The origins of knighthood........................................................................................................109
Contemporary Pontiff Knighthood Orders.........................................................................110
Legitimate Order of Chivalry...................................................................................................111
Bogus Order?................................................................................................................................112
REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 114
COMMENTARY.............................................................................................................. 117
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION AND ASSOCIATION ON NOBILITY (TICAN) ...........................................................................................................................................................117
PREFACE
The first states were mostly monarchies, as far as we can tell, they were ruled by kings or queens. The earliest monarchies that we know about are the ones in Sumer ("land of the civilized lords" or "native land", Sumer was a civilization and historical region in southern Mesopotamia, modern Iraq during the Chalcolithic – Early Greece and Early Bronze), and Egypt. These both began around 3000 BC. But it was not only the early states which had kings and queens. After all there are still many countries which have kings and queens even today. Some other examples of places which were ruled by kings are Greece in the Late Bronze Age, as described in Homers’ Iliad, the Etruscan cities in northern Italy, including Rome between about 700 and 500 BC, China in the Warring States period, the Early Medieval kingdoms of Western Europe and Africa like the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Franks, Ethiopia and Mali, and the later medieval kingdoms, both Christian and Islamic, of France, England, and Spain.
People often think that in ancient and medieval times only men could rule. It is true that there have been many more men in power than women, but there have always been women rulers too. There were women who ruled Egypt, like Hatshepsut and Cleopatra, and women who ruled the Byzantine Empire, like Irene. There were women who ruled southern France, like Eleanor, and women who ruled Castile in Spain, like Isabelle, and women who ruled the kingdom of Kush in Africa, and the Empresses Lu and Wu Chao in China. Many other women held power without having the official title, often as regents for their sons or grandsons, like Agrippina and Julia Maesa in Rome, or Blanche of Castile Blance in France.
Throughout history, royal dynasties have dominated countries and empires around the world. Kings, queens, emperors, chiefs, pharaohs, czars -- whatever title they ruled by, monarchs have shaped institutions, rituals, and cultures in every time period and every corner of the globe. The concept of monarchy originated in prehistoric times and evolved over century’s right up to the present. Efforts to overthrow monarchies or evade their rule -- such as the American, French, Chinese, and Russian revolutions -- are considered turning points in world history. Even today, many countries retain their monarchies, although in vastly reduced form with little political power. One cannot understand human history and government without understanding monarchs and monarchies.
One has to remember that Christianity played an intricate role in most of the lives of the European people and now that Charlemagne had been anointed by the church "Roman Emperor" his influence stretched far past where his military might could have taken it.
World history proves that the civilization of any country is built by the monarchy; it is difficult to imagine civilization growing in India without the influence of Muhgal Emperors Ashok and Akbar. Whether the Great Wall of China or the Pyramids of Egypt, Monarchy builds great things. There is no civilization living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy.
THE LEGITIMACY OF NON REIGNING ROYAL FAMILIES
This may be controversial for some readers who will probably criticize for this topic. Such criticism may be to some degree reasonable because of difference of opinion of the succession based on certain principles of dynastic law. It also depends on whichever side the commentators are on. Even among specialists personal opinions are numerals.
In this Article, the Author challenges the definition of the term "state" that is commonly accepted in legal scholarship as the basis for assessing whether an entity is a subject of international law. By analyzing a number of cases that do not fit into the "traditional" model--including the Holy See, Napoleon, etc., the conclusion is that the only essential element of a subject of international law is its sovereignty.
The largest segment of world history consists of the history of Europe, which has mostly been determined by the concepts of sovereignty, religion (Christianity) and war. List of treaties contains historic agreements, pacts, peaces, and major contracts between states, armies, governments, and tribal groups. Situations of international armed conflict regularly give rise to some misunderstandings with regard to the applicable law and its interpretation. This especially holds true if these misunderstandings are reinforced by statements of a purely political character. All too often some commentators, obviously considering such statements to be of higher relevance than the law, prefer to rely upon these statements rather than on a proper analysis of the relevant treaties.
It is the aim of the present paper to clarify what law applies as the transition from war to peace occurs. To do this, it must first be determined which situations qualify as wars or as international armed conflicts, as distinguished from peace. Closely related to this determination are the different forms of terminating and of suspending an international armed conflict. Clarifications of such forms are prerequisites for the identification of the point in time at which the law of armed conflict ceases to apply. After these necessary preliminaries, it will be possible to deal with the rights and duties of an occupying power and with the legal validity of the measures taken by that power. Thus, the ground will be paved for a final determination of what law applies during the different phases marking the transition from war to peace.
The war with Napoleon reversed the dynastic monarchies and their societies’ legal structures. The Napoleonic example shows war’s ability to transform law. At the time of Napoleon’s rise to power there had been over 400 separate European legal codes. Changes in economic and political philosophy around the world have shifted the leadership of many countries. The United States was just a youngster, a newly formed county, and Europe was in turmoil. In 1648 the Westphalian Treaty came into existence. Depending on one's critical view-point, this treaty either defined the central architectural principle of the modern state system or provided a very misleading "origin myth" about its evolution.
This book is the presentation of history of Europe since the downfall of Napoleon and endeavored to explain the internal development of the various nations, and their external relations of the gradual expansion of Europe and its insisted and growing pressure upon the world outside, causing the imminent collapse of many monarchies, its princes and noble families. Moreover, only the broader lines of the evolution of century can be traced in this short volume. Therefore, omitted many subjects in order to give a fuller treatment to those, in our opinion, are more important for the discussion of the legitimacy of nonreigning royal families.
Legal recognition of nobility is more common in monarchies, but nobility also existed in such republics as the Dutch Provinces, Genoa and Venice, and remains part of the legal social structure of some non-hereditary regimes, e.g. San Marino and Vatican City in Europe. Hereditary titles often distinguish nobles from non-nobles, although in many nations most of the nobility have been un-titled, and a hereditary title need not indicate nobility.
While noble status formerly conferred significant privileges in most jurisdictions, by the 21st century it had become a largely honorary dignity in most societies, although a few, residual privileges may still be preserved le
gally (e.g. Netherlands, Spain, UK) and some Asian, Pacific and African cultures continue to attach considerable significance to formal, hereditary rank or titles.
Non reigning Monarchies today, based largely in Europe and Far East some of the ruling royal families are still wealthy and powerful. They are philanthropic and excellent benefactors to the people and countries they rule. Others are largely ceremonial or constitutional monarchies existing in a complimentary relationship respected and revered but holding little or no ruling power. People who are rightful heirs to titles may have lost their family wealth but their titles and the right to rule a kingdom is customarily hereditary.
If the nobility is regarded as an inherently parasitic class of profligates, the answer is no. However, Pius XII rejected this caricature of the nobility, which is part of the black legend spread by the French Revolution and those that followed it in Europe and the world. While clearly stating that abuses and excesses deserving history's censure have occurred in noble circles, he nevertheless affirms, in moving terms, the existence of a harmony between the nobility's mission and the natural order instituted by God Himself, as well as the elevated and beneficial character of this mission.
Nevertheless, this splendor will shine in industrialists or merchants who, in the pursuit of their activities, render noteworthy services to the common good with significant sacrifice of their legitimate personalinterests.
Moreover, should the interplay of circumstances enable a non-noble family to render such services for several generations, thisalone may well be considered sufficient to elevate that lineage to noble status.
Something of this sort occurred with the Venetian nobility, which was largely made up of merchants. This class governed the Most Serene Republic and, consequently, held in its hands the common good of the State, which it raised to the rank of an international power. It is not surprising, therefore, that these merchants attained the status of nobles. They did this so effectively and authentically that they assimilated the elevated cultural tone and manners of the best military and feudal nobility.
Misinterpretation of the Congress of Vienna
European heads of government were looking to establish long-lasting peace and stability on the continent after the defeat of Napoleon. They had a goal of the new European order—one of collective security and stability for the entire continent. A series of meetings in Vienna, known as the Congress of Vienna, were called to set up policies to achieve this goal. Originally, the Congress of Vienna was scheduled to last for four weeks. Instead, it went on for eight months.
The “Congress of Vienna" was not properly a Congress: it never met in plenary session, and most of the discussions occurred in informal, face-to-face, sessions among the Great Powers with limited participation by delegates from the lesser states. Most of the decisions made in Vienna during the winter of 1814–1815 were made in secret among representatives of the five “great powers”—Russia, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain, and France. By far the most influential of these representatives was the foreign minister of Austria, Prince Klemens von Metternich (Picture above).
Metternich distrusted the democratic ideals of the French Revolution. Like most other European aristocrats, he felt that Napoleon’s behavior had been a natural outcome of experiments with democracy. Metternich wanted to keep things as they were and remarked, “The first and greatest concern for the immense majority of every nation is the stability of laws—never their change.” Metternich had three goals at the Congress of Vienna. First, he wanted to prevent future French aggression by surrounding France with strong countries. Second, he wanted to restore a balance of power, so that no country would be a threat to others. Third, he wanted to restore Europe’s royal families to the thrones they had held before Napoleon’s conquests.
Despite his defeat, Napoleon had several important effects on Europe. For one thing, he had spread the idea of liberalism, especially in Western and Central Europe. By the same token, he had also spread the idea of nationalism in East and Central Europe.
The rulers of Europe were very nervous about the legacy of the French Revolution. They worried that the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity might encourage revolutions elsewhere. Late in 1815, Czar Alexander I, Emperor Francis I of Austria, and King Frederick William III of Prussia signed an agreement called the “Holy Alliance”. In it, they pledged to base their relations with other nations on Christian principles in order to combat the forces of revolution. Finally, a series of alliances devised by Metternich, called the “Concert of Europe”, ensured that nations would help one another if any revolutions broke out. Across Europe, conservatives held firm control of the governments, but they could not contain the ideas that had emerged during the French Revolution. France after 1815 was deeply divided politically. Conservatives were happy with the monarchy of Louis XVIII and were determined to make it last. Liberals, however, wanted the king to share more power with the legislature. And many people in the lower classes remained committed to the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Similarly, in other countries there was an explosive mixture of ideas and factions that would contribute directly to revolutions in 1830 and 1848. Despite their efforts to undo the French Revolution, the leaders at the Congress of Vienna could not turn back the clock. The Revolution had given Europe its first experiment in democratic government. Although the experiment had failed, it had set new political ideas in motion. The major political upheavals of the early 1800s had their roots in the French Revolution.
Revolution in Latin America The actions of the Congress of Vienna had consequences far beyond events in Europe. When Napoleon deposed the king of Spain during the Peninsular War, liberal Creoles (colonists born in Spanish America) seized control of many colonies in the Americas. When the Congress of Vienna restored the king to the Spanish throne, royalist peninsulares (colonists born in Spain) tried to regain control of these colonial governments. The Creoles, however, attempted to retain and expand their power. In response, the Spanish king took steps to tighten control over the American colonies. This action angered the Mexicans, who rose in revolt and successfully threw off Spain’s control. Other Spanish colonies in Latin America also claimed independence. At about the same time, Brazil declared independence from Portugal.
The Congress of Vienna left a legacy that would influence world politics for the next 100 years. The continent-wide efforts to establish and maintain a balance of power diminished the size and the power of France. At the same time, the power of Britain and Prussia increased. Nationalismbegan to spread in Italy, Germany, Greece, and to other areas that the Congress had put under foreign control. Eventually, the nationalistic feelings would explode into revolutions, and new nations would be formed. European colonies also responded to the power shift. Spanish colonies took advantage of the events in Europe to declare their independence and break away from Spain. At the same time, ideas about the basis of power and authority had changed permanently as a result of the French Revolution. More and more, people saw democracy as the best way to ensure equality and justice for all. The French Revolution, then, changed the social attitudes and assumptions that had dominated Europe for centuries. A new era had begun.
Consequences As Europe changed throughout the 19th century, several royal families were gradually dismantled. The Kingdom of Naples saw the removal of its sovereign Joachim Murat. Venice ceased being a provincial capital of Austria by 1866 and ceded to a unified Italy. When it became clear that the Venetian Republic would never again be fully independent, Venetian patricians redirected their political efforts. Several members of Royal Houses were experienced diplomats, and various individuals of royal houses branch accepted recruitment by the Austrian Emperor to serve as ambassadors for the Imperial House of Habsburg-Lorraine.
By the end of the 17th Century, claims to absolute sovereignty on the part of the English Crown and Parliament had been established. The Revolution of 1688, during which James II was chased from power, produced the English Bill of
Rights, establishing a constitutional system in which the King’s powers were both limited and checked by Parliament.
Britain’s American colonists revolted because they refused to accept that Parliament had the right to govern their colonies without reference to established rights. Debates over “external” versus “internal” taxation in particular rested on the American insistence that their relationship with Britain was a limited one, governed by the provisions of colonial charters and by historical precedent, which had established that the colonies would be selfgoverning. The principle of sovereignty played a crucial role in fomenting rebellion and, from the British perspective, losing an important part of its empire.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the combined use of specific legal terminology and phrasing allowed Italian registers to inscribe any type of title, foreign or domestic. Registers specifically used very precise words, abbreviations and phrasing to specify the various types of comital rankings, from noble counts up to princely counts. All comital rankings within Italy were registered through the title of "count". Since 1763, the Almanach de Gotha recorded the genealogies of the sovereign houses of Europe and of the “mediatized” (to annex a lesser state to a greaterstate as a means of permitting the ruler of the lesser state to retain title and partial authority) princes and princely counts of Europe and the Holy Roman Empire. However, the several genealogies of Italian noble houses were not included in the Almanach de Gotha. Titular princely counts connected to nominal territories were also excluded from the Gotha since they were not mediatised (the members of formerly reigning houses who were reclassified into intermediary princely or princely comital houses).
Aristocrats of non-mediatized houses with a line of titular princely counts were registered within their country of origin, and Italian registers were prepared to follow precise legal standards of inscription for the registration of an Austrian princely title of highness. Listing the name of a nominal territory was not required by law.
The Legitimacy of Non Reigning Royal Families Page 2