Expert: Professor Noel Cox - 12/25/2010

Question
As I understand, as stated by Dr. Kerr: "The rules of International Law [govern] the various modes of monarchical succession as well as the . . . position and status of unlawfully dethroned Sovereign Houses."  (Stephen P. Kerr, "Resolution of Monarchical Successions Under International Law," The Augustan, vol. 17, no. 4, 1975, p. 979)He also stated, ". . . Royal Status, Rights of Succession, and Membership in Royal Houses can be created or lost by an appropriate Juridical Act. . . ." (Ibid., p. 988)Outside of any court decree or verdict.

The unique power of "prescription" as a juridical act can take away internal "de jure" sovereignty from a deposed monarch, or his successor, who has neglected and therefore forfeited his rights by the juridical act of acquiescence or implied abandonment, and rightfully and justly give it to another (the usurper) who has faithfully and honestly obeyed the law with long undisturbed internal "de facto" rule of the country.

Dr. Kerr declared, "Upon the fall, dispossession, or usurpation of a monarchy, the de jure legal rights to the succession of that monarchy may be kept alive indefinitely [that is, without an end, continually] through the legal vehicle of making diplomatic protests against the usurpation." (See: "Dynastic Law") (See also Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations or Le Droit des gens, Book II, chapter II, no's. 145-146) He said this protest must take place in every generation thereafter. That is, "Such diplomatic protests are issued on the death of one claimant upon the occasion that the new claimant takes up the claim." (Dr. Kerr letter January 21, 2010)

For a deposed house:

"Nobiliary International law states that the heads of the Houses of sovereign descent who have not incurred debellatio [have not renounced or abandoned their rights], retain forever the exercise of the powers attaching to them, absolutely irrespective of any territorial possession. They are protected by the continued use of their rights and titles of nobility. . . ." (Monarchist World Magazine # 2, August 1955)

Emer de Vattel declared, "With sovereigns [this preservation or protection of rights] is . . . 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." (The Law of Nations, Book 2, Chapter XI, Nos. 145-146)Dr. Kerr further declared, "when appropriate, recognizing worthy individuals with knighthoods and other decorations or honor at their command" further confirms their royal status as rightful heirs to their former "defacto" thrones. (op.cit. Dr. Kerr) Such an act he states is equal to "a series of competent protests [which] will keep a de jure claim alive indefinitely" or forever. (Ibid.)

In other words, the royal prerogative (internal, "de jure" non-territorial sovereignty) can be lost endlessly and forever for a whole kingdom "in totum," or kept alive indefinitely as the following statement reiterates. The key, as I understand it, is whether there is consistent acquiescence (neglect of rights or silence) or continuing protest. Note the following reiteration of the same prescritive principles:

"The question of how long a 'de jure' king may continue in this status [the status of being a deposed, non-territorial sovereign] is answered in Textor's 'Synopsis Juris Gentium,' which says that the 'de jure' sovereign in exile retain their status as long as they do not surrender their sovereignty to the 'de facto' government. . . . A dispossessed dynasty may keep its claims alive by filing diplomatic protests against the usurpers, which the Stuarts did every generation and/or with every Hanoverian succession as required by international law, and, that a claim is deemed abandoned only when the protests cease. . . . Only when such protests cease does a prescription arise against the 'de jure' rights of a legitimate claimant. . . ." (David Hughes, The British Chronicles, vol. 1, 2007, p. 358)

My question is to ask you if the above is accurate either to preserve royal privileges (sovereignty)for a deposed house or to lose them permanently to the law abiding usurper?

Answer
Dear Sir,

I agree broadly with the above. However, I am not convinced that the exercise of the honours prerogative is a sufficient step to constitute a "protest", as they comprise the exercise of domestic powers, and would not necessarily be recognised in international law