The Legal reasons for the use of the Royal titles by the El Chemor family

Foto: letter from prophet Mohammad to Ghassanid King Al-Harith VI Abu Chemor * Shamir, also Shamar, Shamour or Chemor is one of the many transliterations of the same Arabic word الشمر

One may argue the reason why the El Chemor Family uses the Royal Ghassanid titles in addition to the “Sheikh” titles. Here are the legal reasons and the historical precedents:

1. The proven legatee succession from the Ghassanid Kings – The mere use of the last name “El Chemor” meant the ones from “Bani Chemor” or “the children of King Chemor” the famous Ghassanid King of the Levant.

It is a reputed deep-rooted allegation that the heads of Al-Chemor tribe are rooted from Bani Chemor, who are the Christian Kings of Ghassan which belong to Al Jafna.” (Father Ignatios Tannos El-Khoury, Historical Scientific Research: “Sheikh El Chemor Rulers of Al-Aqoura (1211-1633) and Rulers of Al-Zawiye (1641-1747)”Beirut, Lebanon, 1948, p.38)

This is the history of the Chemor family Sheikhs who are feudal rulers, a genuine progeny of the sons of Ghassan kings of the Levant… one of the most decent, oldest and noblest families in Lebanon.” (ibid p.125)

* More about the endowment of the Royal titles to the El Chemor family, please CLICK HERE

* See historical family documents by CLICKING HERE

2. Arab tradition – a sovereign sheikh is a royal prince by the Arab tradition since pre-Islamic times. The title “sheikh” (in the secular sense) is even more related to hereditary ruler than “Amir” which was originally a military title (coming from the Arabic verb “amr” or “to command”), only associated as being analogous to the western title of “prince” since a few centuries ago. That can be corroborated not only by history but also by the existing Arab States ruled by sheikhs: Kuwait, Bahrain, Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai, Abu-Dhabi, Sharja, etc.

Also important to point that the origin of many of the aforementioned ruling royal families is from Al Azd tribe exactly the same of the El Chemor family, being natural that the traditions are similar, regardless of religion since the Arab laws of succession come mostly from pre-Islamic tribal customs.

3. Dynastic custom adopting past titles of the family patrimony – it’s perfectly accepted by the European jurisprudence the use of past titles that historically belonged to the family.

For example, Prince Henri, the head of the French Orleans family, uses the title “Count of Paris”, an old title belonging to the family but not used by other ruling head of the family. Count of Paris (French: Comte de Paris) was a title for the local magnate of the district around Paris in Carolingian times. After Hugh Capet was elected King of France in 987, the title merged into the crown and fell into disuse. However, it was later revived by the Orléanist pretenders to the French throne in an attempt to evoke the legacy of Capet and his dynasty.

4. Principle of “de jure” sovereignty – according to this principle, a deposed ruler and his descendants in perpetuity (following the respective laws of succession) keep two of the four powers of sovereignty: “jus majestatis” the right of being respected and recognized by his title and “jus honorum” the right of conferring titles, honors and awards. The two other powers “jus imperium” the right of rule a territory and a people and “jus gladii” the right of command an army and apply the capital penalty, remain dormant until the “de facto” sovereignty is restored. Being a “de jure” sovereign, the decision of the use of titles is a personal prerogative as stated by one of the forefathers of international law, Emmerich de Vattel:

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, 1758 CE:


Of the Dignity and Equality of Nations: of Titles and Other Marks of Honor

§ 42. Whether a sovereign may assume what title and honors he pleases.
If the conductor of the state is sovereign, he has in his hands the rights and authority of the political society; and consequently he may himself determine what title he will assume, and what honors shall be paid to him, unless these have been already determined by the fundamental laws, or that the limits which have been set to his power manifestly oppose such as he wishes to assume. His subjects are equally obliged to obey him in this as in whatever he commands by virtue of a lawful authority. Thus, the Czar Peter I., grounding his pretensions on the vast extent of his dominions, took upon himself the title of emperor.

If we accept that a deposed sovereign and his descendants remain being sovereign (just “de jure” or by right, not “de facto” or in fact), the above mentioned by Vattel refers to the power of “jus majestatis”, fully active during the interregnum. Naturally, being the “jus imperii” dormant, in theory, his former “subjects” don’t have an obligation to acknowledge the prince pretender by his title.

The refugees of Al Ghassani and bani Chemor who seeked refuge to Al ‘Aqoura turned into Maronites because the town now only has Maronites Christians and because Al Chemor tribe are the princes and children of kings, the Maronites reigned them over the land where the document states that: “… and Al ‘Aqoura is their own village from a long time, they can do as they wish” and Al Chemori family could have taken over the throne due to their relentless efforts, money or battles, no one knows.” (Father Ignatios Tannos El-Khoury, Historical Scientific Research: “Sheikh El Chemor Rulers of Al-Aqoura (1211-1633) and Rulers of Al-Zawiye (1641-1747)”Beirut, Lebanon, 1948, p.42)

The above reference clearly shows sovereignty over the Al-Aqoura region.

The examples in the Middle East are also extensive where many sovereign Sheikhs have decided to use Royal titles like His Majesty King Abdullah I of Jordan who was originally the Emir of Transjordan and his ancestors were Sheriffs of Meca; or His Highness Sheikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, was the 12th Hakim of Bahrain. His son, His Highness Sheikh Isa II bin Salman II Al Khalifa, changed the title to “Emir of Bahrain” in 1971 and his son, His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has changed the title again in 2002 from Emir (prince) to Malik (king).

The usage of the Arab title “Emir” or “Amir” (means “commander”, “general”, or “prince”) is a little different from the European use. A sovereign ruler using the title “Sheikh” or even “Hakim” is an “Emir” ‘per se‘ (intrinsically). In other words, even if the title is not openly used, it’s definitely implied. That tradition is what makes so natural for the aforementioned rulers to “update” their titles.

* More about the difference of the Arab titles, please CLICK HERE

* More about the sovereign rights of the El Chemor family according to international law, please CLICK HERE

5. The heirs of a sovereign house (observed the laws of succession) are princes regardless of the fact that they use the title or not – Examples: the archdukes of Austria, the Tsareviches and grand-dukes of the Russian empire were/are princes even thought they didn’t use the title officially.

6. To avoid the confusion – there are several categories of “sheikh” titles in Lebanon bestowed by princes after the Ottoman invasion. Those titles are “noble” not “Royal”.

* More about the different categories of “sheikh” titles in Lebanon, please CLICK HERE

Royal House of Ghassan presents irrefutable evidence of the family’s titles


The Royal House of Ghassan has acquired several family’s documents which prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Royal Family not only ruled from 220 CE until 1747 CE, but also kept using the titles even after the deposition until the present days.

The original family name is El Chemor, (it has many transliterations: Shoummar, Shemer, Shamir, Chmr, etc.) and it comes from King Chemor Jablah of the Ghassanid Kingdom in the Levant. Some of the King’s sons sought refuge in today’s Lebanon and were known as Bani Chemor (or the children of King Chemor).

The family ruled in the Levant from 220 CE until 636 CE and several other realms, including briefly the Byzantine Empire in the 9th Century CE. More recently,  ruling the Akoura region in Northern Lebanon from 1211 CE until 1633 CE and the region of Zgharta-Zawie from 1641 CE until 1747 CE but kept the titles until the present day.

After the family was deposed, they were hunted and killed by the sheikhs from the Daher family who was placed by the Ottomans in with all the land and properties belonging to the Royal Family. That’s the reason why many members of the family changed their last names after the deposition and many later migrated to the north and South America. Notably the Gharios family and the Hobeika family. About 100 years ago, many members of the Gharios family, knowing that they belonged to the El Chemor family, started to publicly use the El Chemor last name again.

Important to point that, technically, there are two types of titles: Royal and Noble. Royal titles are the sovereign or semi-sovereign ones and noble are bestowed by a higher (sovereign or semi-sovereign) authority. In Lebanon, the majority of the sheikh titles are noble, not royal, since they were bestowed by princes after the Ottoman invasion of 1517 CE.

img_9010Photo: The grave of His Highness Sheikh Selim El Chemor (passed away in 1909 CE, the great grandfather of HRH Prince Sheikh Selim El Chemor, honorary head of the Royal House of Ghassan ), note that the royal title of Sheikh (in Arabic, upper right side) is on his tombstone, a capital proof that the family has been publicly using the ‘sui iuris’ titles for centuries until the present date. (Grave at the cemetery at the Mar Mama Ancient Church in Kferhata, Lebanon)


The El Chemor titles are royal like, for example, their Arab counterparts in the Gulf (Royal Sheikhs from Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc.) since weren’t bestowed by any higher authority and they came from the acknowledgment of the Royal decent from the Ghassanid King Chemor Jablah. Other undeniable evidence is the fact that it’s documented that the family ruled, at least, from 1211 CE meaning, 306 years before the Ottoman invasion!

The El Chemor Sheikhdom lasted around 500 YEARS and survived to 3 different invasions: the establishment of the County of Tripoli, vassals of the kingdom of Jerusalem (until 1289 CE), the Mameluk Sultanate (1289 CE until 1517 CE) and the Ottoman Empire from 1517 CE until the deposition in 1747 CE. The El Chemor titles were NOT bestowed by any of those invading powers being, therefore, sovereign and ROYAL.

Just putting into context, the El Chemor family were deposed, as said,  in 1747 CE and all feudal nobility titles were officially abolished in Lebanon by the Ottomans in 1858 CE. On the following official documents (just a sample of our vast collection) the titles are publically mentioned along with the legal seals from the Ottoman’s governmental officials. The titles are mentioned on the documents for various individuals of the El Chemor family and the dates varied from 1878 CE (131 years after the deposition and 20 years after the title’s abolishment by the Ottoman Empire in Lebanon) to 1904 CE (157 years after the deposition and 46 years after the title’s abolishment by the Ottoman Empire in Lebanon)  

See more documents by CLICKING HERE

Our Special Thanks to His Highness Prince Sheikh Antoine Majid El Chemor who kindly gave us access to the rich archive of the late Prince Sheikh Nassif Majid El Chemor. Also thanks to our research team: Mr. Petro Al Achkar, Mr. Carl Doumit and Miss Thea Doumit for the translations.

More about the legality of the El Chemor titles, please read the following articles:

HRH Prince Gharios El Chemor’s video promo for syndicated show

Shefik presents Invocation” is a multiple award-winning show. It is a mesmerizing and thought-provoking journey through musical discovery and appreciation that spans the decades. Each episode, executive-produced and hosted by media personality Shefik, highlights one relatable focal point, along with an accompanying playlist of songs, encompassing a unique thematic concept that invigorates the audience with creative impact. Top recording artists, actors, business executives, politicians, community leaders, and other special guests are invited to offer their own commentary on the topic, as a supplement to Shefik’s engaging mindset. The journey continues right here and everywhere. Learn more HERE



HRH Sheikh Antoine Majid El Chemor receives the Order of Saint Michael

sheikh antoine majid
From left to right: Sheikh Dr Elie, Sheikh Antoine and Prince Gharios

Last Saturday, HRH Prince Gharios El Chemor and HH Sheikh Dr Elie Gharios traveled to  Kferhata, northern Lebanon, to visit their cousin HRH Sheikh Antoine Majid El Chemor and grant him his birthright, the highest rank on the Order of Saint Michael Archangel. The Sheikh has received his cousins in the best possible way in his 600 years old chateau.  The three members of the Royal Family spoke about HRH Sheikh Nassif El Chemor, Sheikh Antoine‘s late brother, former mayor of Kferhata, eminent historian and writer. They have also visited  Sheikh Nassif‘s vast library and the place of his last rest,  at the cemetery at the ancient Mar Mama Church and prayed for his soul. The Royal Family has many plans to honor Sheikh Nassif’s memory, that will become public very soon. 


“Amir” versus “Sheikh”: understanding the Arab titles

king bahrain
His Majesty Hamad Ibn Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain. The Al Khalifa  family rules Bahrain since 1783 and their royal titles are “sheikh”. They’ve adopted “Amir” in 1971 and “Malik” (or King) in 2002

We could end this article in one sentence by saying that both titles, in essence, mean the same thing.

In the last couple of centuries, it was created a convention that the title “Amir” (or “Emir”) would be the equivalent of the European “Prince”.  According to several encyclopedias, “Amir”, means “lord” or “commander-in-chief”, being derived from the Arabic root ‘a-m-r’ or “command“. Originally, simply meaning “commander-in-chief” or “leader”, usually in reference to a group of people, it came to be used as a title for governors or rulers, usually in smaller states. Therefore, the title had a military – not necessarily royal/noble – connotation.

The title Emir or Amir was equivalent of that of Commander.” The Black Book of the Admiralty, 1873, V.2, p.xiii (Cambridge University Press, 2012 edition, edited by Travers Twiss)

In the past, amir was usually a military title, now used to mean prince or as a title for various rulers or chiefs.” The New Encyclopedia of Islam, By Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith, Rowman Altamira, 2003, p.48

Whereas the title “Sheikh” was used mostly in three different connotations:

  1. Religious – although more recent, doesn’t concern this article,
  2. Royal – “sui iuris” hereditary sovereign or semi-sovereign ruler,
  3. Noble – noble title given by a sovereign or semi-sovereign ruler hereditary (“ad eternum”) or not (“ad personam”)

Sheikh (pronounced /ʃeɪk/ SHAYK or /ʃiːk/ SHEEK; Arabic: شيخ‎ šayḫ [ʃæjx], mostly pronounced [ʃeːx/ʃejx], plural شيوخ šuyūḫ [ʃuju:x])—also transliterated Sheik, Shaik, Shayk, Shaykh, Cheikh, Shekh, and Shaikh—is an honorific title in the Arabic language. It commonly designates the ruler of a tribe, who inherited the title from his father. “Sheikh” is given to a royal male at birth, whereas the related title “Sheikha” is given to a royal female at birth.”

The word ‘sheikh’ can be used as a label for a head of a tribe in the Arab culture; for a member of a ruling family (as in Kuwait and the other Gulf States, for example), or for a religious person who perform religious duties.” Religion and Terrorism: An Interfaith Perspective, by Aref M. Al-Khattar, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, p.15

Important to note that the meaning of the word “tribe” in the Anthropological sense means a group of people, politically organized, that has the same language, beliefs, customs, and interests. However, some historians use the term “tribe” in a pejorative fashion, to mean indigenous, primitive, and insignificant.

“In such contexts, members of a tribe are typically said to share a self-name and a contiguous territory; to work together in such joint endeavours as trade, agriculture, house construction, warfare, and ceremonial activities; and to be composed of a number of smaller local communities such as bands or villages. In addition, they may be aggregated into higher-order clusters, such as nations.

As an anthropological term, the word tribe fell out of favour in the latter part of the 20th century. Some anthropologists rejected the term itself, on the grounds that it could not be precisely defined. Others objected to the negative connotations that the word acquired in the colonial context. Scholars of Africa, in particular, felt that it was pejorative as well as inaccurate.”

Originally, the title “Sheikh” was more related to hereditary royal/noble pedigree than the title “Amir”.

Besides the sovereigns referred to above, there are several oriental potentates who should be mentioned, the rulers of the Sultanates and Sheikdoms of East Africa and the Persian Gulf (…) The style of these Sheikhs is His Highness.” “Titles: How the king became His Majesty”, L.G. Pine, New York, 1992 (Barnes & Noble) p. 137-138

In the modern United Arab Emirates, however, none of the rulers of the constituent states are called emirs (princes); all are Sheikhs.”

In conclusion, a “sovereign” or “semi-sovereign” Sheikh is a Prince:

The original, but now less common use of the word, originated in the application of the Latin word princeps, from late Roman law, and the classical system of government that eventually gave way to the European feudal society. In this sense, a prince is a ruler of a territory which is sovereign, or quasi-sovereign, i.e., exercising substantial (though not all) prerogatives associated with monarchs of independent nations, as was common, for instance, within the historical boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire.”


As a title, by the end of the medieval era, prince was borne by rulers of territories that were either substantially smaller than or exercised fewer of the rights of sovereignty than did emperors and kings [exactly as the Sheikhdoms]. A lord of even a quite small territory might come to be referred to as a prince before the 13th century, either from translations of a native title into the Latin princeps (as for the hereditary ruler of Wales), or when the lord’s territory was allodial.”


Lords who exercised lawful authority over territories and people within a feudal hierarchy were also sometimes regarded as princes in the general sense, especially if they held the rank of count or higher. This is attested in some surviving styles for e.g., British earls, marquesses, and dukes are still addressed by the Crown on ceremonial occasions as high and noble princes (cf. Royal and noble styles)


Generically, prince refers to a member of a family that ruled by hereditary right, the title referring either to sovereigns or to cadets of a sovereign’s family. The term may be broadly used of persons in various cultures, continents or eras. In Europe, it is the title legally borne by dynastic cadets in monarchies, and borne by courtesy by members of formerly reigning dynasties


Photo: The grave of His Highness Sheikh Selim El Chemor (passed away in 1909 CE, the great grandfather of HRH Prince Sheikh Selim El Chemor, honorary head of the Royal House of Ghassan ), note that the royal title of Sheikh (in Arabic, upper right side) is on his tombstone, a capital proof that the family has been publicly using the ‘sui iuris’ titles for centuries until the present date. (Grave at the cemetery at the Mar Mama Ancient Church in Kferhata, Lebanon)

For a better understanding of the subject we strongly recommend the reading of the following article:

The Sheikhs El Chemor: a legal study of titles

Royal House of Ghassan honors Lebanese Ambassador

Today, at the building of the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants in Beirut, the Royal House of Ghassan honored His Excellency Ambassador Jean Makaron, PhD. His Excellency has served with a brilliant career in several countries as Ambassador like Armenia and also served as Consul General in Los Angeles. Currently, he is Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. HRH Prince Gharios El Chemor bestowed upon the Ambassador the rank of Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Michael Archangel. Present to the meeting, the president of the Royal House of Ghassan in Lebanon Sheikh Dr Elie Gharios and Mr Petro Al Achkar, the PR Manager.

Here’s the thank you letter from the eminent Ambassador:




The Ignorance about Royalty

crown jewels

Fruit of the age of social media and the pseudo-intellectuals, we see today the rise of stupid opinions that have the pretention of replacing facts. That virus, using malice and political interests as catalysts, gave birth to the “fake news” phenomenon – common to the left as well to the right – and the “shower of ignorance” that we witness today. Everyone can give opinions about any subject.

The major problem is that those stupid opinions don’t arise only from less or non-educated people but also from people with degrees and significant information. Anyone with a diploma in a specific area feels entitled to give opinions about anything and everything.

Well, if someone is the world’s greatest orthopedist, even being a medical doctor, it doesn’t automatically makes him or her a brain or a heart surgeon. But people don’t care! The social media gave the idiots a megaphone and none can stop them! That has affected all areas of human knowledge, unfortunately.

People don’t know the “status quaestionis” or the actual broad scholarly vision of a certain subject and still think their opinion is law. Usually, because they heard “someone saying it”. They judge that someone usually as “more intelligent” or at least more knowledgeable in that particular field and they “go with it”, defending it with all their might, usually without any further comprehensive research (or with a rudimentary one).

They don’t realize that their opinion usually is not even that, but “a mere emotional reaction” to something that “doesn’t look right” for them. Because this “emotional reaction” is shared by that “intelligent someone” and/or by a celebrity or even by other members of his or her social group or someone they admire, he or she honestly believe that the reaction is actually a based assertion or the ultimate truth.

Regarding Royalty, there’s a great deal of ignorance from many parts, including some so-called scholars.

By definition:

A royal family is the immediate family of a king or queen regnant, and sometimes his or her extended family. The term imperial family appropriately describes the family of an emperor or empress, and the term papal family describes the family of a pope, while the terms baronial family, comital family, ducal family, grand ducal family, or princely family are more appropriate to describe the relatives of a reigning baron, count, duke, grand duke, or prince. However, in common parlance members of any family which reigns by hereditary right are often referred to as royalty or “royals.” It is also customary in some circles to refer to the extended relations of a deposed monarch and his or her descendants as a royal family“.

Just being related to a King or Queen doesn’t make a family necessarily royal or eligible to a royal title. Specially in Europe where is estimated that around 80% of the population descends from some European sovereign.

For example, British Queen Elizabeth II‘s eldest grandson Peter Phillips (firstborn son of HRH Princess Royal Anne born in 1977) doesn’t even have a royal title due to the British Laws of succession. Although obviously considered to be part of the Royal Family, he’s called just “master” and is currently the 13th in line to the British throne, however, no title. His cousin HRH Prince William was born in 1982 but due to those laws of succession has a royal title and is the 2nd in line to the throne. In contrast, the Saudi Royal family has thousands of princes due to their particular laws of succession since just the descent from a ruler entitles them to a royal title.

The Thesaurus’ definition of the word “Royal” is:

“of or relating to a king, queen, or other sovereign”

But what does “sovereign” means?

“1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler. 2. a person who has supreme power or authority.”

According to accepted international law and its principle of “sovereign equality“, the Pope or the prince of Monaco is “as royal” as the Queen of England regardless of the size of their actual territories. That principle is one of the pillars of International Law itself.

There are not dozens nor hundreds, but thousands of families that ruled a sovereign or semi-sovereign territories all over the world. Any so-called expert who claims to know everything about any single one of them is simply lying. Naturally, their right to claim a title in present times depends of a series of factors, especially regarding the laws of succession of that particular family, voluntary abdications, treaties signed by their ancestors, etc.

One interesting example is Italy.

If you ask anyone about Royalty in Italy, people immediately will say: “the Savoy Family“! Maybe someone who knows a little bit more of history might cite the Bourbon-Two Sicilys’ Family. However, there were several ruling families in Italy. According to the official Review of the Italian College of Arms in 1922, named “ONCE SOVEREIGN HOUSES OF THE STATES OF ITALY and national families descended from these or from foreign dynasties” (you may access a .PDF file of the official essay by clicking on the title) there were, over 100 (one hundred) different Italian families that descend from sovereign houses in Italian territory and also some descending from foreign ruling houses, all of those,  fitting the definition of “Royal“.

One may claim that a lot of time has passed and the titles might have “expired” as if they were some kind of produce.

According to the former president of the Italian (Supreme) Court of Cassation, Professor Doctor Renato de Francesco in 1959:

“… It’s simply ridiculous, from a legal point of view, the distinction intended to be done about Dynasties that have reigned until recently of those who ruled in the distant past. It’s not understandable how you can launch at the foot numerous pages of history, only to give luster to this or that family, who, aided by good luck, has managed to remain on the throne, after the year 1815. A Dynasty either reigned or not reigned. If reigned, even in very remote time, deserves the historical and legal treatment as a Dynasty and all its effects.”

A Court sentence of the Republican Italy (Pretoria de Vico Del Gargano, Repubblica Italiana sentence number 217/1949) corroborates the above-mentioned:

 “(…) it’s IRRELEVANT if that Imperial family is no longer ruling FOR CENTURIES, because the deposition doesn’t harm the sovereign prerogatives even if the sovereign renounces, spontaneously, to the throne. In substance, in this case, the Sovereign does not cease to be King, even living in exile or IN PRIVATE LIFE (WITHOUT CLAIMING HIS SOVEREIGNTY), because his prerogatives are, itself, by birth and CANNOT BE EXTINGUISHED, but remains and may be transmitted in time, from generation to generation.”

Also, one may ask if those families need any kind of special recognition from governments or any kind of official approval?

According to Professor Emilio Furno, an eminent Italian jurist and scholar, former advocate in the Supreme Court of Appeal, writes as follows in “The Legitimacy of Non-National Orders“, Rivista Penale, No.1, January 1961, pp. 46-70:

“There are not a few judgments, civil and criminal, albeit some very recent, all of which tend as a rule to the acceptance of traditional principles re-enunciated not long since. The issue is that of innate nobility – “Jure Sanguinis” – which looks into the prerogatives known as “Jus Majestatis” and “Jus Honorum” and which argues that the holder of such prerogatives is a subject of international law with all the logical consequences of that situation. That is to say, a deposed sovereign may legitimately confer titles of nobility, with or without predicates, and the honorifics which pertain to his heraldic patrimony as head of his dynasty.

The qualities which render a deposed Sovereign a subject of international law are undeniable and in fact constitute an absolute personal right of which the subject may never divest himself and which needs no ratification or recognition on the part of any other authority whatsoever.   A reigning Sovereign or Head of State may use the term recognition in order to demonstrate the existence of such a right, but the term would be a mere declaration and not a constitutive act. (Furno, op.cit.).

“A notable example of this principle is that of the People’s Republic of China which for a Considerable time was not recognized and therefore not admitted to the United Nations, but which nonetheless continued to exercise its functions as a sovereign state through both its internal and external organs.” (Furno, op.cit.).

The eminent author concludes:

“To sum up, therefore, the Italian judiciary, in those cases submitted to its jurisdiction, has confirmed the prerogatives “jure sanguinis” of a dethroned sovereign without any vitiation of its effects, whereby in consequence it has explicitly recognized the right to confer titles of nobility and other honorifics  relative to his dynastic heraldic patrimony. “(Furno, op.cit.).

An extract from the book “Studies on Nobility Law” (Estudos sobre Direito Nobiliário), by Dr. Mario Silvestre de Meroe, pg. 65:

“It is worth mentioning also that the princely families, with the sovereign attributes, require no recognition by the government of their country of origin, or submit any record in countries where its members settle in residence. The dynastic and political independence is based on the Sovereignty itself, which guides their social existence and regardless of any legal recognition, with respect to dynastic and private affairs. ”  

Of course, that doesn’t mean that anyone can claim to be the “King of Narnia” without any kind of historical and legal bases. But one should be very careful in state about the legitimacy of some family without a very deep study. There are several past royal families that are completely unknown for the general public and even to many historians since this subject is no longer in vogue due to the fact that the monarchies are, unfortunately, fading in the world.

We strongly recommend the reading of this article “The Disney concept of Royalty