The Knights of Christ's Mercy

By H.R.I.H. Prince Dr. Mauricio Ahnume Guerios, PhD.

Lately, some websites related to Royalty and Nobility are trying to "freely" apply the legal principle of prescription "deciding" that some Royal claims would be lost forever for the lack of diplomatic protests or the use of the titles.

NEVER, in the whole history of Mankind, a deposed Sovereign (or his/hers descendants) "lost" his/hers rights by any reason but "Debellatio" (which is the pacific and willing extermination of the throne by the free will of the ruling monarch).

"…the concept of sovereignty formally implies a power that is absolute, perpetual, indivisible, IMPRESCRIPTIBLE and inalienable." (Andrew Vincent, Nationalism and Particularity, 2002, p. 17)

A Dynasty never forfeits its rights. Those rights cannot be forfeited. The principle of "juris sanguinis" (right of blood) operates here. As long as there's blood the right is valid and lawful forever.

Dr. Paulo Bonavides in his book "Political Sciences" (Ciência Política), page 126 declared:

"Sovereignty is one and indivisible, it cannot be delegated, SOVEREIGNTY IS IRREVOCABLE, SOVEREIGNTY IS PERPETUAL, sovereignty is a supreme power, these are the main points of characterization that made Bodin's sovereignty in the seventeenth century an essential element of State."

After the deposition, the usurped State is NO LONGER THE APPROPRIATED AND COMPETENT LEGAL SYSTEM TO RULE OVER THE DEPOSED SOVEREIGN'S RIGHTS. That's pacific. Another important fact is that, EVEN DEPOSED, THE SOVEREIGN REMAINS SOVEREIGN.

". . . THE KING DOES NOT FORFEIT THE CHARACTER OF ROYALTY MERELY BY THE LOSS OF HIS KINGDOM. If he is unjustly despoiled of it by an usurper, or by rebels, he still preserves his rights. . . ." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book II, chapter XII, no. 196)

In other words, he/she keeps being completely independent to any legal system, even independent from international law.

". . . INTERNATIONAL LAW IS DEPENDENT UPON THE VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION OF STATES IN ITS FORMULATION, OBSERVANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT." (Nelson Dordelly-Rosales, "State Sovereignty and the Protection of Human Rights," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 27, 2008: www.allacademic.com/meta/p235808_index.html) INTERNATIONAL LAW IS "AGREEMENT LAW." IT ". . . IS BINDING ONLY BECAUSE IT IS AGREED TO." (Steven Lee, "A Puzzle of Sovereignty:" www.bu.edu/wep/Papers/Poli/PoliLee.htm

Professor Dr. W. Baroni Santos in his book Treaty of Heraldry declared:

"The doctrine and jurisprudence have confirmed that THE TERRITORIAL POWER IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE DYNASTY, FOR THEY ARE INSERTED IN THE PERSON OF THE SOVEREIGN, WHICH KEEPS THE SAME AFTER THE LOSS OF THE THRONE, PASSING THEM REGULARLY TO THEIR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS.

The loss of its territory in no way diminishes its sovereign powers, because THESE ARE INHERENT IN THE PERSON OF THE SOVEREIGN, TRANSMITTING IT, PERPETUALLY TO THEIR DESCENDANTS. (Vol. I, 5th ed., 1978, p. 197-198)

THERE'S NO LEGISLATION ABOUT PRESCRIPTION'S IMPACT OVER DEPOSED MONARCHS. If we had, still wouldn't have any effect to the sovereigns for the simple fact that they're still sovereigns and therefore NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY COURT OR LAW.

Only by that, it would invalidate any attempt to "freely" apply the legal principle to deposed monarchs. But let's prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, how outrageous this concept really is.

It's also pacific that the subject of deposed monarchs cannot be considered to be "External Sovereignty".

"EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY CONCERNS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A SOVEREIGN POWER AND OTHER STATES." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty#External

In other words, the deposed monarch's subject has nothing to do with the relationship with the other states. External sovereignty is related, among others, with territorial disputes. The terms "sovereignty" and "titles" frequently used when referring to External sovereignty are "Territorial Titles and Sovereignty". NOT ROYAL TITLES OR ROYAL SOVEREIGNTY.

Here's the definition of Prescription:

"In law, PRESCRIPTION IS THE METHOD OF SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFER OF A TERRITORY THROUGH INTERNATIONAL LAW ANALOGOUS TO THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION FOR PRIVATE REAL-ESTATE. Prescription involves the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the TERRITORY in question for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign. This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty CAUSED IN PART BY THE ORIGINAL SOVEREIGN'S EXTENDED NEGLIGENCE AND/OR NEGLECT OF THE AREA IN QUESTION"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_%28sovereignty_transfer%29

The "de jure" and "de facto" here are related TO LAND, NOT TO DYNASTY.

The great example used to illustrate the use of prescription (and also the great proof that it's a huge mistake to apply it to deposed monarchs) is the Island of Palmas case.

"Island of Palmas Case, (Scott, Hague Court Reports 2d 83 (1932), (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928), 2 U.N. Rep. Intl. Arb. Awards 829), was a case involving a TERRITORIAL DISPUTE OVER THE ISLAND OF PALMAS (or Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States which was heard by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The Island of Palmas (known as Pulau Miangas in Bahasa Indonesian) is now within Indonesian sovereignty.
THIS CASE IS ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL PRECEDENTS DEALING WITH ISLAND TERRITORIAL CONFLICTS." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case

Therefore, territorial disputes are External Sovereignty NOT DEPOSED MONARCHS' LAW!

Again, The deposed monarch's sovereignty DOESN'T DEPEND ON TERRITORY, PEOPLE, POLITICS, etc… So, the use of any law applied to any other matter is UNNAPROPRIATED. In other words, if we use TERRITORY'S SOVEREIGNTY LAW (EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY WHICH THE PRESCRIPTION LEGAL PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE) or any other to appraise these cases, we will get into a impasse once is well known that in territorial sovereignty law you can have ONLY ONE RIGHTFUL OWNER TO GET BOTH THE "DE JURE" AND "DE FACTO" RIGHTS. In Dynastic Law of deposed monarchs we can have two or more lawful pretenders for the same kingdom (for example: The Orleans, The Bourbons and the Bonaparts are legitimate claimants of France), even both the "de jure" and "de facto" rights belonging already to a new republican regime, this is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY LAW.

Back to Top