The Sovereign Imperial & Royal House of Ghassan is the dynastic, historical, legal, and cultural representative of the Royal Ghassanids and the Ghassanid people (in Arabic “Banu Ghassan” or “Al-Ghassassinah”). It comprises and represents all the dynasties ruled by Ghassanid Christian sovereigns from 220 CE until 1747 CE. The Muslim branch of the family ruled until 1921 CE the Principality of Jabal Shammar (Chemor) or Ha’il in today’s Saudi Arabia.

Since no longer ruling, the Royal House presently is a duly registered international, non-profit, apolitical, secular, cultural/educational, and charitable “umbrella organization” recognized and accredited by the United Nations since 2016 and by the Government of the Lebanese Republic since 2019, responsible for several affiliated organizations, fraternities, and initiatives with the specific purposes of the promotion of the historical and Cultural Arab heritage, especially but not limited to the Ghassanid people, the notorious Ghassanid’s ideals such as the broad cultural incentive, women’s equality, democracy, the promotion charity, and the chivalric ideals. Also the promotion and application of the principles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris.

Any non-profit organization needs donations to maintain its operational costs (office expenses, employees, websites, travel, etc.) Donations are also needed if the organization executes any cultural and humanitarian projects. The Royal House of Ghassan is a recognized tax-deductible organization in the United States under the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)

The Royal House of Ghassan is the “mother organization” of two other foundations:

• The “Prinz Gharios Stiftung” (Prince Gharios Foundation) a recognized tax-deductible organization in Dusseldorf, Germany,
• The One Voice Foundation in Beirut, Lebanon

HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor, the head of the Royal House of Ghassan serves as chairman of the board of both organizations but they have their own independent board and CEOs. Regarding the One Voice Foundation, HIRH Prince Selim El Chemor, the Crow Prince of Ghassan and head of the Royal House in Lebanon is also part of the board participating actively in the daily activities.

The Royal House of Ghassan supports some of both foundations’ expenses.

The Royal House also has the following initiatives:

• “One Voice for Christians” – to raise awareness of the genocide and exodus of Christian minorities in the Middle East. Since 2014, HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor has been traveling all over the world and meeting the highest political and religious leaders to advocate the cause of Middle Eastern Christians. The initiative gave birth to the One Voice Foundation. The ultimate goal of the “One Voice for Christians” initiative is the creation of the “MECC – Middle Eastern Christian Council” (or “OCC – Oriental Christian Council”) to strongly represent all denominations of Middle Eastern Christians as a major international political and diplomatic player, and the “MECC Observatory” to centralize all the information regarding persecuted Christians in the Middle East. The initiative produced two long-length documentaries and several videos with acclaimed scholars and leaders advocating for Christians in the Middle East,
• “Alliance for Peace” – to raise awareness about the urgent need for both Christian and Muslim leaders to peaceful cooperation in order to preserve Christian minorities in Muslim lands and fight “Islamophobia” in the west. Since 2014, HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor has been traveling all over the world and meeting the highest political and religious leaders to advocate the cause of peaceful cooperation between Christians and Muslims,
• “WE – The World Evolution” – presenting real solutions for major global problems, initially focusing on hunger, “green wealth”, and education

The Royal House has three “ex-novae” Orders of Merit and Chivalry, all legally chartered as an award under the NGO. Their objective is to raise money for the cultural and humanitarian projects of the Royal House of Ghassan:  

• The Equestrian Order of Michael Archangel – is recognized by two heads-of-State, the presidents of Lebanon and Albania, and many political and religious leaders in the Middle East and Europe. Canonically erected (recognized) by the Catholic Church by the “mottu proprio” decree of the Bishop of the Diocese of Campos, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
• The Equestrian Order of Saint Sergius (Serkis),
• The Equestrian Order of Christ Pantokrator

The Ghassanids are one of the first Christian knights in history but weren’t organized in orders ‘per se’. Therefore, although the Royal House of Ghassan has ancient authority as pioneers’ Christian knights it doesn’t claim any legatary connection with any historical order of chivalry or merit.

To become a Knight or Dame, one is required to make an initial donation known as a ‘Passage Fee’. Historically, it was the fee paid by each Knight to cover the cost of shipping his body home from the Holy Land in case of death in battle. Today, it is a voluntary donation in symbolic accordance with your rank and status in society. That’s customary in all orders of chivalry and merit. It’s a one-time donation. According to its constitution, the order also requires the payment of “annual dues”, currently established at a symbolic minimum of USD$20.80 a month. As in any fraternal organization, these sources of funds are crucial for the organization’s maintenance and projects.  Also, as in any fraternal organization, if one doesn’t pay dues, the consequence is the loss of “good standing” status.

If a proponent knight or dame wants to join the order but cannot afford the passage fee and/or the annual dues, this person may work for the organization in other ways like volunteering or recruiting new members. If for some reason, a knight or dame joins the order and, for some proven financial hardship, cannot afford the annual dues, the Chancellery should be notified immediately and the case is considered and the dues are forgiven. However, if the knight or dame doesn’t communicate to the Chancellery about the hardship simply ignoring the payment of the dues, according to the Order’s constitution, the knight or dame can be degraded losing their title and rank depending on the time passed. That’s also perfectly common to all orders of chivalry that have humanitarian projects and depend on donations to continue their work.

The Royal House of Ghassan also maintains the UNIMP – Universidade Imperial (Imperial University) offering high-level online courses on Monarchy and Geopolitics in Portuguese for less than $8 a month. Visit the website here https://unimp.org/

Here are some of the Humanitarian projects of the Royal House of Ghassan in recent years:

• Advocacy of Religious Minorities in the United Nations

• Donation of food for 500 families of Syrian refugees in the camps in Jordan

• Donation of food for 40 families of Iraqi refugees in the Melkite Church in Jordan

• Donation of tools to women artisans in Jordan to manufacture souvenirs

• Donation of school bags to girls in need in Irbid, Nothern Jordan

• Donation of school bags in Umm-Al-Jimmal, Northern Jordan

• Donation of approx. USD$5,000 worth of equipment to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in Amman, Jordan

• Donation of food to a community in need in Brazil

• Donation of food and Christmas gifts to orphans in Lebanon

• Donation of food and Christmas gifts to elderly people in Lebanon

• Donation of two years of Special Education Scholarship in Al-Karak, Jordan

• Joint Venture with MedGlobal and Armenian Catholic Patriarchate for a medical mission in Lebanon

• Donation of 60 tons of Special baby formula (approx. USD$500,000) to babies with nutritional problems in Lebanon (One Voice Foundation with Caritas France, Caritas Lebanon, and Novac Labs)

• Donation for the construction of a Church for Egyptian Coptic Christian Refugees in Germany (Prinz Gharios Stiftung)

• Diplomatic visits to several political and religious leaders all over the world

Here are some of the Cultural projects of the Royal House of Ghassan in recent years:

• Production of the long-length documentary “The Christian Kings of the Middle east” (One Voice for Christians initiative)

• Production of the long-length documentary “The Royal Legacy” (One Voice for Christians initiative)

• Production of the short-length documentary “The Project” (One Voice for Christians initiative)

• Production of the short-length documentary “IDC- In Defense of Christians” (One Voice for Christians initiative)

• Production of several videos with acclaimed scholars and leaders advocating for Christians in the Middle East (One Voice for Christians initiative)

More videos at https://www.youtube.com/@theroyalherald/videos

• Christmas Concert for the Middle Eastern Christians in the Vatican (Prinz Gharios Stiftung)

• Anti-bullying campaign in public schools in Los Angeles, USA

• An event in partnership with the Lebanese Ministry of Education, Lebanon (One Voice Foundation)

• UNIMP – On-line Imperial University (in Portuguese) https://unimp.org/

• “Papo Real” – Monarchical YouTube channel “Royal chat”

• The Royal Herald blog and Youtube channel (blog https://royalblog.org/ ) (Youtube https://www.youtube.com/@theroyalherald/videos )

• The “Critical Thinker” podcast

Here are only a few examples of where your donation money goes. There are many more.

If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate in contacting us anytime at grandmarshal@royalghassan.org

Below, you may check our donations, campaigns, initiatives, and recent achievements organized by year:

Here are our 2022’s achievements https://royalblog.org/2022/12/31/a-2022s-retrospective/  

Here are our 2021’s achievements https://royalblog.org/2022/01/08/a-2021s-retrospective/  

Here are our 2020’s achievements https://royalblog.org/2021/01/03/a-2020s-retrospective/

Here are our 2019’s achievements https://royalblog.org/2020/01/01/a-2019s-retrospective/

Here are our 2018’s achievements https://royalblog.org/2018/12/18/a-2018s-retrospective/

Here are our 2017’s achievements https://royalblog.org/2017/12/31/a-2017s-retrospective/

Many people assume titles of nobility just by having the same surname as the genuine nobles. Unfortunately (for them), today is very easy to have access to public records, official documents, etc.

Recently, Mr. Fabio Bevilacqua, a martial arts instructor, has been using the self-styled title of “Duke of Tornano” and also the “Grand Master” of the Order of the Redeemer. Both claims without showing a single document, except the fact that he is one of the 34,514 people in Italy with the Bevilacqua surname. Check the website HERE https://forebears.io/surnames/bevilacqua

Mr. Bevilacqua is proudly associated with the notorious Fake Prince of Montenegro that was arrested on several allegations.

Here are the news reports about the police activity

Police Hunt Fake Prince Who Met Pamela Anderson and Defrauded Restaurants https://www.newsweek.com/man-faked-being-montenegrin-prince-free-trips-meet-pamela-anderson-626006

Pamela Anderson among celebs fooled by fake Prince of Montenegro https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/celebrity/arid-30793944.html

Montenegrin President Seeks Probe After Fake Prince Attends State Event https://balkaninsight.com/2022/07/19/montenegrin-president-seeks-probe-after-fake-prince-attends-state-event/

Prince of Montenegro Stefan Cernetic is conman, say police https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4610320/Prince-Montenegro-Stefan-Cernetic-conman-say-police.html

The problem is that both self-styled titles are notoriously the property of two families: The Bevilacqua-Ariosti from Bologna and the Gonzaga-Vescovato family of Mantua.

In order to have an official verdict on the matter, the Italian Heraldic Council has issued a complete report on the Order of the Redeemer and the title of Duke of Tornano, corroborating the aforementioned.

Here are some key parts of the Council’s conclusions:

The full official report can be accessed HERE

In a recent development, Mr. Fabio has accepted the conclusion from the report regarding the Bevilacqua-Ariosti Family of Bologna. Then, he now claims that he belongs to the Verona branch of the family (without showing any proof).

However, the genealogy of the Verona’s branch of the Bevilacqua family is known and public:

http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-lettere/letterab/bevilacqua/BEVILACQUA2.htm  http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-lettere/letterab/bevilacqua/BEVILACQUA3.htm

There are a few problems with his desperate “last minute” change of claims:

1. By admitting he is not from the Bevilacqua-Ariosti Family he’s admitting not legally having the title of “Duke of Tornano“ since the title given to Guglielmo Bevilacqua by the Grand Duke of Tuscany was “Duke of Bevilacqua“, NOT “Duke of Tornano“,
2. He would need to show the full genealogy of him being the senior in the male line from the branch of Verona,
3. As proven above, the genealogy of Verona’s branch is public and it doesn’t show Mr. Fabio Giuseppe Bevilacqua from Taranto,
4. The known public legal male heirs of Verona’s branch are (not in order of precedence): *. Count Antonio, Conte della Bevilacqua (*Verona 27-V-1933) *. Count Ottavio, Conte della Bevilacqua (*Ravenna 15-I-1962) *. Count Ludovico Morando, Conte della Bevilacqua  (*Verona 12-IV-1997) *. Count Emanuele, Conte della Bevilacqua (*Ravenna 14-III-1964) *. Count Giorgio Ludovico, Conte della Bevilacqua (*Este 26-II-1968) *. Count Francesco Morando, Conte della Bevilacqua (*Verona 25-V-1940)

5. The noble lawful heirs of the Bevilacquas of Verona were born (surprisingly) in Verona! And in other surrounding cities in the North of Italy like Ravenna and Este, NOT A SINGLE FAMILY MEMBER WAS BORN IN TARANTO in the South,

6. Not all dukes are created the same. There are royal sovereign dukes that can award titles and knoghthoods, and there are noble dukes, that receive the honor from a sovereing ruler and CANNOT AWARD TITLES AND KNIGHTHOODS.

“Various royal houses traditionally awarded (mainly) dukedoms to the sons and in some cases, the daughters, of their respective sovereigns; others include at least one dukedom in a wider list of similarly granted titles, nominal dukedoms without any actual authority, often even without an estate. Such titles are still conferred on royal princes or princesses in the current European monarchies of Belgium, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke

“In Italy some important sovereign ducal families were the Visconti and the Sforza, who ruled Milan; the Savoy in Piedmont; the Medici of Florence; the Farnese of Parma and Piacenza; the Cybo-Malaspina of Massa; the Gonzaga of Mantua; the Este of Modena and Ferrara” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke

7. Duke Guglielmo Bevilacqua from Verona was a noble Duke, not a sovereign one! It’s notorious that he was created Duke by the Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1851. Therefore, he had no Fons Honorum to create nobles and knights!

8. The title of Duke Guglielmo Bevilacqua was NOT hereditary. Titles of nobility can be “ad personam” being awarded only to the person, expiring wiht the person’s death. Or “ad perpetuam” or hereditary. NONE of the lawful heirs of the Duke Guglielmo ever used the title of Duke, using only the title of Count as proven demonstrating the public genealogy of the Bevilacquas of Verona http://www.genmarenostrum.com/pagine-lettere/letterab/bevilacqua/BEVILACQUA3.htm

Several books corroborate the aforementioned:

The Muslim sacred texts mention that Prophet Mohammad sent letters to all the major Kings in the Middle East inviting them to embrace Islam. Amongst others, these included the Negus of Axum, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), the Muqawqis of Egypt, and the Sasanid emperor Khosrau II (r. 590–628). 

This tradition mentions a letter to the Ghassanid King Al-Harith Ibn Abu Chemor V (ruled 529-569 AD). The way that the Prophet addresses the Ghassanid King is very interesting. He calls him “The King of Damascus“. That was the capital of the region called by Arabs ash-Shām “north country, the Levant” in contrast to al-Yaman “south country, the Yemen“. The mere fact that the Founder of Islam wrote a letter to the Ghassanid King shows his importance and status at the time. Many scholars call the Ghassanid Kingdom a “vassal State” of the Byzantine empire in a derogatory way, implying inferiority. As aforementioned, he also sent a letter to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Obviously, if the Ghassanids had no sovereignty and were subordinated to the Byzantine empire there would be no need to write the Ghassanid King since writing the Byzantine emperor would suffice.

Here is the letter’s content, according to the Islamic tradition:

“A Letter to Harith bin Abu Chemor Al-­Ghassani, King of Damascus

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most. Merciful.

From Muhammad, Messenger of Allah to Al-Harith bin Abu Chemor

Peace be upon him who follows true guidance, believes in it, and regards it as true. I invite you to believe in Allah Alone with no associate, thence after your kingdom will remain yours ...”

Shuja’ bin Wahab had the honor of taking the letter to Al-Harith, who upon hearing the letter read in his audience, was madly infuriated and uttered: “Who dares to dispose me of my country, I’ll fight him (the Prophet),” and arrogantly rejected the Prophet’s invitation to the fold of I lam. [Za’d AI-Ma’ad 3/62; Muhadarat Tareekh AI-Umam Al­lslamiyah 1 /146]

The fact that King Al-Harith refused to convert to Islam started a chain of events that ended up with the fall of the First Ghassanid State in 638 CE. King Jabalah and the Royal Family were evacuated going to Mount Lebanon and Anatolia (today’s Turkey but back then part of the Byzantine empire). However, many Ghassanids remained in the region under the First Islamic Caliphate and due to several factors like the payment of the Jiziya tax (for Non-Muslims), slowly many ended up converting to the new faith.

History would repeat itself with the Ottoman persecution of the Ghassanid Christian principalities in Northern Mount Lebanon starting in the 18th century until the exodus to the Americas at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th (WWI).

“Descent from the Royal Ghassanids was an honour to be claimed by many Christians as was the honour for Muslims in claiming descent from Quraysh, the tribe of the Prophet [Muhammad].” — Professor Doctor Yasmine Zahran, “Ghassan Resurrected”, 2006, p.149

Although the Ghassanid Dynasty was always a synonym for Christian resistance to Muslim regimes many Ghassanid Muslim families proudly kept their Ghassanid identity until today, like in the city of Karak, Jordan. Another good example is the Muslim Al-Ghassani family of the Sultanate of Oman.

Today, approximately 30% of the Ghassanid’s world population (estimated at 15 million people) is Muslim.

The Christian tradition was so important to the Ghassanids that there was a royal decree forbidding Ghassanids to marry non-Chrsitians.

“While Ghassanid Christians clung to their identity as a minority and were interbed because of the prohibition of marriage with non-Christians..” Professor Doctor Yasmine Zahran, “Ghassan Resurrected”, 2006, p.149

Knowing that fact, HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII, head of the Royal House of Ghassan, had the ancient decree symbolically revoked in 2014 in the advent of his official visit to the Grand Mufti of Jordan, the highest Islamic authority in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor in an official audience with the Grand Mufti of Jordan in 2014

Unfortunately, from time to time, we have to clarify facts that have never changed but people seem to fabricate their own reality these days.

1. I am proudly born and raised in Brazil in exile under the name “AHNUME GUERIOS” (the Portuguese transliteration of “ALNUMAN GHARIOS” or in Arabic النعمان غاريوس) My name has never changed, only the spelling since I moved to the United States. The Portuguese transliteration would be read by native English speakers in a completely different way. I only legally added the titles and our original last name “EL CHEMOR” (also written ACH-CHMORR, SHAMMAR, SHAMIR or SHUMMAR in Arabic الشمرّ) since “GHARIOS” is originally a given name (not a surname) meaning “GREGORY” in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus Christ. History tells us that when my ancestor and last Ghassanid Christian ruler HIRH Prince Sheikh Youssef El Chemor was killed by the Ottoman empire, his sons had to flee the Zgharta-Zewye region (today’s northern Lebanon) and changed their names not to be killed. HIRH Prince Sheikh Gharios Youssef El Chemor had a son named HIRH Prince Sheikh Antoun and instead of naming him with the last name EL CHEMOR he decided to name him with the surname “GHARIOS”. That’s well documented. The other brothers FARHAT, and HOBBEIKA did the exact same with their sons and daughters, afraid of being killed. I mention my name and origins on all of my websites and social media as well as during my interviews, https://royalblog.org/2018/08/08/encyclopedia-of-maronite-families-confirms-the-sheikhs-el-chemors-chronicles-and-makes-a-surprising-statement/
2. Fast forward to WWI, my family had to leave the region due to the persecution by the Ottoman empire to all the Christians. That fact made hundreds of thousands of Syrian Lebanese migrate to Brazil to escape the Ottoman empire. According to official data, there are more Lebanese living in Brazil (approx. 7-8 million) than in Lebanon (approx. 4 million). Brazil even recently had a president of Lebanese descent, His Excellency Dr. Michel Temer,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Brazilians
3. Our internationally recognized titles are “Prince of Ghassan” and/or “Prince of the Ghassanids”. Although my ancestors ruled as sovereign parts of Northern Lebanon (Al-Akhoura and Zghartha-Zewiye) until the 18^th century. We never claimed to be “Princes of Lebanon”. The only family that can use the title “Prince of (Mount) Lebanon” is the Chehab family (also Shihab, Shehab, etc. in Arabic الشهابي), our cousins by marriage. Country names like Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc. are from the 20th century, after WWI and WWII. When my direct family left today’s Lebanon, the country was an Ottoman province, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shihab_dynasty
4. The process of adding the titles legally to my name was analyzed by 3 judges in Brazil and 2 in the United States and was executed under the terms of the international treaty known as the 1958 NY Convention, recognized by 172 nations,
5. Although we claim to be some of the first Christian knights in history (almost five centuries before the first crusade) We do not claim any historical order of chivalry since it’s well documented that the Ghassanid knights had all the elements of European Chivalry, but they didn’t organize themselves in orders ‘per se’, they just used to fight under the banner of Jesus Christ, our patron Saint Sergius (Serkis), Michael Archangel, and other angels, https://royalblog.org/2016/12/15/ghassanids-some-of-the-first-christian-knights-in-history/
6.  I still recommend people watch our documentaries to understand the history of the Middle East, something so ignored in the West for so many years.

The Christian Kings of the Middle East

The Royal Legacy

March 20^th, 2023

HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

Head of the Sovereign Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan

One thing we all agree: we’ve too many podcasts today. However, rarely a podcast has an unbiased and educated opinion. Currently, people are “dancing” between two extremes and hating each other. The Critical Thinker podcast comes to shed a light on the “Sovereign perspective” which means having the mindset of the kings and queens, looking to things without preconceived judgments and exaggerated passions. Hosted by HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor and the actor/writer Pepper Jensen, the Critical Thinker comes as an impartial alternative to a polarized world.

The Critical Thinker can be watched at the Royal Herald channels on YouTube and Rumble

We often come across a plethora of articles and postings of baseless statements with respect to dynastic law. Apparently, anyone thinks they can determine who’s real and who’s not. Usually, it’s people with absolutely no knowledge or credentials about the subject, just a popular social media account.

But sometimes even people with apparent credentials and pompous academic titles make absurd nonsensical statements.

Let’s establish something very important. The best orthopedic doctor in the world is not fit to perform brain surgeries just because he’s a doctor. The fact that one is a historian with a doctorate, or a lawyer doesn’t make this individual automatically an expert in dynastic laws of succession. In the same manner, an expert in European laws of succession is not, ipso facto, an expert in African laws of succession, and so on.

Many questions arise since the bonafide sources of information are very rare. We will try to answer some of them here.

Can a deposed sovereign and/or the heirs keep the titles legally after the deposition? If yes, how long?

First of all, there’s no such hermetic code of international law. The jurisprudence recognizes the existence of “governments-in-exile” of the deposed monarchs as hereditary by the “jus sanguinis” (law of blood) “ad aeternum” and “ad perpetuam”. In other words, as long as there’s blood it’s forever unless all the lawful heirs expressly abdicate their rights. That abdication must be done by an express legal instrument without any vice like ignorance through deception, fraud, undue influence, duress, threat, or some other unlawful means, etc. Then, all the rights are forfeited.

Another problem is the lack of competent courts to rule over claims. In the case of deposed monarchies, we cannot expect current republican courts to be fair to rule over past kingdoms’ issues, for obvious reasons of conflicted rights. It’d be the same as having someone from one of the teams of a match serve as the referee.

The closest to a competent court to rule over such claims would be the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, however, its statutes of 1945 are very clear:

“Chapter II

The Court’s Competence

Article 34

1. Only States may be parties before the Court.”

So, a priori, no personal claim can be examined or judged by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations.

The deposed monarch’s sovereignty does not depend on territory, people, politics, etc. To understand it fully, it’s necessary to comprehend all the sovereign rights and powers:

“Ius Imperii” – the right to command and rule a territory;

“Ius Gladii” – the right to impose obedience through command and also control armies;

“Ius Majestatis” – the right to be honored and respected according to your title;

“Ius Conferendi” or “Ius Honorum” – the right to award titles based on merit and virtue.

There’s a simplistic way to explain a complex process. There are “two kinds” of sovereignty related to “Ius Imperii” and “Ius Gladii” – one called “de facto” (by fact) and the other “de jure” (by right). Both need to be attached to a territory and a people (in other words, a State). A “third sovereignty” is related to the other two rights “Ius Majestatis” and “Ius Honorum“, and it is related to a dynasty and a family and not dependent on a State.

Regular courts can analyze claims regarding “Ius Majestatis” and “Ius Honorum” since their existence falls into the category of “immaterial inheritance”. However, those courts cannot decide over “Ius Imperii” and “Ius Gladii“, especially if those courts are based on a territory previously ruled by the sovereign family in question since that would fall on the aforementioned case of conflicted rights.

Is there any organization or “commission” with legal powers to recognize sovereign claims and/or orders of chivalry?

No. But before explaining why, we would like to state, that we believe that many of those “commissions” have good intentions and very serious and respectable members. Our disagreement is in the field of ideas. We even applaud the initiative of bringing more ethics and scholarship to the world of the orders of chivalry.

There’s no so-called “official” legal organization to recognize royal or noble claims. All of the “commissions” are mere independent associations with no legal authority.

Again, International Law recognizes the idea of a “government-in-exile” but doesn’t codify any kind of clear rules for its existence. Hence, nobody can say with absolute authority that this or that claim is germane or not. According to international law, to accredit a claim, governments, ruling sovereigns, and heads of traditional churches, may recognize it with value. But, in the same way, the lack of any recognition doesn’t mean, necessarily, a false claim. Scholars can be the most trustworthy source of appraisal, but even they cannot state anything as decisive.

Some commissions try to convince naïve people that they can recognize or accredit titles of Nobility or from Orders of Chivalry.

Only the lender Sovereign House can do such a thing. If a title or knighthood was granted by the House of Bourbon, for example, only the current Head of the House of Bourbon can ultimately decide if the title or knighthood is valid or not. All titles and honors belong to the lender House. It’s their immaterial patrimony and therefore only the lender House in fact can decide the validity of such titles. Without a doubt, in reigning monarchies, there are special courts to rule over such claims, but those courts would decide based on the authority granted by the Sovereign House that bestowed the titles.

What about the criteria that some so-called “commissions” establish for recognition?

Well, any private organization has the right to create any criteria it deems valid since their recognition has no legal value, it’s a mere opinion. However, if we inquire about the actual legal and logical sense for that criteria we fall into some antinomies and contradictions. For example, one commission establishes that:

“1. Every independent State has the right to create its own Orders or Decorations of Merit and lay down, at will, their particular rules. But it must be made clear that only the higher degrees of these modern State Orders can be deemed of knightly rank, provided they are conferred by the Crown or by the “pro tempore” ruler of some traditional State.”

Well, if they can “lay down, at will, their particular rules” and you’re stating that “only the higher degrees can be deemed of knightly rank” it’s not only contradictory but it’s a direct interference on an independent State’s sovereignty.

Let’s hypothetically imagine a member of the parliament of a republic proposing a law that creates a new order of chivalry and all its ranks are knightly ones. The law it’s approved by the parliament and goes to the head-of-State to be sanctioned. Theoretically, the head-of-State is the legal embodiment of the “Fons Honorum”. By signing the law, “ipso facto” that order exists legally according to international law, and no “commission” in the world can deny it!

Let’s imagine that the law that created the order determines that the mayors of the country’s capitals will confer the ranks, not the head-of-State. When the head-of-State signs the law, he’s granting the “Jus Conferendi” to the mayors and the order is still legally valid. It’s the same as the sovereign delegating to a prince the accolade of a knighting ceremony. The bestowal is by the sovereign, but he/she can perfectly delegate even the appointments. The same happens in Papal orders. The honor is given by the Pope’s authority but can be suggested or recommended by a cardinal or a patriarch or even a bishop. Usually, the Pope doesn’t even know who was invested since he appoints a cardinal surrogate to perform the investitures.

“2. The Dynastic (or Family or House) Orders which belong jure sanguinis to a Sovereign House (that is to those ruling or ex-ruling Houses whose sovereign rank was internationally recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 or later) retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ultra vires of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the Princely Dynastic Family or House Orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.”

The aforementioned has absolutely no base on any principle of international law ever written.

According to the former president of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (the highest court in Italy) 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 of 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 a very remote time, deserves the historical and legal treatment as a dynasty and all its effects.”

In fact, Prof. V. Powell-Smith writes (“The Criteria for Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry” in “Nobilitas“, Malta, 1970):

“… There is no valid reason, legal or other, to limit sovereign status in such a way by reference to 1814 or any date at all. The Congress of Vienna merely affected the settlement of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars, and nothing more. There have been changes in the political structure of Europe have occurred since 1814 (as well as before) as, for example, the establishment of the Balkan kingdoms and the unification of Italy. The sovereigns of those kingdoms which ceased to exist before the Congress of Vienna acted as fons honorum during their reigns and will continue to exercise sovereign rights thereafter. The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to reorganize the territorial boundaries of European states. Certain states, the existence of which had been effectively terminated the by Napoleonic settlement were not re-established but were integrated into larger units, the sovereign princes willingly accepting such an arrangement which retained their rights as princes but removed their former territorial rights. The rights of fons honorum not represented or discussed at the Congress (because they had no interest in its decisions which related to de facto territorial adjustments) could not have been affected by what was decided at the Congress or later arguments ex silentio on the question.”

***

“3. It is generally admitted by jurists that such ex-sovereigns who have not abdicated have positions different from those of pretenders and that in their lifetime they retain their full rights as “fons honorum” in respect even of those Orders of which they remain Grand Masters which would be classed, otherwise, as State and Merit Orders.”

Another legal antinomy. You can either accept that the heirs of deposed sovereigns inherit the “Fons Honorum”, or not. They state that a lawful heir from a deposed monarch doesn’t have the power to create new orders of chivalry or merit. The prince pretender has only the right of keeping the orders created by the ancestor while ruling. That creates a legal paradox since this process is not created “by magic”, the sovereign rights of “Jus Majestatis” and “Jus Conferendi” (“Fons Honorum”) are passed to the lawful heir by blood (“Jus Sanguinis”), as aforementioned, these rights are not dependent on a State (as “Jus Imperii” and “Jus Gladii” are) and that’s why they can continue with the lawful heirs. If “magically” only the valid orders were the ones created while in power, the sovereignty and the “Fons Honorum” would reside on the juridical person of the organization (order), not on the sovereign blood! It’s the same thing as your grandfather leaving you a house as an inheritance and someone with no legal authority tells you that you can only live there from Monday to Thursday.

Either the “Fons Honorum” passes by blood or not! The lawful heir or prince pretender of a deposed dynasty exercises his “Fons Honorum” every time a knight is invested. That has nothing to do legally with the date that the order was created and if the if it was created during the reign or not!

The only thing here vaguely based on some tradition is the fact that the lawful heir of a deposed sovereign usually doesn’t use the regnal title like “king” or “emperor”, he commonly uses the title of “prince” or “duke”. Or, he can write “De Jure” (“By right”) King of … after his name and princely title. That tradition is more common in Europe, some African monarchies crown their sovereigns even in exile.

According to the late Professor Dr. W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D’état (post-doctorate/habilitation) from the University of Reims in France in his book, “Treaty of Heraldry and Nobility Law” Volume II page 52 wrote:

“Neither the elapsed time, even for centuries, nor nonuse of the acts of sovereignty exercised by the Prince Pretender, Head of Name and Arms of his house, maybe derogated, prescribed, or canceled. He/she retains these rights until the end of times ‘ad perpetuam rex tenendam’ which are inserted in the person of Prince Pretender.”

Such principles are confirmed by the opinions of famous jurists, such as Dr. Ercole Tanturri, once the First President of the Court of Cassation [the highest court in Italy], who was joined by Prof. Leonardo Puglionisi, Professor of canon law at the University of Rome, and Dr. Raimondo Jannitti-Piromallo, Section President of the Court of Cassation (Journal of Heraldic and Genealogy n. 7-12 Dec. 1954) who also writes:

“The sovereignty is a perpetual quality, indelibly connected and linked, in the centuries to the whole descendancy of the one who first conquered or claimed it, and fulfills itself in the physical person of the Chief of Name and Arms of the dynasty, independent from any other consideration or inquiry of political, juridical, moral or social nature which might be made about him, and which, as history teaches, can’t influence its sovereign quality.”

Here is 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 Sovereignty itself, which guides their social existence and regardless of any legal recognition, with respect to dynastic and private affairs. “

Professor Emilio Furno, an advocate in the Supreme Court of Appeal, writes as follows “The Legitimacy of Non-National Orders”, Rivista Penale, No.1, January 1961, pp. 46-70:

“The qualities which render a deposed sovereign 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.)

***

“5. The recognition of Orders by States or supranational organisations which themselves do not have chivalric orders of their own, and in whose Constitutions no provisions are made for the recognition of knightly and nobiliary institutions, cannot be accepted as constituting validation by sovereignties, since these particular sovereignties have renounced the exercise of heraldic jurisdiction. The international “status” of an Order of Knighthood rests, in fact, on the rights of fons honorum, which, according to tradition, must belong to the Authority by which this particular Order is granted, protected or recognised.”

Again a vain attempt to limit a State’s sovereignty. By international law, there’s the principle of sovereign equality between monarchies and republics, large and small States. Although in practice the most powerful countries have more leverage on the international stage, legally they’re all the same.

Looking back to item number 1 the commission states that:

“1. Every independent State has the right to create its own Orders or Decorations of Merit and lay down, at will, their particular rules. But it must be made clear that only the higher degrees of these modern State Orders can be deemed of knightly rank, provided they are conferred by the Crown or by the “pro tempore” ruler of some traditional State.”

Another legal antinomy: if the State has the right to create its own Orders and the “pro tempore” ruler of some traditional State” can confer a knightly rank, one cannot limit the power of the head-of-State (“Fons Honorum”) to recognize an order or a title.

Even if a particular sovereignty “have renounced the exercise of heraldic jurisdiction” it can perfectly and lawfully, either by creating a new order or recognizing another one, “ipso facto” restore the heraldic jurisdiction, unless specifically and expressly forbidden in the country’s constitution.

If a sovereign State has the power of withdrawing from international treaties with no need of a valid reason (see. Russia recently withdrawing from the 1968’s NPT – Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons) the impossibility of the restoration of the heraldic jurisdiction – an integral State’s prerogative being a domestic issue – it’s a complete absurd!

By all the above, we can conclude that, if we agree on the fact that the “Jus Conferendi” (“Fons Honorum”) is passed by blood (“Jus Sanguinis”) there’s no valid reason in international law to limit it in any way, shape, or form, its powers without gravely violating the “De Jure” rights of a Deposed Dynasty.

We also reccomend the reading of the following articles:

“FONS HONORUM” – Legally bestowing Titles & Honors

The El Chemor/Gharios family Vis-à-vis with the International Law

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

Why is the El Chemor/Gharios Family endowed with the Ghassanid Royal Titles?

Were the Ghassanids sovereign?

The Royal House of Ghassan and its continuous official recognition

Clarifications on the Royal House of Ghassan’s official legal recognitions

Several interesting facts about the Ghassanid Dynasty show the importance of the only Imperial Arab dynasty in history.

To a lack of comprehensive knowledge of the Byzantine and Ghassanid history, some historians create confusion about the actual role of the Ghassanids and their alliance with Byzantium. They pejoratively call Ghassan “client-state” or “vassal” without even explaining what that really meant in the context of the 6th and 7th centuries.

“And though the Ghassanid King was the head of what we would today call a client state, he and the [Byzantine] Emperor met on EQUAL FOOTING – as comrades in arms  – discussing matters of earthshaking and less-than-earthshaking importance.” (Gene Gurney, “Kingdoms of Asia, the Middle East and Africa”, 1986, p.70)

His Majesty, King Al-Harith VI (Arethas in Greek sources) started a tradition for Ghassanid rulers with several imperial titles in addition to the Royal one awarded by his own people:

“Basileus” – Emperor/High King of All Arabs,

Patrician – Highest Byzantine honor in the 6^th century, given only to 3 foreign rulers, King Al-Harith VI being one of them,

“Archphylarch”- Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Foederati (Federate Arab Armies)

We have to separate the role of “Archphylarc” of the Byzantine Federation and the title “Basileus Araves” (Emperor or High King of All Arabs) given by Emperor Justinian in 529 CE from the actual Kingship over the people of Ghassan, which the scholars have agreed, were not Roman (Byzantine) citizens.

“The dignity of King in Procopius had been sharply differentiated from the “Supreme Phylarchate” (archyphilarchia), with which Arethas was endowed “(Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 1, 1995, p. 103).

“The title awarded to the Ghassanid Ruler or Chief BY HIS OWN PEOPLE was neither Patricius nor Phylarch but KING (AL-MALIK).  The title, established BEYOND DOUBT by Procopius is confirmed by the contemporary poetry of Hassan and of later poets who continued this authentic tradition, But the strongest evidence is supplied by contemporary epigraphy — the Usays Inscription  carved by one of [King] Arethas commanders, Ibn Al-Mughira, who refers to him around A.D. 530 as Al-Malik, the King.  There is also no doubt that the Ghassanid Arethas was dressed as a King on important occasions in Ghassanland, since the poet laureate of later times underscores his own eminent position among his Ghassanid patrons by nothing that he used to sit not far from their crowned head.” (Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, Volume 2 part 2 pg.164)

“The patriciate, not an office, but a dignity, and the highest that Byzantium could bestow, was conferred on the Ghassanid Arethas. “ Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 1, 1995, p. 293)

“This highest Byzantine dignity (Patriciate) was conferred on a number of Romans.  Its attribution to non-Romans – barbarians, princes and kings – was rare, and most of these cases belonged to the Roman West, occupied by the Germanic princes.  In the East it was much rarer; only three are named, and Arethas is one of them.  So the patriciate of Arethas was indeed a rare honor, the bestowal of which was also eloquent of the relationship existing between Justinian and Arethas.  This is especially so because the patrician was often referred to as “the emperor’s father” (pater augusti) and the emperor often addressed the patrician as “my father”.  Thus, if one dignity or title of the many that Arethas held, reflects the special relationship between Justinian and Arethas, it is the patriciate.  Its conferment reflects the Byzantium’s absolute confidence in the loyalty and worth of the Arab king, just as its assumption of the imperial gentilicium, Flavius, reflected its own sense of loyalty to the imperial family that carried the nomen gentile of the Second Flavians.” (Ibid p.294)

Ghassanid Kings had a plethora of other imperial titles like: “Clarissimus”, “Philochristos” (“Christ loving”), “Pius” and the imperial gentilicium “Flavius”. (See Ibid. p.295)

Read also:

The Ghassanid Imperial Titles

Were the Ghassanids sovereign?

The Heritage of the Ghassanid Sovereignty in the treatment of “Royal Highness” by Expert Carmelo Curro’ Troiano

The Sheikhs El Chemor: a legal study of titles

We commend the One Voice Foundation’s CEO His Excellency Antoine Kalaydjian and Dr Marie-Claire Melki, the event’s organizer, for last year’s Christmas event at the Mrouj Orphanage (Antonine Catholic Order) in Lebanon.

In my name and in the name of the Royal House of Ghassan, I’m praying for the victims of the terrible earthquakes in Syria and Turkey and their families. Also, we are evaluating possible solutions to help the survivors. In the same spirit, we would like to incentivize you to help and donate to recognized organizations.

HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII – Head of the Sovereign Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan

Unfortunately, there’s no standard legal procedure in the recognition of non-ruling/deposed royal families. Although according to accepted jurisprudence, former sovereigns and their heirs are considered to be subjects of international law, they have no form to differentiate themselves in the domestic legal system of a country, unless specifically stated otherwise which is extremely rare, especially in republics that got rid of their own monarchs.

Therefore, the only possible domestic legal ways of recognition are specific lawsuits regarding the rights of immaterial inheritance of titles, although many question the actual competence/jurisdiction of those courts ruling over those – usually – foreign or conflicted rights. Another legal option is incorporation as a juridical person: an NGO, a foundation, or something similar stating that the alluded organization represents that family and dynasty with all the objectives and purposes like the preservation of the culture, language, customs, etc. Usually, the organization is registered as a nonprofit and also dedicates its activities to funding and operating projects to benefit the people living in the territories previously ruled by that royal family’s ancestors.

A famous example is the Romanov Family Association founded by the living heirs of the Russian Imperial Family in 1979 and incorporated in Switzerland. http://www.romanovfamily.org

Also, the Crown Council of Ethiopia was formed by the living heirs of the His Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I, the last ruler of Ethiopia, deposed in a coup in 1974. The organization is headquartered in Washington DC, in the United States. https://ethiopiancrown.org  

Another way is to legally incorporate the orders of merit or chivalry that are part of the patrimony of that royal family, clearly stating the connection and affiliation to that dynasty. The orders usually dedicate themselves to charity projects. Conferring the orders and honors of the dynasty in addition to the charitable projects assisting the people living in the previously ruled territories is definitely a way to “exist” in the legal domestic system.

Examples of orders/humanitarian entities incorporated as NGOs are the ones from the Royal Houses of

• Italy Ordini Dinastici della Real Casa di Savoia (ordinidinasticicasasavoia.it) 
• Portugal https://casarealportuguesa.org/dynamicdata/dommanualII.asp,
• France   Foire Aux Questions – (comtedeparis.com) , etc.

Regarding the Royal House of Ghassan, as previously stated, legal recognition was achieved in every possible available way, formally and informally. It is safe to state that the Ghassanid Dynasty is currently one of the most legally recognized Non-ruling Royal houses in the world.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARD No. 0413/2011

In Brazil, after the advent of Federal Law number 9307 of 1996, all of the Arbitral Awards (decisions) had the same value of a Legal Sentence (Court Verdict), regardless of the approval of any kind of the Legal system:

“Article 18. The arbitrator is a judge in fact and Law, and his decision is not subject to appeal or approval by the judiciary.” http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9307.htm

“Article 31. The arbitral award shall produce between the parties and their successors; the same effects of the judgment by the organs of the judiciary and, if condemnatory, shall be enforceable.” http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9307.htm

Also, according to Federal Law, the Award will receive the status of “res judicata” (matter already judged and are not susceptible to any appeal) if no question of the annulment is filed within ninety days after notification of the award:

“Article 33. The interested party may request the competent organ of the judiciary the decree of nullity of the award, as provided in this Law.

§ 1 The demand for the annulment of the arbitration award will follow the common procedure provided for in Code of Civil Judicial Procedure, and shall be filed within ninety days after receipt of notification of award or its addendum.” http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9307.htm

Also in 2002, Brazil signed the NY Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958. As of January 2023, the convention has 172 state parties, which include 169 of the 193 United Nations member states plus the Cook Islands, the Holy See, and the State of Palestine.

“The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the “New York Arbitration Convention” or the “New York Convention,” is one of the key instruments in international arbitration. The New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the referral by a court to arbitration.” http://www.newyorkconvention.org/

The United States signed the Convention in 1970 and under American Law; the recognition of foreign arbitral awards is governed by chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

In Foster v. Neilson, this Court held “Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the Legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.” Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 314 (1829). See also Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 57 S.Ct. 100, 103 (1936); Medellin v. Dretke, 125 S.Ct. 2088, 2103 (2005); Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2695 (2006).

Thus, over a course of 181 years, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a self-executing treaty is an act of the Legislature (i.e. an act of Congress).

Even with the aforementioned Brazilian Federal Law number 9307 of 1996 clearly stating that there is absolutely no need to subject the Arbitral decision to be sanctioned by the judiciary, the Arbitral Award number 0413/2011 was presented to one Brazilian Chief Judge and two regular judges in 2013. All the magistrates signed sworn notarized affidavits validating the Arbitral Award and recognizing as lawful all the stated on the sentence as being in harmony with the Brazilian, International, and customary laws.

WHY BRAZIL?

Brazil has the largest Arab colony outside the Middle East with fifteen million people between immigrants and descendants. Definitely, the largest Christian Arab and Ghassanid colony in the world. Just as an example, Brazil has over twice the number of Lebanese than in Lebanon. Also, the vast majority of Islamic countries in the Middle East would be expected clear resistance to a Christian Dynastic claim.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT’S DECREES (CASES) NUMBER BS-135337 & BS-159726

By the Brazilian Federal Law number 9307 of 1996 (articles 18, 31 and 33) the Arbitration Award number 0413/2011 is considered “res judicata” and no further legal action is necessary as any ratification by other powers of the Judiciary. Also, the Brazilian participation in the 1958 NY Convention made the decision legally enforceable and binding in all of the 172 signatory nations. Even with perfect legal recognition, Prince Gharios submitted the International Verdict, issued in Brazil, to the Los Angeles Superior Court, not once but twice. Recognition and enforcement are sought in a name change petition based on the Brazilian decision invoking the NY Convention. The petition was granted by the Hon. Judge Matthew C. St. George on February 24, 2012, and by Hon. Judge Mark Borenstein on 15th of March 2016.

One may argue that the law regulating name change is very open in the U.S. However, it all depends on the grounds upon which the request was made. In other words, it is possible to request any name by usage, but once another Court decision is cited as a base for the petition, the granting is considered to be a recognition and enforcement. Hence, there’s a capital difference between a petition granted under common law or the mere adoption of an alias and a petition granted under another legal decision.

“The idea that the common law right extends only to assumption of a name in addition to one’s legally recognized name enjoys some support in scholarship and in courts. However, the far greater weight of case law and scholarship support a right to change one’s officially recognized name, not merely to assume an alias.” (57 UCLA Law Review 313 (2009) pg. 326)

Also, according to the Law of name change:

“Courts will deny petitions in which evidence exists that the petitioner desires the name for fraudulent purposes or to interfere with the rights of others.” (57 UCLA Law Review 313 (2009) pg. 313)

By logic, we can conclude that if the right to be the “Prince of Ghassan” was fraudulent or belonged to someone else, the petition should not be granted.

There is also a great aversion to any form of the name change that holds a title to be awarded:

“Courts similarly exhibit concern for members of the public in cases in which the names requested have the potential to confuse or mislead, even in the absence of nefarious intent. For example, in In re Thompson, the New York Superior Court denied a man’s petition to change his name to Chief Piankhi Akinbaloye.” (57 UCLA Law Review 313 (2009) pg. 313)

Another known case of a petition denied on the basis of nobility:

“In re Jama, 272 N.Y.S.2d 677 (Civ. Ct. 1966). The petitioner wanted to add “von” before Jama, because his father had told him that von Jama was their family name. Id. at 677. The court also noted that it chose to deny the petition because many Germans with “von” in their name were nobles (though the decision does not say that “von” was in fact a title).” (57 UCLA Law Review 313 (2009) pg. 317)

Therefore, the Arbitral Award number 0413/2011 granted to H.I.R.H. Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan recognizing his titles was confirmed by 5 (five) judges and has the weight of an International Court Verdict being valid in all 172 nations that are part of the NY Convention. Of course, the decision relates only to the ownership of the honorific rights to the titles (immaterial inheritance), since as far as the sovereign rights, there’s no court with such jurisdiction today. Also, no court in the world grants any “birthright privileges” since they’re against the majority of the constitutions today.

SPECIAL CONSULTATIVE STATUS BY THE UNITED NATIONS

As previously stated, a non-Ruling Royal Family doesn’t exist legally as an entity unless incorporated as an NGO. In 2011, The Royal House of Ghassan petitioned to join the United Nations. But the only possible legal way was as an NGO.

The committee is composed of 52 (fifty-two) member nations that analyze every single aspect of any proponent organization. The bylaws (obviously) and everything that the organization represents and stands for in addition to the financial records, etc. By a simple Google search of the term “Royal House of Ghassan” is ridiculously easy to find out what the “Sovereign Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan” stands for. Visiting the Royal House’s website (which should be part of any decent investigation) doesn’t leave anything for the realm of assumption.

Royal House of Ghassan is accredited by the United Nations

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBER 5800/2019

In 2019, after three long years of a very bureaucratic process, The Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan was officially recognized by the Lebanese Government. Two documents, one the decree signed by the judge from the ministry of interior, and one by the Lebanese President and Head of State, the Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan fully recognized with the consent of the Council of Ministers and the permission for an official branch in Lebanon is granted.

The recognition was not a monocratic decision by the president. To be appraised by the Heads of State, Government, and the Cabinet of Ministers, official reports by the ministry of foreign affairs and by the “General Directorate of Security” (intelligence services) were issued.

Even if the history of the El Chemor/Gharios family wasn’t very well documented in books and encyclopedias what the Royal House of Ghassan is and stands for is public and notorious! It’s not necessary the use the resources of the Secret Service to find out. Again, it’s seconds away from a Google search. Obviously, before submitting the recognition decree to the Cabinet of Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the President, the Government of the Lebanese Republic was very aware of what the Royal House of Ghassan is and represents. The capital proof is the fact that President Aoun has received and recognized the Equestrian Order of Michael Archangel.

It’s obviously a very special document. To relativize it is to assume that every single foreign branch of a company is going to be appraised by the cabinet of ministers, the president, and the prime minister is preposterous!

The Lebanese Republic (and all the previous regimes including the Ottoman Empire) has been recognizing the El Chemor titles since the family’s deposition. Numerous documents, the passports of El Chemor Lebanese citizens, the title of Sheikh Selim on the official decree of the government recognizing him as the head of the Lebanese branch, and the minister of foreign affairs, head of the diplomatic corps addressed Prince Gharios full titles in official invitations and certificates. The Royal Family was formally received by the president of the republic in 2017 as a Royal House and the president has officially accepted the Equestrian Order of Michael Archangel.

The Royal House of Ghassan is officially recognized by the Lebanese Government

To all the above, we can add sworn legal affidavits of major scholars like the world’s leading expert on Arab ruling families, the world’s leading Maronite historian culminating with the world’s largest body of Muslim Leaders, The Global Imams Council, all of them, corroborating the historical and legal aspects of the Royal Ghassanid claim by the El Chemor family.

Top Maronite historian validates chronicles about El Chemor/Gharios family

The world’s leading scholar in Middle Eastern Royal Succession presents sworn statement about Ghassanid Royal Rights

The world’s largest non-governmental body of Muslim leaders recognizes the sovereign rights of the Royal House of Ghassan and its head

CONCLUSION

Unless one is living in a nihilist state of denial, if analyzed with a holistic scope, the degree of recognition of the Royal House of Ghassan is irrefutable and incontestable.

As always, misinformed and/or ill-intended people want to lessen and despise the unprecedented recognition mentioned in this article. For example, criticizing the recognition of the Lebanese Government as “just a recognition as an NGO”. As explained here, there’s no other legal way available.

Even proving the legitimacy and recognition of the Royal House of Ghassan to exhaustion and being shamelessly discriminated against and attacked in the West for being Arab, the Ghassanid Royal Family is always open to clarifying any possible misunderstandings.

Read also:

The Royal House of Ghassan and its continuous official recognition

The El Chemor/Gharios family Vis-à-vis with the International Law

The Ignorance about Royalty

The Sheikhs El Chemor: a legal study of titles

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