On the Headship of Non-Regnant European Dynasties

Baron Salvatore Fonte delle Camorrie

Introduction

Among non-regnant dynasties, we find numerous European royal families in
which the dynastic head is a man who would be king but in fact never has
ascended the throne of the country his ancestors ruled. For a number of years
some arcane questions have been raised in certain quarters regarding the
rightful headship of some of these royal houses. Simply expressed, there are
several cases in which dissenting members of non-regnant royal families have
claimed dynastic headship even though they are not lawfully entitled to do
so. This concise essay proposes some common sense in the study of an uncommon
subject. Its only goal is to provide the interested reader with the framework
by which to arrive at his own conclusions in matters which, admittedly,
concern few persons outside the dynasties themselves. The longer that a
dynasty is non-regnant, the more likely it is that questions of headship will
develop, at least in certain quarters.

We refer here to those dynasties that have been deposed in the nineteenth or
twentieth centuries, rather than various long-extinct ones (such as those of
Imperial Constantinople) for which fraudulent pretenders emerge every so
often.

Although the quasi-legalistic and sometimes metaphysical questions
occasionally posed when discussing this topic are typical of those raised by
eccentric claimants and their supporters long after the regnant heads of such
dynasties have been deposed, it is worth mentioning, by way of example, that
even the headships of certain regnant dynasties are questioned occasionally.
There are, for instance, those who might argue that H. M. Queen Elizabeth II
is not the "legitimate" head of the British Royal Family. In the case of a
regnant head of state, such questions may be relegated to the realm of
hypothesis. Where a monarchy (whose last king is deceased) has been
supplanted by a republican state, and where traditional cultural and dynastic
institutions (orders of knighthood, etc.) are involved, esoteric issues
sometimes assume greater importance than they otherwise would be accorded.

One of the most important aspects of such debates to be borne in mind is the
simple reality that, with the possible exception of the United Nations (and
then only under certain conditions), a lawful sovereign successor state is
the only authority fully empowered to recognise the head of a non-regnant
royal dynasty that once ruled (or reigned over) its territory, and various
states have done so. (For example, the Italian Republic, according to
constitutional laws, recognises Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia as Head of the
Royal House of Italy, and according to official ministerial declarations
recognises Ferdinando di Borbone as Head of the Royal House of the Two
Sicilies.) A nation's decision to grant such recognition is based on the
advice of informed scholars expert in such matters, as opposed to the
fanciful theories espoused by self-styled "scholars" abroad, be they resident
in Tokyo, London or New York.

Obviously, then, this is not the appropriate place to debate the merits of
claims advanced by particular individuals. It should be observed, however,
that many dynastic arguments presented over the years by self-styled scholars
of dynastic history and law have cited only "selective" evidence,
conveniently omitting facts which might attenuate the credibility of the
cases being advanced. These arguments are bolstered by various tactics, such
as the presentation of source documents (decrees and proclamations) outside
of their proper historical context. Such persons may deliberately omit
unfavorable facts, or present inaccurate interpretations and translations
from foreign languages. This approach differs fundamentally from that
employed in a court of law, or before the government of a democratic state,
where opposing sides are permitted to submit their evidence before the
juridical authority empowered to render a decision supported by legal statute
and practice.

Herewith are described the principal criteria generally considered to govern
the legitimacy of claims to headship in non-regnant dynasties.

Dynastic Law

Dynastic law, as it existed until deposition of a dynasty's last regnant
sovereign head and to the extent that it is still practicable today, is the
principal determinant of who may succeed to headship of a non-regnant royal
dynasty. This typically involves such fundamental principles as "Salic Law"
concerning the gender of possible heads of these dynasties. In some
dynasties, those qualified to assume a place in the line of succession to
headship of the house must also be of a particular religious affiliation
(i.e. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.). In most dynasties, those
in the line of succession must be of legitimate birth (i.e. born to wed
parents).

As in the case of any code of law, certain dynastic statutes and practices
are ascribed greater importance than others. (By way of analogy, most
theologians agree that in the Ten Commandments the proscription against
murder is far more important than that against adultery, though both are
highly significant.) As dynasties are based on the most fundamental social
unit, namely the family, it is logical that the comparative importance of one
dynastic law in relation to another usually reflects the hierarchy of values
espoused in the context of the family. Most of us probably would agree that
one's gender, religion, and perhaps his legitimacy of birth, are far more
fundamental to his individual and familial life than factors such as the
precise pedigree of his spouse, and so it is with royal families. More
importantly, such matters as gender and religion may be viewed as essentially
unwavering social norms; males, females, Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants
are defined today in essentially the same terms as a century ago. Yet, the
norms that govern such matters as courtship have changed considerably in
these hundred years. Consequently, the dynastic views of this institution
have changed. Some aspects of succession law are simply less important today
than in the past.

To elucidate this, it is worth considering a simple analogy only slightly
more whimsical than some theories advanced when discussing these matters. Let
us suppose that in 1900, when the last monarch of a particular dynasty was
deposed, a dynastic law, which subsequent heads of the house cannot change
(the statutes, if not the application, of dynastic laws being immutable
outside an actual reign), required that the heir could not succeed to
headship of the dynasty unless, at his coronation ceremony, he first drank an
elixir made with the blood of the rare and elusive Mongolian blue unicorn
from a cup fashioned from the horn of the same beast. This presented no
particular difficulty, except for capture of the unruly animal, at the
coronation of 1895, when animal rights movements were in their infancy. By
1995, however, this rare equine species had become extinct, and the present
claimant to dynastic headship never partook of the rite required by dynastic
law, even though a Mongolian museum was found that would have lent our
friendly prince a carved ivory unicorn horn cup for the occasion. If the
application of this particular law does not cease, what will happen? Will the
dynasty itself cease to continue as an entity?

Some have cited the lack of "equal" marital unions contracted by the dynasts
of non-regnant royal houses as evidence of exclusion from the line of
succession, but nowadays, when marriages are based more on spousal affection
than parental will, it isn't easy to arrange for one's son a marriage to a
woman for whom he has no romantic affinity. As there exists not a single
regnant European dynasty that still enforces such a law, it is unreasonable
to presume that this kind of statute would not have been abrogated if some of
these dynasties still reigned today.

It is clear that in certain cases, though particular dynastic laws cannot be
abrogated ex post facto, their application must cease if a dynasty is to
continue, even though its head may never reign. Under circumstances such as
those described, it is up to the members of the dynasty, acting on the advice
of competent authorities, to decide whether, in view of drastically altered
social conditions, certain dynastic laws can still be considered valid.

Familial Sanction

The assent of fellow members of a non-regnant royal family is important to
guarantee that proper continuity (the rightful order of succession) is
ensured, as members of the family are privy to facts and events that may be
unknown to the general public, and as a group can refute an unsubstantiated
claim made by a kinsman on the pretext of a principle other than a legitimate
one. While the majority opinion of other members of the family may not in
every case be tantamount to law, it certainly reflects their prior knowledge
of the legitimate line of succession, as they were raised knowing that Cousin
John, not Cousin Carl, would succeed Uncle William as head of the dynasty.

The will or testament, or certain other actions, of the previous head of the
dynasty often serve the same purpose. In some cases, a particular designation
or title reserved to the hereditary successor to dynastic headship may have
been bestowed upon the heir by the last recognised head of the dynasty. An
impromptu, dissenting claim by eccentric Cousin Carl can thus be easily
dismissed, even though he will doubtless find outsiders to defend his
assertions. While it is quite possible that one member of a royal family
entertains a non-conformist perspective of dynastic succession, it is less
likely that the majority would share such a view.

This sometimes provokes situations that can only be described as comical. On
one occasion, a dissenting prince angered at his kinsmen for not supporting
his spurious claim to dynastic headship "expelled" these "disloyal" cousins
from an order of knighthood of which, by virtue of his alleged headship of
the dynasty, he claimed to be grand master. Impertinent and ineffective
though it may have been, this gesture only attenuated what little credibility
this gentleman may have had.

It is worth observing, however, that in certain non-regnant royal houses,
most notably those of Russia and Ethiopia, family associations exist which
for particular reasons might not necessarily support the explicit endorsement
of any dynastic head. The primary purpose of its foundation or continuity
might be the preservation of the dynasty as an identifiable entity and
support of charitable and cultural activities in its former realm. In the
case of Ethiopia, the extant association, the Crown Council, existed during
the Emperor's reign, when it served to refute or confirm succession to the
Crown, which did not always follow the line of primogeniture.

Assent of the People

If dynastic law were the sole determinant of the legitimacy needed to accede
to dynastic headship, the British sovereign would be a Bavarian descendant of
the Stuart claimants, rather than a member of the House of Windsor descended
from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Whatever the stipulations of dynastic
law might be, kings do not rule unless they are supported by their people,
and particularly by their nobility, regardless of whether the latter has been
erected into a parliamentary body. The assent of the people of the dynasty's
former realm is necessary if a claim to headship of a royal house is to be
taken seriously in the royal family's own country. "Assent of the people"
implies not the "popular" support of a monarchist organisation, but the
explicit support of a clear majority of the titled noblemen, or their
legitimate heirs, who were recognised by the last regnant head of the dynasty
(i.e. the sovereign) in the place the dynasty ruled. The traditional rank of
such noblemen need not be recognised officially by the present government
(i.e. the Russian Republic, the Italian Republic, etc.) to be considered
relevant in this regard.

Recognition by the State

As we mentioned in the Introduction, it is undeniable that, in the case of a
free, lawful and democratic successor state recognised internationally (as by
the United Nations), recognition of the head of the dynasty is important if
he is to exercise any serious cultural role in the land of his ancestors.
Although such recognition may take various forms, it reflects a nation's
serious scholarly consideration of the dynast's position.

Presuming that the proper juridical conditions (cited above) exist, it says
little for the veracity of a pretender's claims when his most adamant or
vocal support is to be found outside his ancestral realm, for this makes a
mockery of his position as the would-be representative of his own people.

Though desirable, recognition by the heads of other dynasties is of lesser
significance. In some cases, the royal households of non-regnant dynasts lack
the juridical apparatus to arrive at such decisions objectively.

Recognition by Ecclesiastical Authority

In most of the European monarchical states that existed until the end of the
Second World War, the Church played an important role either in the
coronation, which may have been a religious ceremony, or in the life of the
nation. (Italy and Russia both had official state religions at the time their
monarchs were deposed, and their sovereigns were fully accepted by
ecclesiastical authorities, namely the Pope as Primate of Italy and the
Patriarch of Moscow as Head of the Russian Orthodox Church.) When, as in
Italy between 1870 and 1929, the ecclesiastical authority does not sanction
the legal (de jure) position of the de facto sovereign, the monarch's freedom
to rule may legitimately be called into question by his detractors. This
raises many questions too complex to be fully addressed here, such as the
influence of divorce and illegitimacy on dynastic rights. It is simplest to
view this broad subject in the context of present realities.

The formal assent of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise)
would most likely assume decisive importance only in the case of actual
accession to the throne.

Where Roman Catholic dynasties are concerned, Papal recognition is often
cited as one of the criteria for
"legitimacy." Indeed, "Pontifical," as opposed to "Vatican," policy is still
relevant today, as in the past, in matters concerning certain canonical
aspects of some dynastic institutions (such as the canonical validity of
Roman Catholic marriages, the position of orders of knighthood recognised by
Papal Bull, etc.). However, it should be observed that, in order to avoid
possible conflicts of interest in its [bilateral] diplomatic relationships
with lawful successor states, the Vatican Secretariat of State does not, in
practice, issue express declarations in favor of the "recognition" of the
uncrowned heads of non-regnant dynasties (i.e. the present pretenders to
crowns of countries such as Germany, Italy and France, states to which the
Vatican has accredited diplomatic representatives). Like the Pope, the
Secretary of State may receive these royal personages privately or
"unofficially," in much the same manner as the British Sovereign and the
American President have received the Prince-Grand Master of the Sovereign
Military Order of Malta (even though these states have no formal diplomatic
relationship with the Order of Malta as a sovereign government). The Vatican
does not render decisions in dynastic or international disputes unless such
arbitration is formally requested by both litigating parties involved in such
disputes.

Like its pastoral and sacramental practices, the view of the Orthodox Church
toward dynastic matters may be said to be somewhat more spiritual, and less
legalistic, than that of the Papacy. (This, incidentally, explains why the
nature of Orthodox orders of chivalry differs greatly from that of most
Catholic ones, and why the former are so widely misunderstood in the West.)
To Russia's ecclesiastical Orthodox hierarchy, for example, one's position as
a Russian prince (or grand duke) is quite simply more important spiritually
and canonically than an Italian royal prince's position vis-a-vis the Pope.
However, the mere fact that a member of the Imperial Family is received in an
official audience by the Patriarch of Moscow does not, ipso facto, constitute
express recognition of a claim to dynastic headship.

One of the few sovereign governments to foster any form of official
recognition with the heads of non-regnant dynasties is the Sovereign Military
Order of Malta, which maintains such ties with, most notably, the royal
houses of Yugoslavia and the Two Sicilies.

Conclusio et Admonitio

The reader who investigates much further will soon discover that serious
students of this subject are in general agreement as to the criteria
described here. The conditions that determine the legitimacy and general
acceptance of an individual's claim to headship of a non-regnant dynasty must
be based on more than a pseudo-legalistic "treatise" presented outside the
jurisdiction of a competent authority. Though only peripheral to our subject,
a particularly distasteful phenomenon is worthy of mention, as it is often
encountered by those who seek to learn more about this sometimes eclectic
topic, and unfortunately attracts an inordinate degree of attention.

Particularly where intrafamilial "disputes" are involved, a natural
consideration is the credibility of those "advocates" by whom "cases" are
adamantly advanced on behalf of dissenting royals whose claims to dynastic
headship are not generally accepted in their own ancestral realms or by their
own royal kinsmen. The opinions of some of these advocates are especially
vehement, characterised by personal attacks on others who do not subscribe to
their views, or the dissemination of misleading information regarding princes
whose positions are opposed to that of the one the advocate supports.
Especially when the advocate is a foreigner sharing no inherent affinity
(such as a common ethnic, historical, or religious heritage) with the
personage whose "cause" he espouses, these activities may be prompted to some
degree by extraneous motives, namely avarice for decorations or titles
received from the claimant whose "rights" are being defended,
self-righteousness, compulsive-obsessive behavior, or simple social climbing.

In response to the ostensible motive of attaining "justice" which is often
cited in defence of some advocates' more offensive comportment, this author
respectfully suggests that those who would seek to achieve justice on behalf
of the oppressed might more effectively direct the diligence of their efforts
toward more desperate, though perhaps less colourful, social causes than
those of the descendants of the royal families of Europe. As this is the very
approach taken by the royals themselves, one should expect no less from their
proponents.

FOR COMMENTS PLEASE CLICK BACK TO CALTRAP'S CORNER AND SIGN GUEST BOOK