FRANCE (Kingdom): HRH Prince Henri, Count of Paris (1999-) (son of the preceding claimant, previously known as Count of Clermont)
(Legitimist claimant: HRH Prince Luis Alfonso de Borbon, known to French legitimists as the Duke of Anjou and Bourbon or Louis XX)
GEORGIA: HRH Crown Prince Nugzar Bagration Gruzinsky
Heir: Princess Anna Bagrationi-Gruzinski
GERMANY: HIH Prince Georg Friedrich (1994- )
GREECE: HM King Constantine II (1964- )
Heir: HRH Crown Prince Pavlos
HANOVER: HRH Prince Ernst August(1987- )
HAWAII: HRH Prince Edward J. Kawananakoa (1997- )
HUNGARY (see also Austria): HIRH Archduke Otto, Crown Prince of Hungary from 1916 Heir: HIRH Archduke Karl of Austria-Hungary
INDIA: too many too list (Maharajahs, nawabs, and other princes of states )
KANDY: Kandy Ramamurthy Rajah IRAN: HIM Shah Reza II (throne assumed in exile)
ITALY: HRH Prince Victor Emanuel, Prince of Naples, Duke of Savoy
Heir: HRH Prince Emanuel Filiberto, Prince of Venice (Picture)
Italy: HRH Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta, Duke of Savoy
Heir: HRH Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia
Italy: HRH Archduke Sigismund, Grand Duke of Tuscany
Italy: Two Sicilies: HRH Prince Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Castro and Calabria
Italy: Two Sicilies: HRH Infante Don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, Infante of Spain
Italy: Parma: HRH Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and Piacenza
Prince Carlos Hugo, the Duke of Parma, passed away in Barcelona of prostate cancer. He was 80 years old.
Heir: HRH Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma, Prince of Piacenza, Duke of Madrid
KOREA: HIH Prince Kyu Lee
LIBYA: Prince Mohammed el-Senussi was designated in 1992Senussi was designated in 1992-3 MEXICO HIH Count Maximilian von Goetzen-Iturbide,Iturbide, Prince Imperial of Mexico, Prince of Iturbide, Count of Goetzen/ Heir: HIH Prince Fernando
MODENA: HIRH Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este (HRH the Duke of Bavaria is the heir in blood, the Habsburgs have long claimed the title by a dubious devise)
MONTENEGRO: HRH Prince Nicholas Petrovich-Njegosh
MUSTANG: HH Raja Jigme Parbal Bista NEPAL: H.M. King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev (2001- ) Heir:HRH Crown Prince Paras POLAND: the Polish monarchy was elective, not hereditary, and thus there is no individual claimant [the Polish monarchy was at partition in 1795 set to become hereditary in a branch of the Saxon dynasty now extinct]
PORTUGAL: HRH Prince Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza (1978- ) Heir: HRH Prince Dom Afonso, Prince of Beira
PRUSSIA (see also Germany): HIRH Prince Georg Friedrich+ (1994- )
ROMANIA: HM King Michael I* (1940- )
and to the Romanian Crown/ Heir: Margarita, Crown Princess.
RUSSIA: HIH Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna (1992- ) -+ Heir: HIH Grand Duke Georgi
RUSSIA: HH Prince Nicholas Romanoff or Romanovsky-Cheremeteff also asserts a claim to be Head of the House of Romanoff
Picture left: Prince Dimitri Romanov
RWANDA: HM King Kigeli V
SAXONY: HRH Prince Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen (1968- )
SERBIA (see also Yugoslavia): HRH Crown Prince Alexander** (1970(see also Yugoslavia): HRH Crown Prince Alexander** (1970- ) Heir: HRH Prince Peter
TURKEY (Ottoman Empire): succession unclear on death of Prince Ertogrul Osman in 2009, Prince Dundar and Prince Osman Bayezid are claimants
VIETNAM: HIH Crown Prince Bao Long (1997- )
WURTTEMBERG: HRH Prince Carl, Duke of Wurttemberg (1975- ) Heir: HRH Prince Friedrich XHOSA: HM King Maxhoba Sandile YUGOSLAVIA: HRH Crown Prince Alexander (1970- ) Heir: HRH Prince Peter
YEMEN: HRH Crown Prince Ahmad al-Ghani (1996(1996- )
ZANZIBAR: HH Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah (1963- )
ZULUSZULUS- )
For a comprehensive list of pretenders, please visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_pretenders
TRADITIONAL LEADERS
Especially in Africa and Asia, most local Kings and Queens are limited to a status of a recognized traditional leader of an indigenous people or a group of peoples. Their ancestors signed treaties with the colonial governments and ceded their powers to the new rulers, accepting a leadership position within
religion and society only. In exchange, the new authorities agreed to recognize them as Kings or Queens and leaders of their people, within their jurisdiction. They still appear as Kings and Queens according to their traditions and as authorized by the said agreements. They are Honorary Kings so to speak and as such absolutely genuine.
However, although they are acknowledged by the government as traditional leaderships of indigenous peoples or ecclesiastical leaders, they lack the fundament for any kingdom: genuine Royalty or sovereignty. Under international and national law, the sovereignty and Royalty was permanently lost by signing said papers. Although the authorities tend to cooperate with these traditional leaderships, they are, in most cases, not a formal part of the hosting government system nor are they authorized to exercise any real governmental powers.
Pretenders of the Sultanate of Sulu
The Sultan of Sulu is a traditional Muslim king and ecclesiastical titular head that governs over most Muslims in the Sulu Archipelago in the Philippines. The Sultanate also used to govern the state of Sabah in Malaysia.
While the sultanate is not an internationally recognized entity it enjoys some autonomy and influence in the Philippines, particularly among the Muslim population of the country. The office was recognized by the government in Manila until 1936, then again from 1950-1986. The centre of government of the Sulu Sultanate kingdom was in Jolo. During their rule, Jolo became the centre of the
Sulu Sultanate government and the centre of port trading. Dynastic dispute There are about 90 rival Sultans, making it probably the most contested position in the world. This is even more curious if we remindThis is even more curious if we remind that the kingdom ceased to exist in 1962 leaving the position of the Sultan as a purely ecclesiastical and traditional leader only.
Most of the claimants are either impostors or are descendants of Sultans or rival Sultans whose heirs did not ascend the throne. In the last decades, political groups and the government took influence in the crowning of rival Sultans, occupational authorities supported rivals in World War II to get a legitimating for their actions as much as modern rebels seek an ecclesiastic and “Royal” blessing for their fight against the government.
It must be kept in mind that since 1962, there is no law of succession in force anymore, neither under international nor under national law. Sultans from different families were recognized by the local and national authorities as the holders of the honorific and ecclesiastical office, since then. However, the traditional laws of succession are kept in high value and only legitimate heirs of former recognized Sultans are acknowledged and taken serious by the government and the people.
Names of the different serious pretenders that received a kind of recognition by the government or are heirs of a recognized Sultan and some additional information can be found in the Almanach de Bruxelles.
Titles and awards The title of Sultan is an honorific, chartered by the carpenter agreement and acknowledged by the Philippine government as the title of the titular head of Islam and the traditional leader of the Tausug people. The Sultan does neither possess Royalty nor sovereignty under Philippine and international law.
The Sultanate grants honorific titles to persons working within the leadership, corresponding to the ancient governmental, noble and royal titles used in the kingdom when it was a de facto or de jure sovereign entity. These titles are named traditional titles and the bearers are named traditional leaders by the Sultanate. These titles are purely honorific and must not be understood or even used as titles of nobility or Royalty under international law. While the kingdom expired under law, the Sultans still exercise influence in society and are strongly working for the
reestablishment of their authority in the Philippines giving the whole thing a political dimension.
The government chartered the practice of awarding such titles under the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Administrative Order No.1 – Series of 1998 (Footnote 28) in Rule IV, Section 2, and the REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371 THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS ACT OF 1997:
http://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno8371.html
Philippine Constitution expressly forbade the enactment of any law granting titles of royalty or nobility under Section 31, Article V1. http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw2.html#.UDArwKDNmjc
The Constituent Kingdom of Uganda Uganda, as a landlocked African nation, experienced colonialism only in the late 19th century, well after European interests had taken control in most other regions of Africa. In the late 19th century it became a protectorate under the British, and unlike many other colonies, the kingdoms and nations within the protectorate retained a wide degree of self-determination. For example, many of the Bantu kings that ruled in the south continued to rule despite the British interests controlling many economic and inter-kingdom affairs. (Like most of Africa’s nations, Uganda’s political boundaries are nonsensical when looking at the peoples that make up its border. Because of this, many aspects of latenineteenth century African society and the ancient political system survived the colonial experience in Uganda, despite being wiped out in most other parts of the continent.
Perhaps ironically, the Bantu kingdoms that survived the British did not survive their departure. When Uganda became independent in 1963 and abolished commonwealth monarchy, it then proceeded in 1967 to abolish the remaining monarchies. In 1993, the government of President Museveni permitted the Bantu kingdoms to reincorporate, to the extent they were “cultural institutions,” not political institutions. Of course, politics is inevitable in everything—but the real meaning of the restoration of the kingdoms was that the kings have no powers to tax, and receive little funding from the government, requiring them to survive on their own business acumen and their connections.
Uganda
Bunyoro-Kitara: HM King Solomon Gafabusa Iguru His Majesty King Rukirabasaija Agutamba Solomon Gafabusa Iguru the First, from the Royal Biito Dynasty is the Forty-ninth Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara. He is the twentyseventh King (Omukama) of one of the most powerful Kingdoms in the history of Africa.
Uganda
Buganda: HM Kabaka Rodney Muwenda Mutebi II Ronald Edward Frederick Muwenda Kimera Mutebi II (born 13 April 1955) is the reigning Kabaka of the Kingdom of Buganda, a kingdom in modern-day Uganda. He is the thirty-sixth (36th) Kabaka of Buganda.
Uganda
Busoga: His Royal Highness Isebantu Kyabazinga (HRH Henry Wako Muloki) But in 1995, the government restored monarchies in Uganda with promulgation of the new constitution of the Republic of Uganda; Article 246(1) On February 11, 1995, H.R.H Henry Wako Muloki was reinstated Kyabazinga Isebantu of Busoga.
Uganda
Toro: HM King Oyo Nyimba Kabambaiguru Rukidi IV The accession of King Oyo to his father's throne marked the beginning of a challenging and exciting period for the people of Toro. At the infant age of threeand-one half years old, King Oyo of Toro earned a place in the Guinness Book of
World Records as the youngest reigning monarch
His Majesty Omukama (King) Rukirabasaija Agutamba Solomon Gafabusa Iguru I
His Majesty Omukama (King) Rukirabasaija Agutamba Solomon Gafabusa Iguru I. On July 24, 1993, the Republic of Uganda constitutionally reestablished the traditional kingdoms that thrived in ancient times but had been abolished by a dictator in 1967. Unlike the broad political power and rights the ancient kings held, the new kings have no political power per se. However, they serve as titular heads of the various regional governments in Uganda, as codified in 8(a) of the Fifth Schedule of the Article 178 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (2005 Amendment). In addition, His Majesty King
Solomon Iguru was specifically recognized as the rightful King of BunyoroKitara by the Supreme Court of Uganda (see Civil Appeal 18/94 Prince J.D.C. Mpuga Rukidi vs. Prince Solomon Iguru and Hon. Henry Kajura and All Members of the Committee of Coronation of Prince Solomon Iguru of April 25, 1994). Similar to other reigning monarchs, the traditional kings currently serve as "cultural figures" or "traditional leaders" and are barred from engaging in politics. His Majesty the Omukama is the 49th Omukama of The Kingdom of Bunyoro-Kitara and 27th Omukama in The Babiito Dynasty.
Because his ancestors never renounced their rights, never abdicated the kingdom, never ceded sovereignty, suffered exile rather than capitulate and concede anything, they maintained their original royal status and sovereign rights. This is very significant as King Solomon is not simply a constitutional king. He is also the heir to a dynasty that has kept all its ancient rights intact.
CONCESSION ON NOBLE TITLES AND CURRENT LEGAL APPLICATION
The backgrounds of the succession cases raise important issues concerning the modern nobility under three main categories: the relationship of the monarch to law and legal process; relationship within noble kin groups; and the overall status of the nobility in contemporary society.
The nobility has never fallen from its age-old splendor, and does not cease to exercise his prestige on peoples. The nobles illustrate the emergence of an essentially modern culture, one still familiar to us, within a deeply traditional social order. For sixteenth- and seventeenth-century nobles, that traditional order rested on ideas about inheritance and familial continuity. Property and political rights descended from the past, and so too did personal qualities, a dual inheritance from the individual family and the larger aristocratic order. Most nobles simply assumed these values, and their use in ideological debate persisted into the eighteenth century. Such persistence is not surprising, for these ideas implied a powerful coherence between the realm of nature and that of the social order. Nobles could view their behavior and their political powers as reflections of the world's natural order; they could view individual qualities and choices as reflections of the family's qualities and needs.
The concept of nobility as social status is not short-live that occurs in one person and dies out with him, but requires the assumption of a noble tradition, consolidated in the course of several generations. Even in our time granting ex novo a noble title is moral and real recognition of particular merit, and is concretized with the perpetual finishing, transmissible via hereditary. On the basis of legality and of the granting of such an attribute, the ex novo assumes then title, predicate, coat of arms and distinctive qualifications heraldry acceptation.
The title can be granted supporting directly to the name of the person; or bound to predicate that references a locality located in territory which dominated the grantor dynasty, which still legally is considered pretender those domains.
One might assume that the outcomes of specific succession disputes themselves could lower the formal esteem in which some nobles are generally held, but this is not so. An individual who wins a title is given the same formal respects as the previous holder who has lost it, but these are the respects vested in a noble title holding office, as opposed to a title holder himself.
The concession of a noble title is not the prerogative of the State, rather they are granted in virtue of the merits recognized the person by power, prerogative, the crown and the discretion of the Pretender Prince to the throne who holds the Fons and Jus Honorum. This concept has always been followed by Reigning Dynasties who lost their throne further to final occupation of the land and, therefore, without debellatio, and therefore the figure of the Pretender prince arose. If a noble title nowadays was well earned and worn with honor, it has the same value as those titles of the past, as anything is effective in the moment it is acquired; i.e. as the noble title is emanated by Sovereign prerogative (rex nobilem tantum facere potest), we have an “object” Sovereign faced with a “subject”; this means the noble title is not of antique or native origin, rather dative.
The g
ranting of the title is attributed to people, who have distinguished themselves in actions geared in favor of Sovereign House, acts of charity, merit obtained privately or publicly but who have touched the sensibilities of the Pretender; the granting of the title is independent relationships established with public affairs and the home of the appellant.
The use of the title and its transmission, are governed by the Act of investiture, called letters patent.
The right to grand noble titles First and exclusive rights and honors was and is the Sovereign. All the higher powers are polarized in the sovereign, and their complex are denoted by the expression "Crown prerogative", which can be summarized in the following features: jus imperii – power of command; jus gladii – right to obedience; jus majestatis: right to receive defense and honours; jus honorum: right to award, grant honours, noble dignities and Knighthoods.
The complex of powers called "Crown prerogative" has not been lost by Rulers who lost his throne after the final occupation of the territory. For this particular case, rather, it is called a Royal pretender. The Claimant abandons the soil patrio, but doesn't lose the sovereignty rights. There is no doubt that, among the rights that the Claimant continues to exercise, both including the jus honorum, i.e. the right to confer noble titles and honorary degrees of orders that belong to his personal and dynastic inheritance.
Noble titles that may be conceded ex novo or claimed are: Prince, Duke, Marquis, Count, Viscount, Baron, Nobleman, Patrician, Byzantine Patrician, Sir, Hereditary Knight; these titles can be transmitted to their children or, compatibly with the entitled person’s wishes, to other members or otherwise of the Dynasty or, if preferred, to the male or female agnation. The same goes with Letters Patent or equivalent titles of renewal, recognition, amnesty and consent, including the claim to Arms, qualifications and treatment or lucubration with ex novo outlining of the coat of arms.
According to the Constitution (Italy for example), the State is not interested whether someone has an antique or new noble title, and does not prohibit its exhibition and use in public and private relationships, nor is the abuse of noble titles considered a crime. This note was necessary to avoid damaging the historic dignity once held by the family – where the title is a demographic reminder – or, in the case of the concession of ex novo noble titles, the historic biography of the person. Likewise a noble title may be transmitted by refute, before a Notary, which means transferring to others, outside the direct succession line, personal, native, granted, recognized, renewed noble titles or titles that a person has inherited; approval is required from all the intermediate heirs for refute to be allowed, i.e. those who would have earned the title through the deed of concession.
The Legitimacy of Non Reigning Royal Families Page 13
