Carmelo Currò Troiano
THE TITLES OF
A SOVEREIGN IN EXILE
The titles granted by a sovereign in exile does not relate to its actual quality of Head of State, a body of a subject of international and domestic law, but his status as head of a dynasty that in his person retains certain rights that belong only to the family and not strictly state entity.
To give an example, very extensive, a bishop could leave the Catholic Church, get married, be excommunicated (as Monsignor Milingo) but these acts concern always and only its administrative and judicial powers. Not even the Pope, in fact, may revoke the episcopal consecration that remains etched in his "character" human, and therefore priests or bishops he had ordained would always though such illegitimate and unable to govern a diocese. In the event that he entered the Catholic Communion, there would be no need for a new institution but only a public adherence to the Church.
The monarch who is deposed ceases to be a head of state but maintains his dynastic rights. So may be granted by the orders of his family (both in Italy and in other countries Dynastic Orders true are recognized by the State, even if granted by a former ruling family) and noble titles, although not recognized by the state.
As for the titles granted by the King of the Two Sicilies and Italy in exile, we can therefore consider perfectly valid and not of kindness, since the latter often represent only a few family members. Obviously, for the Italian Republic they do not exist and not exist for the Savoy Orders and titles granted by the Bourbons or the Hapsburgs after the unification of Italy. Yet all of them continued to grant them, without much publicity. So very valid noble titles granted by King Umberto II during his exile, or titles granted by the Pretenders House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies to the members of their families. With regard to some noble titles of various rulers after they were dispossessed original licenses should be consulted, since many fables and many false concessions appear to have been circulated without any relation to reality. Cleopatra bitten by a snake before you stamp the appointment of a nobleman, a king of Poland escaped without being able to write the grant made to the voice of a marquis; Napoleon appointing a prince as he descends the stairs to go to Elba, the King of Naples that elevates his loyal to the Duchy of Gaeta under the bombs, are often just fun facts. Especially since many of the poor dispossessed rulers did not die right away and would have had many years of time to send the decrees from exile to their supporters.
The British have always been very clear on this subject. As just one example, remember how the fervent monarchist Edward Lake, in view of its support to the cause of the King during the civil war, was created Baronet but they failed to draw the license in time of appointment. So when his great-grandson Bibye was appointed in turn Baronet in 1711, it was provided to prepare the license of a whole new way, not only because according to English rules the title is not passed from uncle to nephew except as expressly provided, but also because there was no written form of the first title.
The England of the new dynasty Hannover has never even acknowledged the noble titles granted by Stuart pretenders in exile. For example, James Drummond, Earl of Pembroke, loyal supporter of King James II Stuart, Duke of Perth was appointed by the king in exile in St.Germains in 1695. The title was recognized by the King of France who sheltered him, but not by the British government, of course, so much so that the second and third Duke of Perth continued to be regarded as traitors and their heirs were mentioned only as Messrs. John and James Drummond . Subsequently, the head of the family, Charles Drummond, Duke of Melfort in France, presented to the British Government's request for recognition as Count and not as the Duke of Perth, which asked that title belonged to his family before he went into exile Stuart. The problem, then, was entirely political, as is to be considered for the titles granted by the Bourbons and dispossessed by the Savoy family, so much so that a sovereign as the King of France had considered perfectly valid the title of Duke of Perth and other securities granted by Stuart.