THE NOBLE AND ROYAL TITLE IN AMERICAN CULTURE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm

AMERICANS AND TITLES
Americans are indecisive about royal and noble titles. While pretending to
disdain titles and the titled, the fact is that Americans love them and are
fascinated and captivated by them. For example, we have "king-size" beds
(and queen-size, too). The "king-size" tube of toothpaste is the biggest
one--usually. We have the prom queen, the movie queen, the porn queen, the
king of the rodeo, the king of comedy. A friendly and helping man is "a real
prince," a sweet-tempered woman is "a lady." There's Duke Ellington, Counts
Basie and Chocula, the King of Swing and the Queen of Disco, Elvis the King
of Rock, Michael Jackson the King of Pop, and we even have among us a
mononymic rock star...Prince. When movie actress Grace Kelly became
Princess Grace of Monaco, America swooned (Even if the rest of European
monarchy and nobility didn't. Grace Kelley was considered a parvenu and
somewhat vulgar because of her movie career, but she was never "vulgar,"
and embodied her name of Grace very well indeed.), and Grace's popularity
soared. Yes, and millions of Americans arose at 2:00 AM one morning to
watch the Prince of Wales marry Lady Diana--and they watch, now through
the tabloids, with equal wonder at that marriage's difficulties. Let a foreign
nobleman, noblewoman, or monarch come to America for a visit, and
Americans will flock to each and all, especially if the titled visitor has a suave
manner and an interesting accent--and, of course, that great entitler, money.

So, naturally, Americans aren't interested in titles. Certainly not. Oh no. After
all, doesn't the American Constitution prohibit Americans from receiving,
using, or even acknowledging titles? The answer is--no, it doesn't. What
Article I: Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution says is this:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent
of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any
kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The primary purpose of the Paragraph was to prevent the United States from
creating a system of nobility, at least in the British style of the detested King
George III. The secondary purpose was to prevent foreign royalty from
coöpting an official of the United States government and to prevent royalty
from using the promise of a gift of a noble title as a bribe to obtain
preferment from a government official, at least not without the full knowledge
and consent of Congress, the assumption being that the "Consent of the
Congress" would not be forthcoming. This is the same section of the
Constitution which prevents the President (or his wife), members of Congress,
and Justices of the Supreme Court from personally accepting gifts from
foreign governments, all such gifts being received by the President on behalf
of the U.S. Government. Many such gifts are displayed at the Smithsonian.
Note that the Constitution does not hold titles in contempt, nor does it reject
them as worthless--just the opposite, the Constitution equates the noble title
with any other valuable gift, that is, a title is seen as valuable property which
can be given and used and which has such significant instrinsic worth that it
has the power of currency and, therefore, cannot be recieved without an act of
Congress.

The second part of the Constitutional prohibition is less rigid. That is, the
Section does not apply to private citizens, nor does it prevent a private citizen
from accepting or holding a royal or noble title, because the phrase "Office of
Profit or Trust" in this Section is interpreted to refer to elected and appointed
high federal officials and members of the armed services who, during their
tenure of service, are prevented from accepting noble or royal honors. Once
these persons are again private citizens, they are free to be honored, as, for
example, the "honorary" knighthoods granted by Queen Elizabeth II to
Former Presidents Reagan and Bush and to retired/retiring Generals Norman
Schwartzkopf and Colin Powell. These honorees probably will not use the title
"Sir," but, because they are members of Orders of Chivalry, i.e., they are
knights, they can (and undoubtedly will) use the postnominals of the Orders
they hold. Actually, there is no legal reason why these knights couldn't use the
title "Sir." Even though the Constitution prevented the development of the
traditional European honors model, the United States certainly has developed
an honors system that in many ways resembles the establishment of nobility.
For example, for its military, there is the Purple Heart, the Congressional
Medal of Honor, and many others. For its private citizens there is the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, the annual awards given to performers at the
Kennedy Center, and others. The key difference seems to be that, unlike
European honors, American honors carry postnominals (single letter
abbreviations after the name which denote the honor conferred), not
prenominals which are titles before the name. Americans don't seem to mind
postnominals such as "Ph.D." (Doctor of Philosophy) or "K.C." (Knight
Commander) or "Bart." (more properly, "Bt.," Baronet). It's those
prenominals that they balk at ("Sir So-and-So" or "Dr. Whatshisname" or
"Lord Whosis").

The point is that while the Constitution prohibits the giving of a title of
nobility by the American Government (Congress, the President, or the
Judicial) or the receipt of the same "from any King, Prince, or foreign State"
by high public officials during their terms of office, or by military personnel
while enlisted, private American citizens, themselves, are free to accept and
use titles of any kind whatever, noble or otherwise.

THE USE OF TITLES IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
Citizens of the United States like to think of the U.S.A. as classless and
untitled, cherishing these egalitarian concepts as marks of the unique
American opportunity for upward mobility in class and power. In everyday
practice, however, Americans are very much aware of how to create and use
titles to establish class and wield power. A primary example of the importance
of a title as a mark of power and status is the title "Ms." (rhymes with fizz),
created some years ago by feminists for use in the place of "Miss" or "Mrs,"
both of which titles show a woman's relationship to a man. The title "Ms." is
egalitarian in that it shows gender only, exactly as does the modern "Mr."
(L.G. Pine, in The Story of Titles, discusses the original and modern uses of
"Mister," a variation of "Master." Interestingly, like "Ms.," most royal and
noble titles are themselves egalitarian in that they show gender only--for
exampl,e a Queen is not necessarily the wife of a King, a Baroness is not
necessarily the wife of a Baron.) The general acceptance and use of the once
artificial "Ms." show that Americans clearly understand and acknowledge the
value and importance of the title as an empowering device.

THE FONS HONORUM OF NOBLE AND ROYAL TITLES
A legitimate noble title always has a legitimate royal source, called a fons
honorum (Latin: "source of honor," the "fountainhead" from which the
legitimate title is issued). What is important to know (and what Americans
have to be firmly instructed in and regularly reminded about) is that noble
titles do not come from governments, but from heads of royal families, called
a "royal house." Thus, the royal house is a dynastic family holding hereditary
royal title and prerogatives usually based upon modern or ancient
geographical rulership; the royal dynastic family need not necessarily
currently head a government or rule a nation. A government is not, of itself,
royal, nor can a government declare itself royal--it is persons who are royal or
noble, and it is the head of that government who is royal. Thus, a government
as an entity is not and cannot be a fons for royal or noble titles (Which makes
the American Constitution's prohibition perfectly proper.). In fact, the
universal practice is that a government which prefers a royal head of state
doesn't create it, but goes, instead, to one of the royal houses (in Europe or
elsewhere) to find a monarch to reign. Observe the actions of the British
Parliament when, in 1701, it became apparent that King William and Queen
Anne were not going to leave any heirs in line for the throne. Parliament
wanted, of course, a Protestant sovereign, but even the British Parliament had
not the authority to create royalty, nor could the King and Queen declare an
heir. Therefore, Parliament, understanding that governments do not beget
royalty, began to carefully scrutinize Europe's royals, searching for a suitable
candidate to come to the throne after King William's death. Having analyzed
genealogies and religious proclivities, Parliament settled on the Electress of
Hanover, who had the virtue of being the granddaughter of James I. However,
the Electress died before the British throne became available, so the office
passed to her son, George Ludwig who became King George I of England.

Of course, some countries in the Middle East have seen commoners elevate
themselves to royal status, as, for example, Reza Pahlavi (1878-1944) a
commoner and an army officer who seized power in Iran, declared himself
Shah, and then--like Napolean--crowned himself. His son, Muhammad Reza
Pahlavi (1919-1980) inherited the throne of Iran, but was deposed in 1979.
There are other examples of colonels c-- kings. Middle Eastern countries,
being Muslim, don't go to the Christian royal houses of Europe for their
rulers. They don't have to, there being sufficient Muslim royal houses. Even if
there weren't, it is a fact that tanks and militia breed a potent throne and that
a quantity of gunpowder, liberally applied, can make any blood blue. There is
nothing new in this, as any student of medieval European history knows.

The terms "exile" and "abdication" also sometimes present problems for
those who are unfamiliar with them. "Exile" occurs when a monarch leaves
his or her country because of invasion, uprising, or because a democratic
referendum establishes a republic. Merely because the monarch has relocated
does not mean that he or she ceases to be royal (since royalty is vested in a
person, not a government), nor does the person lose royal prerogatives,
including the right and power to confer titles. A government can be taken
away from a monarch, but royal prerogatives cannot be "taken away," not by
vote, not by revolution, not by invasion. There are today legitimate royal
courts in exile, headed by monarchs who have fled uprisings, invasions, or
referenda, but who have not relinquished their royal rights, as for example,
the royal court of Albania under King Zog (1895-1961), who, in 1939, was
forced to flee Albania to avoid capture by Mussolini's invading Fascist army.
After WWII, Albania became a communist satellite, and Zog remained in
exile. Zog (the name means "Bird") never relinquished the throne of Albania,
and when Zog died, his son, the Crown Prince, assumed the throne as King
Leka of Albania, still in exile and still a king. Many exiled Albanians consider
King Leka their king--and Burke's lists him as royal. Other examples of exiled
royal courts could include those of King Michael of Romania (b. 1921),
Humbert II (1904-1983), the King of Italy who was exiled by a 1946 national
referendum that established Italy as a republic, and King Constantine of the
Hellenes.

However, while royal prerogatives cannot be taken away, they can be
relinquished. The relinquishing of royalty is called "abdication." When a
monarch "abdicates," he or she gives up all royal rights and prerogatives in
favor of the person next in line to the throne. After abdication, the ex-king
(the only correct use of the term) cannot reclaim royal rights and cannot grant
titles of nobility or confer knighthood. An important point established by
international agreement is that abdication is not--and never has been--a
"destruction" of the throne or a "dissolution" of the monarchy, but a passing
on of the prerogatives of the throne to the person next in line of succession.
Sometimes the ex-king receives titles of nobility from the new monarch, and
sometimes the ex-king simply becomes a commoner and lives quietly in
obscurity, as, for example, Alexander I, Tsar of Russia from 1801-1825, who
gave up his throne and assumed the name and life of of a commoner, Feodore
Kuzmich. (However, there is much mystery to this whole affair. See the
Chapter on Alexander I in Stanley B.-R. Poole's book, Royal Mysteries and
Pretenders.)

There are other royal courts, reigning and non-reigning, in many countries,
including some residing in the United States. Some of these courts are
remnants of the Western Holy Roman Empire, which certainly did not
disappear in 1806 as historians often claim, and others are part of the Eastern
(Byzantine) Holy Roman Empire founded by Constantine in xxx, several
hundred years before the Western Holy Roman Empire. As Friedrich Heer
says in his 1967 classic work, The Holy Roman Empire, "Francis II was called
upon [by Napoleon] to divest himself of the imperial crown, in terms so
threatening that he had no choice but to comply. He did so on 6 August 1806,
and at the same time dissolved the 'Roman Empire,' an act for which he had
no legal justification." When the Western Holy Roman Emperor "dissolved"
the empire, the Byzantine Porphyrogenitus, as the ranking Byzantine
(Eastern) potentate, considered himself as the successor, as did the Byzantine
royalty and nobility, who eventually came together as the government-in-exile
of the (Eastern) Holy Roman Empire.

The present Byzantine Emperor, Caesar Dominus Pius Flavius Johannes VII
Daniel IV Alexander Augustus, came to the office as any emperor--he was
born to it, of a distinguished royal lineage that ruled in the ancient Byzantine
empire, which at one time even included parts of Italy. The Byzantine
kingdoms and principalities tended to stay together, even though the royalty
of the "German" Holy Roman Empire renounced rights and titles with
abandon, so that only their monarchist followers were left hoping for
restoration. Meanwhile, the Byzantines went right on with the idea of a
non-political government "in exile," which is where they are today. Many
monarchists are focused on the Western (read German) royalty, not the
Eastern, and so many are intent upon the idea of a political restoration that
the idea of a non-political, in-exile restoration that maintains and nurtures the
ideals of royalty, nobility, and chivalry never occurs to them. And besides, the
Byzantines learned long ago to just go about their business among
themselves, and not stir up the hornet's nest of Germany. Certain imperial
princes, especially those in exile in South America, denied any "dissolution"
of the ancient empire by forming a "League of Princes of the Holy Roman
Empire," just as Napoleon's imperial prince supporters had formed the
Confederation of the Rhine. The Confederation vanished with Napoleon, but
the League still exists today as the Byzantine Holy Roman Empire, in exile,
headed by His Imperial and Apostolic Royal Majesty, The Emperor Cæsar
Dominus Pius Flavius Johannes VII Daniel IV Alexander Augustus who has
not relinquished his rights or powers.

A royal dynasty can be created by force of arms, by grant, and by creation.
Some princely families (in America and elsewhere) have received letters patent
from the Porphyrogenitors ("born to the purple"), Princes of the Blood Royal
of the Byzantine Holy Roman Emperor who have, in modern times as in
ancient, the authority to grant or create hereditary princes who then head
ancient non-political principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. In creating a
prince by grant, Porphyrogenitors assign a principality to the prince, and the
prince then becomes the fons for his nobles and knights. The assignment of a
non-political principality is an ancient practice, and, on occasion, the
monarch further grants the principality in perpetuity and the prince is no
longer a vassal prince, but is elevated to the rank of a sovereign prince, i.e., a
monarch in his own right.

The non-political, or titular, principality is one which once existed, but which
is currently extinct, having been in past centuries absorbed by force of arms
into another country. However, if the Holy Roman Emperor never
relinquished rights to the principality (and he rarely did), it is still considered
by the "Holy Roman Empire-in-Exile" as within the provenance of the Blood
Royal Princes, but "non-political." That is, the geographical boundary of the
principality no longer exists, but the title to the principality continues as
legitimate and is considered quite real not only by the League of Princes of
the Holy Roman Empire-in-Exile, but also by many other European royalty
and nobility.

Even some monasteries of the Holy Roman Empire were created principalities,
and the abbot made a prince. The Roman Catholic Church also followed that
practice, as, for example, the Abbey of San Luigi which was recognized by the
Church and France as a principality on August 25, 1883 at Tunisia and
Tripolitania, and the abbot, Fr. Henrice Pancomez was selected as the abbey's
first Prince-Abbot. Also, the Pope, from time to time, creates a titular bishop
who holds the authority of a See that has ceased to geographically exist. This
practice was derived from the Holy Roman Emperor's practice of creating
hereditary princes of ancient but extinct principalities.

Americans usually think of a prince merely as the son of a king or queen
(deriving the idea from the world's most visible monarchy, the British), and
Americans, again, have to be instructed and reminded that a prince can be a
monarch in his own right--as, for example, Prince Rainier of Monaco who
holds the title Serene, denoting his status as a sovereign head of a royal house,
with all the rights and privileges of the sovereign, including the right to create
nobles and knights for his royal houses. Unlike Rainier who reigns as well as
rules, there are Americans who are themselves hereditary (and even sovereign)
princes of non-reigning royal houses. A non-reigning royal house, just as a
reigning one, may legitimately have a full complement of nobility and one or
more Orders of Chivalry, and the head of the house, regnant or not, retains
full powers to create legitimate nobles and knights as needed or desired.

Of course, Americans know about such titles as king, queen, prince, duke,
marquis, earl (and its European equivalent, the count; for Americans, the
most famous count is the fictional vampire Dracula, an identity which causes
some problems for genuine counts.), viscount, and baron, but they think that
these titles are strictly British and are issued only by the British Crown. But
royalty and nobility are not only not "strictly British," they are not even
primarily British--Britain's modern monarchy itself has a Continental source
(Germany), and there are many other royal houses in Europe, Latin
America--and even in the United States. Concerning the royal houses in the
United States, Americans are usually astonished to discover that one can be a
solidly patriotic American and yet still belong to a royal house or hold a
legitimate hereditary title from the fons of a royal house. Perhaps Americans
have the idea that the term democracy excludes the term royalty, but a
hereditary and non-regnant royal house can exist very nicely within a
democracy. For example, Italy is a democracy, yet an Italian can be a
hereditary count. Likewise, America as a democracy can--and does--easily
host hereditary American counts (and barons and marquis, and dukes) of
princely royal houses headed by hereditary and legitimately titled princes who
happen to hold American citizenship.

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY AND YOU'LL
BE SHOCKED AT WHOM HAS BE 'KNIGHTED'!
THE NOBLE AND ROYAL TITLE IN AMERICAN CULTURE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm 

envax