Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred
(This is probably one of the most profoundly certain claims on earth, and it is elaborated, verified and confirmed in great detail throughout the website. The "Brief Foreword" gives the big picture.)
If you have already read the important Brief Foreword, you can skip it by clicking on the following:
The Purpose and the Truth:
There are five major or leading reasons for this website:
(1) The first is to teach correct principles as there are serious falsehoods taught in the field of nobility and chivalry. (See "Problems and Solutions: The Future of Nobility and Chivalry" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id108.htm) Pope Felix III wrote, "Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it." In other words, silence implies consent and promotes error and distortions.
(4) The fourth reason is this website is a well-written and documented doctoral project on international and domestic law. A university doctoral degree requires that one make a "significant original contribution to knowledge." In our case, this dissertation, which is, in fact, this website, provides proof far "beyond a reasonable doubt" that our claim is absolutely true, and the important laws that determine when a case is authentic, valid and genuine. Thus fulfilling and international law requirement. (See "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and False Claim")
(5) And fifth, because my good name (Donald E. Goff, Ph.D., DBA, D.Litt. (eq.) and our claim have been unfairly attacked on the internet, the true facts needs to be published and made known. It is, as Edmund Burke emphatically declared, "All that is needed for the forces of evil to win, is for good men to do nothing." It is hoped that the real truth will prevail, not error or inaccuracies. Hence, a good reason for this website. (See "Problem -- Misinformation" and starting with http://www.nobility-royalty.com/beware_of_false_claims_of_sovereignty.htm on the website of The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty)
To fulfill all these important purposes:
George Washington declared, "Truth will ultimately prevail [but only] where there [is a concerted effort] to bring it to light." Every single relevant point will be examined in great detail, so that the reader can easily see that all the legal facts are more than adequately substantiated, verified and confirmed.
This website is about the lawful transfer of all the international land rights, distinctions and honors of the principality of Halberstadt, which claim has been vetted and recognized by scholars as being legally valid and legitimate. (See "The First of Seven Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and/or "Documents") In other words, this case is not based on hunches, speculation, guesswork, or suspicion. Nor it is based on foolish myths, legends, fabrication, or make believe. It is based on many cold, hard, verified facts -- the law itself. Including the fact that, not just one, but eight legitimate and lawful conveyance or acquisition laws transferred the title and rights thereof to our family. Thus, our claim is not only compelling, but it is truly beyond any reasonable doubt. This is because no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts, and expert legal witnesses have validated the claim as genuine and accurate. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim" and "Documents: Testaments and Witnesses to the Truth")
In other words, this case is not questionable or problematic. The proof is not imaginary. It is as close to being flawless that is possible in this life.
To remove unreasonable or irrational doubt in any kind of important claim, ". . . it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge [or a case such as ours] in[to] mathematics." (Roger Bacon as quoted in Stuart Shanker, Wittgenstein and the Turning Point in the Philosophy of Mathematics, 1987 p. 269) Mathematics is one of the surest paths to truth, because the principles behind almost all things are mathematical. Of course, not every thing lends itself to math, but the precise exactness of the laws in this case and the facts thereof, do. For that reason, probability in particular is well-suited to our case. This project was done with the help of two prominent members of the Math Department of Dixie State University. The exacting science of probability shows the claim is not merely a "preponderance of evidence" level situation, making it "more likely than not," or even just a "clear and convincing" case, meaning it is exceptionally compelling. But it is nothing less than the highest confidence level available, which is far "beyond reasonable doubt." This is because it has achieved mathematical certainty.
The probability question was: "What are the chances that all 40+ separate legal and situational facts would combine to bear a perfect witness that our claim is absolutely true, if it wasn't absolutely and totally true?" That is, when all, not some, but all the evidence points in one direction in a major court hearing and the defense cannot produce any law or any contrary facts, then the conclusion is clear, obvious and unmistakable. Probability provides an even greater assurance or level of certainty.
Keep in mind that from back-alley dice games to highly sophisticated research in laboratories, the laws of probability have proven themselves to be just as dependable as the laws of gravity.
The result: an impressive 17,000,000 to one likelihood, if we ignore 40% of the proof (in other words, this is the most conservative figure, for if we use all the evidence, it is not merely a billion to one, but 1.1 trillion to one) that the claim could be anything but a true and genuine transmission of all rights and privileges.
It is hard to comprehend what a trillion is much less what one chance in a trillion might be. To help, note the following:
One chance in 17,000,000, or using more of the evidence, one chance in a 1.1 trillion is an enormous figure or likelihood. It is virtually perfect. There is basically zero probability or no chance our claim could be wrong. On the other hand, this means there is a 100% or 99.999411764703% likelihood that our claim could be anything, but profoundly and beautifully true. As stated several times, this kind of certainty is equal to or greater than any other regal claim that ever existed. The case is that solid. It could hardly be stronger. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The challenge is to find out for oneself, which means one must give it a fair hearing, due process and due diligence. Otherwise, one will do a great injustice to the verified facts, the historical realities, and the legal truths that saturates this case. But, as a result of such an effort, one would end up knowing a lot about the laws that created the transfer.
Every new, added and discovered fact of support has acted exponentially to the probability or likelihood that any proposed claim is absolutely true. One chance in 1.1 trillion that this claim is wrong or 1.1 trillion to one odds that it is right certainly puts this case in a category of beyond doubt. This enormous figure is conclusive of the fact. One might as well deny that the sun and moon exist as to doubt, or believe that pigs fly that this case is not of the highest confidence level possible in mortal life.
For example DNA proof is required to be 100 billion to one that something is an undeniable fact or absolutely true. (David E. Newton, Forensic Chemistry, 2007, p. 146) By comparison, the certainty of our case adds up to over 1.1 trillion to one that honorable laws gave us the principality. This is 1,100 times greater or more sure than DNA evidence is required to be. This says a lot about the immense credibility of the case as an established fact.
The point is, our claim is not built on flimsy evidence, but on solid rock.
Evidence in a Nutshell:
There are three types of belief: (1) a vague belief, (2) a well-supported belief, and (3) a belief that is beyond reasonable doubt. As will be seen, this case is build on the highest level of evidence possible. It is far above any reasonable doubt.
The point is, no one can just make a grand royal claim and it somehow someway magically becomes legit. It must be legally valid to be rightful. Legality is what divides the sheep from the goats. It distinguishes the true royals from the fakes, the impostors and the counterfeiters. (See "Proof is Necessary and Required" in "The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim")
The following are seven very basic general points. We'll get into the details and the specifics later on throughout this website:
(2) There is full compliance to all the relevant natural, international, and English laws which validate and confirm the claim to be factual, genuine, and true. This can be seen throughout the website,
(4) the 2002 legal abandonment of all rights of ownership of the principality by the Imperial and Royal House of Hohenzollern. (See "Abandonment" in "Letters from the Imperial Family"),
(6) Five of those transfer modes were established by international law. Three were domestic. However, along with power of English private international law (see "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges"), normal domestic law in England, and most common law countries, have full authority over the legal rights of other sovereign entities that exist or have lawful standing within their own territories. (See "D. Adverse Possession transfers all the rights of an Estate which includes Regal and Sovereign Rights" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") What this means is the domestic modes are just as valid and legitimate as the legal right of the international transfer methods. This comes through either pivate law via English private international law statutes and practice, and/or domestic national law. Both have the legal right to deal with sovereign entities that exist under their jurisdictional authority as a nation.
Reliable evidence, using only 40% of the evidence, places the case at a 100% certainty (a 99.999411764703% probability level), which is several mathematical magnitudes "beyond any reasonable doubt." (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim") The point is, No other logical explanation can be derived from the facts, which is what "beyond any reasonable doubt" means.
Emerich de Vattel, one of the chief fathers of international law, declared that a whole kingdom or principality may be obtained by one ". . . who has purchased it, or received it in exchange, or acquired it by any title whatever." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book III, chapter 13, no. 198) (emphasis added)
It must be admitted that there is no a priori [self-evident] reason why the categories of methods of acquiring territorial sovereignty should be considered closed. International law is not so rigid as to exclude new developments. It may well be, therefore that there exists a sixth [or seventh or eight] method of acquiring territorial sovereignty. . . . (F. A. Mann, "The Present Legal Status of Germany," The International Law Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 3, Autumn, 1947, p. 326)
NEW MODES OF TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION: Title may now be acquired in ways other than those developed over the centuries since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. . . . (William R. Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 6th ed., 2011, p. 299)
Some new methods that are now widely recognized and used today are international proprietary estoppel, novation, consolidation of title, highest right or best claim, and historic title. Any legitimate method that is a legal and valid mechanism can pass on a sovereign regal entity. According to Vattel, it can be "by any title whatever." And ". . . It is this [kind of legal transfer] which gives the receiver . . . regal [kingly and/or princely] right." (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, , vol. 2, John Pawley Bate, trans., chapter 9, no. 19, 1916)
[Sovereign] territories were transferred back and forth and thus boundaries were [quite fluid] drawn and redrawn as a result of war, conquest, treaties, dynastic marriage, purchase and other transactions. . . . (Robert H. Jackson, "Boundaries and International Society," International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, Barbara Allen Roberson, ed., 1998, p. 161) (emphasis added)
Because "territories were transferred back and forth," and were fluid, changes in dynasties -- especially German principalities and lesser sovereign entities in Europe were fairly common occurrences. International law validates and confirms this historical practice as legally binding in modern times as well as in the early days of international law. (See the "Sovereign Honors and Rights can be Transferred") The international law qualifiers "acquired it by any title whatever" or "other [possible] transactions" for conveying regal sovereign rights demonstrates the flexibility and existence of alternative title transfers in international law. Besides the usual modes of acquisition and loss of sovereignty in international law, "A few novel methods have emerged." (J. H. W. Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective: State Territory, 1970, p. 297) This would include three domestic ones governed by private international law. (See Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") The point is, sovereignty may be acquired ". . . by any of the recognized modes by which private property is acquired by individuals," which includes adverse possession, proprietary estoppel and the domestic law of best title or best right doctrine. (Professor Pomeroy, "Sovereignty and Territorial Acquisition," The Treaty Making Power of the United States, Charles Henry Butler, ed., vol. 1, chapter 2, section 43, 1902, p. 74) In other words, Halberstadt was obtained by legal and lawful means -- eight of them, in fact, making the transfer definitive and perfect. (See "Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights")
Putting this all into perspective, if you had a 99.99999999+ chance -- a probability so extraordinary and certain -- that you'd win 100 million dollars tax free, would you take the bet? Most people would in a heart beat. Such a high likelihood is far greater than a beyond reasonable doubt determination, yet those astronomical odds are exactly how sure our claim really is. It is more likely that a person will find a 1,100 pound gorilla sitting in their car after work, than this claim is anything less than conclusive and absolutely true.
A Solid Foundation without Weaknesses
It only takes two relevant and confirmed material facts to achieve a "beyond reasonable doubt" confidence level determination, but we have over 50 verified facts demonstrating the truth and reliability of our claim. 50 is far greater -- far more certain and absolute than 2. This mean our case is 25 times more sure than is needed for a determination of being "beyond a reasonable doubt." But beyond that, the laws of probability makes it virtually certain and undeniable. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The point is:
You can't build something right on something totally wrong.
You can't build something powerful and strong on something fundamentally weak and fragile.
You can't build a great truth on a false paradigm, fantasy or make-believe.
You can't build something beautiful and lasting on filth, rot or decay.
To build on drifting unstable sand is a sure disaster.
You can't build a great building on a weak foundation and expect it to last.
If the foundation is cracked or built on unsteady ground it’s only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down. The difference between our claim and so many others is that it is built on a foundation that is solid -- based on sovereignty law, historical facts and legal precedence. It is sturdy because it is true.
Ignorance of the Law
The ancient law, that "ignorance is no excuse" has a long and extensive history. The time-honored Latin term, "Inorantia juris non excusat" means "ignorance of the law excuses not," and "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" means "ignorance of law excuses no one" (Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979, pp. 672-673 and UIA, The Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential; 2018: http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/158218) These legal maxims were designed to promote justice and represent the ". . . legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability. . . ." (Ibid.) Other expressions of the same from ancient Rome are "nemo censetur ignorare legem" -- "nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law" or "ignorantia iuris nocet" -- "not knowing the law is harmful." (Ibid.)
If the law does not support a claim, the claim is false and can be rejected with impunity. This is because sovereignty and royalty either exist on a legal basis or they do not exist at all. Therefore, judging a dispossessed sovereign claim, such as ours, without knowing the applicable and relevant laws involved, is similar to judicial misconduct or malpractice. Using the totally wrong criteria in an evaluation can lead to an enormous misunderstanding of the fundamental facts involved. Hence, the caution that "ignorance of the law excuses no one." Due diligence cannot take place without a thorough investigation. (See "Questions and Answers continued" for a good example involving ignorance of the law)
Since our claim is rooted and grounded in the law that sustains it; since that is Its foundation, its core and center, even its very heart and soul, the laws involved must be understood. Therefore, the reader is encouraged to read without bias and learn the fundamentals that created and transferred the lawful titles and sovereign rights.
Basic Legal Principles:
Everything that follows -- in other words, the whole claim depends on some well-known, undeniable legal facts in domestic and international law. Many of the laws underlying this case are "legal maxims," that is, they are time-tested fundamental rules of justice and equity recognized as universally rightful and fair to all involved. (See "Legal Maxims" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges") The following are some of the most basic fundamental principles. The references contained in each statement will take one to detailed explanations, legal citations and verified evidence substantiating each one as important and significant:
It all started with a valid English Deed of Transfer in the year 2000, that in spite of an investigation costing over $300,000.00 USD by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the London Tribunal, the conveyance could not be proven fraudulent or false. It was recognized as a legitimate conveyance document. (See "Documents -- Testaments and Witness to the Truth")
In English law, "adverse possession" can fully and completely transfer a private deposed international sovereignty right through "private international law," which law is universally designed to legally solve private legal problems involving a fundamental international component or foreign involvement. It can make domestic laws operative for private international concerns:
. . . Jurisdiction in international cases of a private nature [like the transfer of the private international land rights of the principality] is not governed by international law, but by the domestic law of each state [through private international law]. (Chilenye Nwap, "Litigating Extraterritorial Corporate Crimes in Canadian Courts," Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2012, p. 142)
In other words, private international law can activate or empower domestic adverse possession in transferring international territorial rights of a private nature. That is, "Private international law rules . . . [include a] . . . domestic legal system’s concepts of time bars [statutes of limitation] and adverse possession. . . ." (Christa Roodt, State Courts or ADR in Nazi-Era Art Disputes: A Choice "More Apparent than Real?," p. 432; 2016: http://cardozojcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/CAC205.pdf) (emphasis added)
This important law can also lawfully handle private cases involving sovereignty such as ours. The Principality of Halberstadt is a privately owned legal, non-territorial sovereign entity in international law. ". . . In the case of private international law [situations are usually] of a private character, though . . . one . . . may be a sovereign state [or a deposed royal house that lawfully maintained and preserved their sovereign rights]." (S. S. Gulshan, Business Law, 4th ed., 2012, p. 16) (emphasis added) In other words, ". . . Private international law [can be] between individuals or between individuals and states." (Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, Private International Law: Indian and English, 1993, p. 47) This law is legally competent to enable or empower domestic laws to transfer a private international sovereign territory, such as, the principality of Halberstadt. (See "The Importance of English Private International Law" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality" and "Private International Law and English Jurisdiction" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Not just the power and authority of private international law, but, if the legal mechanism exists in the nation, their domestic national law can also adjudicate, transfer and alter the rights of a domestic sovereign entity that exists within the domain of a particular nation. This is true as long as an such as act does not violate international law. This legal authority has been demonstrated by decades, even centuries, of legal practice. (See "D. Adverse Possession transfers all the rights of an Estate which includes Regal and Sovereign Rights" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
English adverse possession of a proprietary territory in international law establishes "constructive possession." That is, "possession in law" or vicarious possession, which is legally equal to actual possession through a landlord/tenant relationship. "Factual Possession" in English adverse possession law also includes the right of constructive possession through the sovereign (landlord)/tenant relationship. This legal status along with private international law enables adverse possession law to have the legal competence to operate for a deposed or non-reigning sovereignty still valid under international law. (See "Constructive Possession" in "Three more Legally Binding Methods Transferred all the Rights of the Principality" and "Factual or Constructive Possession is required, not Actual Possession" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Both adverse and constructive possession create immediate secondary ownership of the territory in question, which right is above all others on earth with the exception that the historical owner still has the right to re-establish his possession. However, this right to re-possess only lasts until either the historical owners legally abandon the territorial land, which, in our case, they did in 2002, or the limitations period completes and finalizes the ownership in the adverse possessor, which took place in 2013. Hence, full and complete ownership was transferred to us in this way. (See "Constructive Possession," "1st Legally Binding Transfer of Rights -- Universal and Binding" and "3rd Legally Binding Transfer of Rights 2002: Highest Entitlement on Earth" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality") (See also "Letters from the Imperial Family")
It is important to understand that all seven methods are legally concluded and finalized without court or any other legal involvements. That is, the statutes and laws involved stand free, independent and clear of any outside meddling and are immediately binding and final when the requirements are met. (See "Automatic Nature of Adverse Possession in English Law" and "Court Involvement is not Required for Occupation to Effect Changes in Sovereignty" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality"),
Official recognition and/or the support of other states, scholars or organizations concerning a change of sovereignty are nice to have, but are irrelevant and unnecessary as the reality of the transfer is a legal fact. The point is, ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition." (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol. 17, 1981, p. 312) Recognition cannot change a false and phony into something true and real, or something authentic into make believe. Truth is truth. Nevertheless, several prominent international legal scholars and experts have confirmed the validity of the claim. (See "Recognition Unessential to being Legitimate and Valid" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges" and "Recognition is Immaterial or Irrelevant to the Situation" in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality"),
Four powerful protective laws safeguard what has taken place:
d. Both the domestic and international principle of "laches," a domestic and international doctrine similar to a statue of limitations, which also prevents or bars the consideration of a case after a period of time generally over 14 years. Laches is connected with the legal maxim: "Equity [or justice] aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones;" that is, those who sleep on their rights or do nothing in a timely manner. (See "Critical Date" in "A Seventh and an Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges").
Each of these rules of law prevent any future effort to change the fact that the principality has been properly and permanently lost to the Imperial family, which lawfully abandoned it, and has been juridically acquired by the Goff/Harradine family in perpetuity or forever,
When all the facts are added up, the case is extremely solid, way beyond "more likely than not." It has reach undeniable mathematical and legal certainty. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The legitimate claim for these international property rights are based on law -- the most solid of laws on earth. In other words, every facet of the domestic and international laws involved are fundamentally rooted in natural law -- laws recognized as conclusive in all the earth for every people and culture and for all the ages of mankind. As the Sir William Blackstone declared on natural law:
It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. (Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1, 4th ed., 1770, p. 41) (See "Natural and International Law" and "Natural Law and Adverse Possession" in "The First of Eight Transfer Modes Legally Conveying all Rights and Privileges")
Statistical Summary and Conclusion
That is, our claim is not only "clear and convincing" or highly compelling, but it is "beyond any reasonable doubt." It is based on "law" -- as all true and valid claims are. (See The Law makes all the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim) The evidence is straightforward and upfront, because it is based on clear-cut, self-evident laws and circumstances that are verified by affidavits and living witnesses as well as the important legally relevant documents involved.
When the principles of probability are applied, the odds are 1,100,000,000,000 (1.1 trillion) to one that our claim could be anything other than true. Consider the following comparative statistical facts to understand how great important this finding really is:
You are more likely to be struck by lightening than this claim is not absolutely true (1 chance in 3,000),
There is a greater likelihood you will be killed by an asteroid or comet than our claim to the principality could be false (1 chance in 250.000), and
1,100,000,000,000 to one is a very staggering figure that describes something that is mathematically certain. It is conclusive. When you think about it, you are more likely to be attacked and killed by a shark in your lifetime (1 chance in 3,748,067). You are more likely to die from the use of fireworks (1 chance in 340,733), more likely to die from drowning (1 chance in 1,134), to be killed in a car accident (1 chance in 84), have a stroke (1 chance in 24), be struck down by heart disease (1 chance in 5), even injured by a toilet (1 chance in 10,000) or hit a deer in the State of Hawaii where deer are truly rare (1 chance in 6,787). (What are the Odds of a Shark Attack; 2018: https://www.thewildlifemuseum.org/exhibits/sharks/odds-of-a-shark-attack) All of these things are more likely to happen to you than that our claim could be false, even if all the odds were added up and compared to it.
1.1 trillion to one means that the likelihood that our claim is absolutely true is at least 99.999999 percent -- practically perfect as 100% is absolutely perfect. That means for all practical purposes, the claim has a 100% mathematical certainty, or an extremely or enormously high confidence level. It is far too obvious, far too self-evident to deny or doubt. Statistically speaking, the odds are far beyond logical or reasonable doubt. The point is, belief is absolutely warranted and appropriate for a case where the evidence is truly beyond reasonable doubt. It has achieved the highest and most remarkable level of proof that is possible on earth. This makes this case, not only acceptable, not only compelling, but is a profound fact. (See "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
The truth is, our claim is incontrovertible. Yet because of widespread bias and misinformation in the field of nobility and royalty, ". . . malice may attack it [and] ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is [as real and true as any other regal claim on earth]. (paraphrased from Winston Churchill) (See "PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS: The Future of Nobility and Chivalry" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id108.htm)
_______(End of Brief Foreword)_______
The Transfer and Conveyance of Sovereignty
Contents: (Every section and subsection in one way or another provides verified evidence of the truth)
Transfers of Sovereign and Royal Rights
Transference occurs in virtue of the assent [or consent] of a [deposed or reigning] King who alienates his Kingdom [or one of his principalities] to another . . . , this [is what] . . . gives the receiver . . . regal rights [the royal prerogatives and privileges of the sovereign entity]. . . . [The point is, a dethroned or reigning patrimonial] King can dispose of his Kingdom [or principality] and any part of it in his own right, therefore ought to be allowed to alienate it in right of ownership, without the assent [permission] of the Estates [who are no longer stakeholders, or have any legal interest or claim especially in a deposed kingdom]. (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, , vol. 2, John Pawley Bate, trans., chapter 9, no. 19, 1916)
There are a number of legal ways of transferring regal sovereignty other than by heredity, which is not very well-known to the general public. The following quotes and historical facts are included to make it eminently clear that this kind of transfer of royal sovereignty was and is still a international legal right. For example, in the Holy Roman Empire as well as other nations, the prestige, power and glory of each territory was attached to the land or fief and not to a person or family. In other words, these ancient territories could be bought and sold and the new owner obtain all its sovereign and titular rights. Jean J. Burlamaqui, one of the fathers of international law, made it clear that, a proprietary king or prince ". . . has a right to . . . dispose of the crown [his territory or country] as he has a mind. . . ." (The Principles of Natural and Politic Law, 5th ed., vol. 2, chapter 3, no. 25, Thomas Nugent, trans., 1807, p. 78) In other words, what he owns, he could also sell. That is, "In principle, a sovereign state has an unquestionable right to alienate whatever it can [own]. . . ." (Edward Miner Gallaudet, A Manual of International Law, 3rd ed., 1889, p. 108) The point is:
All the states . . . hold their territory by the same kind of title by which their subjects hold their property in land, that is by a series of human dealings --- as cession or conquest in the one case, conveyance inter vivos or will is the other. . . . (John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law,1894, p. 134)
Where the right of sovereignty has been fully acquired [that is, clearly owned as a de jure or absolute right] it may be abandoned. . . [discarded or deserted by any means the owner decides]." (Ibid., p. 165)
A government [or monarch owning all the rights of sovereignty] may assume the power to cede land to a foreign state [or another person] in property as well as in sovereignty. . . ." (Ibid., p. 130)
For example, in 1373 Margrave Otto sold the territorial sovereignty of Brandenburg to Emperor Charles IV of the Holy Roman Empire, who gave the country to his son Wenceslas. Later Frederick I of Hohenzollern in 1415 bought the electorship of Brandenburg from Emperor Sigismund, and thus elevated himself to the rank of a Prince Elector of the Empire. These Hohenzollerns through marriage and the purchase of lands, not always by war, steadily added to their holdings, beginning with several small acquisitions. They acquired the margraviates of Ansbach (1331) and Kulmbach (1340), and Ernest-Bogislas of Croy. The last Prince-Bishop of Kammin, sold all his rights to the diocese and principality of Kammin to the Elector of Brandenburg in 1650 for 100,000 talers. By similar means in the 18 hundreds, the King of Prussia also became the Prince of Neuenburg and the Count of Valangin.
Such transactions were a common and regular part of the workings of the Empire. Another interesting example of purchase is in the history of Liechtenstein. Even though these nobles owned 46 castles, 24 towns, 35 large and 756 small villages, it is only after they bought two small immediate territories (the County of Vaduz and the Lordship of Schellenberg) for a huge amount in 1699 and 1712 that they were enabled to become immediate princes and recognized members of the Reichstag or Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire. The highest status in the Holy Roman Empire required that you owned or had "ownership" of an immediate Imperial fief -- one that had a sovereign title attached to it, which one could obtain by purchase, award or enfeoffment. One also had to have a vote in both the Imperial Assembly and one of the Imperial Circles. Such a person automatically was recognized with the status of being a realm prince of the Holy Roman Empire. The Principality of Liechtenstein amazingly survived all the problems and political upheavals of the past century and is a wealthy country today with a royal princely monarch as head of state.
This practice of ownership of a territory being bought and sold is also in the history of a number of principalities in France where the conclusion was made that "in the 17th and 18th centuries, a sovereign principality could be donated or sold was accepted as a matter of course." (François Velde, The Duchy of Bouillon, 2014: www.heraldica.org/topics/france/bouillon.htm) That is, it was a standard or customary practice, but, not in Germany and France only, but other countries. New dynasties of ruling lords--barons, viscounts, counts, and sovereign dukes were created by purchase in England as well as other European countries. In 1803, the United States doubled its size by purchasing the "Louisiana Territory" for $15,000,000.00 from the Emperor Napoleon. Besides other well-known purchases, the U. S. authorities bought the entire Philippine nation from Spain in 1898 for $20,000,000.00 after the Spanish-American War through the Treaty of Paris. And the islands of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix (the Danish West Indies) were purchased for 23 million dollars in 1916 from Denmark.
Before World War II, conquest was a legal and lawful way of obtaining or acquiring sovereign territory, but purchase was a better option as it was not only cheaper than war, but it saved lives and resources. The Hohenzollerns made it ". . . a policy of acquiring, by purchase, the lands of principalities overloaded by indebtedness, [this] became the customary method of the Hohenzollern princes [to expand the borders of their sovereign holdings]." (Karl Marx, The Divine Right of the Hohenzollern, 2014: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1856/12/13.htm) For example, "On 2 December 1791, Christian Frederick sold the sovereignty of his principalities to King Frederick William II of Prussia. . . ." (Principality of Bayreuth, 2914: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Bayreuth) More examples could be given, but this is considered sufficient to make the point about the legality and practice of both buying and selling of sovereign rights.
These practices were so prevalent and common place that in order to protect the country as a whole, in the 13th century, it became a fundamental law in France, as powerful as Salic law, that the Kings of France could not, under any circumstances, alienate, sell or dismember the Kingdom. It was to remain permanently intact and not follow the pattern of bartering sovereignty for money or favors -- a practice that prevailed all over Europe as well as in France. This law would not have been made if it was not possible for the kingdom to be sold or divided. But because it was possible, the lawyers and jurists made indivisibility an immutable and incontrovertible law so as to protect the kingdom intact. (L. Oppenheim and H. Lauterpacht, International Law, 8th ed., vol. I, no. 486 and 488)
The point is:
Princes can cede, concede, or contract away all or any part of their patrimonial power, as every proprietor can give, grant, or make contracts with respect to all or any part of his property. Sovereignty is property of the prince. Such is the patrimonial conception of the State in the fullest sense of those words. (Harold J. Laski, "The Law and the State, " Harvard Law Review, vol. 31, no. 1, 1918, p. 146)
Because such patrimonial princes held the full right of property in the sovereign powers attached to the state, they held not simply rights of use (jus utendi) in those powers but also the full sovereignty of disposal (jus abutendi) or of alienation (jus aliendi). . . . [This ownership right is] a power of disposing of, or transferring, all or any part of their effects to other persons. (Daniel Lee, "Popular Liberty, Princely Government, and the Roman Law," Grotius and Law, Larry May and Emily McGill, eds., 2014, p. 177)
A few examples of several common transfer situations are as follows:
[Phillip] also purchas’d from the K. [king] of Aragon the Counties of Roussillen and Cerdaigne, with the Barony of Montpellier, which that King, held in Fee for the Crown of France. (Atlas Geographus or, A Compleat System of Geography, Ancient and Modern, 1711, p. 19)
Twas given by Henry II of England and D. [duke] of Normandy to Robert de Montfort, afterwards purchas’d by Philip Angufius of France, came to the K. [king] of Navarre by way of Inheritance, was by him exchanged with Charles VI in 1410 and made a Dutchy and Peerage by Lewis XII. (Ibid., pp. 61-62)
Twas called the great Fief of Annis, because it depended on the Crown, but was purchas’d from its Lords by Philip the Fair, and Phillip pf Valois. (Ibid., p. 92)
In 1422, the Cantons of Uri, Underwold, and Switz, purchas’d the Town of Belizona from the Count of Monfax, but the Duke of Milan pretending to it, seiz’d it before-hand, and the Sissers attempted several times to recover it, but in vain. (Ibid., p. 291)
In 1473, Charles the Warlike D. [duke] of Burgundy, having some Years before purchas’d the County of Ferrette from Sigismund of Ansiria. . . . (Ibid., p. 292)
In 1493, the Cantons purchas’d the County and Town of Verdemberg. (Ibid., p. 294)
One of ‘em had great Differences with the People of Appenzel, who purchas’d their Liberty from him, and one of his Successors renew’d his Pretensions over ‘em afterwards. . . . (Ibid., p. 322)
[It] was purchas’d, together with the Country, by the Six first Cantons in 1488 from the Count of de Montfert. (Ibid., p. 323)
Twas formerly a Lordship possess’d by the Family of Doria, but purchas’d by D. Emanuel Philibert in 1576. His Son made it a Principality in 1620, joining to it the Marquisate of Marre, and the Lordship of Prele. (Ibid., p. 362)
"Past ages furnish numerous instances of alienation of territory by cession and donation." (Op cit., Edward Miner Gallaudet, p. 110) In other words, "In the middle ages the pledge of lands for the security of debts, or for money borrowed, was a common custom [which resulting in the transfer of the regal rights of ownership. . . ." (Ibid., p. 109) "Absolute or partial sales of territory have been [historically] frequent. . . ." (Ibid.)
The process of conveying sovereignty, included all the rights of ius imperii, ius gladii, ius majestatis and ius honorum, is called inter-vivos. It is the transferal of all the honors, rights, distinctions and privileges of rightful sovereignty whether as a reigning or non-territorial sovereign entity. It was a common practice.
A deposed king or prince's ownership of non-territorial sovereignty is an unshared, exclusive, patrimonial right and possession. There are many different lawful and legitimate ways under international law of conveying or transferring authentic rights to the title of royal sovereignty that have taken place in the history of practically every nation on earth. As example of some various ways of transfer:
The dukes of the younger Burgundian dynasty had, by inheritance, marriage, purchase, and conquests, brought together one of the most powerful, civilized, and wealthy states of mediaeval Europe; they ranged both under the Emperor of Germany and the King of France, as great feudatories, though almost entirely independent of either. . . . (Adolphus Louis Koeppen, The World in the Middle Ages, an Historical Geography, 1854, p.165)
As quoted before, a whole kingdom or principality may be obtained by one ". . . who has purchased it, or received it in exchange, or acquired it by any title whatever." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book III, chapter 13, no. 198) (emphasis added) Our right came mainly through a form of prescription called "adverse possession," which was activated by English private international law along with an act of alienation on the part of the former owners officially through their attorneys. (The rest of this website provides legally verified facts.)
One must understand that this was a common practice in the past, and is still legal under modern international law.
To get right to the point, the ". . . International Code specifically provides . . . that sovereignty may be bought and sold. . . ." (Oscar William Coursey, The Philippines and Filipinos, 1914, p. 101) For hundreds of examples of the lawful transfer of kingdoms and principalities in the nineteenth century, see Edward Hertslet's book, The Map of Europe by Treaty showing the Various Political and Territorial Changes which have Taken Place since the General Peace of 1814, three volumes, 1875) ". . . During the first World War . . . Denmark sold its West Indian possessions. . . ." (Wilhelm Georg Grewe, The Epochs of International Law, Michael Byers, ed. and trans., 2000, p. 119) History is full of such examples, note the following of which there are many more:
§ 10. There are numerous examples of such treaties of sale. In 1301, Theodoric, Landgrave of Thuringia, sold the Marquisate of Lusatia to Burchard, Archbishop of Magdeburg, for six hundred marks of silver, -- "insuper cum ministerialibus, Vasaliset Mancipiis, et aliis hominibus cujuscunque conditionis in jam dicta terra commorantibus," etc. In the same manner, in 1311, Dantzic, Derschovia and Swiecae, were sold by the Margrave of Brandenbourg to the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, for ten thousand marks. In 1333, the city and territory of Mechlin was transferred for one hundred thousand reals of gold, by a treaty of sale between its sovereign and the Earl of Flanders, the fealty being reserved. About the same time, the city and county of Lucques were sold by John of Luxemburg to Philip of Valois, for one hundred and eighty thousand florins; and a few years after, the sovereignty of Frankenstein was sold by the Duke of Silecia, for two thousand marks, to the king of Bohemia. The sovereignty which the Popes so long held over Avignon was purchased by Clement VI., for eighty thousand florins, from Jane, Queen of Naples and Countess of Provence. (Ward, Law of Nations, vol. 2, pp. 258-260; Dumont, Corps Lip., liv. 2, pp. 330, 364, 365; Dupuy, Droits de Boy F. C, p. 70; Leibnitz, Cod. Dip., p. 200; Biquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 1, tit. 1, cap. 2.)
§ 11. The practice also extended to the mortgaging of sovereignties, and the sales of reversionary interests in kingdoms. Thus, Robert, duke of Normandy, in order to raise money to engage in the first crusade, mortgaged his duchy for six thousand six hundred and sixty-fix pounds weight of silver, to his brother William, and transferred the possession before his departure for the holy land. In 1479, Louis XL bought the right of the house of Penthievre, the next male heirs in reversion, to Britanny. And fifteen years later, Charles VIII purchased, for an annual pension of four thousand three hundred ducats, an estate of five thousand, in lands in France or Italy, and the disposition of the Morea (when conquered,) of [Andreas] Paleologus, the nephew of Constantine, the last Christian emperor, his right to the whole empire of Constantinople. The act of sale being drawn up by two notaries, and ratified, Charles [VIII of France] assumed the robes and ornaments of the imperial dignity, and made no scruples in claiming the imperial rights vested in him by virtue of this purchase. (Ward, Law ef Nations, vol. 2, pp. 260-262 ; Garnicr, Hist, de France, liv. 1, pp. 429, 461, 494; Russell, Hist Modern Europe, vol. 1, pp. 185, 472; White, Hist. of France, p. 208.)
§ 12. It was also the custom to dispose of sovereignties and dominions by deeds of gift, and by bequests. The emperor Lewis V., created the dauphin Humbert king, with the full privilege of disposing of his sovereignty at will, during life, or at his death. In 1343, Humbert ceded his dominions to Philip of Valois, by solemn deed of gift. By similar deeds, and upon a like principle, the emperor Henry VI. conferred upon Richard I, the kingdom of Aries, and the emperor Baldwin gave to the duke of Burgundy the kingdom of Thessalonia. By bequests, not only were whole sovereignties disposed of, but the orders of succession were frequently changed. Thus, Charles H., king of Sicily and count of Provence, changed by will the order of succession to the county, and the claims of Charles VHI to the throne of Naples were founded upon the adoption of Louis of Anjou, by Jane, queen of Naples, in 1380, which was evidenced to all Europe by a solemn and public deed. (Ward, Law of Nations, vol. 2, pp. 262-264; Leibnitz, Cod. Dip., pp. 51, 237, 158, 220, 382; Pfelfel, Droit Pub. d'AUemagne, tome 1, p. 541; Henault, Hist. Chron, tome 1, p. 315; Dumont, Corps Dip., tome 1, pp. 288, 337, 362.)
In other words:
§7. A state may acquire property or domain in various ways ; its title may be acquired originally by mere occupancy, and confirmed by the presumption arising from the lapse of time; or by discovery and lawful possession; or by conquest, confirmed by treaty or tacit consent; or by grant, cession, purchase, or exchange; in fine, by any of the recognized modes by which private property is acquired by individuals. . . . (Wheaton, Mem. Int. Law, pt. 2, ch. 4, §§ 1, 4, 5 ; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 1, § 221-277 ; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 2, cap. 4; Vattd, Droit des Gens, liv. 2, chs. 7 and 11; Rutherforth, Institutes, b. 1, ch. 3; b. 2, ch. 9; Puffendorf,de Jur. Nat. et Gent., lib. 4, chs. 4, 5, 6; Moser, Versuch, etc., b. 5, cap. 9; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 35, et seq.; Schmaltz, Droit des Gens, liv. 4, ch. 1; Kluber, Droit des Gens, §§ 125, 126; Heffter, Droit International, § 76; Ortolan Domaine International, §§ 53, et seq.; Bowyer, Universal Public Law, ch. 28; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 1, cap. 4; Biquelme, Derecho, Pub. Int., lib. 1, tit. 1, cap. 2; Burlamaqui, Droit de la Nat. et des Gens, tome 4, pt. 3, ch. 5.) (Henry Wager Halleck, International Law: Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War, 1861, pp. 128-130)
"Sovereignty like anything else may be conveyed [lost or sold]." (Thomas A. Walker, A History of the Law of Nations, vol. 1, 1899, p. 297) ". . . It is this which gives the receiver [the purchaser] . . . regal [kingly and/or princely] right," depending on the legal status of the sovereign territory. (Johann Wolfgang Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations, , vol. 2, John Pawley Bate, trans., chapter 9, no. 19, 1916)
As stated before, when people think of a prince of a territory, whether reigning or deposed, they usually think of a long line of royal ancestors holding the royal prerogatives of sovereignty. However, throughout the ages, this was only part of the story as can be seen from the above. Dynasty change, without any blood connection, has been a fairly common event. The law allowed patrimonial kingdoms and principalities to be legally and lawfully bought and sold creating new dynasties with no connection to the blood lines of the past. The point is, legally:
. . . Grotius and the early writers upon public law [made it clear that] kingdoms were divided into patrimonial or proprietary, and usufructuary. The patrimonial, as it were, belonged to the monarch as a kind of private domain which he might alienate or dispose of it at will. (John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, Theodore Salisbury Woolsey, ed., no. 117, 1886, p. 133)
"Grotius saw sovereignty as a right in its own sense that could be acquired, partitioned, alienated or exchanged." (Oliver Jütersonke and Rolf Schwarz, "Slicing up the cake: divisible sovereignty in the pre and post-Westphalian order," European Standing Group on International Relation (SGIR), Turin Conference 2007, p. 4, 2012: http://turin.sgir.eu/uploads/Schwarz-divsov_and_westphalian_order.pdf; and Peter Haggenmacher, Grotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste, 1983, p. 538) And history supports his claim over and over again. He explained that, ". . . The law of nature . . . allows every man the right to relinquish what is his own. . . ." (Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace, Book II, chapter 4, no. 4) In other words, "As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, every State as a rule can cede a part of its territory to another State, or by ceding the whole of its territory can even totally merge in another State." (Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. 1, no. 215, 1920, p. 377) History is filled with such examples. The following are a few more:
Sometime between 1097 and 1101 the Viscount of Bourges Odo Arpinus sold Bourges and Dun in what is now central France to the king of France for 60,000 pounds or shillings.
Eager to expand Scotland's territory and end the nation's conflict with Norway, King Alexander III paid King Magnus IV 4,000 merks plus an annuity of 100 merks to gain sovereignty over the Firth of Clyde and Kintyre as well the Hebrides islands and the Isle of Man. The deal was formalized by the Treaty of Perth, which was signed July 2, 1266.
The Dauphiné de Viennois, an ancient feudal state in modern-day southeastern France, was acquired by King Philip VI of France in 1349 from the heavily indebted and heirless Humbert II of Viennois, who received a lump sum of 300,000 guilders and a generous pension in return. As a result of the purchase, the heir to the French throne was thereafter known as the Dauphin ("Dolphin").
Back in 1417 the ruler of the Burgraviate of Nuremberg, an affluent territory in what is now Bavaria, Germany, parted with 400,000 Hungarian gold guilders to acquire the Margraviate of Brandenburg, which was located in modern-day northeastern Germany. The purchase paved the way for the formation of the Kingdom of Prussia.
In 1721, Tsar Peter the Great paid King Frederick I of Sweden two million silver rubles for the territories and handed over most of Finland in return.
. . . The Caribbean island of Saint Croix was purchased from France in 1733 by the Danish West India Company, which was acting on behalf of the state of Denmark-Norway. The company paid a total of 750,000 livres for the territory.
King Louis XV arranged the acquisition of Corsica in 1768 in lieu of the debt and it duly became a territory of France.
Singapore . . . in 1819 . . . purchase[d] the territory for the British East India Company. The Sultan received an annuity of 5,000 Spanish dollars, while the Temenggong was awarded a yearly payment of 3,000 Spanish dollars.
Having successfully bagged the Louisiana Territory and Florida, the US government negotiated with local Native American tribes in 1836 to acquire 3,149 square miles of land in the modern-day northwest corner of Missouri. The so-named Platte Purchase cost $7,500, a paltry $207,000 (£166k) in today's money.
. . . The British government . . . bought Frederiksnagore (modern-day Serampore) in 1839 from Denmark and followed up the purchase with the acquisition of the fortified Danish outpost of Dansborg (Tranquebar today) in 1845. The monies paid amounted to some £125,000, which translates to $18.7 million (£15m) in 2019.
. . . In 1865, Austria sold the territory of Saxe-Lauenburg in present-day northern Germany to Prussia for 2.5 million Danish rigsdalers. [This was lost to Austria in their expulsion from the German Confederation under Otto von Bismarck.]
The Dominion of Canada got in on the action with the purchase of Rupert's Land, which included modern-day Manitoba, the lion's share of Saskatchewan, southern Alberta, southern Nunavut and northern parts of Ontario and Quebec, as well as the Northwest Territories. The vendor was the Hudson's Bay Company. The sale was finalised in 1870 and cost the nation £300,000, a figure that translates to just $44 million (£35m) in 2019 money.
[In 1898], Guam . . . Puerto Rico [and] . . . Cuba and . . . the Philippines . . . for $20 million, the equivalent of $618 million (£498m) today.
[The Caroline Islands, Mariana Islands and Palau] were sold to the German government [in 1899] for 25 million pesetas, which is around $88 million (£71m) in 2019 money.
. . . The territories [of Cagayan Sulu, Sibutu, the Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoal] were sold to the USA [from Spain in 1900] for $100,000, which works out at $3 million (£2.4m) when inflation is taken into account.
The most recent of America's territorial purchases, the Danish West Indies was acquired in 1916 for a total of $25 million in gold, which is $588 million ($473m) today when adjusted for inflation. The territory, which consists of three Caribbean islands, was renamed the US Virgin Islands.
. . . 69 square miles in modern-day northwestern Russia near the Finnish and Norwegian borders was sold to the Soviet Union in 1947 for 700 million Finnish marks, which is $48 million (£38.6m) in today's money.
Gwadar was an overseas territory of Muscat and Oman for 200 years. A small enclave, the port city was surrounded by Pakistan and in 1958 the government of Muscat and Oman agreed to sell the territory to Pakistan for $3 million, which is $27 million (£22m) in today's money.
West Germany shelled out 280 million marks, $558 million (£449m) when adjusted for inflation, to get [Elten, Selfkant, and Suderwick from the Netherlands, 1963].
The Japanese government acted in 2012 to exert its sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China and Taiwan, by buying the uninhabited territory from the Kurihara family for 2.1 billion yen, which works out at $23.6 million (£19m) in 2019 money.
In truth, the greatest nations and the haughtiest rulers have engaged in such transactions; selling as the circumstances suited them outlying provinces of their vast estates. England, France, Germany, Russia furnish instances of this kind of traffic. A King of England sold Dunkerque to France. Napoleon sold the Mississippi valley to America. Most of the mediatised princes of Germany sold their sovereign rights for money. During the Caliph's own reign Russia has sold her great province of Alaska to the United States. Denmark has sold her duchy of Lauenburg to the King of Prussia. France has recently bought up the sovereignty in Monaco. Not many years ago the Prince of Mingrelia sold his sovereign rights to Russia for a pension, and more recently the Elector of Hesse-Cassel sold such remnants of his -- rights as had survived defeat to Germany. No one denies that such transfers of authority are legitimate, if they are carried out with due regard to all existing rights. In India we have bought up sovereignty after sovereignty. Not long since the King of Holland was on the point of vending Luxemburg to France. (John Nichols, The Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 240, January-June 1876, p. 176)
The point is, whether reigning or deposed, the dynastic rights of a "proprietary" royal house, were and still are now, ". . . a disposable mass [--] for inheritances, compensations, exchanges, securities, cessions, donations, partitions, indemnities, satisfactions, sales, and purchases (Arentin 1981; Grewe 1984: 462-3; Klingenstein 1997: 442)." (Benno Teschkee, The Myth of 1648. 2003, p. 231) The transfer of the Principality of Halberstadt came through these time-honored methods of acquisition. In other words, the ". . . right to acquire [or own a sovereign] territory involves the right to govern and dispose of it [as one sees fit]." (Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, 1955, p. 213) In other words, ". . . In every international State [reigning and non-reigning] is the power to transfer territorial jurisdiction [the supreme right to rule and govern a kingdom or principality]." (United States Congress, The Congressional Globe, part 1, 1866, p. 696) "A state may voluntarily relinquish its territorial sovereignty. . . . This method of transferring sovereignty is sometimes referred to as acquiescence, estoppel, and even prescription." (William R. Slowmanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 6th ed., 2011, p. 300)
"In 2011, China agreed to increased investment in Tajikistan in exchange for sovereignty over 1,000 square km of territory in the Pamir Mountains, including some 5,000 inhabitants." (Stephen Press, Sovereignty can be bought and sold like a commodity; 2019: https://aeon.co/ideas/sovereignty-can-be-bought-and-sold-like-a-commodity) "Within the last century, Mexico, Japan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Oman, Djibouti, Ethiopia, the Seychelles, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Chile and Peru have taken or given money in exchange for the transfer of jurisdiction over certain inhabitants in a given territory." (Ibid.) "Such transactions are fully sanctioned under the current [and the past] international order." (Stephen Clowney, "Should We Buy Selling Sovereignty?," Duke Law Journal, vol. 66, January 2017; 2019: https://dlj.law.duke.edu/2017/01/should-we-buy-selling-sovereignty) Another example is that of Leopold II of Belgium's sale of the Congo in 1908, which he ruled as a patrimonial king and owner separate from his rights as the Belgium King. The nation bought the Congo from him for 215.5 million Francs. (See various articles on the internet) In August of 1947, Great Britain transferred all their sovereign rights over British India to the newly formed Indian republic and Pakistan. (Yasmin Khan, The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, New Edition, 2017) Transfers of sovereignty by sale, wills, purchase, gifts or mortgages took place. Such actions have a long and distinguished history that is more civil, ethical and honorable than war and violence ever could be. Such aggression is now outlawed in international law.
Eight Legal and Lawful Methods Transferred all the Rights
Deposed de jure or legal sovereignty are both a private law rights as well as public law rights. Whereas, reigning sovereignty is exclusively under public jurisdiction, deposed sovereignty is governed by both public and private law. As a direct result, both private law transfer methods, and public law modes of conveyance, had the full legal power to transfer all the honors, privileges and distinctions of the principality of Halberstadt. (See "Public and Private Law as it relates to the Transfer of the Principality of Halberstadt" in "The Public and Non-Public Use of Titles in International Law")
It is most impressive that not just one or two, but eight different, equally binding acquisition modes, unitedly and perfectly transferred the principality and all its regal rights to the Goff/Harradine family. These laws are listed as follows along with the dates when they were achieved:
The transfer is an established fact -- each of the above perfected the change in ownership in its own unique way.
This claim is as sure as any other royal claim that ever existed on the earth. It is that profound. Our case could hardly be stronger.
In fact, we also qualified for four more valid international transfer modes, "novation," "consolidation of title," "highest entitlement on earth on an international level," and "international proprietary estoppel" as well. Since each is composed of similar principles involved in most of the other acquisition laws mentioned above, we have not listed them. Nevertheless, this means there are, in fact, four more powerful witnesses to the truth of the transfer. There is now a total of twelve valid domestic and international conveyance methods involved. Novation and consolidation of title are explained on the web page: "A Seventh and an Eighth Method also Transferred all the Rights and Privileges" and international proprietary estoppel and international highest right on earth is described in "Three More Legally Binding Methods Transferred All the Rights to the Principality")
The grand and obvious conclusion is that this is one of the most profoundly certain claims on earth based on verified, confirmed and extensive evidence. (See The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
It would be a lot more comfortable to operate below the radar, merely claim our rights privately, and not stick our necks out, but international law requires or obligates that one publicly assert his or her rights or lose them. In other words, to maintain what is considered to be of great value and worth to us personally, we must obey the law. By this means, it is possible to preserve deposed legal sovereignty from generation to generation, but such obedience ". . . imposes on him an obligation to make known his rights." (Hugo Grotius, The Law of Nations, Book II, chapter 11, no. 141) (See "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership" on this website or "DEPOSED SOVEREIGNTY AND ROYALTY: How to Preserve it and How it can be Lost" at http://www.nobility-royalty.com/the_sovereign_rights_of_deposed_kings__monarchs_and_sovereign_princes.htm and also Dr. Kerr's book The Entitlement to Rule: Legal, Non-Territorial Sovereignty in International Law at http://www.the-entitlement-to-rule.com)
The Law of Nations also requires or behooves one to provide solid proof, or a claim is considered to be no better than a family fairy tale, a phony pretense, or mere make believe. Thus, we have this website to fulfill these two important legal mandates: a public presence and valid proof, which proof was certified as valid by legal experts and the numerous citations and explanations of legally verified facts as found throughout this website. (For the requirement of proof, see "Proof is Necessary" in "The Law makes the Difference between an Authentic and a Fraudulent Claim," and "The Mathematical Certainty of the Claim")
Even though Halberstadt is a small sovereign regal entity, the ownership of ". . . sovereignty is not of like character with other things, rather, in its exalted rank, it far exceeds other things." (Hugo Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 12, no. I) It is something truly magnificent -- there is something supreme and wonderful about it, which is above most things in life. ". . . The ruler or sovereign of a State [reigning or deposed] is, in international law, . . . considered as representing, in his person, [all] its sovereign dignity [honor and glory] . . . ." (William Teulon Swan Stallybrass, A Society of States,Sovereignty, 1919, p. 32) The point is, "All the majesty of the nation resides in the person of the prince. . . ." (Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book I, chapter 15, no. 188) "Every thing that emanates from the throne ought to bear the character of purity, nobleness, and greatness." (Ibid.)
However, ownership of a real sovereign title does not make a man important, great, or good deep inside himself. Truly noble people are people with integrity, good works and compassion for what is right. We highly value what we have, but true nobility or inner greatness is earned, not bestowed, conveyed or transferred.
Our house rules mandate that no knighthoods will be conferred on non-family members, no titles will be given out to people outside of the family, nothing of regal importance will be sold or bartered. The claims, although public titles under international law, will not be flaunted, although they must be used as required by law. (See "Maintaining Deposed Sovereignty and De jure Ownership")
For those unfamiliar with the legal concepts discussed herein, which is most of us, it is extremely easy to misunderstand what is written on this website. To avoid such, you are cordially invited to ask questions and make comments. We also welcome corrections.