The Legitimacy of Non Reigning Royal Families

by Salvatore Caputo

  Beginning with the Congress of Vienna in 1814 till after World War II in 1946, princes of the noble social class were not allowed to marry within the royal social class. Doing so would create a morganatic marriage, which resulted in the subsequent issue of a reigning imperial or royal house being denied succession rights.

  Princes of the noble social class were typically princes of the church and recipients of a princely papal title - a title of prince issued from the Pope, rather than from a monarch. Since the Pope acted as "His Holiness" and is not of princely highness or majesty himself, the princely families of the noble social class remained under the governance of an aristocrat holding a ranking of princely highness from within the royal social class.

  Consequently, princes of the noble social class were not deemed equal to the princely members of the royal social class. Alternatively, princely counts received their title with royal decree from the Emperor, Seine Kaiserliche un Konigliche Apostolische Majestat (His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty), and princely counts were of the highest standing within their given domain. As such, princely counts are of greater dignity and station than princes of the noble social class. A princely count could marry the daughter of the Emperor, and this marriage would be deemed a union of equals within the royal social class.

  Princes of the noble social class could not secure such a union and were forced to marry within the noble social class (the aristocratic class below the royal social class, containing all nobles lacking a standing of highness. Specifically, non-reigning and non-mediatized princes, dukes, marquises, counts, viscounts, barons etc.). In essence, princes whom lacked a standing of highness would never be able to fully rule autonomously or produce issue connected to reigning imperial or royal houses.

  The crown of Sicily, the prestige of being kings at last, and the wealth of Palermo helped strengthen the House of Savoy further. In 1720 they exchanged Sicily for Sardinia of which they were kings. In 1792 Piedmont-Sardinia joined the First Coalition against the French First Republic, but was beaten in 1796 by Napoleon and forced to conclude the disadvantageous Treaty of Paris (1796), giving the French army free passage through Piedmont. In 1798 Joubert, occupied Turin and forced Charles Emmanuel IV to abdicate and leave for the island of Sardinia. Eventually, in 1814 the kingdom was restored and enlarged with the addition of the former Republic of Genoa by the Congress of Vienna. In 1870, when the unification of Italy was consummated with the occupation of Rome by Piedmontese troops, the House of Savoy attempted to amalgamate these different nobilities.

  The project failed both politically and juridical. Many noble families remained faithful to the dethroned dynasties from which they had received their titles. Particularly, a considerable part of the Roman aristocracy, maintaining tradition, continued to figure officially in Vatican solemnities. They refused to recognize Rome's annexation to Italy, rejected any rapprochement with the Quirinal 1 and closed their salons as a sign of protest. To this mourning nobility was given the name "Black Nobility".

  Nevertheless, the amalgamation advanced in no small scale in the social sphere through marriages, social relations, and the like. As a result, the Italian aristocracy in our day constitutes a whole, at least from many points of view. Article 42 of the 1929 Lateran Treaty, however, assured the Roman nobility a special status, since it recognized the Pope's right to grant new titles and accepted those granted previously by the Holy See. Thus the Italian and Roman nobilities, by then already at peace, continued to exist legally side by side.

  The Concordat of 1985 between the Holy See and the Italian Republic makes no mention to this the situation of the Italian nobility—and of the European nobility in general—did not cease to be complex.

  The Black Nobility (Italian: "nobiltà nera" or "aristocrazia nera") are Roman aristocratic families who sided with the Papacy under Pope Pius IX after the Savoy family-led army of the Kingdom of Italy entered Rome on September 20, 1870, overthrew the Pope and the Papal States, and took over the Quirinal Palace and any nobles subsequently ennobled by the Pope prior to the 1929 Lateran Treaty. For the next 59 years, the Pope confined himself to Vatican City and claimed to be a prisoner in the Vatican to avoid the appearance of accepting the authority of the new Italian government and state. Aristocrats who had been ennobled by the Pope and were formerly subjects of the Holy See, including the senior members of the Papal Court, kept the doors of their palaces in Rome closed to mourn the Pope's confinement.

  Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli) belonged to a noble family, whose sphere of relations was naturally among the nobility. In 1929, one prominent member of his family was graced with the title of marquis; and the Pope's nephews, Don Carlo Maria, Don Marcantonio, and Don Giulio Pacelli, each received the hereditary title of prince from King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy.

  1 (Latin: Collis Quirinalis, is one of the Seven Hills of Rome, at the north-east of the city center. The Quirinal Palace was Pope Gregory XIII as a papal summer residence. Now it is the location of the official residence of the Italian Head of State. It has housed thirty popes, four kings and eleven presidents of the Italian Republic)

  Despite the relatively recent name, the Black Nobility had existed for centuries, originating in the Baronial class of Rome and in the powerful families who moved to Rome to benefit from a family connection to the Vatican. These supported the Popes in the governance of the Papal States and in the administration of the Holy See. Many of the members of Black Noble families also became high-ranking clergy and even Popes. Black Nobility families (in this instance families whose ancestors included Popes) still in existence include notably the Colonna, Massimo, Orsini, Pallavicini, Borghese, Odescalchi, and Ludovisi. Major extinct papal families include the Savelli, Caetani, the Aldobrandini family and Conti. Famous members of Black Nobility families include Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII, an important financier and Prospero Colonna, mayor of Rome.

  Following the conclusion of the Lateran Treaty in 1929, the Black Nobility was given dual citizenship in Italy and Vatican City. Under the provisions of the treaty, noble titles granted by the pope were recognized in the Kingdom of Italy. Many of these families were members of the largely ceremonial Papal Noble Guard; others were foreigners affiliated with the Holy See in various ways. In 1931, Pope Pius XI denied the request of Alfonso XIII of Spain to open the Noble Guard further to nobles from all Catholic countries. In World War II, the Papal Noble Guard guarded the Pope alongside the Swiss Guard.

  Pope Paul VI abolished many Vatican City positions with the apostolic lettermotu proprio Pontificalis Domus (English: The Papal Household) in 1968. As well as changing the name of the group from Papal Court to Papal Household, many of the positions occupied by the Black Nobility were abolished. According to the motu proprio: "Many of the offices entrusted to members of the Papal Household were deprived of their function, continuing to exist as purely honorary positions, without much correspondence to concrete needs of the times."

  Many of these positions and the Papal Court itself were still set up for administering the Papal States, which had been lost in 1870. The Black Nobility's perks, such as Vatican City license plates, were also withdrawn. Some Black Nobles resented these changes. In May 1977, some members of the Black Nobility, led by Princess Elvina Pallavicini, started courting traditional Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

  The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire The throne of the Holy Roman Empire, elective from its origins, became de facto hereditary in 1438, when Albert II, the Illustrious, from the House of Austria, was elected. From then on the college of Electoral Princes always chose the head of this House for the imperial throne. The election of Francis of Lorraine in 1745 was only an apparent exception, since he had married the heiress of the House of Austria, Archduchess Maria Theresa of Hapsburg. The house of HapsburgLorraine thus came into being as the legitimate continuer of the House of Austria at the head of the Holy Roman Empire.

  On the other hand, the strongly federative character of th
e Holy Roman Empire lasted until its dissolution in 1806, when Napoleon forced Emperor Francis II (Francis I of Austria) to abdicate. With his imposition of the Confederation of the Rhine that same year, the Corsican drastically reduced the number of sovereign principalities in the Empire.

  The subsequent German Confederation (1815-1866), which had the emperor of Austria as its hereditary president, represented a conservative interim in this centripetal march. It was, however, dissolved after the Austro-Prussian war and the battle of Sadowa (1866). The North German Confederation was then formed under Prussian hegemony. Austria and the states of southern Germany were excluded.

  After the defeat of Napoleon III in 1870, this confederation became the German Reich, which was much more centralized and recognized only twenty-five member states as sovereign.

  The centripetal impulse did not stop here. The Anschluss (Union) of Austria and, shortly thereafter, the annexation of the Sudetenland to the Third Reich (1938) carried this impulse to an extreme and resulted in the Second World War. The nullification of these centripetal conquests of Adolf Hitler and the recent incorporation of East Germany into the present German state may mark the final point of these successive modifications of the German map.

  The crises resulting from World War I brought some changes to this picture. They deprived part of the noble families of their means of livelihood and forced many of their members to secure subsistence through the exercise of professions at variance, even when honest and worthy, with the psychology, customs, and social prestige of their class.

  World War II brought additional and more extensive economic ruin to many noble families, worsening yet further the multiple problems the aristocracy had to face. In this way, the crisis of a great social class became acute and firmly entrenched. It was with this picture before him that Pius XII addressed the current situation of the Italian nobility in his allocutions to the Roman Patrician and Nobility, which had obvious relevance for all the European nobility.

  Mediatisation Mediatisation is the loss of imperial immediacy. Broadly defined it is the subsumption of one monarchy into another monarchy in such a way that the ruler of the annexed state keeps his sovereign title and, sometimes, a measure of local power. For instance: when a sovereign county is annexed to a larger realm, its reigning count might find himself subordinated to another sovereign ruler, but nevertheless remains a count of sovereign rank, if not actually fully sovereign in fact. His subjects owe allegiance to the higher prince through him, and so his sovereignty is said to be mediatised, that is, rendered intermediate. The term "mediatisation" was originally applied to the reorganization of the German states during the early 19th century, although the process had been going on since the Middle Ages. Mediatisation has occurred in a number of other countries: Italy (e.g. Orsini, Doria, Pallavicini), Russia (e.g. Sibirsky, Vorotynsky), and France (e.g. Rohan, de Bouillon and Lorraine) are notable examples. The term is also sometimes used in reference to some Indian princely states.

  Holy Roman Empire German Mediatisation Between 1803 and 1806, the vast majority of the states of the Holy Roman Empire were mediatised by Napoleon. These states lost their imperial immediacy (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) and became part of other states. The number of states was reduced from about three hundred to about thirty. Mediatisation went along with secularisation: the abolition of most of the ecclesiastic states.

  The legal basis for mediatisation was the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss (German Mediatisation) of 1803, which had become necessary under pressure from France. The Treaty of the Confederation of the Rhine of 1806 continued the process of mediatisation. The constitution of the German Confederation of 1815 confirmed the mediatisation, but gave certain rights to the mediatised princes, such as first instance jurisdiction.

  Mediatised sovereign houses rank higher than other houses of nominally equal (or higher) rank, but who never ruled a state.This division had great social significance, as mediatised princes were considered equal to royals for marriage purposes; in essence they were regarded as royalty. However, there were two types of mediatised families; old and new. Old were those who have for centuries ruled immediate imperial territories. New families were those who obtained immediate status after the end of the Middle Ages, mostly as a reward for service and loyalty to the reigning Emperor. Most of these families came from hereditary Habsburg lands and south-western Germany; originally they were mediate nobles, upgraded to immediate status.

  After the mediatisation, these families were officially regarded as equals to royalty; however, the reigning houses often, but not always declined to treat them as such. Emperor Franz Joseph, for example, forbade his nephew`s son, future Charles I of Austria, even to consider a possible match with a Hohenlohe princess even though the Hohenlohes were an old family who reigned for centuries prior to the mediatisation and King Frederick William III of Prussia had to marry morganatically the

  Countess Auguste von Harrach even though she came from a mediatised family. Thus in theory, if a scion from the most obscure mediatised family (say the child of an impoverished mediatised count) married an emperor or a king, their alliance was considered equal, not morganatic, and their children had dynastic rights. In practice, however, this never happened. The authoritative guide to the royal and noble houses of Europe, the Almanach de Gotha, is, since late nineteenth century, divided into three sections: sovereign houses, mediatised houses, and noble houses.

  THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, 1814-1815

  In 1802, Europe was made up of several hundred states, which were dominated by England, Austria, Russia, Prussia and France, which was the most powerful country. In 1804, when Napoleon Bonaparte took over France, his military exploits had led to the complete control of virtually all of Europe. In 1812, when Napoleon moved against Russia; England, Spain and Portugal were already at war with France. They were later joined by Sweden, Austria; and in 1813, Prussia joined the coalition to end the siege of Europe, and to "assure its future peace by the re-establishment of a just equilibrium of the powers." In 1814, the coalition defeated France, and in March of that year, marched into Paris. France's borders were returned to their original 1792 location, which had been established by the First Peace of Paris, and Napoleon was exiled to Elba, a small island off the Tucson coast of Italy.

  From September, 1814 to June, 1815, the powers of the allied coalition, winners of the Napoleonic Wars, met at the Congress of Vienna, along with a large number of rulers and officials representing smaller states. It was the biggest political meeting in European history. RepresentingEngland was Lord Robert Stewart, the 2nd Viscount Castlereagh; France, with Foreign Minister CharlesMaurice Talleyrand de Perigord; Prussia, with KingFriedrich Wilhelm III; and Austria, with Emperor Franz II.

  “An unusual feature of the "Congress of Vienna" was that it 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. On the other hand, the Congress was the first occasion in history where on a continental scale people came together in place to hammer out a treaty, instead of relying mostly on messengers and messages between the several capitals. The Congress of Vienna settlement, despite later changes, formed the framework for European international politics until 1914.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna. Throughout the 19th century, there was growing interest in establishing new national identities, which had a drastic impact on the map of Europe. These transformations also highlighted the failure of a certain ’European order’ which led to the outbreak of the First World War.

  “….Besides, the decisions of the Congress were made by the Five Great Powers (Austria, France, Prussia, Russia and the United Kingdom), and not all the countries of Europe could extend their rights at the Congress. For example, Italy became a mere "geographical expression" as divided into eight parts (Parma, Modena, Tuscany, Lombardy, Venetia, Piedmont-Sardinia, the Papal States, Naples-Sicily) under
the control of different powers, while Poland was under the influence of Russia after the Congress. The arrangements that made the Five Great Powers finally led to future disputes. The Congress of Vienna preserved the balance of power in Europe, but it could not check the spread of revolutionary movements on the continent”.

  The main concern of the Congress was to redistribute conquered territories, create a balance of power, restore the pre-Napoleonic order through King Louis XVIII, return the power to families who were ruling in 1789, and to return the Roman Catholic Church to its former power. Discussion revolved around the creation of a Federation of Europe that would establish a group of independent kingdoms which would be tied together through an administrative governing body that would, among other things, provide military defense. In their plan, Switzerland was made a neutral state that served as a repository for their finances.

  In recent years the question of the legitimacy of international law has been discussed quite intensively. Such questions are, for example, whether international law lacks legitimacy in general; whether international law or a part of it has yielded to the facts of power; whether adherence to international legal commitments should be subordinated to self-defined national interests; whether international law or particular rules of it – such as the prohibition of the use of armed force – have lost their ability to induce compliance (compliance pull); and what is the relevance of non-enforcement or failure to obey for the legitimacy of that particular international norm.

  Legitimacy in International Law

  “International Governance becomes administrative”. Authors Nico Krisch and Benedict Kingsbury argue that international governance has become increasingly administrative. The international legal order has changed. It is no longer adequate to think of the international legal order in terms of inter-state, consent based law. In the classic notion of international law, norms are agreed upon