><B><U>www.odi.org.uk/publications/working-papers/253-sovereignty-gap</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="TimesNewRoman" ><A HREF="http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/working-papers/253-sovereignty-gap-state-building.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/worki"><U><B><U>-state-building.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="TimesNewRoman" >) Strong independent sovereign states equals a strong, peaceful and law abiding world. </FONT>The sacred principle of sovereignty is a blessing, a great benefit, not a curse. No wonder, "<B>s</B><B>everal declarations and resolutions of the United Nations, as well as other important international covenants, recognize . . . that the sovereignty of every country is . . . absolutely indispensable . . . , and . . . condemn any violation of the sovereignty of countries as a . . . crime against humanity.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.anti-imperialist.org/sovereign-rights_1-18-04.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.anti-imperialist.org/sovereig"><U><B><U>www.anti-imperialist.org/sovereign-rights_1-18-04.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In fact, in some circles, sovereignty is considered to be the only true or real international law in existence. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Secession, Rebellion, Referendums and Sovereignty</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="and_sovereignty"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> Sovereignty is power, the highest kind of power known on earth, and it is inseparably connected to the land it rules over. The unmitigated right of an individual or group of people to secede with part of the territory of that nation does not exist. A person or group of people may move to<IMG SRC="3c55b6ea0.jpg" border=0 width="182" height="234" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> another country and thus free themselves from some of their real or imaginary grievances, but they cannot rightfully take national territory that does not belong to them, that is, such cannot be done without the express approval of the supreme authority of that land. The point is, sovereignty is permanent and indivisible. Unless the ruling power, that holds the supreme right of sovereignty, willingly and freely, and without pressure, undue influence or duress, gives its territory away, no secession or division can rightfully take place. </div> <bR> <div> This is necessary to protect the sanctity of a nation. In other words, if secession were a right, it would threaten the very fabric of society. It would institutionalize a powerful tool for special interest groups to bully the rest of the nation. For example, the rich who don’t like a certain policy could just secede, create their own nation and let the poor and underprivileged of their former nation wallow in ruin. Or, choke the rest of the nation into submission. Secession is the ability to destroy and dismember a nation, create instability, encourage malicious political manipulations and dishearten those who would otherwise invest in and build up the economy creating greater prospects and prosperity for all. Sovereignty, the supernal authority of a nation, is far above any so-called right to secede. U.N. Secretary-General U. Thant declared in 1970:<IMG SRC="3cbb327e0.jpg" border=0 width="306" height="382" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>A</B><B>s far as the question of secession of a particular section of a S</B><B>tate is concerned, the United Nations attitude is unequivocable. As an international organization, the United Nations has never accepted and does not accept and I do not believe it will ever accept the principle of secession of a part of its Member States. </B>(Secretary-General's Press Conferences, in 7 U.N. MONTHLY CHRONICLE 36 (Feb. 1970)</div> <bR> <div> Self-determination is a noble sounding ideal, but in reality, it is a "<B>golden calf</B>" or "f<B>alse god,</B>" because one man's "<B>self-determination</B>" is another man's "<B>pernicious and malignant rebellion against existing rights</B>"---in other words, sedition and treason. Because self-determination has been worshipped and idolized, it is often exploited by would-be usurpers, rebels, and so-called freedom fighters who bring anguish, murder and pain, not greatness, prosperity and good to their countries. Self-determination is not greater than sovereignty. Sovereignty and territorial integrity remain supreme. Otherwise, there would be justification for infinite malicious mischief, national destruction and ruin. The Chinese people in San Francisco would rebel and create a new China in California and New York, the Kurdistan would create horror and start a blood bath in an effort to start up a new nation out of parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. We would have a nation of Blacks in Alabama, an Hispanic nation in the Southwest of the United States and the Swedes in Wisconsin along with every Indian tribe in the country that would secede and on and on it would go. We could have 8,000 to 10,000 little countries spring up all over. The Pakistanis in England would separate and forcefully create a new country and take part of the wealth and glory of London with them. And what would be left of any national government if everyone could just secede? It would destroy all nations and the prosperity, safety and security of all people. As far back as 1793 in the setting of the French Revolution, General Carnot reported to the National Assembly that:<IMG SRC="4364d8fa0.gif" border=0 width="216" height="506" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </div> <bR> <div> <B>If . . . any community whatever had the right to proclaim its will and separate from the main body under the influence of rebels, etc., every country, every town, every village, every farmstead might declare itself independent. </B>(Lazare Carnot (1753-1823) war auch Mitglied der fanzösischen Nationalversammlung während der Revolution (zitiert nach: Emerson (1960) p. 299)</div> <bR> <div> Nothing would be left if self-determination were to rule as the highest law of all nations. There must be limits to prevent national suicide and destruction. Common sense tell us that the right of territorial integrity must always take precedence over the right to self-determination. A good summary was given by a Commission of the League of Nations in 1921. On the importance of sovereignty, it concluded:</div> <bR> <div> <B>To concede to minorities either of language or religion, or to any fractions of a population, the right of withdrawing from the community to which they belong, because it is their wish or their good pleasure, would be to destroy order and stability within States and to inaugurate anarchy in international life; it would be to uphold a theory incompatible with the very idea of [sovereignty or] the State as a territorial and political entity. </B>(The Report of the Committee of Rapporteurs, League of Nations, Doc. B/21/68/106 [VII] p. 22-23, April 26, 1921)</div> <bR> <div> Hence, secession is an act of robbery in which an individual or group of people want to steal a portion of a nation's land or territory. It is contrary to justice, what is fair and what is ethically or morally right. It is contrary to the principal of sovereignty, the supreme rights of a nation as a whole.</div> <bR> <div> The use of referendums for anything of importance is also considered to be a grave mistake as it is a well-known researched fact that most people do not have the time or interest to spend hours identifying the deep, hidden issues or long-term ramifications of the proposals put before them. Most voters are not educated in State craft, in fact, they usually vote for very shallow reasons, like a good slogan or spin, good looks, a great command of speech, not the real issues, or because of clever manipulations, demagoguery or on account of the fact that a favored basketball or football player sponsers it. Referendums also tend to promote a kind of tyranny of the majority—a short-sighted, dangerous, mob<IMG SRC="3d0d52ea0.jpg" border=0 width="338" height="234" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> mentality along biased racial, ethnic or religious grounds. Those who favor them tend to think all people are benevolent, rational, kind hearted and good natured, which is far from the whole truth. The general populace are not angels, pure, wise, thoughtful and knowledgeable. Many have extreme anti-social traits, such as venality, brutality, avariciousness, and murderous dispositions and would not shirk from destroying others and robbing them of everything of value, which is why we must have policemen to maintain some semblence of justice. Terrorists love referendums to make big changes through intimidating large groups of people and by ballot box tampering. Citizen initiated referendums are especially problematic as they prove, far too often, to be ill-conceived, knee-jerk, emotional responses to highly complex issues. As a whole, poor, short-sighted solutions generally result from such as there is no accountability and they are subject to whims and fads. Instead of developing unity they tend to promote a politics of divisiveness and conflict, while indirect or representative democracy is structured to facilitate compromise, moderation and the general good. Referendums can be highly destructive of the best interests of any nation. But the worst thing about referendums is that they tend to bypass the <B>checks and balances</B> established to protect and safeguard our freedoms—the most precious thing we have on earth. (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U>Ideals</U></A></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" >,</FONT>" "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="criticisms_and_benefits_of_monarchy.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ADVANTAGES"><U>Advantages</U></A></FONT>" on the need for checks and balances and Mads Qvortrup and Matt Qvortrup, "A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People," Manchester University Press 2005, pp. 1-37) </div> <bR> <div> Outright rebellion, an act of treason, is another terribly destructive and disheartening power. It is only justified under very rare or extreme circumstances. Simply put, it is a crime against humanity to wage war merely because one wants a change in the type of government one has. As long as a government is making a reasonable effort to protect the basic human rights of its people, it is in the best<IMG SRC="3c75bfbf0.jpg" border=0 width="191" height="191" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> interests of everyone for that nation to stand. Nine times out of ten, it is usually the "<B>rebels</B>" or so-called "<B>freedom-fighters</B>" who destroy more rights and hurt more lives than the lawful governments they fight against.</div> <bR> <div> Jean J. Burlamaqui declared that, "<B>Indeed it would be subverting all government, to make it depend on the caprice or inconstancy of the people.</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Nothing solid, healthy and good can be built on a ruthless and lawless, or fickle society. Hence, sovereignty, that which maintains law and order and brings security to the nation, is inalienable and permanent in law. Why? Because you cannot build strong and thriving nations upon something so flimsy, weak and unstable as popularity contests, political whims or greed. There is no stability in this. Government must be based upon a sturdy foundation and that foundation is the most powerful recognized right on earth.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>Sovereignty as Protective</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="protective"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="436607ec0.jpg" border=0 width="263" height="236" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> The supreme, utlimate power of sovereignty is necessary to unify and preserve freedom, punish crimes, defend the nation and promote the general welfare. Unfortunately sovereignty, lately, has been the brunt of a lot of unwarranted and uncalled for contempt in the literature, especially in Europe, even though it is basic, and fundamental, to the unity and security of all people. For example, on an international level, without adequate respect for sovereign equality and non-intervention into the affairs of other nations, the world, as a whole, would soon lose the cooperation of nations and make the world unsafe. World powers could ruthlessly and unjustly violate a country's territory on any pretext or whim made to sound good, and threaten their very survival. The supreme law of sovereignty in international law should protect and safeguard each individual country. </div> <bR> <div> But this can only be accomplished if this core concept is respected and upheld as fundamental and indispensable. Thus sovereignty becomes a life and death issue--not a principle to be discarded as archaic and obsolete. It is not a dinosaur. Sovereignty has always existed in different terms as long as rulers have ruled. "<B>Abandoning the concept will not erase the reality but only occlude [or obscure] it.</B>" (Alain de Benoist, "What is Sovereignty," p. 111: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_is_sovereignty.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_i"><U><B><U>www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/what_is_sovereignty.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT> footnoted from Paul Hirst, “Carl Schmitt’s Decisionism,” in Chantal Mouffe, ed., <I>The Challenge of Carl Scmitt </I>(London: Verso, 1999), pp. 7-17) If sovereignty is a myth, as some intellectuals say, then so is the rule of law and all that holds society together. Sovereignty is the foundation of law and order, and law and order is the foundation needed for a civil, kinder and gentler society to take root, thrive and prosper. Sovereignty is, therefore, essential, even critical, to our peace and well-being. </div> <bR> <div> Sovereign governments are, after all, the most powerful players in the world system. Diminish them and you cripple the power of the very people who can change things and make things better for all people. Hence, there is in existence "<B>an enormously elaborate body of<IMG SRC="2cadd4e50.jpg" border=0 width="212" height="229" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> national and international law that secures the exclusive territory and sovereignty of the national state within and outside its jurisdiction.</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/siyanurlealtin/yazi/2002/coban/coban.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.geocities.com/siyanurlealtin/"><U><B><U>www.geocities.com/siyanurlealtin</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/siyanurlealtin/yazi/2002/coban/coban.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.geocities.com/siyanurlealtin/"><U><B><U>/yazi/2002/coban/coban.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) No wonder sovereignty was defined in an international court as "<B>a fundamental principle of international law.</B>" It is the foundation upon which we stand.  And despite years of challenges, "<B>sovereignty has remained resilient and robust. . . .</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://sparky.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/bookshelf_print.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://sparky.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/"><U><B><U>http://</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://http://sparky.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/bookshelf_print.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://sparky.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/"><U><B><U>sparky.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/bookshelf_print.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) It has to! It holds civilization together. Thankfully, according to editors: John D. Montgomery and Nathan Glazer, it still reigns supreme "<B>as the [chief] guiding framework for the governance of human affairs.</B>" (<I>Sovereignty under Challenge</I>, 2002) So great is this principle as a bulwark of protection for civilization, prosperity and peace worldwide, that Daniel Philpott, a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in defending it from criticism declared that ". . . <B>the sovereign state </B><B>has proven a remarkably robust form of authority, enjoying over 350 years of staying power and expanding outward to become the only form of polity in history ever to cover the land surface of the globe.</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/jo"><U><B><U>http://libproxy.dixie.edu</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/jo"><U><B><U>:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) For those who have eyes to see, it is any wonder that the UN Charter revolves around sovereignty as the center or the core principle<B><IMG SRC="3c9a03eb0.jpg" border=0 width="259" height="235" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B> of its organization. Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter states: "<B>The Organization is based on the sovereign equality of all its members.</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/Purposes-and-Principles-PRINCIPLES.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Na"><U><B><U>http://</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/Purposes-and-Principles-PRINCIPLES.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Na"><U><B><U>nationsencyclopedia</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/Purposes-and-Principles-PRINCIPLES.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Na"><U><B><U>.com/United-Nations/Purposes-and-Principles-PRINCIPLES.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) "<B>Sovereign equality</B>" means that all states are equally supreme in their right to govern themselves without interference. </div> <bR> <div> The ideology behind universal jurisdiction rests<B> </B>on the notion that there should be sanction for crimes which "<B>shock the moral conscience of mankind" and that there are certain moral truths which are "right and true for every person in every society." </B>(United Nations War Crimes Commission, London 1948; see also International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Judgment Against Dusko Tadic, 7 May 1997. See also Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice (London: Penguin Books, 2000) and (The National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002) However, Wolfgang Friedmann<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>reminds us that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>In the present greatly diversified family of nations--which comprises states of starkly</B><IMG SRC="3c9925c80.gif" border=0 width="293" height="200" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> differing stages of economic development, as well as of conflicting political and social ideologies--the notions, for example, of "equity," "reasonableness" or "abuse of rights" . . . do, and are bound to, differ widely. What to the one party is an abuse is to the other the reassertion of a long withheld "natural" right. </B>("The Uses of 'General Principles' in the Development of International Law" (1963) 57 A.J.I.L. 279 at 289-90)<B> </B></div> <bR> <div> The emotional appeal of human rights doesn't universally fit all over the world. Therefore, the supremacy of human rights ends up being ". . . <B>legal nonsense, in the literal sense that they have no legal meaning without being applied to specific cases or classes of cases within a legal procedure.</B>"<B> </B>(John Laughland,  "The crooked timber of reality: sovereignty,<IMG SRC="3ca351fd0.jpg" border=0 width="337" height="253" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> jurisdiction, and the confusions of human rights," <I>The Monist, </I>January 1, 2007) Sovereignty like the "<B>rule of law</B>" has prevailed and been re-affirmed and validated as the best option to benefit all nations. This is because without the rule of law, we have nothing left but vigilantism, increased corruption and rampant insecurity. It means taking the law into one's own hands without "<B>due process</B>" or any legitimate right. Obviously there is great danger in this. It would allow impulsiveness and whim to rule in international discourse. No wonder, "<B>. . . in its international-judicial sense, [sovereignty] retains its moral, political, and legal significance. . . .</B>" (Georg Nolte, Brad R. Roth, Helen Stacy and Gregory H. Fox, "Sovereignty: Essential, Variegated, or Irrelevant?," American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, January 1, 2005) The results is "<B>. . . </B><B>the United Nations' supreme judicial body . . . continue[s] to base is rulings on sovereignist jurisprudence, i.e., on recognition of the legal fact that the world is divided up into different jurisdictions, each with its own [rightful sovereign] rights and duties.</B>" (John Laughland, 2007, op. cit.)<IMG SRC="3273902c0.gif" border=0 width="400" height="300" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </div> <bR> <div> "<B>The pillars of international law</B>" are congruent and essentially the same as what is known as the "<B>Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,</B>" that is, the seminal ideas that holds nations together. They are: <B>(1) </B><B>mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, (2) mutual non-aggression, (3) non-interference in each other's internal affairs, (4) equality and mutual benefit and (5) peaceful co-existence. </B>These are the most basic ideas of international law in a nutshell. Sovereignty is the foundation stone of success among nations. No wonder this principle is considered critically important. It is at the root of peace and well-being in this world. (Georg Schwarzenberger, <I>The Fundamental Principles of International Law</I>, note 282, p. 207 and <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Princi"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>International Law</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="law"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <bR> <div> A major problem still lives on, however, not with sovereignty, but with the myriad of international laws currently in existence, because they sometimes violate the basic principles. And these<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B><IMG SRC="3c6c31be0.gif" border=0 width="305" height="190" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT> laws are "<B>a work in process.</B>" They are often too fluid, too contradictory and changing, too whimsical, too political and philosophical. Putnam B. Potter, a prominent political scientist, said it well when he wrote that "<B>i</B><B>nternational law can mean anything, like beauty which is in the 'eyes of the beholder.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html"><U><B><U>www.womensgroup</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html"><U><B><U>.org/INTERLAW.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) He concluded that since "<B>international law is largely based on custom,</B>" and customs can be broken or have no real force behind them, therefore, international law is always in a state of flux. (Ibid.) Part of the reason for this is that international law is shaped and fashioned, even twisted and contorted to a large degree by political game playing. Therefore, it can get really complicated and it changes to suit what the major players want. In practice, because international law and politics are inseparably connected, it cannot help but be fraught with contradictions and<IMG SRC="3585bcbc0.jpg" border=0 width="188" height="188" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> complexities. Even their legitimacy is questionable. Some international laws are made by private companies, such as, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization---organizations without any sovereignty or elected representatives. Which, in effect, is "<B>taxation [binding, expensive rules] without representation.</B>"  This principle was one of the primary complaints of the American colonies that brought about the war of independence from Great Britain. Needless to say international law is an imperfect system and some scholars say, it "<B>is therefore incapable of providing a useful approach to structuring international society.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art"><U><B><U>www.ejil.org/journal/Vol4/No1/art1.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Unfortunately, this means we must "<B>rely on essentially contested--political--principles</B>" to solve problems. (Ibid.) And both politics and politicians are fickle, unstable and ever changing. There is nothing comforting and solid about this. </div> <bR> <div> The point here is, countries generally do what they want to, in spite of international law. For example, a legal opinion written by Willliam P. Barr, assistant Attorney General on June 21, 1989, declared that the United States "<B>has the power to override customary international law</B>" in certain areas. This understanding that the US has unquestionable authority "<B>to exercise the sovereign's right to override international law (including obligations created by treaty) has been repeatedly recognized by courts.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/olc_override.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ol"><U><B><U>www.fas.org/irp/agency</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/olc_override.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/ol"><U><B><U>/doj/fbi/olc_override.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This sovereign right is also the right of every country on earth. Even treaties can be set aside. They are not sacrosanct, but are kept only insofar as they fulfill national interests in most cases. Errol E. Harris, a well-published scholar in law and philosophy, made it clear that sovereign nations are not bound by treaties. He wrote:<B><IMG SRC="3c67befc0.png" border=0 width="190" height="252" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both maintained that a nation could renounce a treaty at any time it thought fit. . . .</B><B> </B><B>The pages of history are littered with accounts of broken treaties. . . .</B><B> </B><B>The Charter of the United Nations is itself no more than a treaty. . . . Consequently, the resolutions of the Security Council have been ignored time and again, by South Africa, Israel, North Korea, and [former] Iraq -- to mention only [a few]. . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/chapter_xx.htm " TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/c"><U><B><U>www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/chapter</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/chapter_xx.htm " TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-19/c"><U><B><U>_xx.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> In other words, ". . . <B>states being sovereign are at liberty to interpret a treaty in whatever way that best suits them, as they are also free to retract their commitments whenever they deem the circumstances warrant it.</B>" (Ibid.) Pointedly, "<B>The pages of history are littered with accounts of broken treaties</B>." (Ibid.) It is the rule of the day and the more common rule of the ages. "<B>Consequently,</B> <B>the authority of International Law is fictional, even in theory. . . .</B>" "<B>D</B><B>ecisions agreed to in the General Assembly [ of the United Nations] are never binding; neither these nor any resolutions of the Security Council can be imposed on individual members, [because being</B><B><IMG SRC="362cb5c20.jpg" border=0 width="181" height="450" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B>sovereign states, </B><B>'</B><B>they are subject to no higher authority' than their own, therefore] should they defy or ignore them . . . , [they] cannot be forced to comply except by some form of military threat.</B>" (Ibid.) But the whole idea that treaty power is unlimited and so omnipotent and powerful that it may be used to OVERRIDE the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the supreme law of the land, is a dangerous and foolish notion. It is also of recent origin and does not reflect traditional law and philosophy. Treaties are important, but common sense and sovereignty are not to be thrown out the window to honor some foolish or harebrained treaty that no longer applies to current events. For according to Emerich de Vattel, "<B>Every . . . absurdity ought to be rejected [in a treaty]</B><B>: or, in other words, we should not give to any piece a meaning from which any absurd consequences would follow, but must interpret it in such a manner as to avoid absurdity.</B>" (<I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, Chapter XVII, #282) The conclusion on treaties is, "<B>A sovereign state can make a treaty. It can also break a treaty, or determine for itself when a treaty commitment is no longer binding or applicable.</B>" (Jeremy Rabkin, "Recalling the Case for Sovereignty" <I>Chicago Journal of International Law</I>, January 1 2005, p. 23) This is just good common sense and practical as well as being protective, healthy and good for all people. </div> <bR> <div> The real problem, however, is that we live in a world where sovereignty, the greatest and most crucial and important international law of all, has routinely and predictably been violated by the great and the powerful of the earth. In other words, it is the views of the popular and/or the dominant that always prevails in spite of international law, treaties or the opinions and ideals of legal scholars. It all boils down to,"<B>might makes right</B>" or “<B>the stronger you are, the more rights you’ll have.</B>”<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>If you don't have great power or clout, if you are weak and defenseless, the bullies of the world may very well oppress you and take advantage of you. </div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="2ca1fb6e0.jpg" border=0 width="507" height="366" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> However, "<B>the ultimate foundation [or basis] of international law is justice. . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html"><U><B><U>www.womensgroup.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.womensgroup.org/INTERLAW.html"><U><B><U>/INTERLAW.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) It is the universal desire of all people. We want justice. It is one of the greatest and most beautiful things there is in life. Justice legitimizes law when that law supports and upholds one of the most important principles ever conceived. And true justice recognizes inherent, inalienable rights, chiefly because those rights are just, therefore, they universally appeal to the higher nature of man. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Emerich de Vattel, one of the fathers of international law wrote the classic book <I>The Law of Nations</I> "<B>to establish on a solid foundation the obligations and rights of nations [that] is the design of this work [is to promote what is right and just].</B>" (Preliminaries to Book, note 3) This article focuses predominately on the inalienable rights of kings and sovereign princes to rule and reign. These ancient rights, are, unfortunately, trampled on, discarded or over looked because of our modern emphasis on different things. Nevertheless, these rights are real and important. In the case of Kuwait, the royal dynasty and its monarchy was fully restored after the first Gulf War, as was appropriate, and in full accord with international principles of justice. Phillip Marshall Brown, a distinguished international lawyer, wrote on the sovereignty of kings and princes in exile, living in England, who had been robbed of the right to rule their own territories during World War II, he stated that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>A nation is much more than an outward form of territory and government. . . . So long as they [those who hold sovereignty] cherish sovereignty in their hearts their nation [kingdom or principality] is not dead. It may be prostate and helpless. . . . [It]<IMG SRC="36fc2d3f0.jpg" border=0 width="301" height="319" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> may be suspended, in exile, a mere figment even of reality, derided and discouraged, and yet entitled to every respect. [Why? Because we are] not dealing with fictions, [these] valiant standard bearers of sovereignty . . . in faith and confidence [have, and this is the point] . . . inalienable, immutable rights. </B>(“Sovereignty in Exile,” 35 <I>American Journal of International Law </I>(1941) 666-668) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(194110)35%3A4%3C666%3ASIE %3E2.0.CO%3B2-K" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-93"><U><B><U>http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(194110)35%3A4%3C666%3ASIE %3E2.0.CO%3B2-K" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-93"><U><B><U>9300(194110)35%3A4%3C666%3ASIE</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(194110)35%3A4%3C666%3ASIE %3E2.0.CO%3B2-K" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-93"><U><B><U>%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Phillip Brown went on to say, "<B>The general conclusion we are warranted in reaching is that . . . their sovereignty, even though flaunted, restricted, and sent into exile, still persists.</B><B> . . . </B><B>There is no automatic extinction of nations.</B>" (Ibid.) </div> <bR> <div> The following took place in recognition of the inherent and incorruptible rights just mentioned. His Highness Emir Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah's sovereign right to rule his own country of Kuiat was recognized and restored. Many other monarchies were re-established after their unlawful occupation and loss of sovereignty in World War II: Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Norway to name a few.  Unfortunately, the fact is, most are never restored even though their causes are just and their claims are pure, perfect and unblemished. Justice does not always prevail in this world. Nevertheless, the claims of these lost thrones are still valid and authentic, they are legitimate and legally recognizable and acknowledged in law, whether they are honored by modern governments or not.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Royal Rights and Sovereignty</div> <bR> <div> <B>Rights</B><B> <A NAME="rights"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="2c85e4470.jpg" border=0 width="228" height="327" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> Though international law is imperfect and fails over and over again to protect the innocent and the robbed, at least it is an attempt to enthrone justice among the nations as the crowning and towering principle above all others. The basic privilege and right of sovereignty or supreme power has been around for a long time. For example, with the discovery of Roman law in the 12th century came the maxim <I><B>Rex in regno suo imperator est</B></I>, that is, a king is emperor in his own kingdom. (Kenneth Pennington, <I>The Prince and the Law, 1200-1600: Sovereignty and Rights in Western Civilization</I>, p. 3) Nevertheless, many scholars look at the Treaty of Westphalia (ratified in 1648) as the beginning of something truly great among the nations, because the rights were made a part of a treaty or, in effect, actually written into law. Professor Daniel Philpott declared:<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, states, now over 190 of them, have enjoyed supreme authority within their territories and immunity from external interference in enforcing their law, in organizing their national defense, in raising revenues, and in governing education, religion, their natural environments, their citizens' economic welfare, and tens of other matters. </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://libproxy.dixie .edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://libproxy.dixie .edu:2076/j"><U><B><U>http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://http://libproxy.dixie .edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://libproxy.dixie .edu:2076/j"><U><B><U>/53.2philpott.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> This was the real start of international law or the attempt to recognize what is inherently right. This treaty gave decisive acknowledgement, confirmation and legal importance to the "<B>ancient rights</B>" of Emperors, Kings, Princes and States. It gave the idea of "<B>ancient rights</B>" a whole new legal power that it never had before although rights were usually, at least morally or ethically, recognized as just. But so powerful was this recognition of rights that, for example, in a dispute of the Hapsburgs of Austria in 1711, more than sixty years later, they felt compelled on the basis of this way of thinking to recognize the inviolability of the ancient rights of the Magyars, who they were quarreling with.  </div> <bR> <div> A “<B>right</B>” is defined as something to which one has a just claim, something to which one is justly entitled--like the interest that one has in a piece of property under law or custom, that is, something that one may properly claim. In fact, so important are these ancient proprietary rights that:<IMG SRC="4203c9c80.jpg" border=0 width="201" height="200" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Commenting on the likelihood of Juan Carlos' elevation [as king of Spain] . . . , Monarchist Mariano Robles, a lawyer and opponent of the Franco regime, declared: "It is suicide for the monarchy. It is the beginning of the end. A dictator cannot name a King. A King must succeed according to dynastic law. Otherwise it is not a monarchy, it is just a political game." </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901121,00.html?promoid=googlep" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl"><U><B><U>www.time.com/time/magazine/article</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901121,00.html?promoid=googlep" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl"><U><B><U>/0,9171,901121,00.html?promoid=googlep</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Because HRH Don Juan de Borbon y Battenberg, Count of Barcelona, was the recognized and rightful King of Spain at that time, though he never reigned, he passed all his dynastic rights in a ceremony to King Juan Carlos I in 1977 to fully and completely legitimize and validate his son's rule as the legitimate, rightful and lawful King of Spain. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.sispain.org/english/politics/royal/king.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.sispain.org/english/politics/"><U><B><U>www.sispain.org/english/politics/royal/king.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> These inherent rights are considered to be inalienable, immutable, incorruptible and inviolable. This means<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>"<B>. . . that they may not be alienated from the person who possesses them, i.e., they may not be given or taken away [without his or her consent], i.e., they may not be morally infringed upon [by any outside force]. </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm"><U><B><U>http://www.capitalism.org/faq</U></B></U></A><B><U><IMG SRC="393145e60.png" border=0 width="325" height="230" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></B></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm"><U><B><U>/rights.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) But a right to something does not mean that it will be enjoyed. "<B>For example, a man may violate your right to your property by taking it away from you, but your right to that property has not been alienated [you still hold the right], i.e., you are in the right and the robber is in the wrong.</B>"<B> </B>(Ibid.) But you may never get your property back. Rights are not guarantees of success or attainment even though you are entitled to them.</div> <bR> <div> Jean J. Burlamaqui, one of the early founding fathers and writers on international law wrote in 1748 that "<B>The princes of the blood royal . . . certainly [have] an absolute and irrevocable [sovereign] right, of which they cannot be stripped without their consent.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In other words, these rights are permanent and final. They can be taken away by dispossessing the monarch on a "<B>defacto</B>" basis by force, duress or coercion, but not on a "<B>de jure</B>" basis. In other words a rightful king and/or his successors who have been robbed and cheated out of their right to rule still, and will continue to, hold all the royal prerogatives of their "<B>de jure</B>" territories as long as the family continues to live and carry on their traditions. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Sovereignty and Ownership</B><B> <A NAME="ownership"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="2e9de72d0.jpg" border=0 width="231" height="301" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> For the “<B>Electors, Princes and States</B>” of the Holy Roman Empire, these “<B>ancient rights</B>” were explained in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. They were “<B>established and confirmed</B>” in their royal rights and prerogatives including the free exercise of their high lordships or ruling privileges “<B>without contradiction</B>” to create and interpret laws, declare wars, impose taxes, erect fortifications, raise armies and conclude treaties as sovereign states without interference or “<B>molestation</B>” of any kind whatsoever as long as it did not go against the “<B>Public Peace</B>” of the Empire. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/nature/westphalia.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/natu"><U><B><U>www.globalpolicy.org/nations/nature</U></B></U></A><B><U>/</U></B><A HREF="http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/nature/westphalia.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/natu"><U><B><U>westphalia.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) "<B>Although technically still a part of the empire (which would last in name until 1806), these [German] principalities gained all the trappings of sovereign statehood.</B>" (Hendrik Spruyt, "The Sovereign State and Its Competitors," Princeton University Press, 1994, p. 29) "<B>The Treaty of Westphalia gave virtually all the small states in the heart of Europe sovereignty, thus formally rendering the Holy Roman Emperor politically impotent [similar to a committee chairman of some 300 independent little sovereign nations loosely connected together]. . . .</B>" (Thorbjorn L. Knutsen, "A History of International Relations Theory," Manchester University Press, 1992, p. 71) The princes actually owned their realms which was the basis of their right to rule or govern. </div> <bR> <div> The regal rights of sovereignty in law, whether dormant or active, are a lot like ownership or property rights that are hereditary in nature. For example, The Avalon Project of Yale University concluded that the view of sovereignty taken by the earliest international jurists in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was "<B>dominium, dominion, ownership.</B>"<B><IMG SRC="29abbd0f0.jpg" border=0 width="445" height="527" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B> (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/econ/int03.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/econ/i"><U><B><U>www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/econ/int03.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/econ/i"><U><B><U>/econ/int03.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Dominium means property. Dominion is ruling or royal authority over a territory or a people and ownership means a person is an owner of that authority and property. Woodrow Wilson, in <I><B>The State</B></I>, remarks, "<B>The most notable feature of feudalism is that . . .</B><B> </B><B>ownership means sovereignty; he who owns the land shall have primary dominion over the fruitage of the land; he shall therefore hold in absolute subjection the dwellers on the land.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.materialreligion.org/documents /nov98doc.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.materialreligion.org/document"><U><B><U>www.materialreligion.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.materialreligion.org/documents /nov98doc.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.materialreligion.org/document"><U><B><U>/documents/nov98doc.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) That is, the sovereign, theoretically in the feudal view, is the only true owner of all the land and is, therefore, its rightful ruler. </div> <bR> <div> Morris Cohen, a renowned jurist of the early 20th Century United States, explained in his famous legal essay entitled “<B>Property and Sovereignty,</B>” that these two are near equivalent terms. He shows that private property rights even today in law resembles the public law of <I>“</I><I><B>imperium</B></I><I>”—“</I><I><B> </B></I><B>the rule over all individuals by the prince</B><I>”</I> or the principle of sovereignty more than it does the concept of private property under the<I> </I>old Roman law of <I>“</I><I><B>dominium</B></I><B>.</B>” (1927, 156) In the Middle ages, the union between sovereignty and property was clear, that is, “<B>The essence of feudal law . . . is the inseparable connection between land tenure and . . . genuine sovereignty. . . .</B>” (Ibid.) But even now, property rights reflect sovereign privileges. British economist Ralph George Hawtrey in his book <I>Economic Aspects of Sovereignty, </I>declares that sovereignty “<B>carries with it important economic rights which are closely related to the rights of property.</B>” (Hawtrey, 1930, p. 18) In other words, "<B>. . . ownership of a nation is bound up with its sovereignty. . . .</B>" (Christian von Wolff quoted in <I>Aboriginal Sovereignty</I> by Henry Reynolds, p. 47) Even the word "<B>real</B>" in "<B>real estate</B>" means in French "<B>royale</B>" and the Spanish cognate for "<B>real</B>" is "<B>royal.</B>"  In other words, "<B>real estate</B>" or "<B>royal estate</B>" was the estate of the sovereign. "<B>Today, just like hundreds of years in the past, we pay property taxes, or rent to be on the government's land or the Royal Estate.</B>"<IMG SRC="3c3492ea0.jpg" border=0 width="146" height="234" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> This is called the "<B>regalian doctrince</B>" or "<B>jur regalia.</B>" It "<B>. . . refers to ancient feudal or royal rights --- the rights which the king, ruling prince or sovereign lord had by virtue of his proprietary ownership over all property in the realm. . . . [The connection between the two --- ownership and soverignty has] been inseparable for thousands of years or since the dawn of civilization itself.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/dmmrt253.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/"><U><B><U>www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/dmmrt253.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> This fundamental concept is still active and alive today. For example, the UN "<B>Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States</B>" in Article 2(1) affirms that "<B>[e]very state has and shall freely exercise full permanent sovereignty, including possession, use and disposal, over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.eytv4scf.net/a29r3281.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.eytv4scf.net/a29r3281.htm"><U><B><U>www.eytv4scf.net/a29r3281.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) UN experts have encouraged the use of "<B>ownership</B>" and "<B>property of</B>" for the word "<B>sovereignty.</B>" The king or sovereign lord in ancient times likewise had proprietary rights---the right to control and manage his own possession. And even though these rights are intangible or abstract, they are nevertheless, real and recognized. They are so powerful that Jean J. Burlamaqui wrote "<B>that those kings possess the crown in full</B><IMG SRC="4435de2c0.jpg" border=0 width="222" height="300" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> property. . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2107.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2107.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) It was their personal possession--something that they owned as a royal birthright or privilege. It is similar to the concept of "<B>allodial title</B>" to land, that is, "<B>held in absolute independence, without being subject to . . . or [any] acknowledgement to a superior.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Allodial_title" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/All"><U><B><U>http://</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Allodial_title" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/All"><U><B><U>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title</U></B></U></A></FONT>) The king or prince owned the highest right on earth to the right of sovereignty in spite of modern conventions that have unlawfully dispossessed and robbed these lawful former rulers, or their successors, of the free exercise of those rights. This basic legalistic view of things--this comparison, based upon the principle of imperium or rule and property rights, is still viable today and the full and complete ownership of these rights extends to the sovereign and his successors to perpetuity as long as they continued to exist and maintain their rightful claim. It needs to be noted here that claims can be deem to have been abandoned and such are permantantly lost and cannot be retrieved. The important principles of forfeiture and the maintenance of sovereign rights will be discussed in subsequent subchapters.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>The Legal & Moral Right to be Restored</B><B> <A NAME="restored"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="1812c3290.jpg" border=0 width="195" height="297" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> Hugo Grotius, considered by many to be the father of international law, which is supposed to be a compilation of rights, or a compilation of what <IMG SRC="181383a40.gif" border=0 width="131" height="164" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">is right, stated in 1625 “<B>that the person ejected from his inheritance should be reinstated. . . ,</B>” and "<B>anything [even a crown] belonging to another should [be] restore[d] . . . to the lawful proprietor.</B>"<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>It may never happen, but it is, nevertheless right, and that, "<B>. . . </B><B>by the principles of natural justice.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110 /LawOfWarPeace/HTMLs/0138_Pt04_Book2B.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/"><U><B><U>http://</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110 /LawOfWarPeace/HTMLs/0138_Pt04_Book2B.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/"><U><B><U>oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110 /LawOfWarPeace/HTMLs/0138_Pt04_Book2B.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/"><U><B><U>/LawOfWarPeace</U></B></U></A><B><U>/HTMLs/0138_Pt04</U></B></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U>_Book2B.html</U></B></FONT>) Patrick Macklem, a noted Canadian legal scholar, commenting on sovereignty rights, taught that it is not right to say that the aborigines of Australia have lost their inherent and inalienable right to govern themselves, because of so-called European superiority and their takeover. Equally, it can be added, it is not right to say that kings and princes of nations have lost any of their hereditary rights to govern because of the so-called superiority of democracy. Superiority has nothing to do with what is right or fair in either case. Theft of governance is as much an act of<IMG SRC="2c9ca0790.gif" border=0 width="160" height="121" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> theft as any other kind of robbery of one's goods. It is a crime. To support it is to be in contempt of the law and in violation of justice. The inherent right to govern was and is a legitimate possession owned by the rightful proprietors of those rights. Both the aborigines and the kings and princes of the nations should be given back what is rightfully theirs. Both were betrayed and unlawfully deprived of their rights in the past. Their possessions were ripped out of their hands illegally by the force of arms or under duress, undue influence or coercion. Hence, international law labels this kind of theft like any other crime as unjust and wrong, and that restoration is not only morally and ethically right, but legally right as well.</div> <bR> <div> In the 1997 General Recommendation XXIII, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, it states concerning “<B>indigenous</B><B> </B><B>peoples</B>” that “<B>where they have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned . . . without their free and informed consent, [we should] take steps to return these lands and territories.</B>”<IMG SRC="436cabe20.jpg" border=0 width="171" height="226" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/social_justice /submissions_un_hr_committee/1_native_title.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/socia"><U><B><U>http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/social_justice/submissions</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/social_justice /submissions_un_hr_committee/1_native_title.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://www.hreoc.gov.au/pdf/socia"><U><B><U>_un_hr_committee/1_native_title.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This will probably never happen, but it is recognized as a "<B>right,</B>" or what is truly right. And in all fairness, what is ethically and morally right for one group, who was unlawfully divested or robbed of their rightful possessions, is just as right and proper for another. That is, using the same words and same philosophy, “<B>where they [</B><B>the former kings and princes</B><B>] have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned . . . without their free and informed consent, [we should] take steps to return these lands and territories [to their rightful heirs]</B>” (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> The international law of restitution began to be acknowledged as a "<B>right</B>" in 1927 when the International Court of Justice declared, "<B>. . . T</B><B>hat reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://hrw.org/pub/amicusbriefs/medellin_012405.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://hrw.org/pub/amicusbriefs/m"><U><B><U>http://hrw.org/pub/amicusbriefs/medellin_012405.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This was, of course, merely recognizing what is just and fair. This important recognition of what is ethical was further strengthened on July 19, 1943 by the International Law Conference<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>which was held in London.<B><IMG SRC="2cdf53e30.jpg" border=0 width="339" height="227" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B> They adopted as mandatory the most important principles of the Law of Restitution. These principles apply to all who have been robbed of their rights. They declared, "<B>rightful ownership remains in the person [king or sovereign for our topic] who has been dispossessed of anything [their kingdoms] by outright confiscation or by any device resulting from political pressure by the occupant [or usurper]. . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter38_1of4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://palestine-encyclopedia.com"><U><B><U>http://palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter38_1of4.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> This is what is considered "<B>just</B>" and morally right in international law, and what is right can equally be applied to the disposed kings and princes of the earth, who were also wrongfully robbed of their priceless heritage and possessions including the right to rule. The law of restitution approved by the United Nations for indigenous people follows, but can equally be applied to former monarchs and their rightful successors:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Indigenous peoples [kings and sovereign princes] have the right to the restitution of</B><I><IMG SRC="327dbd950.jpg" border=0 width="445" height="405" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></I><B> the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have the right to just and fair compensation. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples [kings and princes] concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status. </B>(<I>United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</I>, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1995/2; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/56, 28 October 1994, at 105-115, reprinted in (1995) 34 I.L.M. 541, Art. 27) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html"><U><B><U>www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> For example, Professor Francis Anthony Boyle, a well-known litigator for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) wrote the following very significant statement on the possible restoration of the monarchy of the Hawaiian Islands. He said: “<B>The kingdom [of Hawaii] was never lawfully terminated, therefore the kingdom still exists [on a ‘de jure’ basis] . . . .</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/151.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/"><U><B><U>www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/151.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) These rights never extinguish as long as the people survive or the royal family continues to exist in some form. Since most, if not all, of the ancient sovereignties of the Holy Roman Empire were never lawfully terminated, they still exist as well. That is, they are still legal, they are still intact, if only, on a “<B>de jure</B>” basis.<B><IMG SRC="2ecc94770.gif" border=0 width="148" height="119" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> What is meant by "<B>de jure</B>" in a broad legal sense is "<B>by right,</B>" "<B>fitting</B><B>,</B>" "<B>fair,</B>" "<B>legitimate,</B>" "<B>authentic,</B>" "<B>real,</B>" "<B>genuine,</B>" "<B>lawful</B>" and "<B>true.</B>" A right is something to which one has a just claim. It<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>is the legal or moral entitlement that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition. They are moral, proper and just whether they are respected or not. Just like a slave has the inalienable and perfect right to be free, but that right may not be honored in the area in which one lives, nevertheless, that person has a just and legal claim to it. Freedom is a basic right that belongs to all mankind.</div> <bR> <div> Felix Cohen (1907-1953), another well-know expert and author on international law declared the following on American Indian sovereignty. He stated, "<B>P</B><B>erhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law . . . is that those</B><B><IMG SRC="474fd940.jpg" border=0 width="253" height="148" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B> powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general, delegated powers granted by expressed acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of . . . sovereignty, which has never been extinguished.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sover"><U><B><U>www.umass.edu</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sover"><U><B><U>/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) This is because they hold these rights forever. You can't change the past. They have rights that were violated and international law supports those rights to self-determination or sovereignty. But remember past rights, though lawful, may never be realized. However that in itself does not nullify or terminate them. They exist and will exist forever if they are hereditary by being passed on to their rightful heirs or successors. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> In the case of Native American sovereignty, it is really a sham, because it is not absolute.<IMG SRC="28efae410.jpg" border=0 width="174" height="321" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> Limited sovereignty is not sovereignty at all. That is, it may be politically polite or politically correct to say that they possess sovereignty, but it is impossible because absolutes don't exist in degrees. You can't be partially pregnant, sort of dead, kind of human, or almost sovereign. These are not absolute conditions. A sovereign nation can not be a satellite, protectorate, or dependent colony, and still be sovereign. And it can't be a ward of another government, as is the case with all Indian tribes. A sovereign nation must have supreme dominion. Therefore to say they are sovereign deludes both sides of the camp into doing nothing. It is an endless and permanent stalemate. That is, it would be really hard to believe that the United States Government would ever grant the Native Americans their full right to self-determination. Or, that the American Indians could ever take their legal right to sovereignty back from the most powerful nation on the earth. It will never happen. A Federal Court declared that "<B>t</B><B>he blunt fact . . . is that an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign -- neither more nor less.</B>"<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>[364 F.Supp. at 194.] (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.manataka.org/page94.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.manataka.org/page94.html"><U><B><U>www.manataka.org/page94.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) It is very obvious who has the power in this context. It would be more appropriate and honest to say that the Native American tribes have the full, complete and absolute legal right, but not the "<B>defacto</B>" privileges of sovereignty.</div> <bR> <div> Under normal circumstances, “<B>right</B>” holders, who have “<B>de jure</B>” or the legal right to something important, can rest assured that if their claims were ever challenged in an objective, unbiased,<IMG SRC="44335eeb0.gif" border=0 width="350" height="235" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">  judicial setting, that those rights would most likely be supported and recognized. However, in spite of an international body of doctrince with criteria for granting, withdrawing or withholding recognition, all governments are free under the law to interpret, adopt or reject these legal suggestions. The result, there is no settled criteria for diplomatic recognition. Hence, the practice of recognition reflects ambiguity and confusion that is both unique and unorganized. Hence, it is next to impossible for "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign rights to be recognized. (Yozzi Shain, <I>The Frontier of Loyalty: Political Exiles in the Age of the Nation-State</I>, 2005, p. 113)</div> <bR> <div> In fact, to avoid controversies such as distinctions between "<B>genuine,</B>" "<B>quasi,</B>" and "<B>ficticious</B>" claims and the resultant legal and ethical implications between "<B>legitimate,</B>" "<B>genuine</B>" and "<B>false</B>" governments-in-exile, the nations of the earth, being practical, only recognize "<B>States,</B>" that is, countries or territories, and avoid ever recognizing or having to deal with the idea of fraudulent "<B>governments.</B>" (Stefan Talmon, <I>Reognition of Governments in International Law with Particular Reference to Governments-in-Exile</I>, 1998, pp. 16, 3) Hence, it is not only virtually impossible for "<B>de jure</B>" monarchs and their successors, but for any government-in-exile to be recognized. </div> <bR> <div> In other words, way too many barriers and obstacles exist to thwart recognition of dispossessed royalty or other equally rightful claims for two significant reasons: (1) in these modern times, there are few nations on earth that do not have a well entrenched and deep seated bias against monarchy or the indigenous people they preside over, or they fear them as a threat to democracy or their institutions and positions, and therefore, (2) no legislation exists in most countries to support or even to acknowledge their claims lest they gain some legal entitlements or advantage that these nations do not want them to have.<IMG SRC="442e5bda0.jpg" border=0 width="347" height="474" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </div> <bR> <div> This is a protective, but unnecessary, stance especially in regard to monarchy. (See “<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U><B>Ideals</B></U></A></FONT>” and "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="criticisms_and_benefits_of_monarchy.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ADVANTAGES"><U><B>Advantages</B></U></A></FONT>" on how limited or constitutional monarchy has profoundly enhanced, enlarged and expanded democracy and prosperity for those countries that have adopted it)</div> <bR> <div> But even though monarchy is rarely recognized legally in domestic law, royal families are recognized socially, because most people know intuitively that they have lawful claims that are real and very significant. </div> <bR> <div> The same is true of high academic degrees or titles. For example, if it is true that a person could legitimately claim that he has an earned Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from a regionally accredited university, if this is actually the case, then the claim is obviously valid, real and genuine, even if there is no legislation to support it. There probably never will be legislation to this effect. The same is true for royal titles, it is socially acknowledged, but rarely will any nation legally acknowledge the inherent right that an sovereign heir has to the scepter, throne and crown of their fatherland. It just won't happen. Still it is recognized as "<B>just</B>" that "<B>sovereign </B><B>rights and self government [be] restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.</B>" (<I>The </I><I>Atlantic Charter</I>, 1941, Winston S. Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/atlantic/at10.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/a"><U><B><U>www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/atlantic/at10.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/a"><U><B><U>/atlantic/at10.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> However, holding a right to something is very different from the freedom to exercise and enjoy that right. There are many examples of cases where strong "<B>de jure</B>" property rights were of limited value because they could not be enforced or actualized. President Cleveland concluded long ago on December 18, 1893 that the United States was guilty of wrong doing for the illegal<IMG SRC="2c8840e40.jpg" border=0 width="320" height="228" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> takeover of the kingdom of Hawaii, therefore, he called for the "<B>restoration</B>" of the Hawaiian monarchy.  Mr. Boyle wrote, "<B>Under international law when you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is restitution.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.ht"><U><B><U>www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Because according to accepted law, conquest does not transfer sovereignty rights. International law also forbids the creation of new states in occupied areas. So according to the law, the lawful heir, whoever that is, does have the recognized "<B>right</B>" to rule his or her country, but the problem is, he or she cannot exercise it or enjoy it at this time, and may never receive back his or her rightful patrimony. The same is true for many other royal families throughout the world, they are “<B>de jure,</B>” but they are blocked and legally thwarted from ever enjoying the full rights that they were robbed of, by current or former governments. Nevertheless, according to the law of nations, reiterated by Emerich de Vattel:<IMG SRC="44471f400.jpg" border=0 width="287" height="320" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . </B><B>if the </B><I><B>bona fide</B></I><B> possessor [the defacto ruler or republic] should discover, with perfect certainty, that the claimant is the real proprietor [the real "de jure" sovereign], and has never abandoned his right, he is bound in conscience, and by the internal principles of justice, to make restitution [not just compensate, but give back to the rightful ruler what he or she truly owns---defacto rule of his own country]. </B>(<I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, #141)</div> <bR> <div> It is a general principle which applies both to individuals and to nations that "<B>. . . all men are to restore what they are possessed of, if another is proved to be the rightful owner.</B>"  (Hugo Grotius, <I>On the Law of War and Peace</I>, Book II, Chapter 10:1: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_210.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_210"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_210.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In other words, there is strong and powerful legal precedence for the conclusions that follow.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>Sovereignty is Permanent and Forever</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="forever_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B> </B></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="28f8237d0.jpg" border=0 width="291" height="381" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">First and foremost, sovereignty in a person is something very special and unique. A<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>king, a prince, a duke, a count, etc., who held full sovereignty at one time was indeed the personification of, or the embodiment of, all the powers and glory of his nation's regal and sovereign privileges and rights. The King was the State, and the State was the King, in ancient times. That is, the King and the State were indistinguishable or synonymous. William Blackstone explained that "<B>the law ascribes to the king the attribute of sovereignty, or pre-eminence [in all things].</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2005/part1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editor"><U><B><U>www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/gnazzo/2005/part1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editor"><U><B><U>/gnazzo/2005/part1.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) The sovereign was the representative of all the collective power and privileges of the whole people. The king held all sovereignty. All property was owned by the monarch. It was his exclusive possession. It represented something sacred and perpetual as embodied or incarnate in the person of the King and his heirs after him. "<B>All the majesty of the nation resides in the person of the prince. . . .</B>" (<I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book I, Chapter XV, #188) And like a "<B>de jure</B>" right to property, it cannot be taken away. It is the notion of "<B>absolute, unlimited power held permanently in a single person or source, inalienable, indivisible, and original</B>" or a hereditary right to the "<B>supreme authority within a territory.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0749-6427(199921)14%3A1%3C7%3ANAIAAT %3E2.0.CO%3B2-U" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici="><U><B><U>http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0749-6427(199921)</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0749-6427(199921)14%3A1%3C7%3ANAIAAT %3E2.0.CO%3B2-U" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici="><U><B><U>14%3A1%3C7%3ANAIAAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) (</FONT><A HREF="http://http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://plato.stanford.edu/entries"><U><B><U>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Sovereignty, because it is supreme, above and beyond anything else, is invested with the most powerful and enduring qualities that the mind can conceive. No wonder two of the founding<IMG SRC="28f6a8e60.jpg" border=0 width="168" height="230" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> fathers of international law declared unequivocally that sovereignty is "<B>permanent and irrevocable.</B>" Other words used to describe this state of supremacy are "<B>inseparable,</B>" "<B>inviolate,</B>" "<B>indivisible,</B>"  "<B>perpetual,</B>" and never ending. Jacques Maritain of Princeton University wrote that the law of sovereignty gave “<B>. . . the king . . . supreme power which was natural and inalienable, inalienable to such a degree that [even] dethroned kings and their descendants kept this right forever [or endlessly]. . . .</B>” (“The Concept of Sovereignty,” <I>The American Political Science Review</I>, vol. 44, no. 2, 1950, p. 348) Hence, the investiture of sovereignty in a person, and his or her heirs, is considered to be sacrosanct and to be perpetual, that is, to remain intact from generation to generation forever. As long as the sovereign descendant of the former ruling house does not sell or otherwise legally surrender his or her sovereign or territorial rights to reign, it never dies and is without end. It cannot expire as long as the royal family continues and has a lawful head. In other words, with this stipulation in mind, the principle of “<B>jure sanguines,</B>” by right of blood, is transferred and conferred to infinity. It is a kind of secular sacrament establishing a superior claim that is passed on to ones senior surviving posterity forever. It is called “<B>Rex Non Moritur</B>” in British Public Law.<IMG SRC="35b18c0c0.jpg" border=0 width="396" height="268" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> “<B>The glory of a legitimate monarch is enhanced [and promoted] by the glory of those around him.</B>" (Benjamin Constant. <I>Political Writings,</I> 1988, p. 91) The nobility serve as a kind of fundamental framework for the monarchy. Noble honorific titles are honors based on the sovereignty of one's King and they reflect his splendor. But a sovereign noble prince or duke over a territory or tiny country are different. They are not normally considered royal, yet they often held the right in full, and like any true monarch, his or her sovereignty had its origin in the same four basic regal prerogatives: the “<B>ius imperii;</B>” the “<B>ius gladii;</B>” the “<B>ius majestatis</B>” and the “<B>ius honorum</B><B>.</B>" </div> <bR> <div> 1. <B>Ius Imperrii</B> is the right to command and legislate,</div> <div> 2. <B>Ius Gladii</B> is the right to enforce ones commands,</div> <div> 3. <B>Ius Majestatis</B> is the right to be honored, respected and protected as a sovereign person   or monarch,</div> <div> 4. <B>Ius Honorum</B> is the right to honor and reward others.</div> <bR> <div> All the four prerogatives are inherent and incarnate in the person of the sovereign and his or her<IMG SRC="35ba576c0.jpg" border=0 width="343" height="364" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> heirs throughout their generations forever--all the way to the end of time; chiefly, because the State and the person of the sovereign, were indivisible, giving them, the reigning or "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign, the full and unmitigated rights of a sovereign state. This personification or embodiment of all power was reiterated in the <I>Law of Nations</I>. Emerich de Vattel declared that, "<B>The sovereign </B><B>thus clothed with the public authority, with every thing that constitutes the moral personality of the nation, of course</B><B> [is]</B></div> <div> <B> . . . invested with its [the nation's highest and most supreme] right.</B>" (Book I, Chapter IV, #41) A king or ruling prince may not, however, be able to use the first two rightful privileges in the present constitutional framework or if they are no longer in control of their former territories. Nevertheless, all these special rights or privileges are fixed and invariable except under certain unique circumstances which will be elaborated. </div> <bR> <div> The reason for this great authority and power is that "<B>sovereignty,</B>" derived from the French term "<B>souverain,</B>" means, by definition, a supreme ruler not accountable to anyone. The traditional and ongoing concept of sovereignty is that every nation, king or prince is supreme within its or his own rightful borders and acknowledges no master outside them. In other words, it is the distinguishing mark of the sovereign that he cannot in any way be subject to the commands of another power or force. And this regal privilege is permanent and continuing to his or her heirs or alternate rightful heirs as the case may be. </div> <bR> <div> Stephen P. Kerr, B.B.A., J.D., LL.M., M.A.T., a World Court Litigator and Special International Legal Counsel to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and a Professor of Law at Antioch University Law School in Washington, D.C., made it clear that, "<B>. . .</B><B>de jure possession of sovereignty continues so long as the de jure ruler or government does not surrender his sovereignty to the usurper.</B>" (See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>") (Johann Wolfgang Textor, <I>Synopsis<IMG SRC="360fb3250.jpg" border=0 width="179" height="293" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> Juris Gentium</I>, Chapter 10, Nos. 9-11) This was once discussed by Thomas Hobbs in the 17th Century. He stated, “<B>His [the sovereign’s] power cannot, without his consent, be transferred to another: he cannot forfeit it. . . .</B>” (Hobbes, Lev XX 2-3) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas /h68l/complete.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h"><U><B><U>http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hobbes/thomas /h68l/complete.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h"><U><B><U>/thomas/h68l/complete.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Similarly, in the second principle of the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), it states that, "<B>It is . . .  considered </B><I><B>ultra vires</B></I><B> [beyond the control] of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with Princely Dynastic Family or House Orders." </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.icocregister.org/principles.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.icocregister.org/principles.h"><U><B><U>www.icocregister.org/principles.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>)<B> </B>A subsequent government can make dynastic orders, titles or recognition illegal---they can ban whatever they want to in the present within their own territories, but the rights continue forever and can be exercised, if necessary, within the boundaries of a different jurisdiction, that is, in exile. Archbishop Hyginus E. Cardinale in his book stated:</div> <bR> <div> <B>A Sovereign in exile and his legitimate successor and Head of the Family continue to enjoy the </B><I><B>ius collationis</B></I><B> [the right to confer and enjoy honours] and therefore may</B><B><IMG SRC="2181cf6a0.jpg" border=0 width="207" height="362" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B> bestow [such] honours in full legitimacy. . . . No authority [no matter what that authority is] can deprive them of the right to confer honours, since this prerogative belongs to them as lawful personal property iure sanguinis [by right of blood], and both its possession and exercise are inviolable.</B>" (<I>Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See --- A historical, juridical and practical Compendium</I>, Van Duren Publishers, Gerrands Cross, 1983, p. 119) </div> <bR> <div> The whole point here is that these legal rights survive usurpation or any other form of legalized theft. Therefore, no usurper or subsequent government has the lawful power or authority to take away a family's inalienable royal or sovereign prerogatives; not by vote, referendum, court degree, invasion, war, revolution or uprising. Why? Because such sovereigns are not accountable to anyone inside or outside of their own lawful jurisdiction. Their rights are inalienable unless voluntarily discarded. </div> <bR> <div> For example, in a republic, it is assumed as a legal presumption that sovereignty is possessed by all individuals in a state under natural law, but the point here is, “<B>O</B><B>nce the people [have] . . . given the king and his descendants power over them. . . the natural right to govern the body politic resided henceforth in full only in the person of the king.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/jo"><U><B><U>http://libproxy.dixie.edu:2076/journals/world_politics/v053/53.2philpott.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) A referendum to throw out the monarchy and establish a republic (or an unjustified revolt) is really<IMG SRC="327f96bd0.jpg" border=0 width="150" height="189" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> nothing more than a collective act of treachery and sedition against the highest and most important power of the land. This is because sovereignty is legally the "<B>ultimate authority </B><B>held by a person or institution, against which there is no appeal.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-so"><U><B><U>www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O142-so"><U><B><U>-sovereignty.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Jean Jacques Burlamaqui (1694–1748), was one of the fathers of international law. He wrote, "<B>Whosoever therefore rises against the sovereign, or makes an attack upon his person or authority, renders himself manifestly guilty of the greatest crime, which a man can commit. . . .</B>" (Jean Jacques Burlamaqui: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>/burla</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>_2206.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) That is, it would be an act of treason and those who committed such a crime were, as individuals, traitors to king and country. This may seem radical or extreme, but kingdoms and principalities were destroyed and rightful sovereignty stolen many times by this kind of criminal, low down act. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> However, as Emerich de Vattel wrote: "<B>If the body of the nation declare that the king has forfeited his right, by the abuse he has made of it, and depose him, they may justly do it when their grievances are well founded. . . .</B>" (<I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, Chapter XII, #196) But, such cannot be done by mere political whim, or just because the people want to because it is popular or the newest fad. Unless such an action is agreed to by the king himself, it is illegal and traitorous. </div> <bR> <div> Jean Jacques Burlamaqui brought up the common sense or self-evident notion that no man is perfect, which includes the prince of the land. He said, "<B>We must indeed make some</B><IMG SRC="36ee62500.jpg" border=0 width="98" height="80" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> allowance for the weakness inseparable from humanity.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla</U></B></U></A><B><U>  </U></B><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2206.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>2206.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) No king is going to be perfect, but if the king is reasonably good, it is treachery of the worst kind to oppose him and speak evil of him. The point is, "<B>. . . the whole body of the nation, have not a right to depose the sovereign. . . ," </B>if he is basically good---popularity has nothing to do with justice and what is right.<B> </B>(Ibid.) The people just do not have this right unless the king is a genuine tyrant or truly oppressive. However, even if such a despotic king is rightfully thrown out and deprived of his throne, his heirs still have the right to rule in his place and to succeed him with all his former rights and royal prerogatives. Disposing of an evil king does not give a<IMG SRC="38ebc7d50.jpg" border=0 width="199" height="213" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> country the right to dispose of the royal family and set up a different form of government or create a new royal house. The "<B>. . . will of the people [by referendum or revolt], without the [willing, not coerced or forced] consent of the prince [the rightful monarch or his successor], cannot deprive his children. . . [or take away their lawful right to rule].</B>" (J. J. Burlamaqui: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>/burla/burla_2204.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) This right is permanent and perpetual.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Obedience to a rightful ruler or his lawful successor is a "<B>. . . </B><B>[duty, obligation or a just responsibility] of subjects [citizens of the nation] to their sovereigns . . . [ie.] the person of the sovereign should be [held] sacred and inviolable.</B>" (Jean Jacques Burlamaqui: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2205.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2205.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In fact, "<B>It is this obligation to obedience in the subjects [the citizens of the nation], that constitutes the whole force of civil society and government. . . .</B>" (Ibid.) It is fundamental to everything good and just and right in the governing of a nation, kingdom or empire.</div> <bR> <div> Jean Burlamaqui made it clear that if the king is basically good, not perfect, but basically good (we are not discussing criminal tyrants here), "<B>. . . the right of disposing of the kingdom returns to the nation</B>" only under one type of situation---only if the sovereign family that has the right to the crown, or their close relatives who also have dormant succession rights, no longer exist or no longer proclaim their right to the throne. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2203.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2203.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>/burla_2203.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Then and only then can a nation reclaim rightful sovereignty from the royal or princely family. What has happened too often in the past is theft, pure and simple<IMG SRC="2c9a2ccc0.jpg" border=0 width="300" height="204" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> of the "<B>defacto</B>" realm---the unlawful plunder of the government of a whole nation from its rightful rulers, which is an act of treason.</div> <bR> <div> In terms of these sovereign rights, the highest rights on earth, royal families have the pinnacle of power, higher and greater than anyone---higher than any subsequent legislative body to rule their former territories. Their authority is absolute and supreme as pertaining to their "<B>de jure</B>" or lost territory, whether it be a sovereign county, principality, dukedom, kingdom or empire and this is true even though it no longer exists or the boundaries have changed. </div> <bR> <div> And it does not take much to perpetuate these just and lawful rights. Professor Kerr declared that these "<B>. . . </B><B>de jure legal rights to the succession of that monarchy may be kept alive indefinitely [that is, made permanent, continual and forever] through the legal vehicle of making diplomatic protests against the usurpation</B>" or, it should be added, merely by virtue of the fact that they keep their "<B>de jure</B>"<IMG SRC="26a7845e0.jpg" border=0 width="132" height="350" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> rights alive through history showing that they are the rightful and proper heirs to the thrones, or full sovereignty, of their progenitors---the former kings and princes of the land. (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>") (See Emerich de Vattel, <I>The Law of Nations</I> or <I>Le Droit des gens</I>, Book II, Chapter II, Nos. 145-146)</div> <bR> <div> Some put too much weight into a presupposed necessity for official diplomatic protests for rights to continue. This may be true for some international recognitions, however, it is not true for authentic sovereign rights under the recognized law of nations. These special rights never end. They are permanent and never ending. For example:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Israel is the only state that was created in the last century whose legitimacy was recognized by both the League of Nations and the United Nations. The League of Nations Mandate that was issued by the victorious powers of World War I did not create the rights of the Jewish people to a national home in Palestine, but rather recognized a </B><I><B>pre-existing right,</B></I><B> for the links of the Jewish people to their historic land were well-known and accepted in the previous century by world leaders from President John Adams to Napoleon Bonaparte to British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston. . . . [</B><B>The point here is,] . . . </B><B>it was not a new claim, but rather a reassertion of a historic right that had never been conceded or forgotten.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm"><U><B><U>www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> Yet Israel never made a single genuine diplomatic protest for thousands of years. It was their history, their desires, their plight and their connectedness as a people to that land that finally or ultimately resulted in a full and complete recognition of their right to be sovereign rulers in their own historic homeland.<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Diplomatic protests only represents one type of vehicle to keep the<B><IMG SRC="35f6b44d0.jpg" border=0 width="180" height="333" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B> international community aware of one's inalienable rights. The permanency of these rights, recognized or not, are perpetual and have no end and were still enforceable after thousands of years. The obvious conclusion is that recognition can takes many forms other than a full diplomatic protest.</div> <bR> <div> The fact that they have not exercised any of their rights for generations, or even thousands of years, does not in any way take away their power, dignity or authority. But they never conceded their lands and keep up their right and hope of returning to the land of Israel every year in special ceremonies. </div> <bR> <div> International law also respects that their very survival as individuals, and as a family, may rest upon the fact that they remain quiet and hidden not attempting to use any of their inalienable rights, nor daring to attempt to keep their claims alive by pestering others who may hurt them for it. Emerich de Vattel explained that silence:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . cannot be used against a claimant who alleges just reasons for his silence, as,<IMG SRC="36617f760.jpg" border=0 width="127" height="118" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> the impossibility of speaking, or a well-founded fear, &c., because there is then no longer any room for a presumption that he has abandoned his right. </B><B>It is not his fault if people have thought themselves authorized to form such a presumption; nor ought he to suffer in consequence: he cannot therefore be debarred the liberty of clearly proving his property [or right to the kingdom].</B>" (<I>The Law of Nations </I>or <I>Le Droit des gens</I>, Book II, Chapter XI, #144) </div> <bR> <div> In other words, when any kind of threat of harm or loss is implicit, not necessarily overt, but implied by circumstance, we cannot "<B>. . . </B><B>deduce from long silence a legal presumption of abandonment.</B>" (Ibid., #148)<IMG SRC="2b9e78fd0.jpg" border=0 width="120" height="253" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> Some royal and imperial families in order to stay in the lands of their forefathers, such as, in Germany and Austria, are forced by domestic law not to use their titles officially. They must remain silent, but their history still proclaims their rights as heads of state and government, even if that little country was only a county and its rightful sovereign was merely a count. In such a case, the "<B>. . . nation has . . . [been at fault, because it] has </B><B>participated in it by a tacit approbation.</B>" (Ibid.) That is, by domestic law, the usurper denies the noble or royal house normal channels of protest. So disuse of royal rights, silence or even disappearance cannot always be construed as a renunciation of any former power or privilege, because this royal property and privilege belongs to them by "<B>jure sanguinis,</B>" by right of blood, and both its possession and exercise are inviolable and permanent if maintained. </div> <bR> <div> Having said that, sovereign rights can be lost, as stated above, and once lost, they are lost forever and cannot be retrieved. But this can only take place "<B>.</B><B> </B><B>. . </B><B>in cases of long-continued, undisputed, and uninterrupted possession</B>" by the usurper, whether that usurper was the people, as a whole, by referendum or unwarrented rebellion, or whether the usurption was perpetrated by an outside aggressor through the force of arms. Both are, by the law of nature, robbers who have unlawfully stolen the property rights of others---that is, those owned by the<IMG SRC="361cc82c0.jpg" border=0 width="200" height="300" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> ruling family. (Ibid., #149) If the disposed king and his immediate successors do not dispute the loss of their titles and lands in some recognizable fashion, evenually all claims to sovereignty die and cannot ever be resusitated or returned, because the claim is now empty and void and has no more validity than anyone elses claim---all rights reverting back to the nation and its people. By this means, claims can and do become exitinct. The point here is that it is easy to lose the right of sovereignty and it is easy to keep it. One must merely follow the rules.</div> <bR> <div> Claims can be kept alive indefinitely and in a number of important ways other than by full, official diplomatic protest. Emerich de Vattel declared, "<B>Protests answer this purpose [that is, to proclaim one's rights]. W</B><B>ith sovereigns it [the way to do so] is usual to retain the title and the arms of a sovereignty or a province, as an evidence that they do not relinquish their claims to it.</B>" (<I>Le Droit des gens</I>, Book 2, Chapter XI, Nos. 145-146) In other words, the signs that a king or sovereign prince and/or his rightful successors or heirs, have never abandon or relinquished their exclusive right to rule as lords are preserved, by keeping their titles and their arms and history alive. By doing so, these rights live forever. (Ibid.) Stephen Kerr, a world court litigator, quoted earlier declared, "<B>when appropriate, recognizing worthy individuals with knighthoods and other decorations or honors at their command</B>" further confirms their royal status as active members of the international community and as rightful heirs to their<B><IMG SRC="36cd51170.jpg" border=0 width="593" height="279" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B>former "<B>defacto</B>" thrones. ("King and Constitution in International Law," <I>The Augustan</I>, 18:4, 1977, p. 126: see: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.augustansociety.org/products/r28" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.augustansociety.org/products/"><U><B><U>www.augustan</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.augustansociety.org/products/r28" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.augustansociety.org/products/"><U><B><U>society.org</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.augustansociety.org/products/r28" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.augustansociety.org/products/"><U><B><U>/products/r28</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Such an act is equal<B> </B>to "<B>a series of competent protests [which] will keep a </B><I><B>de jure</B></I><B> claim alive indefinitely</B>" or forever. (Ibid.) Professor Kerr concluded, "<B>. . . under traditional International Law </B><I><B>de jure</B></I><B> Sovereignty survives the unlawful loss of territorial authority and continues as the legitimate government of the country concerned, retaining valid title to govern [or the right to rule]. . . .</B>" (Ibid.) Also, when a disposed king or sovereign prince, or his or her heir, permits or allows, without protest, monarchist groups to proclaim his or her rights, the implication is that he or she continues to recognize those rights. If he or she opens up a museum, writes or supports a book to keep the memory of his ancestors rule alive and well, he or she also implies that he or she is the heir to this patrimony.</div> <bR> <div> When there have been hundreds or thousands of years passed away, most often, claims of sovereignty have permanently died, because generations have failed to maintain their claim by failing to assert their rights, therefore, they lost them. The legal presumption is that by silence<IMG SRC="3669d32a0.jpg" border=0 width="211" height="298" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> they have abandoned their birthright. This did not happen to the Jews, however, because they kept up their claims to the land of Palestine generation after generation in tradition and ceremony. This is also true of many of the native peoples of the earth. They kept their distinct separateness and longing as a distinct culture. Hence, their sovereignty is still recognized. But others have irretrievably lost "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty. A good example are the ancient principalities and kingdoms of Wales. For over 700 years, the royal princely families of Gwynedd, Powys, Gwent, etc. failed to used their titles or arms or gave out knighthoods or other important honors and recognitions in the name of their former kingdoms or principalities. They did not keep track of who had hereditary rights and who didn't. There are now at least a million people who could, if accurate records were kept, be able to track their ancestors back to the original kings and princes of the various tiny, little kingdoms of Wales. All it takes is one single generation of neglect for "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty to be forever lost and to become unclaimable. The result is, the only legitimate sovereign right to rule Wales now belongs exclusively  and totally to the British monarchy, who are proven descendants of the original rulers of Wales. Emerich de Vattel, one of the fathers of international law wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <I><B>. . . Immemorial</B></I><B> prescription [long possession of a territory without a "de jure" claimant] secures the possessor's right [the current "defacto" sovereign’s right to rule without question] beyond the power of [ loss or legitimate</B><IMG SRC="36686f160.jpg" border=0 width="367" height="278" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> challenge] . . . for, it affords a legal presumption that he [the current ruling government] is the [true and rightful] proprietor, as long as the adverse party [the "de jure" claimant] fails to adduce substantial reasons [or adequate evidence of protest] in support of his claim: and, indeed, [how could such] . . . be derived, since the origin [all proof] of the possession is lost in the obscurity [or uncertainty of the distant past and no longer exists] . . . [that is, all] means of proving [it valid has been] . . . destroyed by time. . . . Immemorial possession [possessing a kingdom for a long, uncontested, undisputed period of time—hundreds or thousands of years], therefore, is [or creates] an irrefragable title [in other words, sovereign ownership that is impossible to refute or is indisputable], and immemorial prescription admits of no exception: both are founded on a presumption which the law of nature directs us to receive as an incontestable truth [truth that cannot be impeached]. </B>(<I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, #143)</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="442c89a50.jpg" border=0 width="137" height="165" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Therefore, it is set in concrete of the hardest kind and cannot come back to life, because providing proof that each generation maintained their claim, their titles, their rights is impossible in most cases for hundreds and hundreds of years have past away and the proof does not exist. </div> <bR> <div> If international law was applied to the MacCarthy Mór<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>debacle, as it should have been, the imposter could not have gotten to first base, because genealogy is not sufficient to create a claim to "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty or the full rights of a government in exile. All genealogy proves, if it is accurate, is that one is an equal descendant along with hundreds and thousands of others of a once royal house. It does not give one legitimacy as the true and rightful rulers of one's nation or country. The so-called MacCathy Mór (before proving beyond reasonable doubt that all the generations never abandoned their birthright, or in other words, used their titles, etc. as required for recognition) immediately began to act as thought he had the right of a sovereign or a rightful<IMG SRC="366c20d50.jpg" border=0 width="288" height="213" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> government in exile, which was against the conventions of international law and justice. Therefore, his claim was totally empty on this basis not to mention that his genealogy was phony and he was proven to be a true imposter and a charlatan. </div> <bR> <div> But just as sure as sovereignty can be irretrievably lost in the silence and obscurity of the past, it can also be easily kept and maintained as a perpetual birthright from one generation to the next. The requirements are not difficult, but must be maintained to keep it perpetually alive and well from generation to generation. </div> <bR> <div> In fact, "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty still continues to be acknowledged as permanent and real, even though restoration will probably never be realized or enjoyed. Dr. Erica-Irene A. Daes, in a talk on the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination and to control their own natural resources on June 3, 2004, stated, "<B>The United Nations has adopted more than 80 resolutions relating to permanent sovereignty. . . .</B>" even if that sovereignty was under a greater sovereignty or protectorate. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/social_justice/natural_resources.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/social_"><U><B><U>www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/social</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/social_justice/natural_resources.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/social_"><U><B><U>_justice/natural_resources.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) These resolutions recognized that these rights have no end. They are never in abeyance or<IMG SRC="2ebca48d0.jpg" border=0 width="164" height="141" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> lapse. They go on forever as long as each successor or rightful heir publicly proclaims their royal prerogatives in the prescribed way, which means they can prove that they have never properly abandoned it. </FONT></div> <bR> <div> This important principle is relevant and far-reaching to all who can rightfully claim these ancient honors. Because the right is never lost, if it is maintained. It does not matter if it refers to the Aborigines of Australia, Native Americans or, to our case in point, the former high kings and princes of the earth and their rightful heirs. All of these groups were illegally disposed, ruined or barred from their full and lawful right to govern and enjoy the fruits and privileges of their own lands. It was a miscarriage of justice that thwarted them, but, at least, what is morally and ethically "<B>right</B>" and "<B>just</B>" still continues to be validated and upheld in law.</div> <bR> <div> Dr. Kerr adds:<IMG SRC="3088e7e90.jpg" border=0 width="231" height="233" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>. . . de jure </B></I><B>Sovereignty represents the moral principle that "might does not make right," it is [therefore] entitled to [full] recognition by other sovereigns [and all nations and all people] adhering to the moral [and ethical] principles implicit in International Law.</B> (Ibid.) </div> <bR> <div> <B>However, like most rules [or glorious standards] this [one] is usually observed in its breach [that is, in an unrealized form, such as, a broken promise] . . . in modern law. It is nevertheless, recognized as the Ideal [or what is both morally and ethically just and true].</B> (Ibid., p. 125)</div> <bR> <div> "<B>.</B><B> </B><B>. . [Modern] international law does not require other states to recognize a state which is not reliably in control of its own territory [like a "de jure" principality or kingdom].</B>" (Jeremy Rabkin, "Recalling the Case for Sovereignty" <I>Chicago Journal of International Law</I>, January 1 2005, pp. 2-3) The point is, international law no longer does much to protect "<B>the sovereign's </B><B>sovereignty</B>" on a practical basis, rather it tends to protect "<B>popular sovereignty</B>" even though it doesn't really exist except in theory. (Georg Nolte, Brad R. Roth,<B><IMG SRC="3d77f0400.jpg" border=0 width="240" height="320" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B> Helen Stacy and Gregory H. Fox, "Sovereignty: Essential, Variegated, Or Irrelevant?," American Society of International Law: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, January 1, 2005) (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000CC" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="#popular_sovereignty" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Myth of Popular Sovereignty and The Rule of Law</B></U></A></FONT>") Hence, "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty is rarely ever taken very seriously. </div> <bR> <div> <B>Any government, whether </B><B>in</B><B> </B><B>exile</B><B> or not, matters mainly when it is recognised by real </B><B>governments</B><B> </B><B>in</B><B> real countries. The last time that exiled </B><B>governments</B><B> really mattered </B><B>in</B><B> world politics was during the second world war, when the rightful rulers of Nazi-occupied countries such as Czechoslovakia, France, the Netherlands and so forth squatted </B><B>in</B><B> London until they could be restored to power. </B>("Home thoughts from abroad - Governments in exile," <I>The Economist</I>, December 22, 2001)</div> <bR> <div> Nevertheless, such governments in exile, whether former monarchies or republics, are legally recognized in law. The principles are correct---the rights are real and are acknowledged as being what is truly fair and lawful on an international level. But full diplomatic recognition is typically unlikely and unprobable.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Abdications, Renunciations and Annexations</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="annexations"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B><IMG SRC="2962e3290.jpg" border=0 width="227" height="297" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> Since both "<B>de jure</B>" as well as reigning monarchs and their successors are subjects of "<B>public international law,</B>" the law of nations has competent jurisdiction and impacts their disposition. (See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>") As far as renunciations go, it is important to understand that an abdication only relinquishes one’s own personal rights. All royal prerogatives, without exception are, in such a case, transferred to the person next in line to the throne of that particular territory. Hugo Grotius declared, in such a case that the father's abdication: </div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . </B><B>cannot hurt his Children who are already born, because as soon as . . . the Children are come into the World, they acquire a Right of their own by Law. . . . </B><B>The Difference between the Children born before the Abdication, and those who were born after, is this, those who were born after had not then acquired their Right; and therefore it [all regal rights to succession] might be taken from them [because they do not receive any proper right by birth] . . . .</B>" (<I>The Rights of War and Peace</I>, Book II, XXVI, p. 242)<IMG SRC="35edf81b0.gif" border=0 width="248" height="283" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </div> <bR> <div> Abdication, therefore, does not dissolve the monarchy or dissolve a sovereign kingdom, principality, dukedom or county. It merely passes all rights and privileges to the person next in line of succession. </div> <bR> <div> However, a distinction needs to be made between an <B>abdication</B> and a total and irrevocable "<B>dynastic renunciation</B>." A normal abdication (or renunciation) only impacts the person himself---not his children, because, and this is important, no "<B>. . . [regular] abdication, renunciation, or surrender [can] be valid [or impact the whole royal household] without the free [will acceptance and] consent of the prince royal and the other princes of his family both in the direct and collateral branches.</B>" (George L. Craik & Charles MacFarlane, <I>The Pictorial History of England During the Reign of George the Third, </I>Volumn IV, 1864, p. 522) However, a "<B>dynastic renunciation</B>" and "<B>cession</B>" forever destroys the rights of any afterborn children. Professor Kerr declares that "<B>. . . dynastic renunciations </B><B>irrevocably cuts off all the rights to any eventual succession of [the person who makes it, plus] all after-born descendants of the person making the</B><IMG SRC="3278dcb40.gif" border=0 width="220" height="180" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> renunciation.</B>" Such a loss "<B>. . . </B><B>cannot later be unilaterally terminated or withdrawn.</B>"<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>It is, in effect, written in stone and cannot be changed or corrected. (See: Stephen Kerr, "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>")(See also Hugo Grotius, <B><U>De jure belli ac pacis libri tres</U></B>, Book II, Chapter VII, No 26, and Book II, Chapter IV, No. 10. See also Emerich Vattel, <B><U>Le droit des gens</U></B>, Book I, Chapter V, No. 62. See also Lord McNair, <B><U>Law of Treaties</U></B> (1961), pp. 256-259, 512, 704-713. Morjorie M. Whitman, <B><U>Digest of International Law</U></B>, Vol. 14, pp. 413-415 and Articles 56 and 70.1(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) </div> <bR> <div> Nevertheless, such a far-reaching renunciation cannot destroy the rights of a living heir without his or her consent, unless such an individual just goes along with it without officially, usually in writing, voices his or her firm and irrevocable opposition to it. Dr. Kerr expressed it this way:</div> <bR> <div> <B>When one so dynastically disinherited fails to protest [in his or her lifetime] against</B><IMG SRC="35e6c5100.jpg" border=0 width="197" height="272" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> such "testaments" or "will" [the renunciation made for and in behalf of him or her by a monarch] , a prescription in public international law arises against any later questioning of such international 'acts' by his [or her, that is, the monarch's] descendants [or offspring]. </B>(See Emerich Vattel, <I>Le Droit des gens</I>, Book II, Chapter II, Nos. 145-146. See Article 45 and Article 31.3(a) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties) (See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <div> <B>Dynastic renunciations</B> are made when a royal person who has succession rights in one kingdom marries a royal heir to the throne of another. These renunciations are designed to keep kingdoms from taking over other kingdoms through marriage. For example, if the Crown Prince of Spain anciently, when this law began, married a princess in line to the throne of Portugal, according to this law, the Princess would have to renounce all succession rights to Portugal for herself and her posterity to perpetuity, and she would then be incorporated into the Kingdom of Spain as a royal princess of Spain. If such was not done, it is conceivable that the Crown Prince of Spain, in this example, could become the King of Spain and his Queen could become the rightful monarch of Portugal. Their offspring would then rule a united kingdom<IMG SRC="36131baa0.jpg" border=0 width="283" height="426" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> composed of both Spain and Portugal. To prevent such, dynastic renunciations were created and used many times as a precaution to safeguard the integrity of nations, kingdoms and empires. (See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>" for a number of examples of the use of this international law)</div> <bR> <div> The <B>ceding</B> of sovereignty is, however, the most powerful of all renunciations. If a king, prince or sultan cedes their sovereignty away to another country or person and the living children do not immediately reject such in an unmistakeable way by an obvious and verifiable protest, the loss is permanent, because their lack of protest at the time of the formal cession is considered or legally presumed to be an abandonment of all rights. A subsequent  protest by a once prince royal cannot change it or overide the forfeiture unless there were provable mitigating circumstances like an absence or sickness which prevented immediate action against the formal documenton of cession.     </div> <bR> <div> It is also important to note that any abdication or similar document, such as, a renunciation or cession completed under a substantial threat of some kind, whether by forced surrender, theft, undue influence or duress, is considered illegal in international law, and therefore is empty or of no effect. In modern terms reflecting what was considered just in law, the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties in 1969 expressed that, "<B>A treaty [abdication or renunciation] is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force or violations of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.</B>" (supra note 12, at art. 52) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH538.txt" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH"><U><B><U>http://fletcher.tufts.edu /multi/texts/BH538.txt</U></B></U></A></FONT>) As an example, Professor Boyle, an international litigator, wrote that, "<B>She [the Queen of Hawaii in the 1800's] made it very clear that . . . her . . . abdication was procured under duress and force. In other words, it could not be treated by anyone as a valid surrender of sovereignty . . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.ht"><U><B><U>www.hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Like any abdication by coercion, "<B>The </B><B><U>forced</U></B><B> abdication of [King] James II  [of England, for example, or any other rightful ruler for that matter] was strictly . . . illegal [and therefore invalid]</B>" (Statement in Parliament March 24, 2004) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040324/halltext/40324h05.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa"><U><B><U>www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040324</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040324/halltext/40324h05.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa"><U><B><U>/halltext/40324h05.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="3602c1160.jpg" border=0 width="193" height="278" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Forced agreements or abdications by compulsion have been recognized for a long time as not being morally or ethically right both in private and public law. For example, before he died, the last Emperor of Austria, Karl Franz Josef stated emphatically: “<B>I declare that the November Manifest [dispossessing him and setting up a republic] is null and void because it was </B><B>forced</B><B>. No man can deny, nor take away the fact, that I am the Crowned King of Hungary.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.emperorcharles.org/Polish/novena.shtml" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.emperorcharles.org/Polish/nov"><U><B><U>www.emperorcharles.org/Polish/novena.shtml</U></B></U></A></FONT>) "<B>A right,</B>" according to a former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, "<B>is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/rights_t001.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/ri"><U><B><U>www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/rights_t001.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Emperor Karl Franz Josef and his heirs will own this ancient right forever as long as they continue to exist as a family with successors. Modern laws making royal, imperial and noble titles illegal, as in Austria, does not, and cannot, take away or rob the Hapsburg family of their titles or the “<B>de jure</B>” rights that they own, provided, of course, they never sold or lawfully gave them away.</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="357473930.jpg" border=0 width="115" height="147" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">One very prominent man did give up some of his rights in 1961, the present head of the Imperial Hapsburg family, who is now in his nineties, but the forfeiture was a political fiction, illegal and forced because he was otherwise exiled for the rest of his life from his fatherland. Just a few short years later in 1963 recognizing how unjust such an action was and is, the European Convention on Human Rights in Article 3 of Protocol 4 stated unequivically that: "<B>No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#P4.Art3" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#P4.A"><U><B><U>www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#P4.Art3</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Under such unlawful and unreasonable circumstances, this forced renunciation, of the head of the Imperial House of Austria, was considered completely null and void and the whole Imperial family and other European houses knew it was of no effect. The terms were harsh, unjust and made under undue influence. Most nations, and international law, now recognize and support the contention that "<B>any agreement [whether abdication, renunciation or cession] signed under duress is void [or has no legal force, power or efficacy].</B>" (Article 52 of the Vienna Conventions of the Law of Treaties) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/occupied.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/occu"><U><B><U>www.tibetjustice.org/reports/occupied.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> It is also considered beyond the authority of any subsequent domestic political power to strip a former<IMG SRC="3570aa710.jpg" border=0 width="170" height="113" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> sovereign’s “<B>de jure,</B>” and therefore, "<B>dormant</B>" ruling rights, to ennoble or otherwise honor others, or set up a government in exile, or make rightful claims or protests if he has a desire or a disposition to do so. In other words, the ancient rights of these former territories remain intact or “<B>de jure,</B>” fully vested in the monarch and his heirs to the end of time whether they are regnant, or not. </div> <bR> <div> This important principle in international law, as stated before, allowed Israel to be restored to its ancient borders in 1946 after thousands of years, and, as also noted, it sanctioned the restoration of the ruling dynasty of Kuwait to regain their sovereign right to govern their own country after the first Gulf War, because in both situations, the people as a whole, or the royal successor in particular, were illegally and unlawfully dispossessed. That is, in moderns terms,<IMG SRC="9f35a7c0.jpg" border=0 width="90" height="124" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> "<B>forceful annexations [or takeovers] are in violation of international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits annexation [or an overthrow] by force</B><B>.</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/occupied.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/occu"><U><B><U>www.tibetjustice.org/reports/occupied.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Jean J. Burlamaqui wrote in 1751 that when a “<B>lawful monarch</B>” is unjustly disposed, those in power, in such a case, are morally “<B>obliged to restore the crown to the right owner, or to his heirs. . . .</B>”  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2203.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2203.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This rarely happens, but it is ethically and morally right as well as being lawful, fair, just and proper to restore stolen property back to its rightful owners. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Tiny  Sovereign Nations</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="nations"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><IMG SRC="4454b9c40.jpg" border=0 width="185" height="196" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></FONT></div> <bR> <div> After the Thirty Years War in 1648, the Imperial States of the loosely connected Holy Roman Empire became virtually sovereign. In fact, </div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . O</B><B>ne of the principal things he [the Emperor] promiseth in his Oath, is, </B><B>That he will save to every of the States their Rights and Priviledges, and disturb none of them in the exercise thereof.</B><B> And this is one of those </B><B>Rights</B><B> in which the Princes and States of </B><B>Germany</B><B> take the greatest Pride; </B><B>That every one of them can govern their own proper Subjects, according to his own will, or to the Compacts he has made with them.</B><B> See the 3, 7, 8, & 9. </B><B>Artic. Capitul. Leopold. </B>(Samuel von Pufendorf, "<I>The Present State of Germany,"</I> 1696: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt &staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1890&chapter=110053&layout=html&Itemid=27" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_s"><U><B><U>http://oll.libertyfund.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt &staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1890&chapter=110053&layout=html&Itemid=27" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_s"><U><B><U>/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1890&chapter</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt &staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1890&chapter=110053&layout=html&Itemid=27" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_s"><U><B><U>=110053&layout=html&Itemid=27</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Then later, they became actual or true independent nations in 1806 when the empire fell.<IMG SRC="445790900.jpg" border=0 width="400" height="400" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> Francis II, as Emperor, released all the Imperial States from their oath of allegiance to the Empire at that time. And the Electors, the highest princes of the Empire, the only ones with authority to set things up again, never attempted to re-establish the first Reich. In fact, only one protested the action, not enough to make the dissolution illegal. At this point, each state became a free and independent country with no authority above their own. That is, "<B>t</B><B>he dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire meant that anyone who was previously a direct vassal of the Emperor without any intermediary (in other words, was unmittelbar or 'immediate'</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>) </B></FONT><B>became ipso facto [by that very fact] sovereign</B><B>.</B>" In other words, they "<B>ceased to be subject to any superior authority.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/mediatization.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/"><U><B><U>www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/mediatization.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/"><U><B><U>/mediatization.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>)<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>No wonder, the French ambassador to the Imperial Reichstag in July of 1806 issued a note stating that each state was thus a full and independent nation of Europe. He stated emphatically that Napoleon as Emperor and King recognized<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="verdana" > </FONT>"<B>the complete and absolute sovereignty of each of the princes</B><B> </B><B>[and the idea of] . . . maintaining with them the same</B><IMG SRC="4453815f0.jpg" border=0 width="129" height="95" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> relations as with the other independent [sovereign nations or] powers of Europe.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/516" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/"><U><B><U>http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/516</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This self-determination given in the person of their rulers, was later confirmed by the Confederation of the Rhine showing historical and legal precedence. This act made the special title of "<B>prince</B><B>,</B>" the most commonly used title for a monarch, or sovereign ruler, in all of Europe. The archaic definition of "<B>prince</B>" is "<B>any male monarch; esp., a king.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.yourdictionary.com/prince" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.yourdictionary.com/prince"><U><B><U>www.yourdictionary.com/prince</U></B></U></A></FONT>) "<B>Prince</B>" also means one of "<B>highest station</B>" above all others. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principality" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/p"><U><B><U>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principality</U></B></U></A></FONT>) "<B>Principality</B>" by definition is "<B>predominance,</B>" "<B>supreme power,</B>" "<B>superiority,</B>" "<B>the position or authority of a prince or chief ruler.</B>" It is the equivalent or synonymous to "<B>sovereignty</B>" or "<B>one invested with sovereignty</B>" or legal authority. (Ibid.) "<B>A </B><B>principality</B><B> (or </B><B>princedom</B><B>) is a</B><IMG SRC="38c1d9ea0.gif" border=0 width="217" height="234" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> </B><B>monarchical</B><B> feudatory or </B><B>sovereign state</B><B>, ruled or reigned over by a monarch with the title of </B><B>prince</B><B> </B><B>or princess. . . .</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principalit"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Peter Haidu in his extensive study of the Medieval ages wrote that, "<B>Within determined territories, princes acted like kings in their own realms. Their principalities were 'statelets.</B>'" (<I>The Subject Medieval/modern: Text and Governance in the Middle Ages, </I>2004, p. 160) A "<B>statelet</B>" is "<B>a small state, especially one resulting from the dissolution of a larger state</B>"---like the Holy Roman Empire.  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statelet" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s"><U><B><U>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statelet</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Small states have perfect equal sovereignty or the same rights and legal privileges as the big states. This is well-established in law, which is why forced or coerced mediatization was illegal and therefore invalid and wrong. (See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="#equality" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U>Sovereign Equality</U></A></FONT>" below)</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>Sovereignty and Mediatization</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="mediatization_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="304ac8c60.jpg" border=0 width="200" height="198" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B> </B></div> <bR> <div> The “<B>mediatized</B>” sovereign princes, who were illegally taken over or gobbled up by more powerful political forces, between 1806 to 1813, were recognized under the German Federal Act of the Congress of Vienna<B> </B>in 1815 as having the “<B>enjoyment of the same privileges of birthright as sovereign houses. . . .</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de06-66/bundesakte15-i.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de06-66/bu"><U><B><U>www.verfassungen.de/de</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de06-66/bundesakte15-i.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de06-66/bu"><U><B><U>/de06-66/bundesakte15-i.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) However, even though they "<B>. . . were counted among the highest nobility with the right of equality with the reigning houses. . . . [this]</B>  <B>denoted nothing more than social status within and among these countries.  </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/mediatizedhousesarticle.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/med"><U><B><U>http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/mediatizedhousesarticle.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This act of theft---stealing the "<B>de facto</B>" right to rule their own territories from the smaller territories was no more legitimate or legal than robbery is a lawful way to become rich. It was a crime perpetrated against them. The point is, according to international law "<B>a ruler who is deprived of the actual control of his/or her country by either an invader or by revolutionaries<IMG SRC="bef75890.jpg" border=0 width="117" height="137" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> nevertheless remains the legitimate </B><I><B>de jure </B></I><B>sovereign of his country and people, while the </B><I><B>de facto</B></I><B> government set up by the invader or revolutionaries is considered as an usurper, both constitutionally and internationally.</B>" (paraphrazed from Hugo Grotius, <I>De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Libri Tres, </I>Book I, Chapter 4, Nos. 15-19) Being the embodiment of a government in exile, these “<B>mediatized</B>” counts, dukes and princes, holding all sovereignty rights and prerogatives independent and without limit, made the head of these families absolute and total sovereigns on a “<B>de jure</B>” basis over their ancient territories---even though they were illegally placed under the thumb of some new power that had unlawfully subjugated them. The point being, they held sovereignty at some point and this hereditary entitlement cannot be taken away from them and their rightful posterity even if they are crushed and defeated. Both the mediatized and non-mediatized princes, etc. still hold all their regal "<B>de<IMG SRC="4393a7010.jpg" border=0 width="167" height="257" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> jure</B>" prerogatives as regal families of Europe, no matter whether they were "<B>mediatized</B>" or not. The only difference between the two is that one lost "<B>de facto</B>" sovereignty before the others. Both are equally sovereign.</div> <bR> <div> It is important to understand the concept that whether a king, sovereign prince or his heirs are later temporarily limited by a constitution under duress, as in Great Britain, once a sovereign government or people confer true sovereignty upon a man and his heirs, and it is not sold or permanently surrendered in some legitimate way to someone else, it is their lawful family possession forever. (See the subchapter: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="#constitution" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U>The King and the Constitution</U></A></FONT>") It doesn't matter whether such a person is ousted by a referendum or war, or they are “<B>mediatized,</B>” he and his heirs still retain all their original sovereign rights and privileges. Professor Kerr makes it clear that "<B>under the doctrines of public international law a ruler who is deprived of the government of his country by either an invader or revolutionaries [in other words by any kind of duress] remains the legitimate de jure Sovereign of that Country . . . .</B>" (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>")<IMG SRC="400c8faa0.gif" border=0 width="143" height="170" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> The once great Holy Roman Empire was lost forever according to the ancient laws and can never be reinstated for two reasons: (1) the Elector Princes failed to elect a new Emperor and perpetuate the Empire even when the dangers of the times were past, and (2) because the Holy Roman Empire's original sovereignty, its supreme rights and powers, was given to the Second Reich by the great majority of its former constituent states, who now had the right of full independent nations. In other words, the sovereign monarchs consisting of the ruling counts, princes, dukes and kings of these tiny and larger independent nations used their lawful powers and sovereign rights and privileges to establish the new empire. This was all done in full accord with the law of nations. Hence, the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern, the hereditary Imperial Family of Germany, still holds limited, inactive or dormant constitutional rights<IMG SRC="412d22c50.jpg" border=0 width="546" height="453" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> over all the sovereign "<B>de jure</B>" kings and princes that formerly made up the Second Reich and, therefore, most that belonged to the First Reich or Empire. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constituti"><U><B><U>http://en.wikisource</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constituti"><U><B><U>.org/wiki/Constitution</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constituti"><U><B><U>_of_the_German_Empire</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> This, of course, does not include or generally apply to the mediatized or illegally conquered sovereign lands, like the Kingdom of Hanover and some others, who never willingly gave their sovereignty up, but were unlawfully forced or coerced into submission. And since the German Empire is not a "<B>defacto</B>" or a reigning government or nation, the "<B>de jure</B>" sovereigns (the counts, princes, dukes and kings) that made up this confederation are free and independent kingdoms and are therefore separate governments-in-exile. Their oath of allegiance is presently inactive. (See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="#constitution" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The King and the Constitution</B></U></A></FONT>" below)</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="444dc23d0.jpg" border=0 width="450" height="317" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">It is important to understand that sovereignty is both indivisible and divisible depending on the type of sovereignty that is being discussed. In its "<B>de jure</B>" or legal form, whether reigning or non-regnant, it is absolute and cannot be broken up or divided, but "<B>defacto</B>" or actual sovereignty has always been divisible throughout the history of mankind. For example, the concept or principle of division of powers critically needed for a constitutional monarchy to exist with checks and balances creates a sharp division between the legislative, judicial and executive branches who all share some "<B>defacto</B>" sovereign rights. Nevertheless, in this and all other situations, the sovereign, king or monarch is still the personification and embodiment of all rightful power in the nation. Joseph-Mari, Count de Maistre (1753-1821), a well-known jurist and philosopher, wrote, "<B>The king [or ruling prince] is sovereign; no one can share ["de jure"] sovereignty with him, and all powers emanate from him. . . .</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://maistre.ath.cx:8000/sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://maistre.ath.cx:8000/sovereignty.h"><U><B><U>http://maistre.ath.cx:8000</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://maistre.ath.cx:8000/sovereignty.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://maistre.ath.cx:8000/sovereignty.h"><U><B><U>/sovereignty.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) He or she is the the legal and rightful ruler and thus possesses all the ultimate powers of the government. Whether reigning or not, under a constitution, or in exile, he is sovereign---the supreme holder of all royal governing rights above all other "<B>defacto</B>" governmental authorities or representative bodies in the nation. (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="#royalty_1" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>Sovereignty and Royalty</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Permanent Rights</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="rights_2"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B><IMG SRC="4008e03f0.jpg" border=0 width="224" height="319" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B>Jean J. Burlamaqui, one of the great philosophers in international law wrote, "<B>Every [sovereign has] a right to succeed in his rank, and transmits this right to his descendants, . . . though he has never reigned himself, that is to say, the right of the deceased passes to the living</B>" over and over again from one generation to another down through the long corridors of time endlessly and perpetually, as long as there is a living heir. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org /burla/burla_2203.txt" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org /burla/burla"><U><B><U>www.constitution</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org /burla/burla_2203.txt" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org /burla/burla"><U><B><U>.org/burla/burla_2203.txt</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Commenting on this permanent privilege Hugo Grotius quoted Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (39 to 65 AD)--an expression of Lucan's as applicable. He wrote, "<B>order never loses its rights under any change of circumstances.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3 /grotius/Law2.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3l"><U><B><U>http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/grotius</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3 /grotius/Law2.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3l"><U><B><U>/Law2.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) That is, once the right is given, it cannot be taken away. It is inalienable and permanent. It cannot be surrendered or transferred to another except on a completely voluntary basis. And it cannot be lost, that is, "<B>if the proprietor [the one who owns the right of sovereignty] has not neglected his right.</B>" (Emirich de Vattel, <I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, #142) In other words, the rightful dispossessed ruler or his heir uses and proclaims his regal rights, honors and privileges in a way that no one can thinks or can even suggest that he has renounced them, there is no lose. But to retain rights "<B>. . . </B><B>imposes on him an obligation to make known his rights, that others may not be led into error [or misinterpret the claim of sovereignty]. . . ." </B>(Ibid., #141) If the rightful pretender and his successors continue to do this, then, by virtue of the law of nations, their claim is well "<B>grounded,</B>" incontestible and written in granite or stone. It cannot end so long as time shall last.</div> <bR> <div> The <I>Almanach de Bruxelles</I> wrote on their <I>Website of Dynasties out of Europe</I>, "<B>The princely hereditary status of the members of . . . former sovereign families is an essential individual right, like the surnames or the first names, that can not be removed, even by</B><IMG SRC="2eafabe60.jpg" border=0 width="171" height="230" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> the national law.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.almanach.be/about" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.almanach.be/about"><U><B><U>www.</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://www.almanach.be/about" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.almanach.be/about"><U><B><U>almanach</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://www.almanach.be/about" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.almanach.be/about"><U><B><U>.be</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://www.almanach.be/about" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.almanach.be/about"><U><B><U>/about</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Again, the point is, no entity on earth, no government, can legally or lawfully steal what it does not own or never created. All a current government can do is legislate the present. They cannot change the past. A prince's rights to title, ancient claims, their history and traditions and former power to honor others or rule cannot be legislated away in the present. The current government can thwart and curtail what a regnant or "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign can do within the borders of their country, but those ancient past rights do not belong to anyone, but to them exclusively and to their lawful heirs. That is, in the words of Hugo Grotius, “<B>. . . the successor has a right to all the privileges and prerogatives that his ancestors enjoyed. . . .</B>” including full sovereignty. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110/LawOfWarPeace/HTMLs /0138_Pt02_Book1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius"><U><B><U>http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius0110/LawOfWarPeace/HTMLs /0138_Pt02_Book1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Grotius"><U><B><U>/LawOfWarPeace/HTMLs/0138_Pt02_Book1.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Although not an international court, the following legal conclusion reflects a knowledge of<IMG SRC="3c3a9bbd0.jpg" border=0 width="155" height="189" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> perpetual sovereignty. The learned Italian judge officially recognized that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Among those rights [of a former ruling house inherited by the successors is] the faculty to ennoble, to grant and confirm coats of arms, to bestow titles drawn from places over which their ancestors had exercised their sovereign powers, and also the right to found, re-establish, reform and exercise the Grand Magistracy of the Orders of Chivalry conferred by their family, which may be handed down from father to son as an irrepressible [or unending] birthright.</B>" (The United Court of Bari, The Republic of Italy, Sig. Dr. Giovanni de Gioca, March 13, 1952: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.mocterranordica.org/BariEng.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.mocterranordica.org/BariEng.p"><U><B><U>www.mocterranordica.org/BariEng.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> The law was that, "<B>The monarch and his legitimate heirs being, by divine right, entitled to the sovereignty, cannot forfeit that right by any misconduct, or any period of dispossession.</B>" (<I>Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia</I>, p. 1760) It is permanently theirs provided, of course, that they continue to use and claim their titles, their rightful sovereign arms and, perhaps, continue to honor worthy others in the name of their ancienty territories. These are the most basic requirements to keep and maintain one's "<B>de jure</B>" rule forever. If any generation fails to uphold these claims, their posterity become commoners and all is lost from that time on. They cannot be reclaimed once lost.<IMG SRC="411111010.jpg" border=0 width="529" height="257" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">  </div> <bR> <div> Of course, such a person possessing these supreme rights, which are higher than any other known on earth would be advised to rule in exile with great caution, good judgment and discretion. It would not be smart or intelligent to lose the respect or support of one's countrymen. In fact, the unreasonable, imprudent exercise of a lawful right can be considered reprehensible or "<B>the abuse of a right</B>" and can therefore have terrible legal consequences. Common sense as well as legal philosophy and practice tells us loud and clear that governments in exile simply cannot exercise all their legal rights while on a "<B>de jure</B>" or restricted basis. (Michael Byers, "Abuse of rights: an old principle, a new age," <I>McGill Law Journal</I>, February 1, 2002) Some good examples of healthy leadership are as follows.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Exiled Sovereign: </B><B>Tibet</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="tibet"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B><IMG SRC="3c86ada80.jpg" border=0 width="173" height="168" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT>The rightful government of Tibet, for example, was ruthlessly occupied in violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter in the 1950's ending in the saddest chapters ever in Tibetan history with the slaughter of<IMG SRC="41313f2e0.jpg" border=0 width="319" height="302" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> 1.2 million people. The use of violence and force to conquer any sovereign nation is in full contradiction of international law, therefore, this annexation can never acquire "<B>true</B>" title to this ancient land and its people. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibetan, as the "<B>de jure</B>" disposed monarch of this great land, created a new constitution in 1963 for his country. He may never achieve actual sovereignty again, but he is the rightful ruler of his people and his government, in exile, not bound or hindered by any previous laws or constitution, and as a free-agent, has created a democratic legislature, judiciary, executive ministers and laws appropriate to it. It is now named the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. About 100,000 exiled Tibetan people are a part of it. They are located in the north Indian hill station of Mussoorie, India. </div> <bR> <div> In the 1980's, a<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>European court also being the Court of Appeal in Paris affirmed, validated and hpheld the legality of governments-in-exile. The court ruled, and this is important, that "<B>. . . a</B><IMG SRC="4229ce8d0.jpg" border=0 width="206" height="141" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> government in exile does not lose its rights to make appointments and to award Orders or commissions, to maintain its authority as far as can be done, and to pass on its legality under international law to successive heads-of-state.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/PIRB.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanisl"><U><B><U>www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/PIRB.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) This court has international jurisdiction and it reflects international opinion on the permanent continuance of rightful or "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty.   </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Exiled Sovereigns: </B><B>The Maharajas and Princes of India</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="india"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> In India in 1971, about 560 sovereign princes (maharajas--great kings, rajahs--kings, etc.) ruled<IMG SRC="4228ce570.jpg" border=0 width="206" height="343" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> over 2/5th or a substantial part of that nation. Some of their royal dynasties had lasted over a thousand years. Then in 1971 a vengeful Indira Gandhi stripped them of the pensions they had negotiated as the price for their joining India in 1947. At that time, each prince was illegally and unlawfully plundered of their titles and sovereign kingdoms by the national government. In other words, rights that politicians give, such as promising them the right to maintain sovereignty as a part of India, can be taken away by an act of theft, but rights that are inalienable are permanent, such as "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty. This could not be taken from them, despite the fact that they can no longer legally exercise that right. </div> <bR> <div> Hugo Grotius writing about such rights in international law, made it clear that,“<B>Contracts, or promises [in this case the promise of continued recognition as rulers] obtained by fraud, violence or undue fear [perpetrated by a government or some other unlawful force] entitle the injured party to full restitution.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_217.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_217"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/gro</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_217.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_217"><U><B><U>/djbp_217.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) In this case, to the robbed princes, the full return of their principalities and kingdoms.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> In other words, the current country could not rightfully or legitimately take away their royal<IMG SRC="27f2ce70.jpg" border=0 width="300" height="231" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">birthright nor their heritage of centuries of rule. But they could and did disown them. Nevertheless, many are now legally recovering much of their confiscated property and entering politics where centuries of deference has in some cases given them over 90% of the votes. Some have become business giants, others have crumbled into abject poverty pedaling rickshaws, but they still maintain their royal status and ancient “<B>de jure</B>” rights despite an ungrateful government that has robbed them. Obviously, governments, like people, can be immoral and unethical, and commit crimes, which in this case, was to wrongfully cheat these princes out of their lawful patrimony. The people, though, in general still revere and honor them. They are regularly called by their royal titles and looked up to as prominent and unusually important people.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>Exiled Sovereignty: Ethiopia and other Great Examples</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="examples"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="34a2b6cc0.gif" border=0 width="182" height="204" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> The Crown Council of the Empire of Ethiopia is a good example of an authentic “de jure” Imperial organization trying to promote the good of their country. This council has given out scholarships to worthy students who have excelled scholastically and otherwise.  And have meet with high governmental officials and have so impressed many of them that it has been urged in sessions of the United States Senate that this monarchy be restored. His Imperial Highness Prince Ermias, the President of this Council, is receiving honors and giving speeches. </div> <bR> <div> Certainly the exiled King of Rwanda, the King of Bulgaria and the King of Romania are also good examples of exemplary men worthy of their titles, who command and deserve great respect and should be given back their rightful places as "<B>de facto</B>" heads of state to reign again as sovereign rulers.</div> <bR> <div> With the right checks and balances, having a king or queen, significantly helps unify a country and political research shows it brings about greater prosperity, wealth and freedom. Generally speaking as there are very few exceptions, constitutional monarchy has proven itself to be the best kind of government that mankind ever devised for the good of all people. (See the web pages: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U><B>Ideals</B></U></A></FONT>" and "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="criticisms_and_benefits_of_monarchy.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ADVANTAGES"><U><B>Advantages</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>The Myth of Popular Sovereignty</B></div> <div> <B>and the Rule of Law</B><B> <A NAME="popular_sovereignty"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B><IMG SRC="3d72900b0.jpg" border=0 width="400" height="267" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT>Popular sovereignty, the idea that we run government rather than the government running us is a great fiction or deception. In other words, it “<B>is a fiction, [an ideal or] . . . hoax [used] to justify government of the many by the few.</B>" (p. 182) In practice it “<B>. . . is never fully defined, never authoritatively established, never fully realized. . . .</B>" (Richard D. Parker, “The ‘First Principle’ of Popular Sovereignty: Politics without End:”<B> </B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nationalinitiative.us/library /parkerpaper.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nationalinitiative.us/library"><U><B><U>www.nationalinitiative.us/library</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.nationalinitiative.us/library /parkerpaper.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.nationalinitiative.us/library"><U><B><U>/parkerpaper.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Professor Jeremy A. Rabkin of Yale wrote, "<B>The rightful exercise of physical coercion is at the heart of sovereignty.</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law/994876-1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/interna"><U><B><U>www.allbusiness.com/legal</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law/994876-1.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/interna"><U><B><U>/international-law/994876-1.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) The truth is, and most everyone really knows this deep down, is that the people are not the masters of government, they are its subjects.<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>"<B>Physical coercion</B>" is exercised by government, not the people. The power holders truly govern and always will no matter if the government is called a democracy, a republic or a dictatorship. Popular sovereignty has been enshrined in American politics, but the truth of the matter is that the power of the people, short of a revolution, is very minor and insignificant. </div> <bR> <div> Once the people of the American colonies voted to accept the new Constitution and government as the supreme law of the land, they gave away their sovereign rights to it on a<IMG SRC="3d7686ff0.jpg" border=0 width="390" height="255" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> permanent, unending basis. The rule, or government, of this law then received all the sovereign rights, power and privileges the people once held as individuals, or the Colonies once held as independent sovereign nations. The same is true when a people give their sovereignty to a monarch either by appointing such by referendum or representative vote or by no longer rejecting a conquest. In the latter case, the kingdom would become “<B>de jure</B>” or rightful as well as being “<B>defacto,</B>” that is, if no lawful rivals legally manifest their claim in full compliance or in full accord with the law of nations. The point is, once popular sovereignty is given away to create a government, it no longer actually exists in the giver. The government order established by the constitution holds all the rights except what it permits the average citizen to do. And it must be so. To do otherwise is to set up a government upon a shaky, whimsical and impulsive foundation where anything goes and nothing is solid, reliable or stable.  </div> <bR> <div> Popular sovereignty like the pure will of the people, immediate democracy or mob rule is not productive of good government or ever could be. In fact, the "<B>rule of law</B>" protects us against popular sovereignty. It---the rule of law “<B>. . . has two [main] functions: it limits government arbitrariness and power abuse, and it makes the government more rational and its policies more intelligent.</B>” (Bo Li, <I>Perspectives</I>, Volumn 1, Number 5: (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/5_043000" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/5_04300"><U><B><U>http://www.oycf.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/5_043000" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/5_04300"><U><B><U>/Perspectives/5_043000/what_is_rule_of_law.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="4126f4770.jpg" border=0 width="500" height="375" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The key reason why scholars do not believe in popular sovereignty is, according to Bo Li, that:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . without the rule of law as a limit, popular will [is] . . . corrupted by passions, emotions and short-term irrationalities. [In other words, it is corrupted by absurdities]. As such, [legal scholars] . . . demand [the] rule of law because it helps us to behave according to our long-term [best] interest[s] and [according to good] reason.</B>” (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> Acting in the name of the people, all kinds of terrible oppressions and atrocities would flourish, which is the natural result when there are no laws limiting the greed and avaricious ambitions of man. The poor would tyrannize the rich, the property-less could rob those with property, and one set of citizens could arbitrarily rule over or even enslave the weak and defenseless. No wonder, the founding fathers in America:<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U><IMG SRC="412491bc0.jpg" border=0 width="145" height="188" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . regarded ["popular sovereignty"] as both their greatest accomplishment and their most serious [or dreaded] liability. For then as now, the ideal of rule by the people was exalted even as the reality of popular sovereignty was despised . . . ," [because it would create, according to [James] Madison [1751-1836], ". . . the mortal diseases under which popular governments [democracies] have everywhere perished."</B>(Kramnick 1987, p. 122) </div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . . It had turned out that individual rights were as insecure in a regime ruled by popular legislatures [in colonial America] as they had been under . . . [the whims of a dictator]. </B>(Lars Tragardh, <I>After National Democracy: Rights, Law and Power in America and the New Europe</I>, 2004, p. 106)</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="4125c8d60.jpg" border=0 width="200" height="214" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Why some promote popular sovereignty, above any other type of sovereignty, makes no sense especially in light of the fact that popular sovereignty is an illusion. Sovereignty has never been formed on the "general will" of the people in all of human history. Nor d<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" >oes not exist anywhere on the earth and for good reason. </FONT>"<B>To invoke the general principle of self-determination [or popular sovereignty], and to make it a supreme law of international life [above all others],</B>" wrote Walter Lippmann, would be sheer madness, it is ". . . <B>to invite . . . anarchy. For </B><B>the principle can be used to promote the dismemberment of practically every organized state [on earth].</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n14/WSJselfdeterm-en.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/"><U><B><U>www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol3n14/WSJselfdeterm-en.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> Popular sovereignty "<B>. . . </B><B>fell into disrepute as a reaction to its ideological uses [in the French revolution] in justifying terror and lawless dictatorship. In the last two centuries, it lost its foundational role in political theory, and disappeared from serious discussion.</B>" (János Kis, "Poplular Sovereignty: The Classical Doctrine and Its Criticism:" <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://poltudszemle.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=41 " TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://poltudszemle.hu/index.php?"><U><B><U>http://poltudszemle.hu/index.php?option=com_content</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://poltudszemle.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=41 " TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://poltudszemle.hu/index.php?"><U><B><U>&task=view&id=152&Itemid=41</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Pope Pius VI commenting on the horrors and foolishness of the French revolution and popular sovereignty declared, "<B>. . . After having abolished the</B><B><IMG SRC="4120697f0.jpg" border=0 width="105" height="127" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B> monarchy, the best of all governments, it [the French Revolution] had transferred all the public power to the people — the people . . . ever easy to deceive and to lead into every excess. . . .</B>" (Pourquoi Notre Voix, 17th June 1793) Popular sovereignty is sovereignty at its worst. Yet the myth of popular sovereignty still governs much of our thinking today in America. This is in spite of the fact that it is the rule of good law that makes sense where democracy is limited by checks and balances, protections and safeguards. Just laws have within them the seeds of true greatness, prosperity and freedom. And good law recognizes the sovereignty of “<B>de jure</B>” monarchs and the fact that they should in all fairness, according to the laws of justice, be restored to their rightful thrones as constitutional monarchs.  (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000CC" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="#restored" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>The Legal and Moral Right to be Restored</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" >The King and the Constitution</FONT> <A NAME="constitution"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A><IMG SRC="3cfc03840.jpg" border=0 width="259" height="388" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> The Kingdom of Hawaii as a government in exile has created a new constitution and laws. Any illegally ousted king is free to exercise its rightful governing powers, but obviously cannot enforce its laws. Nevertheless, all the "<B>ancient rights</B>" of total and unrestricted sovereignty are intact. Former traditions, treaties and constitutions have no direct control over a <B>de jure</B> king's present sovereign decrees and efforts in the here and now. Professor Kerr wrote, ". . . <B>the Chief of a Royal House in his capacity as de jure King (Head of the Government-in-Exile) has the authority to act in the place of Parliament and to perform those acts of state which under the various Constitutions requires the consent of Parliament.</B>" (<I>The Augustan</I>, XVIII:4, p. 129) As observed by Hugo Grotius, a King retains full sovereignty even though there is a constitution limiting the exercise of his Sovereign Powers. He wrote, "<B>. . . Sovereignty does not cease to be such even if he who is going to exercise it makes promises. . . . I am speaking of . . . constitutions. . . .</B>" (<I>De Jure Belli as Pacis Libri Tres</I>, Book I, Chapter 3, No. 16) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://olldownload .libertyfund.org /EBooks/Grotius_1032.01.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://olldownload .libertyfund.o"><U><B><U>http://olldownload.libertyfund.org /EBooks/Grotius_1032.01.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) He then made a comparison between a king and the head of a household to make his point. He wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>If the head of the household promises that he will do for it something which affects</B><B><IMG SRC="4108c8f40.jpg" border=0 width="200" height="244" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B> the government of it, he will not on that account cease to have full authority over his household. . . . A husband, furthermore, is not deprived of the power conferred on him by marriage because he has promised something to his wife. (Ibid.)</B></div> <bR> <div> Professor Kerr added:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The fact that a monarch has agreed to restrict the exercise of his Sovereign Power by swearing to a constitution in no way derogates from the unalienable Sovereignty residing in his person. Although a monarch may restrict the powers he personally exercises by granting a constitution, he, nevertheless, remains the </B><I><B>source of power</B></I><B> for all other branches and instrumentalities of his government.</B> (<I>The Augustan</I> XVIII:4, p. 130) </div> <bR> <div> In other words, "<B>The constitution derives its force from his assent to it. He is the grantor of whatever rights the constitution bestows. . . .</B>" (ibid., p. 130) Continuing, "<B>Unrestricted by a constitution [such] a monarch exercises the full plentitude [or fullness] of</B><IMG SRC="41092c2c0.jpg" border=0 width="300" height="300" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> Sovereign Power, executive, legislative, and judicial.</B>" (Ibid.) This is how a "<B>de jure</B>" king or sovereign prince may act in violation of a constitutional provision that he was restricted by when he was reigning as the "<B>defacto</B>" ruler. Stated again, "<B>As a monarch is the source of the Sovereign Power of the state and the grantor of any constitution, he is not deprived of the power conferred upon him by his kingship merely because he has promised to exercise it in a certain way. . . .</B>" (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> Marek Stanislaw Korowicz, a scholar of international law, made it clear that there is no such thing as a "<B>limitation of Sovereignty</B>"---sovereignty cannot be limited, only a "<B>limitation of the exercise of Sovereignty [can take place]. . . . Sovereignty may be limited in a quantitative sense [through checks and balances like having a mix of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy], but not [in] a qualitative one.</B>" (<I>Some Present Aspects of Sovereignty in International Law, </I>1961, p. 108) That is, it centers in the sovereign himself.</div> <bR> <div> Therefore, and this is important, when a sovereign is in exile, he is a free agent---the personification and embodiment of all the supreme, absolute and unlimited entitlements and powers of his ancient “<B>de jure</B>” territory. He is extremely powerful. And his heirs inherit this full and complete right. The right to rule and enact laws and create and grant titles of nobility and royalty, a new authentic knighthood or other honors should he so desire. Dr. Stephen Kerr wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="4112c3680.jpg" border=0 width="451" height="360" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B>Under public international law, a Government-in-Exile, monarchical or republican, is deemed to have the implied constitutional power to perform all normal acts of state . . . including those acts which by its own constitution would [normally] require the consent of an organ of government, such as parliament, which are at present suspended due to the conditions arising from a usurpation of sovereignty.</B> (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <div> Sir Arnold McNair, 1st Baron McNair, an accomplished British legal scholar, professor, judge, and the First President of the European Court on Human Rights, concurred and stated:</div> <bR> <div> <B>The mere fact that a foreign Government has been deprived of the control of a part or the whole of its territory by an enemy [whether by war or illegal referendum] in no way invalidates legislation passed or other acts of sovereignty done by it outside its normal territory. . . .</B> <B>There is no principle of International law which says that a ["de jure"] Government cannot act validly upon foreign territory. . . .</B> (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/sovereignty/independent/d/index.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/sove"><U><B><U>www.tibetjustice.org</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/sovereignty/independent/d/index.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/sove"><U><B><U>/reports/sovereignty/independent/d/index.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>)<B><IMG SRC="442aa0050.jpg" border=0 width="160" height="261" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> In the case of <I>Moraitis v. Delany, Annual Digest</I>, 1941-1942, Case No. 96 dealt with competency of an exiled monarch to deal with ordinary matters. It concluded that ". . . <B>Governments in exile [such as rightful de jure monarchs] are thoroughly competent to deal with [such]. They are true governments set up and organized to protect the interests of their nationals. . . . They exercise [full] sovereign power. . . .</B>" (<I>The Augustan</I> XVIII:4, p. 128) The Belgium Supreme Court, the Cour de Cassation in 1919 upheld the supreme power of HM King Albert to legislate by "<B>Royal Decree</B>" during World War I. They stated "<B>. . . that since the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate were paralyzed due to the conditions of occupation and exile, that the legislative power was vested in the King alone.</B>" (Ibid.) Dr. Kerr summarized by stating that, "<B>These highly important decisions were based on general principles of international and public jurisprudence. Hence, the reasoning . . . is applicable to any exile situation. . . [monarchical or republican].</B>" (Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> <B><IMG SRC="443622ca0.jpg" border=0 width="290" height="458" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B>As the personification of all the lawful authority of his or her former kingdom, empire or principality, a "<B>de jure</B>" monarch has a lot of recognized freedom. <B> </B>He or she is a full and complete government-in-exile in and of him or herself. As such, a "<B>de jure</B>" monarch and/or his heirs, outside of his former territory in a friendly host nation, can, according to international law,<B> ". . . undertake many types of actions in the conduct of their daily affairs. These actions include:</B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">becoming a party to a bilateral or international treaty </B></div> <div> <B><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">amending or revising its own constitution</U></B><B> </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">maintaining military forces </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">retaining (or "newly obtaining") diplomatic recognition by sovereign states </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">issuing identity cards </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">allowing the formation of new political parties </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">instituting democratic reforms </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b7011800000000.png" HEIGHT="19" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">holding elections </B></div> <div> (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Government_in_exile" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/"><U><B><U>www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Government_in_exile</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <div> Whether one has the financial foundation, support and opportunity to implement all of the above in a host country is very rare, but the legal right exists and is fully embodied in the "<B>de jure</B>" monarch. </div> <bR> <div> The Stuart Kings are a good example of some of this. Starting with King Charles II, a "<B>de jure</B>" king in exile, and later with King James II, who was also exiled, both continued to award English royal orders, and created nobles by the authority and in the name of their ancient royal rights and<IMG SRC="37bad0e70.jpg" border=0 width="208" height="231" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> sovereign "<B>de jure</B>" prerogatives. As true kings in exile, they were no longer subject to Parliament, the Magna Charta or any other restraint except the limits of sound and logical reasoning. Succession rules for such a "<B>de jure</B>" or former ruling family at this point would be determined by the royal family itself. It is no longer decided by the country that disowned them, or a constitution that no longer has power and validity in their lives for they can change the rules. True sovereignty, after all, means to be autonomous, independent and free. Jean J. Burlamaqui stated, that in "<B>kingdoms [that are] truly patrimonial, every [true and rightful] king has a right to regulate the succession, and to dispose of the crown as he has a mind. . . .</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2203.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2203.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) A good example of this power recently took place on December 30, 2007. His Majesty King Michael I of Romania exercised his "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign authority by placing his eldest daughter in the position of being his successor to the former throne. He also gave out some royal titles and re-establish one of his kingdom's former royal orders of chivalry. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.familiaregala.ro/?id2=0002&lng=" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.familiaregala.ro/?id2=0002&ln"><U><B><U>www.familiaregala.ro/?id2=0002&lng=</U></B></U></A></FONT>) </div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="4106bc9c0.jpg" border=0 width="188" height="156" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">These absolute and supreme sovereign rights come because "<B>de jure</B>" monarchs are again the full and complete embodiment and personification of all the lawful authority, supremacy and power of their governments. In fact, a "<B>de jure</B>" monarch is the government and the government is the monarch. They are one and the same. There is no difference between them. And these rights can last perpetually. The Stuart line of rightful kings, however, demonstrated the opposite, that is, the end of what would otherwise be permanent. The "<B>de jure</B>" monarch, Henry Benedict Xavier (styled as HM Henry IX), who being deep in the pangs of poverty:</div> <bR> <div> <B>. . . resolved the "succession issue" in Britain by exchanging his title and rights for a pension from King George III, thus, abdicating in King George III’s favor for the price of a yearly pay-check, which legally transferred the title to the British throne to the</B><IMG SRC="35bf6a6a0.jpg" border=0 width="106" height="106" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> Hanoverians giving them legitimacy and sanctioning their occupancy of the throne. King George granted Prince Henry Benedict Xavier [formerly King Henry IX] the title "Count of Albany", which thereafter was his official style, and thus reconciled invited him to return to Britain from exile.</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/jacobites.wps.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/jaco"><U><B><U>www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/jacobites.wps</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/jacobites.wps.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/jaco"><U><B><U>.htm</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Because "<B>of the complete failure of the Savoy and, later, the Wittelsbach heirs of the Stuarts (through Henrietta daughter of Charles I) to prosecute or in any way assert the Stuart's claim,</B>" the transfer of all rights to the British throne by Henry IX became permanently<IMG SRC="410df7290.jpg" border=0 width="247" height="297" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> valid. (Stephen Kerr, <I>The Augustan,</I> XVIII:4, p. 127) Only the living, immediate, legitimate children or colateral relatives that held dormant sovereignty rights could have overturned such a renuciation of power. However, certain kinds of renunciations cannot be overturned after the fact. Since the royal descendants of the Stuart kings did not oppose this official act, the right to reclaim their rights was lost forever. They wittingly or unwittingly relinquished their rights by not continuing to use their English royal titles and heraldry, etc. Emerich de Vattel wrote:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Every proprietor [of the great honor and privilege of de jure sovereignty] who expressly commits, or omits, certain acts, which he cannot commit or omit without renouncing his right, sufficiently indicates by such commission or omission that it is not his intention to preserve it, unless, by an express reservation, he declare the contrary. </B>(See <I>The Law of Nations</I> or <I>Le Droit des gens</I>, Book II, Chapter XI, Nos. 142, 144-146, 149. See Article 45 and Article 31.3(a) of the <I>1969 Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties. </I>See "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="40fa18c20.jpg" border=0 width="280" height="450" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">In other words, if any "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign, or any of his or her heirs, does not preserve through the generations of time or make the attempt, that is, act in such a way as to preserve their rights to rule in the prescribed way, "<B>. . . </B><B>we may lawfully presume that he [or she] abandons his [or her] right. . . .</B>" (<I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, #146) Then the law of <B>usucaption</B> takes place. <B>Usucaption</B> is "<B>the</B><B> acquisition of the title or right to property by the uninterrupted possession of it for a certain term prescribed by law.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Usucaption" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Usucapt"><U><B><U>www.thefreedictionary.com /Usucaption</U></B></U></A></FONT>) It is internationally "<B>. . . </B><B>deemed just and indisputable" </B>if the republic or usurper <B>". . . </B><B>has for a considerable length of time continued [to rule the country] uncontested. . . ,</B>" that is, no royal family is claiming the territory by continuing to use their titles and heraldry and perhaps awarding knighthoods or other honors, then that country to all intents and purposes has acquired full and complete sovereignty. (Vattel, <I>The Law of Nations</I>, Book II, #147) If there was a royal house, they became merely commoners, ordinary citizens, without titles, and without any rights or privileges above any other private citizen. Once lost, sovereignty is lost permanently and forever.</div> <bR> <div> To keep or maintain the right to rule, a "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign, or his or her successors, merely must continue to use their rightful titles, and former arms, or they could knighti others in an order that belonged to their former territory, or they could create a new order of chivalry in the name of their right as a "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign, successor or heir, and awarding it to worthy others. "<B>Usucaption</B>" can also be contested and easily defeated by an official declaration of one's legitimate title to rule in a number of ways to keep their claims active, present and well-known. A good example of this is in an article on the Imperial House of Hohenzollern where is stated in no uncertain terms that, "<B>The House of Hohenzollern never relinquished their claims to the thrones of Prussia and the German Empire.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenzollern" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenzoller"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenzollern</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In addition, they continue the claim in the prescribed way, so there is no question about who has the full and complete right.</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="407310db0.jpg" border=0 width="272" height="475" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">It is both quite easy to legally and lawfully keep these rights forever and just as easy to lose them permanently. Each succeeding generation must renew or keep active their claims. If they do not, the right comes to an abrupt end, and once lost, these rights cannot be renewed or reinstated. This is outcome, unless, there were mitigating circumstances, such as, duress, threat, undue influence or mental incapacity that created a state of innocent or unpreventable ignorance. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Ownership and Property Rights</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="rights_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> So powerful and absolute are the proprietary rights of kings, whether "<B>de jure</B>" or "<B>defacto</B>" that such a monarch could actually sell those sacred privileges that they own. That is, an ancient king or sovereign prince could legally and lawfully convey every royal right and prerogative they own to another. Ownership includes the privilege to use and profit from those rights as well as the right to exclude others from using an asset they own. Ownership also entails the right to transfer, alienate, sell, or mortgage one's own possession. Property rights give to the owner the important option of physically transforming and even destroying the asset one owns, if necessary, as in the case of an abdication or a renunciation of all rights. This is also a recognized action supported by international law because it was done over and over again in ancient times.</div> <bR> <div> A striking example in history is the well-known fact that the last remaining successor and heir to the Byzantine Throne, Andreas Palaiologos, legitimately sold all his "<B>de jure</B>" royal and imperial rights, titles and prerogatives, "<B>which were genuine,</B>" to Charles VIII, the King of France, in 1494. He also sold all his rights to the Ottoman Sultan or Emperor, Bayazid II, for a comfortable pension, then he sold them again to King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile. Obviously, he lost all possession of his former rights by these actions, but only one transfer of rights was valid. The others were an act of fraud and deceit. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Palaiologos#cite_note-2" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Pal"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Palaiologos#cite_note-2" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Pal"><U><B><U>.org/wiki/Andreas_Palaiologos#cite_note-2</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Mr. James J. Algrant, a prominent scholar and historian explained that this "<B>de jure</B>" Emperor had "<B>followed in the footsteps of the House of Courtenay which had sold its rights over Constantinople to the Angevin kings of</B><IMG SRC="152cbe170.gif" border=0 width="446" height="279" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"><B> Naples.</B>" It was a common practice to sell authentic legal rights to sovereignty and territories in those days.  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20030404070252/www.kwtelecom.com/chivalry/fons.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://web.archive.org/web/2003040407025"><U><B><U>http://web.archive.org/web</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20030404070252/www.kwtelecom.com/chivalry/fons.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://web.archive.org/web/2003040407025"><U><B><U>/20030404070252/www.kwtelecom</U></B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://web.archive.org/web/20030404070252/www.kwtelecom.com/chivalry/fons.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://web.archive.org/web/2003040407025"><U><B><U>.com/chivalry/fons.html</U></B></U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >) </FONT></div> <bR> <div> Another example of this royal right was when HSH Prince Carl Anton of Hohenzollern-Hechingen voluntarily ceded or gave away his "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty over his principality on December 7, 1849 to the Royal House of Prussia, but was allowed to retained his titles. If such an act is done willingly and without duress or undue influence, assuming the individual is of a sound mind, a "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign house could legally and lawfully sell or discard all their rights and royal prerogatives and leave themselves and their heirs empty handed. For example, as<B><IMG SRC="3619962e0.jpg" border=0 width="150" height="302" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B> illustrated by Guy Stair Sainty, "<B>Prince Georg von Sachsen-Weimar und Eisenach by an act recorded by the Government of Baden-W</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial CE" ><B>ü</B></FONT><B>rttemberg renounced the name, title and rank of Prince of the House of Saxony, taking the forename and last name </B><B>'</B><B>Jorg Brena.</B>'" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/germtitl.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/"><U><B><U>www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/germtitl.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Hence, instead of being princesses, his three daughters have had to use the last name of Brena like any other common citizen. This non-sovereign prince exercised his exclusive ownership rights to renunciate, alienate or destroy his own and his family's rightful patrimony or property---in this case his good name and theirs. However, as Jean Jacques Burlamaqui<B> </B>(1694–1748) a Swiss legal scholar declared, "<B>It is therefore certain, that a prince may, for himself, renounce the crown, or the right of succession. But there is great doubt whether he can do it for his [living] children.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2204.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) The living children who are lawful heirs still hold rights, but if they fail to contest such an action, before they pass away, they and their posterity loose all their royal rights and privileges to the throne. This applies to renunciations, but not to a formal and official cession, sale or conveyance of sovereignty. In such a case, unless there are mitigating circumstances as described earlier, their failure to protest at the time of a formal and official cession means the claim is permanently dead and there is a complete and irreversible forfeiture of all proprietary rights. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>Royal Adoptions</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="adoptions"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="3167aad80.gif" border=0 width="170" height="216" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> Another important point to remember is that adoptions can convey full legal and legitimate succession rights. We are not discussing the phony name changes that now take place in order to obtain a title as the recipients think. These are invalid, unless, of course, the head of the family--the sovereign approves of it and makes it authentic and acceptable. Otherwise, they are nothing more or less than legal name changes. No real ancient rights are attached or connected with these phony legal ploys. But a true adoption, under the authority of a sovereign state or sovereign person is completely authoritative and legally binding. </div> <bR> <div> Prince Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph, Archduke of Austria, accepted the appointment of being the Emperor of Mexico in 1864. However, he and his wife Carlotta were childless. To assure<IMG SRC="2ba1b7e50.jpg" border=0 width="183" height="229" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> succession, he adopted Don Augustin, the son of an Imperial Prince of a former ruling family of Mexico, to be his successor. A quite similar story of adoption took place in the ruling dynasty of Monaco. It is also a well-known fact that the childless King of Sweden in 1810 adopted one of Napoleon's Field Marshals of Imperial France. His name was Bernadotte and the king left his throne and crown to this man and his successor. The present King of Sweden is the direct descendant of this royal adoptee. All such decisions depends on what the people in real power want. An adoptive heir can be designated, and legally ascend to the throne, and all the sovereign glory and prerogatives inherent in any land or nation because his and his successors after him.    </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>Sovereignty and Royalty</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="royalty_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> The counts, princes and dukes, who ruled over Imperial States of the Holy Roman Empire, held full and absolute sovereignty or majesty at one point in time. (1806-1813) Therefore, they are royals in the true sense of the word, even though they bear lesser titles and their little<IMG SRC="0d4b0940.jpg" border=0 width="176" height="148" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> kingdoms were often quite tiny. The late HMSH, Prince Rainer III, the Sovereign Prince of Monaco is an example of a royal personage and head of state with a lessor title. This is also true of the Ruling or High Prince of Liechtenstein and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who are also royal heads of state. Over a hundred times, these sovereigns and their families have been called royals by the worldwide press as is evident on the internet. But this high and exalted status is equally true for most of the present leaders of the former Imperial States of the Holy Roman Empire as well as the many princes of Imperial India, even though they are not presently allowed to reign over their former lands. It is not to be construed as permission to change or upgrade their ancient titles. For as Vattel has stated, "<B>. . . </B><B>it would be ridiculous for a petty [tiny territorial] prince to take the title of king, and assume the style of "Majesty. . . .</B>" (<I>Law of Nations</I>, Book 2, #43) But it should be recognized that these "<B>de jure</B>" sovereigns are not only the highest nobility of their countries, but are, in truth, deposed royalty. The word “<B>royal</B>” in this sense is identical in meaning or synonymous to bearing the ancient and/or modern right of "<B>sovereignty.</B>" A  "<B>monarch</B>" is a "<B>sovereign</B>" and "<B>m</B><B>onarchs and their families [are] considered as a group ["royalty"].    </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.answers.com/topic/monarch" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.answers.com/topic/monarch"><U><B><U>www.answers.com/topic/monarch</U></B></U></A></FONT>) "<B>Royalty</B>" refers to "<B>.</B><B> . . </B><B>the ruling house of any monarchy, regardless of the title [whether sovereign count, prince, duke,</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="AvantGarde Bk BT" ><B><IMG SRC="4016aaa30.png" border=0 width="170" height="163" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT><B> king or emperor]. . . .</B>"  (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty</U></B></U></A></FONT>) That is, <B>sovereignty</B>, <B>monarchy</B> and <B>royalty </B>are synonyms and practically identical in meaning. So no wonder, "<B>. . . </B><B>mediatized princes [of the German high nobility] were considered equal to royals for marriage purposes; in essence they were regarded as royalty.</B>"<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatized" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatized"><U><B><U>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatized</U></B></U></A></FONT>) For example:</div> <bR> <div> <B>An English duke [styled as "Your Grace" rather than "Your Royal Highness"] might be many times richer than a minor German mediatized prince, his title was theoretically equal, and his political power might be greater — but the German prince and his children counted as royalty, and the Englishman and his children did not. This meant for example that the English duke's daughter would be too low in rank to marry the German prince as an equal. </B>(Ibid.)</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="40f550570.jpg" border=0 width="336" height="343" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The major difference or distinction in this comparison is that the mediatized German Princes were "<B>de jure</B>" sovereigns and therefore they were royalty. The English duke, on the other hand, had no sovereignty, hence, even though he was considered to be of the high nobility in his country, he was not a royal. But "<B>all Imperial Estates, which were not mediatized [before August of 1806 or the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire], received . . . unlimited sovereignty,</B>" and therefore, were royal. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/vrozn/last.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.geocities.com/vrozn/last.html"><U><B><U>www.geocities.com/vrozn/last.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In other words, both the immediate and <B>". . . The mediatized princes [ranked as equal] with the royal houses of Europe." </B>(<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/MEDIATIZATION_Ger_Mediatisierun.html)/EUD_FAT/EUROPE.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/ME"><U><B><U>http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/MEDIATIZATION_Ger_Mediatisierun.html)/EUD_FAT/EUROPE.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/ME"><U><B><U>/MEDIATIZATION_Ger_Mediatisierun.html</U></B></U></A></FONT><A HREF="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/MEDIATIZATION_Ger_Mediatisierun.html)/EUD_FAT/EUROPE.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MEC_MIC/ME"><U>)</U></A> They were royalty. The immediate and the "<B>.</B><B> </B><B>. . mediatized princes [mediatized after the collapse of the Empire] . . . transmit their titles and their privileges of 'royal' blood to all their legitimate descendants.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Prince" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Prince"><U><B><U>www.1911encyclopedia.org/Prince</U></B></U></A></FONT>) It all boils down to the fact that no matter what the title, whether Maharajah, Sultan, Shah, Emperor, Emir, King or Prince, both "<B>de jure</B>" and regnant sovereign monarchs from any part of the earth, constitutional or otherwise, are <B>royalty.</B></div> <div>  </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Sovereign Equality<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" > <A NAME="equality"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="34a92c910.jpg" border=0 width="300" height="401" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Emerich de Vattel, an 18th Century Swiss philosopher, diplomat and jurist, wrote in his book <I><B>, </B></I>"<B>A dwarf is as much a man as a giant; a small republic is not less a sovereign state than the most powerful [and glorious] kingdom [or vast empire].</B>" (<I>Le Droit des gens</I>, Section XVIII) (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/lawintro.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/lawintro.ht"><U><B><U>www.pixi.com/~kingdom/lawintro.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) The conclusion?---sovereignty is sovereignty and it is equal whether one is large or small, royal or the sovereign high nobility of a former empire. John Stuart Mill said, “<B>. . . the smallest and least powerful nation . . . is the equal of the strongest. Whatever rights belong to one belongs to all. . . .</B>" (Ernest Nys, “The Development and Formation International Law,” <I>The American Journal of International Law</I>, Vol. 6, No. 1, (Jan. 1912) p.11) In other words, "<B>International law recognizes </B><B>all</B><B> monarchs as </B><B>equally sovereign</B><B>, [no matter what kind of monarchs they are] although the differences between the constitutional positions of monarchs may be considerable. . . .</B>" (Stephen Kerr, <I>The Augustan</I> XVIII:4, p. 129) One of the central or core principles of the United Nations is "<B>the principle of sovereign equality. . . ."</B> (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapte"><U><B><U>www.un.org/aboutun/charter</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapte"><U><B><U>/chapter1.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) All are equal under the law in regard to this one great principle---the emperor and the lowly sovereign count---those who are "<B>de jure</B>" and those legitimate monarchs who also have "<B>defacto</B>" rule over their territories and their people. In other words, the "<B>mediatized</B>" sovereign little countries have the same rights as those who were never "<B>mediatized.</B>" And sovereignty, it should be remembered, means "<B>the absolute and perpetual power within a State.</B>" (James L. Brierly, <I>The Law of Nations</I>, 2nd ed., (1936), p. 36) L. F. L. Oppenheim, <I>International Law</I>, Vol. I #346) </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B>The Buying and Selling of Sovereignty</B></FONT><B> <A NAME="sovereignty_1"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B><IMG SRC="38be448f0.jpg" border=0 width="324" height="399" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> <div> Lastly, in the Holy Roman Empire, as in any feudal system, it is important to remember that the prestige, power and glory of each imperial territory was attached to the land or fief and not to a person or family unless they personally owned these territories. These ancient territories and the titles that went with them could be bought and sold. Jean J. Burlamaqui made it clear that,  "<B>The sovereign becoming the depository as it were of the will and strength of each individual, which are united in his person. . . . [he therefore embodies all their power and thus becomes the owner of all rights and privileges. This kind of king or prince] </B><B> has a right to . . . dispose of the crown as he has a mind. . . .</B>"<B> </B></div> <div> (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla’burla_2204.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla’burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla’burla_2204.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In other words, what he owns, he can also sell. </div> <bR> <div> For example, in 1373 Margrave Otto sold the territorial sovereignty of Brandenburg to Emperor Charles IV of the Holy Roman Empire who gave the country to his son Wenceslas. Later Frederick I of Hohenzollern in 1415 bought the Electorship of Brandenburg from Emperor Sigismund, and thus elevated himself to the rank of a Prince Elector of the Empire. These Hohenzollerns through marriage and the purchase of lands, not always by war, steadily added to their holdings, beginning with several small acquisitions. They acquired the margraviates of Ansbach (1331) and Kulmbach (1340). And Ernest-Bogislas of Croy, the last Prince-Bishop of Kammin, sold all his rights to the diocese and principality of Kammin to the Elector of Brandenburg in 1650 for 100,000 talers. Other territories were bought. Later Frederick I, King of Prussia and as a Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, obtained the ownership of two other Feudal territories by some crafty maneuvers, thus in the 18<IMG SRC="28e192940.jpg" border=0 width="146" height="148" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> hundreds, the King of Prussia also became the Prince of Neuenburg and the Count of Valangin. </div> <bR> <div> The Emperor, of course, could also rightfully sell or “<B>cede territories [sovereignty and ownership] to another prince . . . if that cession and endowment had taken place according to the rules of the Empire.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/39_constitutional.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_p"><U><B><U>www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/39_constitutional.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Such transactions were a common and regular part of the workings of the Empire. Stories like those mentioned above took place throughout the Holy Roman Empire and most of feudal Europe--including that of the young man, Albrecht of Hohenzollern in 1513, who was too young to be a bishop, yet he became the Archbishop of Mainz, one of seven, of the highest Imperial Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, for a very large amount of ducats borrowed from the rich Augsburg family of Fugger. He became famous for his struggle against Martin Luther. The right and privilege of sovereignty was bought and sold.<IMG SRC="364432d30.jpg" border=0 width="306" height="211" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> Another interesting example of purchase is in the history of Liechtenstein. Even though these nobles owned 46 castles, 24 towns, 35 large and 756 small villages, it is only after they bought two small immediate territories (the County of Vaduz and the Lordship of Schellenberg) for a huge amount in 1699 and 1712  that they were enabled to become immediate princes and recognized members of the Reichstag or Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire. The highest status in the Holy Roman Empire required that you owned or had "<B>ownership</B>" of an immediate Imperial fief--one that had a sovereign title attached to it, which one could obtain by purchase, award or enfeoffment. One also had to have a vote in both the Imperial Assembly and one of the Imperial Circles. Such a person automatically was recognized with the status of being a realm prince of the Holy Roman Empire. The Principality of Liechtenstein amazingly survived all the problems and policical upheavals of the past century and is a wealthy country today with a royal monarch as head of state. </div> <bR> <div> This practice of ownership of a territory being bought and sold is also in the history of a number of principalities in France where the conclusion was made that "<B>in the 17th and 18th centuries, a sovereign principality could be donated or sold [and this] was accepted as a matter of course.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/b"><U><B><U>www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) That is, it was a common practice.<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>New dynasties of ruling lords--barons, viscounts, counts, and sovereign<IMG SRC="378a90090.jpg" border=0 width="400" height="265" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> dukes were created by purchase in England as well as other European countries. But this was not a European practice only. In 1803, the United States doubled its size by purchasing the "<B>Louisiana Territory</B>" for $15,000,000 from the Emperor Napoleon. All the rights to a small chuck of land (the present states of North Dakota and Minnesota) was bought from England in 1818. In 1819, what is now the state of Florida and part of Louisiana was purchased from Spain. In 1845, the right to rule Texas and most of New Mexico was legally acquired by purchase from Spain. The land of what is now called Arizona and southern New Mexico was bought from Mexico in 1853. Then to complete things, in 1867, His Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russians, formally ceded all rights for of possession, ownership and dominion over what was then called the "<B>Alaskan Territory</B>" for $7,200,000. This was the more civilized way of exchanging the ownership or the right to rule and have dominion over territories. Too much was done by war, theft, threat and blackmail in the past. Sovereignty, according to international law, could be and was, indeed, bought and sold.<IMG SRC="3646bb310.jpg" border=0 width="187" height="305" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> In other words, it is a well-known principle in international law that "<B>by overt conscious act, one can willingly transfer their Sovereignty to another, such as a King [or commoner or to the people or whatever one wants if one is the true legitimate owner].</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://http://talk.open-encyclopedia.com/Sovereignty" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://talk.open-encyclopedia.com"><U><B><U>http://talk.open-encyclopedia.com/Sovereignty</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In fact, anything that has any real value or worth, can be sold. Ownership, in part, means the actual right to sell what one really owns. I doubt a modern absolute "<B>divine right of kings</B>" monarch could get away with selling his country, but this was most certainly done in the past. For another example, knowing that the ownership or ancient sovereignty rights to a country could be, sold, mortgaged, etc. by their monarch, the Duke of Bouillon, to someone else:</div> <bR> <div> <B>On February 18, 1791, the General Assembly of [the dukedom of] Bouillon passed a decree asserting that the sovereignty of the duchy could not be mortgaged, alienated, exchanged or sold without express consent of the nation of Bouillon, and asking the duke [their sovereign or monarch] to provide for the succession to his house in case (as everyone expected) his son died without heirs.</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/b"><U><B><U>www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>)</div> <bR> <div> Since 1467, the German Principality of Mindelheim had been brought, sold, bought again, lost<IMG SRC="378c7e020.jpg" border=0 width="126" height="258" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> and recovered a few times over and finally conveyed to a new owner by a treaty in 1713. It was once purchased by the British Sir John Churchill, first duke of Marlborough. He later forfeited it in the Treaty of Utrecht. Other examples of sales continue, which is but a sample of a few of the lawful purchases of sovereign territories. To continue: the Principality of Sagan in Poland was bought by Prince Lobkowitz in 1646 and later sold to Peter, Duke of Courland, whose descendant, Prince Boson (b. 1832), son of Napoleon Louis (1811-1898), duke of Talleyrand-Prigord, owned it in 1910. The Albanian principality of Kroia was sold in 1474 to the Venetians and four years later was sold to the Turks. Jean de Vendome, the prince of de Chabanais sold his French principality to Montesquion-Muntluc, who became the new prince in 1540. Stories like this were not infrequent. It might be typical for a peasant to have more than one entirely different ruling family as heads of state and the government over their tiny country. Changes in dynasties were an accepted practice and the serfs or citizens of these little countries were accustomed to it.<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> </div> <bR> <div> Jean J. Burlamaqui explained that, "<B>they [patrimonial emperors, kings and princes] are permitted to share, transfer, or alienate [their sovereignty] . . . [In other words, a]</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B> </B></FONT><B>prince shall have full right [and prerogative] to<IMG SRC="36e4c6d20.jpg" border=0 width="198" height="210" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> dispose of the crown, as he shall think proper.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2107.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.constitution.org/burla/burla_"><U><B><U>www.constitution.org/burla/burla_2107.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>)<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> Again, sovereignty, the right to rule and possess a territory could be bought and sold. "<B>Monaco was purchased from the Genoese in 1309 by the Grimaldi family.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities/tour_cannes.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities"><U><B><U>http://</U></B></U></A><A HREF="http://164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities/tour_cannes.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities"><U><B><U>164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities/tour_cannes.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://164.109.173.140/OL_shorex/gcities"><U><B><U>/tour_cannes.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>) Duke August, the younger, (1579-1666) "<B>purchased all rights with respect to the principality of Brunswick - Wolfenb</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial CE" ><B>ü</B></FONT><B>ttel from his seven elder brothers.</B>" (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.gwleibniz.com/AugustYoung/AugustYoung.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.gwleibniz.com/AugustYoung/Aug"><U><B><U>www.gwleibniz</U></B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.gwleibniz.com/AugustYoung/AugustYoung.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.gwleibniz.com/AugustYoung/Aug"><U><B><U>.com/AugustYoung/AugustYoung.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) For a Russian example, the principality of Rostov was sold to Ivan I of Moscow in the 1400's. In Germany, there are numerous examples, the principality of Auersperg, which was sold to Baden in 1811, and the Principality of Krantheim, another sovereign territory, which was sold to W<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial CE" >ü</FONT>rttemberg in 1839. This kind of action is representative of a well-established legal pattern and was an accepted way of conveying or transferring the lawful possession and sovereignty<IMG SRC="2940afd30.jpg" border=0 width="175" height="211" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> of various little monarchies. (see also "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="General Philosophy Practices"><U><B>General Philosophy & Practices</B></U></A></FONT>" under the subtitle "<B>General Philosophy on Titles</B>" for more examples) </div> <bR> <div> Sovereignty in the person of an emperor, king or prince, as stated before, is similar to property rights, sometimes called "<B>regalian rights</B>" or true ownership of all the land, minerals and wealth of the nation. And, if this valuable possession was to be sold, it was usually sold to the highest bidder or most powerful and frightening.<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Ernest I, the duke of Saxe-Cobdrg-Gotha, sold the principality of Lichtenberg in the 1800's to Prussia for a large sum of money.  Hence, he enjoyed a very large private fortune. And in 1729, the sovereign principality of Seborga was sold for money to the powerful Vittorio Amedeo II, of Savoy, Prince of Piedmont and King of Sardinia. </div> <bR> <div> Like any property that is owned, a sovereign territory could also be mortgaged for a loan of some kind as well. In 1384, the Sovereign Princely House of Grimaldi received possession of<IMG SRC="2e4f15320.jpg" border=0 width="277" height="306" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> the ancient city of Antibes — as collateral to a loan made to an overspending Pope. Jeanne de Penthievre of France had to make annual payments of 7,000 livres for massive war debts incurred in the 1400's during the Hundred Years War. He pledged the viscounty of Limoges as collateral for this. And by a treaty signed at Tongres on 21 May 1484, Guillaume de La Marck “<B>was awarded 30,000 livres de gros (currency of the Low Countries) for his contribution to the war against Maximilian of Hapsburg, and [the Dukedom, the territory of Bouillon] was mortgaged to him as collateral until repayment [could be made].</B>” (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/b"><U><B><U>www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm</U></B></U></A></FONT>)<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> <div> More examples could be given, but this is considered sufficient to make the point about the legality and practice of both buying and selling of sovereign rights--the right of monarchy. In other words, "<B>sovereignty [or ownership in the Holy Roman Empire where much of this took place, and elsewhere, could be achieved] . . . by inheritance, testament, investiture, infeoffment, or even sale or lien. Its possession or enjoyment did not require noble status.</B>" That is, "<B>The right to receive the investiture [as a titled noble] was . . . attached to the land, and<IMG SRC="383be34e0.jpg" border=0 width="227" height="334" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> could not be denied by the Emperor.</B>" If purchased, it was yours and all the full and complete sovereign privileges that went with it. And if held inviolately and not conveyed or given away, it became a permanent possession by right of blood especially after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which established the principle of sovereignty as inviolate, irrevocable, permanent, indivisible, and inalienable in the person of the king, prince, count or sovereign lord of the land, who could keep or dispose of this priceless treasure if he so desired. </div> <bR> <div> These practices were so prevalent and common place that in order to protect the country as a whole, it became a fundamental law in France, as powerful as Salic law, that the Kings of France could not, under any circumstances,<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>alienate, sell or dismember the Kingdom. It was to remain permanently intact and not follow the pattern of bartering sovereignty for money---a practice that prevailed all over Europe as well as in France. (<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/gilbert/21.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_b"><U><B><U>http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/gilbert/21.html</U></B></U></A></FONT>) L. Oppenheim and H. Lauterpacht wrote about this process in the book <I>International Law.</I> (8th ed., Vol. I, No. 486 and 488) This well-known process is called the <I>inter-vivos</I> transferral of sovereignty or cession. That is, the transfer of the rights, title or ownership of sovereignty from one living person, nation or people to another living person, nation or people. (See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="2e75e9620.gif" border=0 width="745" height="98" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Conclusions</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Legal Realities</B><B> <A NAME="conclusions"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <bR> <div> <B><IMG SRC="259f55520.jpg" border=0 width="85" height="82" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><IMG SRC="3d2140ef0.jpg" border=0 width="320" height="239" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">In conclusion, from all the information presented above, “<B>de jure</B>” as well as reigning constitutional kings and princes still bear the full, complete and absolute sovereign privileges of their ancient forebears in full power presently in the here and now. This is something that cannot be taken away. It is theirs forever as long as it continues to be appropriately reconfirmed by every generation so that the right is never extinguished. </div> <bR> <div> Professor Stephen Kerr explained that "<B>de jure</B>" or former<B> ". . . territorial States, kingdoms and principalities, as well as regnant [or reigning] princes, the pope, the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and the Order of Malta are [well-known to be] subjects of public international law." </B>(See: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B>Dynastic Law</B></U></A></FONT>") Hence, "<B>a ["de jure" and/or reigning] prince is more than a private citizen. . . ." </B>(Ibid.) They are public personages and subjects of the law of nations.</div> <bR> <div> In recognition of this important truth, an international court of arbitration in Italy (also the Italian Supreme Court of Appeal) on May 9, 2003, decided that "<B>for an unlimited period,</B>" that is, as long as there will be descendants who follow the law to keep their rights alive, that a<IMG SRC="3648c3ed0.jpg" border=0 width="195" height="237" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> rightful successor to the kingdom of Aragon and his heirs may enjoy the full right of title as the "<B>Sovereign Head</B>" of his house and former kingdom, and enjoy "<B>all the qualities, prerogatives, attributes and styles of that rank and with the possibility to use coat of arms, titles and designations which belong to him by hereditary right.</B>" (Jacob W. F. Sundberg, Professor Emeritus of Law, "<B>Regarding dethroned princely Houses and their legal rights,</B>" Stockholm, September 15, 2006: <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.mocterranordica.org/Sund_Eng.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.mocterranordica.org/Sund_Eng."><U><B><U>www.mocterranordica.org/Sund_Eng.pdf</U></B></U></A></FONT>) In addition, such may use "<B>the sovereign prerogatives known as </B><I><B>jus majestatis </B></I><B>and </B><I><B>jus honorum</B></I><B>, with the ability to confer nobiliary titles, with or without predicates, noble arms, honorific titles and chivalric distinctions relating to their hereditary dynastic Orders." </B>(Ibid.)<B> </B>This is an extremely significant ruling that confirms everything we have taught in this thesis on royalty, nobility and sovereignty. The learned author then concluded:</div> <bR> <div> <B>As far as the head of a dethroned, formerly ruling princely house is concerned, in</B><B><IMG SRC="378e9f820.jpg" border=0 width="159" height="130" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B> this particular case [which reflects on the status of all others in the same boat, that is, that this former ruling house] . . . has had its position as a subject of international law recognized, this should imply that the person concerned [and all others by implication] may on this account [because of this ruling] be considered as having rank equal to a head of state and such rights and obligations which go with it.</B>" (Ibid.) </div> <bR> <div> The implication of this are extremely important and far-reaching. Legally making a pretender to an ancient throne that no longer exists comparable to a current, reigning, royal head of state is<IMG SRC="37a0119a0.jpg" border=0 width="273" height="410" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> extraordinary and amazing, but it fits perfectly with the law and the eternal and unending nature of hereditary rights, especially as they related to sovereignty.</div> <bR> <div> It is important to note that the above court decision is not conclusive about the claims of the House of Aragon, only as pertaining to law. For example, when a court makes a decision, you don't know what evidence was presented and what was withheld or even hidden from them. And if the court used the <B>preponderance of evidence</B> test (most do for civil cases such as this), then all that was required for the decision was a 51% assurance after weighing the evidence on hand. But that leaves as much as a 49% possibility, or practically a 50/50 chance, that their decision was not only wrong, but dead wrong. The conclusion, then, is that such a court can be depended on to uphold the law or be legally correct and accurate, but as pertaining to the particular case, they can be out in left field not ruling on the full picture. Therefore, it can be honestly stated that the House of Aragon question of whether they are a true royal house holding true sovereignty has not been fully tested, resolved or settled one way or the other. </div> <bR> <div> The real point here, and it is a big and important one, pertains exclusively to international law as it relates to sovereign rights. That is, that the full and complete right to rule can still be recognized and acknowledged, even though the loss of "<B>defacto</B>" sovereignty was over 700 hundreds<IMG SRC="3839b6eb0.jpg" border=0 width="182" height="235" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> years ago. In other words, this court upheld the law of nations as pertaining to "<B>de jure</B>" sovereignty that it can last forever.  Its decision was especially significant since it has international relevance and meaning. That is, by virtue of an agreement made on June 10, 1958 by the United Nations, the decisions of this particular court in Italy are officially authoritative in over<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>one hundred and twenty-five countries. And according to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, it is also valid in all the countries of the European Union. Hence, the judgment of this court pertaining to law is internationally powerful and binding throughout the entire earth. It confirms and validates the law of nations by making a nonreigning "<B>de jure</B>" sovereign prince equal to a reigning head of state. "<B>De jure</B>" princes, because they are the personification and embodiment of all goverment authority, are governments in exile. Truly they have profound and far-reaching inalienable rights. </div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>The Future of Nobility and Royalty</B> <A NAME="royalty"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="AvantGarde Bk BT" ><B><IMG SRC="38a9817c0.png" border=0 width="129" height="124" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT>As the true owners of the sovereign authority of their ancient countries or territories, these noble, royal and imperial houses can and have created valid and authentic titles of nobility, new orders of chivalry and legitimately ennobled others. This ancient sovereign right has continued, and will continue without<IMG SRC="4445bfc80.jpg" border=0 width="447" height="456" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> limitations as to time, which is just the nature of rightful sovereignty. It being a "<B>divine right</B>" in ancient law, or a hereditary proprietary right that lives and breathes perpetually in their lawful successors. </div> <bR> <div> <B>In other words, </B><B>true</B><B> </B><B>nobility and royalty can be passed on, and never lost, and thus can continue on indefinitely or forever as an important part of life for many decades and centuries yet to come. That is, it can go on perpetually without end. Provided, of course, those so endowed make worthy contributions and can still command the respect, admiration and approval of all people. That is, the value placed upon nobility and royalty is directly related to the individuals who bear the titles and what they embody. May the nobility of the earth be exemplary and live lives worthy of emulation and admiration. The future is depends on it. </B>(see "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U><B>Ideals</B></U></A></FONT>" and "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="MONARCHY AND NOBILITY: DIVINE RIGHTS RE"><U><B>Monarchy and Nobility: Divine Rights and Responsibilities</B></U></A></FONT>")</div> <bR> <div> But there is a very serious threat to all of this that must be faced head on. It has nothing to do with law. Justice and ancient laws uphold regal rights and the historical ownership to titles, territories, kingdoms, and empires, etc., even if modern governments do not.<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B><IMG SRC="2f84fbfd0.jpg" border=0 width="251" height="253" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></FONT> The problem is that there are so many scam artists out there who are deceivers and con men. They give out and sell phony titles and knighthoods that are nothing more than fakes or make believe. There are others who really believe that they bear true titles or have illustrious ancestors, when, in fact, they were victims of internet deception or unscrupulous genealogists. In other words, counterfeit nobility and royalty is a growing menace, confusing or blurring reality with illusions, fiction and make believe. They hurt the reputations, the due respect and honor the true ones would otherwise hold. They make everything royal and noble look bad. <B>In order to correct this serious threat to the whole field of nobility and royalty, and to safeguard and defend what is legitimate and true, the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty was created and will be maintained perpetually.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>You are encouraged to be a part of this important work to safeguard the future</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Arial" ><B>.</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B><U><IMG SRC="2e61ecbc0.jpg" border=0 width="236" height="188" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>We encourage you to read and enjoy the articles that follow, which are informative and can deepen one's understanding of the whys and wherefores as well as the true and permanent rights of royalty, nobility and chivalry. The following articles are considered to be especially important and valuable:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>(1)</B> "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U><B>IDEALS</B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <div> <B>(2)</B> "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="criticisms_and_benefits_of_monarchy.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ADVANTAGES"><U><B>ADVANTAGES</B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <div> <B>(3)</B> "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="history__sovereignty_and_the_royal_prerogative__the_future_of___de_jure__non_rei.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><B>SOVEREIGNTY & THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND ROYALTY</B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <div> <B>(4)</B> "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="MONARCHY AND NOBILITY: DIVINE RIGHTS RE"><U><B>MONARCHY AND NOBILITY: DIVINE RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES</B></U></A></FONT>"   </div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>(5) </B></FONT>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ARTICLES OF INTEREST AND IMPORT"><U><B>ARTICLES OF INTEREST AND IMPORT</B></U></A></FONT>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><IMG SRC="41db816b0.gif" border=0 width="129" height="107" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></FONT></div> <bR> <div> Article #1: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id70.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Dynastic Law"><U><B><U>Dynastic Law</U></B></U></A></FONT>" by Stephen P. Kerr, LL.M., JD</div> <bR> <div> Article #2: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Imperial Family of Brazil"><U><B><U>The Imperial Family of Brazil</U></B></U></A></FONT>" by Astrid Bodstein</div> <bR> <div> Article #3: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="German Nobility"><U><B><U>German Nobility</U></B></U></A></FONT>" by Michael Waas</div> <bR> <div> Article #4: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Nobiliary Law and Succession"><U><B><U>Nobiliary Law and Succession</U></B></U></A></FONT>" by Jan-Olov von Wowern<IMG SRC="41da8de20.jpg" border=0 width="141" height="226" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> Article #5: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id84.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Royal and Noble Ranks, Styles and Addres"><U><B><U>Royal and Noble Ranks, Styles and Addresses</U></B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <bR> <div> Article #6: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="HM Juan Carlos I: The King who Champione"><U><B><U>HM Juan Carlos I: The King who Championed Democracy</U></B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >Article #7: "</FONT><A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Genealogy"><U><B><U>Genealogy</U></B></U></A>"</div> <bR> <div> Article #8: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Heraldry"><U><B><U>Heraldry</U></B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <bR> <div> Article #9: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Chivalry and Modern Times"><U><B><U>Chivalry and Modern Times</U></B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <bR> <div> Article #10: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id82.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Sources of Corruption in Government: The"><U><B><U>Sources of Corruption in Government: The Need for Checks and Balances</U></B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <bR> <div> Article #11: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id86.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Virtue and Greatness"><U><B><U>Virtue and Greatness</U></B></U></A></FONT>" </div> <bR> <div> Article #12: "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id85.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Model Constitution"><U><B><U>The Model Constitution</U></B></U></A></FONT>"</div> <bR> <div> <B>For </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id48.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact "><U><B>Contact</B></U></A></FONT>"<B> information or to join the Commission as a contributor or apply for </B><B><IMG SRC="3ae719e50.jpg" border=0 width="281" height="229" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B>certification for titles, knighthood, status or ancestry, please first read the </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id32.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Disclaimer, Obligatory Contract Invitat"><U><B>Disclaimer and Obligatory Contract</B></U></A></FONT>." <B>If you fully agree with them, you are welcome to contact us, make contributions, answer our survey and/or become a part of this important cause. Our goals and mission are to protect the public from counterfeit titles, phony knighthoods and fake genealogies. We also want to certify the true and the genuine as well as promote chivalry, royalty and nobility. We need your support. There is so much that needs to be done. We invite you to contribute and join with us.  </B></div> <div> <B> <form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post" target="paypal"> <input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_s-xclick"> <input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!"> <img alt="" border="0" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" height="1"> <input type="hidden" name="encrypted" value="-----BEGIN PKCS7-----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-----END PKCS7----- "> </form>  </B><B>  </B></div> <div> <B>For Membership or to become Certified, please read </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id19.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Membership Categories, Fees, Evidence Re"><U><B>Membership Catagories, Fees, Evidence Requirements & Standards</B></U></A></FONT>."<B><IMG SRC="41e38a840.png" border=0 width="138" height="132" ALIGN="RIGHT" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> <B>When you are ready to move ahead with membership or certification, go to </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id52.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Enrollment"><U><B>Enrollments and/or Contributions</B></U></A></FONT>" <B>or</B> "<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Registration or Certification"><U><B>Registration</B></U></A></FONT><A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Registration or Certification"><U> </U></A><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id57.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Registration or Certification"><U><B>or Certification</B></U></A></FONT>."</div> <div> <B>We welcome your answers to the seven questions on our </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="id61.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Survey"><U><B>Survey</B></U></A></FONT>"<B> page and to make a comment if you like. But, first, before you do so, please read either the article entitled </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="the_ideals_of_nobility_and_royalty.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="IDEALS"><U><B>IDEALS</B></U></A></FONT>"<B> and/or the one entitled </B>"<FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><A HREF="criticisms_and_benefits_of_monarchy.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ADVANTAGES"><U><B>ADVANTAGES</B></U></A></FONT>."</div> <bR> <div> <B>References</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#BF0000" FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" ><B> <A NAME="references_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> It was decided to use internet references within the structure of the above article where possible to enable those interested to easily find another source for the quotes. </div> <div>   <center> <form method="get" action="http://www.google.com/custom" target="_top"> <table bgcolor="#cccccc"> <tr><td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top" align="left" height="32"> <a href="http://www.google.com/"> <img src="http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_25gry.gif" border="0" alt="Google" align="middle"></img></a> <input type="text" name="q" size="31" maxlength="255" value=""></input> <input type="submit" name="sa" value="Search"></input> <input type="hidden" name="client" value="pub-0772868426270025"></input> <input type="hidden" name="forid" value="1"></input> <input type="hidden" name="ie" value="ISO-8859-1"></input> <input type="hidden" name="oe" value="ISO-8859-1"></input> <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active"></input> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="GALT:#008000;GL:1;DIV:#336699;VLC:663399;AH:center;BGC:FFFFFF;LBGC:336699;ALC:0000FF;LC:0000FF;T:000000;GFNT:0000FF;GIMP:0000FF;FORID:1;"></input> <input type="hidden" name="hl" value="en"></input> </td></tr></table> </form> </center>   </div> <div> <B>© Copyright 2005/2009 -- International Commission on Nobility and Royalty.  All Rights Reserved.</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id59.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Royal Families of the World"><U><IMG SRC="04109110.png" border=0 width="9" height="17" ALT="previous" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A> <A HREF="#_" TITLE="SOVEREIGNTY THE FUTURE OF NOBILITY AND "><U><IMG SRC="04311110.png" border=0 width="17" height="17" ALT="up" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A> <A HREF="id49.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Royal News"><U><IMG SRC="04409110.png" border=0 width="9" height="17" ALT="next" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <script type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>   </div> <bR> <div>  <script type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>  </div> <bR> <div>  <script type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>  </div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>