The Royal House of Ghassan has launched the new website RoyalHonors.Orgcongregating all the Chivalric Orders and Honors bestowed by the House. https://royalhonors.org/
Without a single doubt, from the Arab perspective, the state of Israel is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East And one of the reasons can be understood by one of King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud’s statements, on February 14, 1945, on board the USS Quincy at Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal when he was talking to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The American president, anticipating the creation of the state of Israel, asked for the king’s support and got this direct answer:
“What was done to the Jews is a sin, a calamity. But why create a state for them in Palestine? Why not in Germany since the Germans were the ones who perpetrated such crime against the Jews?”
That reflects the Islamic mindset regarding the creation of the state of Israel. In other words, they see it as outsiders stealing land from the Palestinians. In Islam, it’s absolutely unacceptable for unbelievers and infidels (all non-Muslims) to take land from the real followers of God. Israel apparently is willing to negotiate if the problem is land. Many politicians have already stated that. Many countries, including the United States, have also recognized the rights of the Palestinian state. So the Palestinians must form their state immediately and fight for their claims as a nation, not merely as a marginalized group of people, as they are now. Regardless of any discussion, they are Arabs who lived in the region for centuries with a great culture to be proud of. They deserve their nation, just as Israel also does. Golda Meir, a very important Israeli prime minister, said:
“We Jews have a secret weapon in our struggle with the Arabs; we have no place to go.”
Apparently, people didn’t realize that. She went on to say:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
The whole Arab world must understand, once and for all, that Israel (right or wrong) won’t simply give up and say, “You know what, you’re right! We shouldn’t be here. Let’s move someplace else!” They are not going anywhere, and they have nuclear weapons. I disagree with some of Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people. I also disagree with some actions by some Palestinian extremists against Israel. They’re both right and wrong at the same time. They’re right because both are entitled to exist and have their own land, regardless of the minutiae of the territorial dispute. They’re wrong when they resort to violence and violations of international law to keep their claims alive.
Again, the Palestinian people have all of my support to be proud and to live with their heads held high in a nation of their own. However, I believe that Yasser Arafat made a colossal mistake when he decided to buy guns and bombs instead of educating his people. I believe that both Arafat and other leaders made another huge mistake in not accepting a peace treaty with Israel and finally having their nation. They’ve been walking on this road of blood for over fifty years, and what did that accomplish for the Palestinian people? Absolutely nothing.
Violence always favors the stronger. Hence, the belligerent path favors Israel. If you have a problem with someone stronger than you, would it be wise to resolve it in a physical fight? Of course not. So the continuation of this road of blood is harming the Palestinians more than the Israelis. The reason is simple. The world sees and treats the Palestinians as nationless, marginal people. If they’d had a nation by now, even if the territory was “less than deserved,” they could have more international weight and legitimacy. They could negotiate their interests from a stronger position. When someone owes you money, what’s better: to take what you can now and try to get the rest on a future date or to go back home with empty pockets? But the bottom line about Israel (and, of course, Palestine) is that if they keep arguing “who’s right” and “who’s wrong,” nothing will change and more people will die and suffer. Both sides have to realize that this is not a rhetorical contest; there are real lives at stake. And it will always hurt the weaker side, the Palestinians, more. They have to be practical. As hard as it may sound, both sides must postpone the debate about the past and negotiate a compromise right now: the Palestinians must accept Israel’s existence and negotiate a peaceful future, and the Israelis must recognize the Palestinians’ rights over their territory and find a way to coexist. The Palestinian people deserve to live with dignity now, not in one hundred years, and today only peace can make that possible. There’ll be no ideal agreement for either side. The immediate need is to have no more Palestinian mothers crying for their sons and no more Israeli families living in fear. They have to accept that they cannot change the past but certainly they can change the future.
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII (part of the book “Middle East – The Secret History“, 2014)
The majority of the general public doesn’t understand how is it possible legally for a deposed sovereign and his heirs to retain the rights, titles, and legal powers to bestow honors.
A State is not a territory and it’s not the people living in it. It’s a juridical personwho “manages” and governs that territory and that people.
In international law there are two different sovereignties that ideally would be exercised by the same juridical person: the “de facto” (in fact) and the “de jure” (by right, or by law).
It’s accepted by international jurisprudence that when a sovereign is illegally dispossessed of his throne by the use of force and without renunciation, he retains the “de jure” (by right, by law) sovereign rights and the usurper regime has the “de facto” (in fact) control of the people and territory.
The sovereign goes to exile keeping the headship of that juridical person while the usurper regime forms a new one in order to be able to manage the usurped territory and people. That’s applied to both monarchies and republics, the only difference is that the former is hereditary and the alluded “de jure” rights are passed to the legitimate heirs according to the particular laws of succession of that family by “ius sanguinis” (law of blood).
We will try to explain here using a simple analogy using the well-known company Apple as an example. Let’s for a moment pretend that Apple is a family company owned by one person.
The company is not the buildings or stores that it occupies. Apple also is not its employees, but the juridical person that manages everything.
Let’s imagine that for any reason, the owner decides to sell all the buildings and stores and fires all the employees, just keeping the company open. The owner still owns the rights over the brand, logos, products, etc the owner can still name people to the board or to any position as he pleases. Even if they no longer have any physical place or people working for them.
If the owner keeps the company open and pays the taxes and government fees, the company can remain open indefinitely. When the owner dies, his heirs can choose to continue with the company open or not. The heirs can decide whether to use the copyrighted material (immaterial inheritance) or not. As long as the laws of that particular country are respected (fees, taxes, etc.) it’s the owner’s (or the heirs’) prerogative to continue with the company open or not, even without a physical place and employees.
According to international law, that’s exactly what happens with a deposed sovereign. He (or she) – or the lawful heirs – remains the head of the juridical person “ad eternum” (forever) regardless of a territory or a people.
All the symbols, orders, titles, etc. also remain as the juridical person’s immaterial inheritance.
That exists legally regardless of recognition from any country and also regardless of the domestic law where the deposed sovereign and his heirs currently live. A country can only recognize or not the exercise of these rights in its territory (i.e. use of titles, the bestowal of honors, etc.)
The Royal House of Ghassan enjoys the exact same legal recognition as The British Order of Saint John (under HM King Charles III) and the Spanish Orders given by HM King Felipe VI, being registered as a non-profit organization domestically with accreditation by the head of State and also the United Nations.
Above: The Order of Saint John, even being under the Sovereignty of His Majesty King Charles III (Royal Charter), domestically is registered as a charity and internationally as an NGO having the exact same legal status in the United Nations as the Royal House of Ghassanhttps://www.stjohninternational.org/governance
The history of the El Chemor/Gharios/Guerios family is part of the official Lebanese and Maronite history, and it’s present in books and encyclopedias confirming that the family has ruled two small principalities in today’s Lebanon for around 500 years being the direct descendant of the Ghassanid Kings.
But what was the recognition of the head of the Royal House HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII (nee. Ahnume Guerios)?
This is the scope of this article. The prince had numerous recognitions both formal and informal.
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 is not susceptible to any appeal) if no question of the annulment is filed within ninety days after notification of the decree:
“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 the 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.
Above: The international arbitral award that became a federal court verdict according to Brazilian law. The same decision was recognized and enforced by two American judges in California
Text of the INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AWARD No. 0413/2011
“This sentence has internationally legal standing based on the New York Convention of 1958, of which Brazil is a signatory, in addition to 141 (one hundred and forty one) other nations. After meticulously analyzing the Legal, Historical, Genealogical and Heraldic documents and evidence presented, it is decided and sentenced that for the purposes of all international laws on the rights of common law and of heraldic laws, that: 1. Even though Brazilian law does not recognize royal and noble titles in its territory, that right of recognition is merely in what concerns the “privilege of birth”, however, International Jurisprudence recognizes such titles, even if only in the honorific context. Consequently, Brazilian legislation considers them as “immaterial foreign inheritance”, which has its protection safeguarded in the law, 2. There is absolutely no Brazilian Law and/or international law which may indicate an “expiration” of rights on honorific titles or even sovereignty “de jure” or pretension to a vacant throne, on the contrary, the denominated “juris sanguinis” successions occur “while there is blood”, except where there is specific legislation to restrict them, 3. Succession in Arab monarchies, in general, do not occur through the primogeniture, but through agnatic rotation, since all the heirs of the last monarchy compete for the succession, unless there was a law restricting it, which was not the case, 4. The Dynasty of Ghassan, despite being Arab, is Christian (not Muslim) and is therefore not subject to Islamic Law, or “Sharia” 5. The claimant, Mr. AHNUME GUERIOS descends, through the direct and continuous masculine line, from the Kings of Ghassan, Byzantine Emperors of the Nikephoros (Phocid) and Macedonia Dynasties and of the Sheiks of Chemor of Mount Lebanon, 6. The claimant has the right to be known as “His Imperial and Royal Highness”, as: – Official and legal Head of the Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan – Sovereign Prince of Ghassan – King of Ghassan “de jure” – Sheik Chemor of Akoura and Zgharta-Zawiva – Sovereign Prince in the Roman Sacred Empire of the East(Byzantine) 7. In accordance with international jurisprudence, such rights, “juris sanquinis” were restored “inso iure” with the acts of restoration registered in Brazil and the USA in 2009 and are imprescriptible and inviolable to Mr. AHNUME GUERIOS and his descendants.”
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 the 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 (Desembargador) 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.
2013’sSworn legal affidavit by a Brazilian chief judge/Desembargador (and former State Governor) recognizing all of Prince Gharios’s titles
TEXT OF SWORN LEGAL AFFIDAVIT BY THE CHIEF JUDGE(desembargador) HON. ALEMER FERRAZ MOULIN
“I, ALEMER FERRAZ MOULIN, hereby, Brazilian Citizen, married, judge, social security *** number **with address at ***, Vitória/ES, declare for all the necessary purposes, that I recognize as legally perfect and according to Brazilian laws in force, international law and customary law, the arbitral sentence no.413/2011 issued in Rio de Janeiro on 18 July 2011, by the Court of Arbitral Justice,CNPJ 07.450.175/0001-40 in harmony with the Law 9307/96 of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards a.k.a. 1958 NY Convention (June 21, 1958); subsequently recognized and enforced by the Superior Court of Los Angeles on February 24, 2012 by Judge Matthew Saint-George, case number BS135337 in favor of His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Gharios of Ghassan Al-Nu’man VIII (nee. Ahnume Guérios ) recognizing him as direct descendant and heir in the male and continuous line from the Christian Arab Kings of Ghassan, the Byzantine Emperors of Nikephorus (Phocid) and Macedonian Dynasties and Sheikhs Chemor Sovereigns Akoura and Zghartha-Zawiya legally bearing the following titles: Official and Legal Head of the Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan with the address of “His Imperial and Royal Highness”, Sovereign Prince of Ghassan, “De Jure” King of Ghassan, Sheik Chemor of Akoura and Zghartha-Zawiya and Sovereign Prince of the Roman Empire of the East (Byzantium).”
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 were sought in a name change petition based on the Brazilian decision invoking the NY Convention. The petitions were granted without reservations by the Hon. Judge Matthew C. St. George on February 24, 2012, and by Hon. Judge Mark Borenstein on the 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 the 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.
Above: Excerpt of the petition of case number BS-159726, please note that the prince asks for the name change based on the legal decision 413/2011 which was enforced before by Hon. Judge Mattew C. St. George (case number BS-135337/February the 24th 2012) and this time was granted by Hon. Judge Mark Borenstein (case number BS-159726 of March the 15th 2016)
There is also a great aversion to any form of 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.
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 and personally by HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor.
Above: Sworn legal affidavit by one of the world’s leading experts on Arab ruling familiesrecognizing Prince Gharios’ descent, rights and titles
Excerpt of the sworn legal affidavit by Professor Joseph A. Kéchichian, Ph.D, Senior Fellow of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
“…The direct descendants of the Ghassanid Kings in Lebanon were known as the El Chemor/El Shoummar Shaykhs and they ruled the autonomous/sovereign principality of Al Akoura from 1211 CE until 1633 CE. Critically, the El Chemor/El Shoummar ruled the autonomous/semi-sovereign Shaykhdom of Zgharta-Zawyih from 1641 CE until 1747 CE under treaty with the Ottoman Empire. As the Ghassanids cooperated with the Maronites ever since both communities assisted Heraclius, the chronicles of the family were documented by Maronite historians. facts that were never refuted. Today, those records are considered official Maronite history and, to some extent adopted by leading Lebanese historians. Interestingly, Chemor/Shoummar family members continued to use their titles even after deposition, a tradition that is still in practice. Moreover, it was also critical to note that the Gharios family hailed from the Chemor/Shoummar, after the latter’s deposition in Zgharta when all the sons of the last ruler were persecuted. Shaykh Gharios El Chemor named his son Shaykh Anton with the surname Gharios instead of El Chemor to protect his sibling from numerous foes. By the beginning of the 20th century, some of the Gharios family decided to use the titles and surname El Chemor once again. As there are two categories of Shaykhs in Lebanon–the noble (non-sovereign) Shaykh, who may be the counterpart of baron, count, or duke–and the sovereign/Royal Shaykh-the differences were worthy of attention. The first is mostly honorary but the second is a title bestowed by a semi-sovereign authority under the Ottoman Empire. A sovereign/Royal Shaykh, like the El Chemor/Shoummar/Gharios family, have roots in the tribal system, and are similar to their counterparts in the Arabian Gulf, like the ruling families in Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Kuwait, among others. It is this title that is the equivalent of prince and it’s given to the ruler and his sons. Consequently, HRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Nu’man VIII (born Ahnume Guerios) is a direct descendant of the Ghassanid Kings and the Shaykhs El Chemor/Shoummar. He is the sole claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Ghassan with germane claims that are in absolute harmony with Middle Eastern laws of succession and tribal customs. Critically, he has the bay’ah [loyalty oath] from the heads of the El Chemor/Shoummar family members and, as such, a legitimate claim to his crown.”
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor with HE Gebran Bassil at an official event by the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants in NY (2016)E-mail signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants thanking Prince Gharios (2016)Official invitation for a governmental Gala event at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas (2017)Certificate issued by the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants and signed by the Minister (2018)
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor interviewed in English by OTV – a well-known Lebanese TV station (2017)
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor in 2016 being interviewed in English by LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation) by the well-known journalist Karen Boustany
Certificate issued by the Vatican Secretariat of State knighting HRH Prince Gharios as a knight of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem under the sovereignty of the Pope Certificate issued by the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and signed by the Patriarch/Order’s Grand Prior rewarding Prince Gharios with the Pilgrim Shell (the honor bestowed to the knights of the Holy Sepulcher that perform the Pilgrimage to the Holy Land
All of the above documentation was corroborated by DNA evidence from three different laboratories.
Unless one is living in a nihilist state of denial, if analyzed with a holistic scope, the degree of recognition of HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor is irrefutable and incontestable.
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.
Dynastic and Nobility law’s discipline is obscure even for jurists.
Obviously, in a ruling monarchy, both royal and noble titles are regulated by domestic law. Regarding deposed monarchies, the nobility titles are regulatedby the lender sovereign house, and the sovereign titles by international law.
So how the general public can assert if a title is real or not?
There are several ways to recognize it. For noble titles, the best way is always the current head of the lender’s sovereign house. For example, who decides about the legality of a title of “count” that was given by King Umberto I of Italy in 1887 is the current head of the Savoy family.
According to the former head of the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburg and Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, Archduke Otto (1912-2011) a title is only valid if recognized by a ruling monarch or an incumbent head of state. That’s congruent with international law since sovereign heads of state (both republicans and monarchists) have the legal power even to recognize new sovereign countries.
Letter from the Head of the Imperial and Royal Habsburg Dynasty addressing the recognition of titles of nobility (06/30/2010)
Excerpt of the letter:
“… Replying to your letter concerning your titles of nobility I must unfortunately tell you that I am not able to confirm them. I have never intervened in such matters all my life, since in my opinion titles should only be confirmed by heads of states or reigning sovereings…“
The titles of the Royal House of Ghassan were recognized by two incumbent heads of state: the presidents of Lebanon and Albania.
In today’s Lebanon, where the El Chemor Family ruled from (1211 until 1747 CE) the princes born Lebanese have their titles on their passports until the present day.
Above: Contemporary Lebanese passport of the late Sheikh Nassif El Chemor (1945-2017)
Decree by the Lebanese Ministry of Interior addressing the head of the Lebanese branch of the Royal House of Ghassan by his title Certificate signed by the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants addressing the international head of the Royal House of Ghassan by his titles Above: The historical 2017 official presidential audience with the Lebanese President H.E. Gen. Michel Aoun and five members of the Ghassanid Royal Family. Here, the president officially receives the Equestrian Order of Michael Archangel
In 2017, the Royal Family was officially received by the president of the Lebanese Republic, H.E. General Michel Aoun. The president even officially received the Equestrian Order of Michael Archangel. After almost three years of extensive investigation done by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Directorate of General Security (Lebanese intelligence services), and the Ministry of Interior, the president and prime minister signed the presidential decree number 5800/2019 recognizing and accrediting the Royal House of Ghassan with the exact same respective legal recognition of the British Order of Saint John (under King Charles III) and also the Spanish military orders (or Spanish Medieval knights orders) under King Felipe VI (Order of Santiago, Order of Alcántara, Order of Calatrava) (Order of Montesa). Amongst others, they are duly registered as foundations/associations and receive recognition/accreditation from the head of state. Internationally, the British Order of Saint John has exactly the same legal recognition as the Royal House of Ghassan, being in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.
Above: Another example is the most famous monarchy in the world, the UK. The Order of Saint John, even being under the Sovereignty of His Majesty King Charles III (Royal Charter), domestically is registered as a charity and internationally as an NGO having the exact same legal status in the United Nations as the Royal House of Ghassanhttps://www.stjohninternational.org/governanceAbove: Excerpt from an article talking about the Spanish Medieval Orders of Chivalry and their legal status vis-à-vis the Holy See. They’re ALL registered AS A FOUNDATION/ASSOCIATION in the civil legal system of the kingdom. Even being under the patronage of His Majesty the King, they don’t have a different legal status as a juridical personality. In other words, non-ruling Royal Houses and Orders of Chivalry have to be incorporated as regular associations/foundations in order to “exist” in the domestic law. Even in a ruling monarchy like Spain! Article in Spanish https://monarquia.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/la_nobleza/Santa-Santiago-Calatrava-Montesa-Alcantara/20121019030000009046.amp.html
Also in 2017, the Royal Family of Ghassan was officially received by the president of Albania Bujar Nishani at the presidential palace in Tirana. The president received the Order of Saint Michael Archangel and invited the Royal Family for an exclusive lunch. The president also received a lifetime membership to the Royal Ghassanid Academy of Arts and Sciences, presided by Prof. Dr. Phil. Thomas Schirrmaher. The Royal House was represented by three members of the Royal Family: Prince Gharios El Chemor, Sheikh Selim El Chemor, Sheikh Dr. Elie Gharios; also by Prof. Thomas Schirrmaher (current Secretary General of the WEA -World Evangelical Alliance, with 600 million followers in the world), Martin Warnecke, and Erion Prendi.
The President of Albania receiving the Order of Saint Michael
Above: highlights of the official presidential audience with H.E. Bujar Nishani, the head of state of Albania.
Above: Official letter from the Albanian President recognizing the head of the Royal House of Ghassan HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan, the Royal House as an entity, the Order of Michael Archangel, and the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences
Here we offer some corroborating references to the Ghassanid family tree and Royal Claims:
The blood link between the El Chemor/Gharios/Guerios family with the Kings of Ghassan, the Nikephorian Dynasty of the Byzantine Empire, the Sultans of Rasul, the Princely Houses of Al-Akoura, Zgharta-Zeiywe and Jabal Shammar
– Reverend F. Ignatius Tannous, W.L.M Sheikhs El Chemor;
– Reverend F. Boutros Daou, History of the Maronites, part 4, page 359;
– El Manara magazine, 1982, No. 3, page 367;
– Reverend F. Louis El Hachem, History of Akoura, page 37;
– Reverend F. Boulos Moubarak, History of Father Tadi’s families, page 307;
– Archbishop Boutros Hobeika, History of Baskinta, page 145;
– Dictionary in language and information, page 391;
– Mohsen A. Yammine, Newspaper of the future (Jaridat al Mustaqbal), dated 9/12/1999
– Dictionary in the language and information, page 401;
– Abou Assad Ahmad, Dictionary of the names of families and people, page 490;
– Father Charbel Abi Khalil, Bishop Boulos Moussa, page 212;
– Afif Merhej, Get acquainted with Lebanon, part 8, pages 376 and 379;
– Electronic site “The free word” for Zghorta district, kalimahorra.com
– Father Ignatius Tannous El Khoury “Maronite diocese of Tripoli”, book No. 4, page 241;
– Fadia Daaboul in the electronic site of the free national current, tayyar.org
– Saoud family, )D. Moudi daughter of Mansour son of King Abd El Aziz, Emigration and consequences under King Abc El Aziz, printing houses of Oum El Koura university, 1419 H, page 38;
– King Abd El Aziz and Koweit conference (1923-1924 )Oum El Koura printing houses, 1419 H, page 126.
– Encyclopedia of the Maronite families of Lebanon, volume 4, pp. 2236, 2237, and 2238, Notre Dame University–Louaize (NDU)
– Encyclopedia of the Maronite families of Lebanon, volume 5, pp. 2912 and 2913, Notre Dame University–Louaize (NDU)
In 2019, after three long years of a very bureaucratic process, The Sovereign 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.
Analyzing the conclusive document issued by the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities, it’s easy to conclude that the Head of State and the Head of Government didn’t meet with the Council of Ministers to approve a “mere foreign association”, the proof of that is the “decision number” (right superior corner of the legal translation). Although the document is dated October 3rd, 2019, the document is the “decision number: 1/2019”, meaning, the highest cabinet of the nation doesn’t convey to approve mere branches of associations. On the second page the references to reports concerning three separate investigations:
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants (letter number 865/5 of March 6th, 2018)
Meaning, the equivalent of the CIA, NSA, MI-5, MI-6, Mossad, FSB, etc.
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.
The President of the Lebanese Republic officially received the Equestrian Order of Michael Archangel from five members of the Royal Family including the Sovereign Prince and the Crown Prince of Ghassan. Also present, His Excellency Archbishop Thomas Schirrmacher the Secretary General of the WEA – World Evangelical Alliance and the second most powerful Christian leader in the world, just second to the Pope, being responsible for 600 million evangelicals all over the world.
Official announcement of the Lebanese TV of the audience with the Lebanese President No need for all the resources of a “secret service” to understand what the Royal House of Ghassan is
Just analyzing the overwhelming evidence: official documents, governmental official invitations, TV interviews, and newspapers’s articles, etc. it’s elementary to conclude the obvious status of the Royal Family of Ghassan with the Lebanese Government.
2022’s decree by the Lebanese Government recognizing Sheikh Selim El Chemor, the Crown Prince of Ghassan as the Executive Director/Representative of the Royal House of Ghassan in Lebanon
A recent Lebanese passport for the late Sheikh Nassif El Chemor (1945-2017) showing his title
Several family 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 uninterruptedly even after the deposition until the present day. HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor with HE Gebran Bassil at an official event by the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants in NY (2016) E-mail signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants thanking Prince Gharios (2016) Official invitation for a governmental Gala event at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas (2017)Certificate issued by the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants and signed by the Minister (2018)
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor interviewed in English by OTV – a well-known Lebanese TV station (2017)
HIRH Prince Gharios El Chemor in 2016 being interviewed in English by LBC (Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation) by the well-known journalist Karen Boustany
The Royal Family works in communion with the Lebanese Government having realized several events through the One Voice Foundation. The Foundation is an “arm” of the Royal House of Ghassan, having TIRH Prince Gharios and Prince Sheikh Selim as part of the board. It’s presided by HE Antoine Kalaydjian
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 criticizing the recognition of the Lebanese Government as “just a recognition as an association”.
Excerpt from an article talking about the Spanish Medieval Orders of Chivalry and their legal status vis-à-vis with the Holy See. They’re ALL registered AS A FOUNDATION/ASSOCIATION in the civil legal system of the kingdom. Even being under the patronage of His Majesty the King, they don’t have a different legal status as a juridical personality. In other words, non-ruling Royal Houses and Orders of Chivalry have to be incorporated as regular associations/foundations in order to “exist” in the domestic law. Even in a monarchy like Spain! Article in Spanish https://monarquia.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/la_nobleza/Santa-Santiago-Calatrava-Montesa-Alcantara/20121019030000009046.amp.html
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.
First and foremost, we have to establish that today, by observing the laws of each country, pretty much anyone can start any religion or church and name it anything that their wild mind can create.
That would make that religion/church valid as a “religious institution” duly registered with the State.
However, the fact that a church is registered as “Catholic” or “Orthodox” does not mean that the particular church is “part of” or “is recognized by” the historical Catholic or Orthodox churches unless they receive what is known as canonical recognition. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, it has to come from the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope.
Many dishonest people, automaticallychasing megalomaniac titles like “patriarch” or “prince” (without the proper valid accepted steps), name their church “Orthodox” trying to deceive the public by justifying the authenticity of “their” church by the fact that Orthodox churches are “autocephalous” and therefore they don’t need to have any recognition from anyone but the mere registration with the State. That’s pure deception and misrepresentation!
“Autocephaly (/ɔːtəˈsɛfəli/; from Greek: αὐτοκεφαλία, meaning “property of being self-headed”) is the status of a hierarchical Christian church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. The term is primarily used in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly#cite_note-FOOTNOTEErickson1991-4
Unfortunately, “autocephaly” is not “a license to open an Orthodox church”! The “autocephalous” status has to be officially and formally granted, usually, by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, considered to be “primus inter pares” or “first amongst equals”. Regularly, the grant has to be agreed upon by the other Patriarchs of the historical Orthodox churches.
Excerpt of the1970 Letter from Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras on Autocephaly:
“These include the Churches to which the Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne [the Patriarchate of Constantinople] gave the stamp of autocephaly with the approval of the other Orthodox Churches.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate could do this because of its attribute as the Mother Church and its status as the “First Among Equals” in reference to the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and because it is at the center of the internal unity of the entire Orthodox Church, helping the other Churches in their needs — a duty that derives from its presiding and excelling position within the family of the Orthodox Churches.
According to the above, therefore, the final and definitive decision concerning autocephaly belong to a Synod representing more generally the entirety of the local Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and especially to an Ecumenical Synod. Such decisions cannot be made by each local Autocephalous Church or by a local Synod of a Church from which a Diocese is requesting autocephaly. Such a local Synod has the right only to receive the first petitions for autocephaly and to form an opinion as to whether or not the reasons proffered for autocephaly are justified in accordance with the spirit of the 34th Apostolic Canon.” https://orthodoxhistory.org/2018/09/21/1970-letter-from-ecumenical-patriarch-athenagoras-on-autocephaly/
Each granting of “autocephalous status” is an event of considerable importance and great seriousness. Therefore, it’s considerably easy to find out if a particular church denomination has official status or not. Corroborating the above, recently there was the case of the church of Ukraine.
The Sovereign Prince of Ghassan was officially invited to the WORLD CULTURE FESTIVAL – US edition, from Sept. 29th – Oct. 1st, 2023 at the National Mall in Washington DC. In its last three editions, the event reached over six million people in-person and drove hundreds of millions of views online, making it the most successful recurring global artistic event in human history.
The event has many world leaders, diplomats, corporate executives, scholars, etc. as VIP guests.
SOME MEMBERS OF THE RECEPTION COMMITTEE (full list)
H.E. BAN KI-MOON
8th Secretary-General of the United Nations, South Korea Chair, Reception Committee
H.E. PRAVIND JUGNAUTH
Prime Minister, Mauritius
H.E. RATU WILIAME KATONIVERE
President, Fiji
H.E. CHAN SANTOKHI
President, Suriname
H.E. JACQUES SANTER
Former President, European Commission Former Prime Minister, Luxembourg
H.E. ERIK SOLHEIM
Former UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) Former Minister of International Development & Environment, Norway
H.E. VENKAIAH NAIDU
Former Vice-President, India
H. E. KJELL MAGNE BONDEVIK
Former Prime Minister, Norway Founder and Executive Chair, The Oslo Center
H.E. HELEN CLARK
Former Prime Minister, New Zealand
H.E. NAMBARYN ENKHBAYAR
Former President, Mongolia
H.E. DR. MARK EYSKENS
Former Prime Minister, Belgium
H.E. VICENTE FOX
Former President, Mexico
H.E. FEDERICO FRANCO
Former President, Paraguay
H.E. OLUSEGUN OBASANJO
Former President, Nigeria
H.E. ROSALÍA ARTEAGA SERRANO
Former President, Ecuador Executive Director, Fidal Foundation
H.E. JIGMI YOSER THINLEY
Former Prime Minister, Bhutan
SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER
Majority Leader of United States Senate (D-NY), United States of America
SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
Member of United States Senate (D-MD), United States of America
THE HONORABLE KATHERINE CLARK
Minority Whip of the United States House of Representatives (D-MA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE ARMIN LASCHET
Member of German Parliament Vice President, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Former Minister-President, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
THE HONORABLE NANCY PELOSI
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, United States of America
RIGHT HONORABLE SIR ROBERT JAMES BUCKLAND KBE KC MP
Former Lord Chancellor and Wales Secretary, United Kingdom
THE HONORABLE RYSZARD CZARNECKI
Former Vice President of European Parliament, Poland
THE HONORABLE HAKUBUN SHIMOMURA
Member of the House of Representatives, Former Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
THE HONORABLE HILDEBRANDO TAPIA
Former Vice President, Andean Parliament, Peru
THE HONORABLE GEOFFREY VAN ORDEN CBE
Former Leader of British Conservatives in the European Parliament, United Kingdom
THE HONORABLE DANNY DAVIS
Member of House of Representatives (D-IL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE JOHN SARBANES
Member of House of Representatives (D-MD), United States of America
THE HONORABLE GERRY CONNOLLY
Member of House of Representatives (D-VA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE BILL FOSTER
Member of House of Representatives (D-IL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE MIKE QUIGLEY
Member of House of Representatives (D-IL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE ANDY BARR
Member of House of Representatives (R-KY), United States of America
THE HONORABLE RICHARD HUDSON
Member of House of Representatives (R-NC), United States of America
THE HONORABLE MARC VEASEY
Member of House of Representatives (D-TX), United States of America
THE HONORABLE DON BEYER
Member of House of Representatives (D-VA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE DARIN LAHOOD
Member of House of Representatives (R-IL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE PRAMILA JAYAPAL
Member of House of Representatives (D-WA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE RO KHANNA
Member of House of Representatives (D-CA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI
Member of House of Representatives (D-IL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL GUEST
Member of House of Representatives (R-MS), United States of America
THE HONORABLE ANDY KIM
Member of House of Representatives (D-NJ), United States of America
THE HONORABLE DAVID TRONE
Member of House of Representatives (D-WA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE JAKE AUCHINCLOSS
Member of House of Representatives (D-MA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE JERRY CARL
Member of House of Representatives (R-AL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE YOUNG KIM
Member of House of Representatives, (R-CA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE DEBORAH ROSS
Member of House of Representatives (D-NC), United States of America
THE HONORABLE MICHELLE STEEL
Member of House of Representatives (R-CA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE JEN KIGGANS
Member of House of Representatives
(R-VA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE GLENN IVEY
Member of House of Representatives (D-MD), United States of America
THE HONORABLE KEVIN KILEY
Member of House of Representatives (R-CA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE LAUREL LEE
Member of House of Representatives (R-FL), United States of America
THE HONORABLE RICH MCCORMICK
Member of House of Representatives (R-GA), United States of America
THE HONORABLE SHRI THANEDAR
Member of House of Representatives (D-MI), United States of America
THE HONORABLE BINOD CHAUDHARY
Member of Parliament, Nepal Chairman and President, The Chaudhary Group (CG)
THE HONORABLE YVONNE FERI
Member of Parliament, Switzerland
THE HONORABLE DR. NIK GUGGER
Member of the Parliament, Switzerland Member of the European Parliament
HIS HIGHNESS AZZAN BIN QAIS AL SAID
Vice Chairman, Oman National Olympic Committee, Oman
SOME MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZIANG COMITEE (full list)
ROB TROMBOLD
President, Art of Living Convener, World Culture Festival
DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN
Co-Founder and Co-Chairman, The Carlyle Group Chairman, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER
Chair, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda, Simon Wiesenthal Center
DR. ALFRED BALITZER
Chairman, Pacific Research & Strategies, Senior Fellow and Board of Trustees, Claremont Graduate University, Board of Trustees, Sri Sri University
NIRVANA CHAUDHARY
Managing Director, Chaudhary Group
CHIRAG PATEL
President and CEO, Amneal Pharmaceuticals
COURTENEY MONROE
President, National Geographic Global Television Networks
LOUIS GAGNON
Founder and CEO, Regenerative Group
THE HONORABLE LUIS MORENO OCAMPO
Founding Prosecutor, International Court of Justice
DR. MANOJ K. JAIN
Founder and President, Mid-South Infectious Disease Associates
MIKE PERLIS
Vice Chairman, Forbes Media
M.R. RANGASWAMI
Founder, Indiaspora Forum and CorporateEco Forum Managing Director, Sand Hill Group
H.E. NIRJ DEVA, DL, FRSA
Presidential Envoy to Western Europe & Commonwealth of Nations, Commonwealth Union; Former Vice President for International Development, European Parliament
PREM JAIN
Co-Founder Pensando Systems, now the Networking Solutions Group AMDPensando
RANDI WEINGARTEN
President, American Federation of Teachers
RANVIR TREHAN
Trustee, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
HRH AMBASSADOR REEMA BINT BANDAR AL SAUD
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States
REGINALD (REGGIE) VAN LEE
Partner and Chief Transformation Officer, Carlyle Group
RODNEY MIMS COOK, JR.
President, National Monuments Foundation
SANJAY PRADHAN
Chief Executive Officer, Open Government Partnership
SHEKAR NARASIMHAN
Managing Partner, Beekman Advisors President, Dharma Into Action Foundation (DhIA)
DR. SREENIVAS REDDY, MD
Vascular Interventional Radiologist
TIM DRAPER
Founder Draper Associates, DFJ Draper Venture Network Draper University
TIM RYAN
Former Congressman, Ohio’s 13th District
TONYA KINLOW
Vice President of Community Engagement, Advocacy, and Government Affairs, Children’s National Hospital Chair, Board of Directors, DC Chamber of Commerce
VIDA ALI
Co-owner, Ben’s Chili Bowl Board of Directors, DC Chamber of Commerce
AMBASSADOR VIJAY NAMBIAR
Former Chef-de-Cabinet, Special Ambassador to Myanmar, United Nations
VIVEK PAUL
Adjunct Professor, Stanford University Former CEO, Wipro Limited
What does the traditional international jurisprudence on Dyanstic and Nobility law dictate?
None “becomes a prince” unless in two situations: an “ex-nuovo” bestowal by a sovereign or head-of-state, or by marriage with someone already bearing this title. Nobility laws vary from country to country. For example, both husbands of HRH Princess Anne, Princess Royal and the only sister of HM King Charles III, didn’t get any titlebecause the woman cannot pass a title to a husband in the British system,
As a rule, only in a ruling monarchy, a prince is legally recognized as such by birth. In the case of a deposed dynasty, it all depends on the country he is born. Some countries are friendly to the subject of foreign titles and others, usually republics, are not,
According to international jurisprudence, if the particular laws of succession of that dynasty are respected and followed, all princes are legally born princes “de jure, in esse, in pectore et in potentia” (by law/right, in essence, not publicly but in potential)even if the domestic laws of the country of birth are indifferent or absolutely don’t recognize that title. (see legal citations below) If the prince is going to publicly exercise his legal right, it is up to him. It is not an obligation, and many princes choose to never use the titles. But it is their birthright to claim it at any point in their lives. That does not mean they “became princes”, they’re just exercising their rights from that moment on! It is the exact same legal principle of “Jus Sanguinis” (right of blood)applied to citizenship in some countries. For example, Italian citizenship by descent is based on this principle. However, although the children of Italian citizens born abroad are legally considered Italian unless they register their birth certificate with the Italian authorities and apply for an Italian passport, that right was not exercised. It’s not an obligation in any way, the child can keep only the citizenship from the place he or she was born, but action is needed in order for that legal right to be publicly recognized, in this case, the registration of the birth certificate with the Italian authorities. Many examples of princes not recognized by birth can be cited but maybe the most notorious is the current head of the House of Habsburg (Austria-Hungary), HIRH Archduke Karl. His legal name is Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, No title! By Austrian law, he cannot even use the “Von” (of) Habsburg in his name and on his website!But regardless of the lack of domestic recognition, none disputes his title.
HIRH Archduke Karl, head of the Habsburg Dynasty of Austria-Hungary was punished because of the prohibition of titles of nobility in Austria since 1919
To be a prince, one doesn’t have to be a king’s son?
No, that only applies to some European ruling monarchies. And even in Europe, that’s not a rule. For example, the Prince of Monaco is the son of another prince, not a king. Even for European deposed monarchies, that doesn’t apply. The heads of the Houses of Austria, Germany, France, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Albania, etc., are all sons of princes, not kings! Even when the country’s tradition is to have a king, while in exile, the custom is not to use the title “king”.
All the above Royals (including the King Emeritus of Spain) are sons of other princes, NOT kings!Well-known royals from Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE that are princes (amir, emir)and sons of other princes and sheikhs. Even the current King of Bahrain was the son of a prince
The Royal Ghassanid titles
Being respected the traditional laws of succession, according to international jurisprudence, the members of the El Chemor/Gharios family were born Royal Sheikhs and Princes regardless of the domestic recognition of any country. The family members that were born in modern-day Lebanon were able to register their titles because the laws of the Lebanese Republic are friendly to the use of historical titles. However, the family members born in countries like Brazil, where anything related to monarchy was forbidden due to the constitution (1891) that followed the coup-de-etat that overthrew the Brazilian Emperor in 1889, making it impossible to Gharios/El Chemor family members in Brazil to even register their titles legally.
“CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL (February 24, 1891)
Capital evidence of that factis the sons of the late HRH Prince Sheikh Magid El Chemor born in Lebanon, HIRH Prince Gharios’ cousin. Sheikh Magid had three sons, the late Sheikh Nassif and Sheikh Antoine born in Lebanon, and the late Sheikh Youssef, born in Brazil.Sheikh Magid’s title was on his documents. Same with the two sons born in Lebanon (see passport photo). Nevertheless, Sheikh Youssef’s title could not be registered since he was born before 1988. The same with his sons.
Lebanese Passport of the late Sheikh Nassif (1945-2017) with his titles. Family members born in Brazil didn’t have the same privilege due to the 1891’s constitution only abrogated in 1988
Prince Gharios was born in 1973. His father in 1947. As previously mentioned, article 72 § 2 of the 1891 constitutionwas only abrogated with the advent of the 1988’s constitution. Since the international succession of titles by “jus sanguinis” operates separately and independently of the domestic constitution of the countries of birth. Therefore, the late Sheikh Youssef, his sons and Prince Gharios were born princes by the international jurisprudence regardless of when they decided to publicly use the titles. See the legal corroboration below
Professor Emilio Furno, an advocate in the Italian 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.)
“. . . Sovereignty is neither created by Recognition nor destroyed by non Recognition.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312)
“These rights are all absolute, and quite independent of any recognition of the external sovereignty by other states….” (Charles St. Julian, The International Status of Fiji, 1872, p. 3)
“. . .Courts agree that sovereignty can exist in the absence of Recognition by any state….” (Werner Levi, Contemporary International Law: a Concise Introduction, 1979, p. 120)
“. . .Sovereignty is not something that is decided by other countries. They can only recognize it or not.” (Frank Muyard, Director, Taipei Office, French Centre for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC), April 1-2, 2005)
“Studies on Nobility Law” (Estudos sobre Direito Nobiliário), by Dr. Mario Silvestre de Meroe
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. “
Just a small sample of the numerous legal recognitions to HIRH Prince Gharios’ titles
The legal rights of the El Chemor/Gharios family, as well as the claims of HIRH Prince Gharios, were fully recognized on four continents, including the Lebanese Republic. Learn more
THE ROYAL HERALD 