THE RIGHT TO BE RESTORED IN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW
GET IMMUNITY AND PRIVILEGES WITH A REAL SOVEREIGN OR DIPLOMATIC TITLE
Grotius On the Law of War and Peace states that: "A ruler who is deprived of the actual control of his country by either an invader or by revolutionaries nevertheless remains the legitimate de jure sovereign of his country while the de facto government set up by the revolutionaries or the invader is considered as a “usurper”, both constitutionally and internationally". (Grotius was an outstanding Dutch jurist who died in 1645)
All too often restoration never happens; nevertheless, it is recognized as a “right” or a just ethical entitlement, universally acknowledged as something that is fair and rightful or “ought” to take place. In addition, what is morally right for one group which was robbed of their rightful possessions (e.g. Australian Aboriginals), and to whom land has been restored, is just as right and proper for others in similar predicament.
In the 1997 General Recommendation XXIII, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination UNCERD stated, concerning “indigenous peoples”, that “where they have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned . . . without their free and informed consent, [we should] take steps to return these lands and territories.”
That is, using the same words and same philosophy, “where they [the former kings, princes, and/or governments-in-exile] have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned . . . without their free and informed consent, [we should] take steps to return these lands and territories [to their rightful heirs]”.
Prince Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838), one of the greatest diplomats of the 19th century, declared that, “[Legitimacy] requires that the crown [of a deposed monarchy] be returned to him to whom it belongs.”
Hugo Grotius (+1645), one of the most respected authorities on international law, wrote the same thing in different words ... “As things [stolen] are to be restored to their original owners, so subjects are to be restored to their former lawful sovereigns.”
Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), “the idea of Legitimacy [based on prescription] was the belief that displaced monarchs . . . were the rightful rulers of their nations and should be restored to power.”
(Regulations make of the occupying power a trustee for the sovereign [king, prince or government] in exile, for whom the occupant administers the territory until a return [and restoration] is negotiated [and accomplished])
"Thus is manifested the excellency of the monarchical government, which, more than any other, [legally] guarantees the preservation and the perpetuity of [either reigning or non-regnant sovereignty]."
An important principle of international law is that “. . . he who does an injury is bound to repair the damage”. This is not only the law, but it is what is morally and ethically right.
International law is, however, voluntary, or by sovereign consent, which tends to negate the above (see below), thereby contradicting its duty to properly respect the deposed monarchy.
Apparently, the only way regal privileges can be re-instituted is by changing the form of government into a monarchy – a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy where republican principles are respected as well as the right of the monarch!
In other words, by virtue of the highest secular entitlement on earth, that is, by the full right of sovereignty, a republic could re-establish royal privileges by creating a monarchy and giving to the royal house the full and complete right to rule through a new constitution that defines also the limits and appropriate powers thereof.
(the above is extracted with slight revision from "The Right to be Restored in International Public Law" in Volume 1 of The Entitlement to Rule , chapter four.)
His Imperial Majesty King Roman's biological father was HRH Prince Roman 1, Grand Prince/Duke of Lithuania, Count of Lubraniec Dambski. King Roman was Prince Ronald from birth as a war baby in 1942, entitled to rights in International Law, as was his father Prince Roman 1 before him.
Prince Roman 1 inherited Lithuania the following year 1943, when Grand Prince Wladislaw Gedroyc died. King Roman was Grand Prince of Lithuania from 1967 when his biological father Grand Prince Roman 1 died.
He was usurped by Moldova from 1990, and at Baltic independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union, when his Realm was divided into Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine; and Latvia.
In 1994 the Royal Lithuanian Association of Nobility or LBKS (now LRUN), Vilnius, of which King Roman was an elected senator, wanted to restore the Grand Duchy. Lithuania ought to have become a Grand Duchy again in 1991 with King Roman as Grand Duke.
King Roman ought to have been recognized by Lithuania and the world from 1991 under International Law. And recognized by Lithuania and the world as King/Emperor Roman of Europa from 2005.
Paradoxically, the UN, which has legislated International Law, opposes those who seek to exert their de jure sovereign entitlements inherent in International Law! In fact, the established sovereign or usurper ignores and brushes off the deposed or usurped monarch as if International Law did not exist!
Consider also how succession is often a matter of expedience rather than rules - "Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Henry I, King Stephen, Henry II, King John, and Henry III [not one of these] eight first Kings (of England) did at first accede to the Crown by Hereditary Right, or Lineal Descent, but succeeded thereto by other Titles".
"After them the Lineal Hereditary Descent was, before the Revolution in 1688, interrupted in the Six Persons of Kings Edward III, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, and Henry VII".
In International Law, a deposed Monarch is EQUAL to any other sovereign
Recognized Monarchs, like Queen Elizabeth 2 and Sultan Hassanal of Brunei, are blessed with very much more than enough means. However, it is convenient for them to forget how their ancestors obtained their wealth - from spoils of war, illegal confiscation of properties, and sale of titles!
When King Henry 8 made himself Head of the Church in England, he sacked Roman Catholic monasteries and convents and filled his Royal Coffers with their wealth. As Head of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth 2 has benefited from great fortunes.
In order to survive and progress, the ancestors of today's Monarchs sold titles for serious amounts of money. For example, King James 1 of England sold Baronetcies for today's equivalent of around $150,000 each! And today's British Monarch, Queen Elizabeth 2, has benefited from this past.
International Law recognizes the deposed monarch is the EQUAL of any established monarch, and much more!
"It is extremely rare that people interested in nobility and royalty fully understand or comprehend the legal right of the sovereign head of a deposed royal house to be a fons honorum with the lawful right to award honors and give special recognitions" (from The Entitlement to Rule, Prof.Stephen B Kerr)
International Law recognizes and acknowledges the inherent and continuing legal rights of a Monarch/ Monarchy in Exile, like Lithuania and Europa. However, "There seems to be a strong bias against the monarch in exile, not in the law, but in how it is applied or administered. Thus he is ignored, brushed off and hindered from making any progress in re-obtaining his former rule" (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Anglicans-943/2010/12/f/International-law-deposed-monarchs.htm - at paragraph 6)
"The absent sovereign remains the de jure government of the country" (Oppenheimer, "Governments and Authorities in Exile," American Journal of International Law, p. 571) (Hersch Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, International Law Reports, p. 559)
"The consistent use of regal titles and arms is equal or equivalent to ... a series of competent protests [which] will keep a de jure claim alive indefinitely" (Dr. Stephen B. Kerr, special counsel to the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburg).
The reality today for the De Jure Sovereign (dispossessed monarch) is that, although he/she has rights in International Law, there is currently no legal mechanism whereby these rights can be established or enforced. The UN appears to be a toothless tiger when it comes to providing justice, return of property or restitution for the dispossessed or exiled monarch. King Roman has proposed to the UN the creation of a Royal Court of Justice to specifically adjudicate such claims and make appropriate orders. As a European Citizen, he has made a similar approach to the European Parliament to create a Royal Court of Justice to adjudicate and administer monarchic claims.
A LETTER FROM KING ROMAN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 09/09/1 6
"Dear Sir, Greetings from Darwin Australia. I am a European Citizen and (multiple) De Jure Sovereign.
As a student of European and International Law, I have become aware of a woeful inadequacy in both, namely the lack of a Royal Court to administer justice and relief to the deposed (dispossessed/exiled) monarch.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that International Law recognizes the De Jure Sovereign and inherently accords him rights.
However, these rights are not able to be asserted in any practical manner, or to be insisted on before, and are therefore ignored by, established Global and European sovereigns.
This arises because of the lack of ANY legal mechanism to adjudicate and administer this area of law.
There is NO justice available to the deposed monarch: the deposed monarch exists in a veritable wasteland.
Yet it ought not to be so. There ought to be a Royal Court of Justice, both in the European Union and (for those outside the EU) within the United Nations forum.
One to adjudicate, for example, on my right to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (from 1967, and since 2004 renamed but not yet seen as the Kingdom of Lithuania), and to the Kingdom of Europa (formerly East Europe, containing the Kingdom of Lithuania) - visit www.KingRoman.org for details.
As a European citizen, and one to be accorded the respect owed to a Sovereign, I look forward to your early reply.
(Assigned EU CASE # 101000072235)
'What is diplomacy? I think the word or the expression I like the most is actually from the Vienna Conventions which is creating friendly relations between countries ... I would say that the purpose of diplomacy is about developing some form of appreciation, understanding, and friendly relations with countries' - Dr Simon Rofe, SOAS London University
"These two volumes (click above) probably represent the most important book that has ever been written on deposed sovereignty"
"Sovereignty depends not upon external factors, but upon the person in whom such status resides. Such entitlement is independent of diplomatic lists, and exists of itself in the person of the Sovereign" (Kerr)
"All sovereigns are equal ... in rank. Sovereign equality under the law was a part of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (1945) as a law" (Kerr)
"The deposed monarch is entitled to full recognition by other sovereigns, and all nations and all people, adhering to the moral and ethical principles implicit in International Law" ("King and Constitution in International Law," The Augustan, vol. 18, no. 4, 1977, p. 126).
ALL ABOVE DE JURE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS/ PRIVILEGES ARE IGNORED BY WORLD LEADERS
CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, RECOGNITION IS ONLY SHOWN TO MEMBER STATES OF THE EU & UN!
Regarding the Sovereign Right to Sell Territories
"It is extremely rare that people interested in nobility and royalty fully understand or comprehend the legal right of the sovereign head of a deposed royal house to be a fons honorum with the lawful right to award honors and give special recognitions" (from The Entitlement to Rule, Prof.Stephen B Kerr) (Note that Fons Honorum is Latin for Fount of Honour)
"International Code specifically provides . . that sovereignty may be bought and sold. . .." (For literally hundreds of examples of the lawful transfer of kingdoms and principalities in the nineteenth century, see Edward Hertslet's book, The Map of Europe by Treaty showing the Various Political and Territorial Changes which have Taken Place since the General Peace of 1814, three volumes, 1875: a. Volume I; b. Volume II; c. Volume III.
"In truth, the greatest nations and the haughtiest rulers have engaged in such transactions; selling as the circumstances suited them outlying provinces of their vast estates. England, France, Germany, Russia furnish instances of this kind of traffic. A King of England sold Dunkerque (Dunkird) to France. Napoleon sold the Mississippi valley to America. Most of the mediatized princes of Germany sold their sovereign rights for money. During the Caliph's own reign, Russia has sold her great province of Alaska to the United States. Denmark has sold her duchy of Lauenburg to the King of Prussia. France has recently bought up the sovereignty in Monaco. Not many years ago the Prince of Mingrelia sold his sovereign rights to Russia for a pension, and more recently the Elector of Hesse-Cassel sold such remnants of his -- rights as had survived defeat to Germany. No one denies that such transfers of authority are legitimate, if they are carried out with due regard to all existing rights. In India we have bought up sovereignty after sovereignty. Not long since the King of Holland was on the point of vending Luxemburg to France" John Nichols, The Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 240, January-June 1876, p. 176; "In the Middle Ages Europe was long acquainted with Patrimonial States. Marquisates, duchies, kingdoms, and even empires were sold from hand to hand, mortgaged, bequeathed or transferred by deed of gift"(Thomas Alfred Walker, A History of the Law of Nations, vol. 1, 1899, p. 158).
Translate This Page
SPONSORS are urgently sought - to enable full legal restoration of MONARCHY and JUSTICE according to International Law