Paper vs. Blood

A treaty, law, contract, bylaws, or a constitution, without
those willing to honor it verbatim, is worth only as much as the piece of paper it is written on. The government of the United States is clearly not the same as the one prescribed by the writers of the US Constitution. It has evolved (or devolved) into quite a beast. The US has one of the world's largest bureaucracies, if not the largest in terms of size and spending. There are departments and departments for departments and even departments for those. The Bill Of Rights, originally meant as a reiteration of limitations of government, are now taken as "rights granted by the state" in popular culture. Well, at least that is what the media tells us these days. Back when the Bill Of Rights was amended to the Constitution, opponents argued that having such a document would give people the wrong idea: that the Constitution or the government grants these rights (thus can take them away at will) as opposed to the common belief at the time that certain rights are inalienable -- granted by God from the moment of one's birth, not by the state or some piece of paper.

Now the United States has turned into a "surveillance society", which is ultimately the precursor to a Police State, because of this idea in mainstream society that rights are granted. What can the citizen do about it? Well, fight it in the Supreme Court of course! SCOTUS, the last bastion of protection of civil and human rights, will likely take ages before it even hears the case, not to mention the massive expense of finding an attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. Even then there is no guarantee that they will veto an act of Congress or the President.

In the meantime, Congress and the President are free to bicker and continue their political tug-of-war for power. Sometimes Congress has the upper-hand; sometimes it's the Presidency. This day and age, it's been hands-down the President that has had the upper-hand in terms of Power. The President has taken to the Unitary Executive theory.

This essentially means that it is in the President's opinion that Congress cannot limit his constitutional authority over the executive branch (of which he is the sole head) and how he "faithfully" executes the laws of the nation. This interpretation of the constitution gives the President an extraordinary amount of power: to make war, to issue executive orders ad nauseam, to direct the bureaucracy to either carry out a law or not, etc.

Again, an agreement is only worth as much as the paper that its on if the people don't honor it. Now compare that with a living, breathing constitution. That living constitution is the monarch. Take HRH Queen Elizabeth II for example. She has all the theoretical powers of an absolute monarch (or absolute dictator) but chooses rather not to exercise those powers unless the Prime Minister asks it of Her. In theory, she has all the powers of the US President, Congress and Supreme Court all rolled into one. That's quite a lot of power! So why don't we see this power trip in the Queen that we see in members of Congress or the President?

The reason is simple: She does not wish to be tyrant. Very few monarchs actually wish to be autocratic despots. Monarchs aren't gods, nor are they perfect. They need input from the people as well as their courtiers and advisers. Could the Queen theoretically rule without Parliament? Sure - and rather quite easily. There is enough bureaucracy in place in the UK that you'll be reminded of the Monty Python skit "The Ministry of Silly Walks". But monarchs already have it all - the power, the prestige, the wealth - they are born on the top, not elected nor appointed. So where is the incentive to deceive people or remove their rights if they already have everything a politician could only dream of? The incentive doesn't exist.

The only concern of an enlightened monarch therefore becomes the People. And of course if a ruler is concerned about their People, they are concerned about their economic lot in life, their rights, their privileges, etc. This makes a monarch a Protector of the People against those that would do them harm, including infringe upon the rights of the People.

And keep in mind, the British monarchy dates back to Anglo-Saxon kings of England - and right there you are talking about nearly 1,500 years. The American Constitution in terms of tradition and culture is puny compared to a millennium and a half of tradition and culture. The Brits have had time to work out what works and what doesn't and the ultimate arbiter of that isn't a piece of paper open to interpretation written a couple of centuries ago - it's a living, breathing person with an opinion when government officials and Parliaments are wrong and neutral when they are right.

How's that for a constitution?

Political Compass: January 2008

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77

Interesting... according to Political Compass, I'm not far away from the beliefs of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI...

Mes Deux Cents: The American Monarchy (Past, Present and Future)

Mes Deux Cents: The American Monarchy (Past, Present and Future)

My response to Miss Mes Deux Cents is essentially this: we wouldn't have a situation like a two-family dynasty if the United States were an actual monarchy. I don't understand this obsession with the need to "elect" the Head of State. Elections for President are the reason that now we are essentially down to two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. It's special interests groups, corporate lobbyists and donators, endless armies of attorneys... why is this NOT the case in the United Kingdom? Do you suppose HRH Queen Elizabeth II owes anything to corporations and lobbyists? Nope. If Queen Elizabeth II doesn't owe her position to anyone or any organization, She's not particularly beholden to them.

This is why the UK doesn't have the same problems we do with special interests. If the USA were a monarchy, we wouldn't have these problems. Period.

New Monarchist League - Perhaps

I am seriously considering starting a new monarchist league based in the United States and Europe. It should probably be a club at first until membership increases. Most monarchist leagues that I have come across seem to support standing monarchies rather than monarchies that are no long ruling. Also, I do not want to limit this monarchist league to simply royals, but also a focus on noble families - past and present.

The purpose of this proposed monarchist league would be the following:

1) Recognize and defend existing monarchies
2) Recognize and support claimants to defunct monarchies in an effort to restore them and the monarchist system
3) Recognize and defend existing nobility as being essential to a well-functioning and just society
4) Recognize and support claimants to defunct nobilities in an effort to restore their rightful titles and lands
5) Help to create new knights and nobles in recognizing the commoner for their service to fellow man as well as a God and King.

I intend to make this a formal organization where everyone will be required to properly address their superiors by their title. This will be as much of a Brotherhood as it would be an organization dedicated to monarchy. The titles for the officers of this monarchist league will be the ancient titles of the medieval period for officers. Titles such as CEO and President reek of republics and corporations. Titles for officers such as Chancellor, Steward, Marshal and such would be more appropriate.

Latin should also be frequently used in official texts in addition to English and other European languages.

Political Cortex: Answers to Sean Hannity, No. 9

Political Cortex: Answers to Sean Hannity, No. 9

I'm becoming more and more impressed with American Conservatives and how completely un-conservative they are becoming these days. Apparently Mr. Sean Hannity recently trashed monarchy as an evil form of government:

"Monarchism, National Socialism, fascism, communism--all these forms of authoritarianism are illegitimate and inherently unjust." - Sean Hannity in his book Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.

Is that so? The government (and therefore the tradition of constitution) of the United Kingdom is inherently unjust and illegitimate? This unjust and illegitimate government has been around since not long after the fall of Rome in West. That's nearly 1,500 years of constitution. Americans have had merely over 200 years of constitution and are endlessly bickering with a crumbling economy and political institutions. Yes, this unjust and illegitimate form of government - monarchy - in England created the basis for all American political and legal thought, including the notion of Common Law and parliamentary procedure. I simply cannot think of anything more conservative and constitutional than monarchy. I have news for you, Mr. Hannity: Conservatism isn't about money and war. It's about tradition, culture, the spirit, and law. It's about the chivalric and Greco-Roman virtues, and of God.

If Mr. Hannity wants to defeat liberalism, he needs to stop thinking like a liberal.

Americans already believe in Monarchy

Today I posted a response to a thread in RoyalCello's monarchist forums about the best argument for supporting monarchy in America (and to get people who are normally republicans to support monarchism in the USA):

My main argument for a monarchy in the USA (if I had to make one) would be that Americans already do favor a monarchy of sorts, and it has nothing to do with the Presidency.

Most Americans feel that the defenders of their rights against government encroachment would be the Supreme Court. Members of the Supreme Court are not democratically elected, but appointed (and therefore feel no special vassalage to the special interests that plague republican politicians) and they are there for life, removable only through resignation or through committing some infamous crime. Therefore, they feel no special obligation to those that appointed them. They are completely free to be independent in thought and conscience.

THAT is the advantage of monarchy. Americans already believe in it. The trouble is "King" is a bad word in the USA.

I hope that gets the point across. To most people the Supreme Court is sacred and the ultimate protector of their rights. Monarchy would be no different, except it wouldn't be a panel of nine Justices, but the benefits would still apply.

It Never Ends

Hamas challenges Egypt's bid to close Gaza border

By Nidal al-Mughrabi

RAFAH, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Egypt started to close its breached border with the Gaza Strip on Friday but Palestinian militants bulldozed a new opening in a challenge to Cairo and Israel's blockade of the Hamas-run territory.

Palestinian crowds cheered as Hamas militants used a bulldozer to flatten sections of the chain and concrete fence. In a scene broadcast live on television around the world, Egyptian riot police watched from a distance as hundreds of people poured into Egypt.

Full Story


*Sigh* It never ends. I like to style myself as an optimist, but it seems there is never a day that passes without some sort of violence or conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I would prefer a completely neutral entity in control of the region - and you guessed it - a monarchy. These people desperately need a neutral mediating force against the passions of the people. We desperately need the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem back. The King, of course, would be the current claimant, His Imperial Highness, Archduke Otto von Habsburg. This would certainly improve things, in my opinion.

Powers of Roman Emperors vs Others

What gave the Roman Emperor so much power in ancient republican Rome? Where did the title of Emperor come from? I intend to answer these questions in this article as well as compare the powers of Roman Emperors, beginning with Augustus Caesar, to that of a modern Prime Minister, the US President, and a modern Monarch, like HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

Rome didn't really have a written constitution, much like the UK doesn't really have a written constitution, BUT there were traditions and customs that essentially made up the theoretical constitution of the Roman Republic, as is also the case in the UK. These were essentially "common law" constitutions.

After the fall of the Etruscan kings in Rome, monarchs were an absolute "no-no" under the Roman Republic. While there was always a Senate in Rome, it was in the period of the Republic supreme. The motto, after all, was SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romanus - "The Senate and People of Rome". The Senate itself was a parliamentary deliberative body composed of nobles of the Patrician class. So whomever would "rule" over Rome had to not only impress the Senate but also be from the Senate - as in a Patrician, at least in the beginning. So in theory, Rome was a Republic until its fall in the West in 476 AD. In practice, the Emperor was absolute ruler.

* The title Emperor is derived from the Latin title Imperator. This title made the bearer Commander-In-Chief of the Roman Legions.

* Augustus Caesar also held the title Princeps - First Citizen as well as Princeps Senatus - First Senator. We receive the English word Prince from Princeps. This title granted the bearer position as a Prime Minister of sorts, presiding over the Senate and the bureaucracy. The Latin description of this title is primus inter pares - first among equals.

* Another title that is no longer used today, except by the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, is Pontifex Maximus - Supreme Pontiff (chief priest). This title made the bearer the head of the state religion.

* Closely related to Pontifex Maximus was the title of Augustus - "Majestic". The bearer of this title would be worshipped as a god, or at least in the religious sense, seen as infallible.

* Consul was an important title, denoting the bearer as a high magistrate within the Senate; closely related to princeps.

* Caesar, while being a surname, was also an honorific title designating who is the Emperor - the big boss. This had no real powers, just honorary - implying dictatorship in Rome much in the same way that Julius Caesar was dictator of Rome for life.

* Perhaps the most important designation and the one with the real power was Tribunitia Potestas - the "Power of Tribunes". This carried to major powers: 1) the power to veto any act of any Roman institution, including the Senate; and 2) the authority to have anyone who interferes in the execution of the duties of the office of Tribune to be put to death.

A modern Prime Minister, by definition, would have Princeps. Prime Ministers are consider "first among equals" - primus inter pares - in the bureaucracy as well as their respective parliaments. This makes a Prime Minister Head of Government. While being the chief bureaucrat, a prime minister does lack the other powers. He cannot command the military without the OK from the Head of State, nor can he veto any legislation. Most prime ministers are also coming from secular institutions, so no pontifex maximus.

The US President, on the other hand, not only is Princeps, but also Imperator and has some of the Tribunitia Potestas powers, such as the Veto and the ability to have government agencies enforce the law and conduct investigations. Since the USA has constitutional rules against state religions, pontifex maximus is out, and certainly the US President is not President for Life - so no Caesar or dictator. The US President is also chief diplomat, but lacks membership in the Congress and is not a Supreme Court Justice. So he gets partial Consul designation, for the diplomatic part.

The Monarch of the UK, HRH The Queen Elizabeth II, has ALL of these powers, though the monarchs of Great Britain have tended not to use them, but rather delegate them to Parliament and the Prime Ministers. The Queen is also head of the Anglican Church and could withhold Royal Assent - pretty much a Veto. The Queen is Commander-In-Chief of the British Armed Forces, Supreme Judge, Chief Diplomat, etc. etc. If the Queen does exercise these powers, they are rarely done so. Autocratic rule is generally frowned upon in this day and age.

Too Much Free Time For Danish Protesters

So anti-monarchy protesters are at it again, this time in Denmark. It's not as if they were mean-spirited or anything, just showing Queen Margrethe II and Prince Consort Henrik in a pool of blood next to a guillotine. This is a direct reference to the French Revolution: that wonderful period in time when everyone was equal and tolerant (yes, that was sarcasm).

What I find amazingly funny is their assertion that monarchy is entirely outdated. Has His Imperial Highness, Archduke Otto von Habsburg pointed out, a Republic is a pretty old system too and produced far more tyrants.

I mean, forget that Queen Margrethe II and Prince Consort Henrik of Denmark have been model heads of state. The protesters, I'm sure, would rather have a Stalin or a Robespierre. That's not to say Republics cannot be successful, but the whole psyche of an entire state changes when you go from a monarchy to a republic.

To quote blogger Scott:

Scott said...

It's so often about measuring the crown for their own head, I find, even now: the classic statement that they find it intolerable for every child but one to grow up in their country knowing they have the chance to be head of state some day, as if it is the single measurement of opportunity.

And who is to say that monarchy cannot coexist constitutionally with some republican institutions? Like, say... a Parliament? As far as I know Denmark has a Parliament unless something drastically changed since the last time I checked. The bottom line is there are some people that just want attention. These protesters are it. "Look at us! We need attention!"

Link to the story: Danish anti-monarchy protest brings mixed reactions

Chivalry

There seems to be something missing in our ever advancing modern society. With all the fast-paced instant gratification hedonistic individualism, it's probably not very difficult to see exactly what is missing: Chivalry.

Chivalry has been outdated since perhaps the end of the Victorian Era and it's even more dead now than ever before. The only things that keep people "in-line" these days is fear of punishment. Most of the time a store employee isn't going to be rude to customer because they know they stand to lose their jobs if they are. Corporate bosses generally won't engage in anything too questionable mainly because of the fear of civil suits. Civil suits cut into profits after all. Sometimes I wonder if the Italian Mafia has a stronger code of ethics than Corporate entities. At least the mob has a code of honor.

And while the hyper-feminism has calmed down a bit, many women still see men willing to do things for them out of love and respect as either "too clingy" or sexist.

And many folks live day-to-day; some because they want to and others because they are trying to make ends meet. Of course I couldn't blame those that try to earn an honest living and care for their families. My contention would be for those that really don't care for anything higher than themselves. Their ego is their god, gratified only by sexual conquests or material possessions.

My argument for Chivalry isn't necessarily just to promote the recreation of the Knightly class. I would like to see a code ethics and honor of the knights more so than the titles. Things like service, duty, honor, mercy, sacrifice -- these are all things that essentially suppress the "self", the almighty ego of modern era. Chivalry is the ultimate rejection of the animalistic and primitive desires of survival. Corporations by definition, for example, are an complete antithesis to this notion of Chivalry. In the world of business and enterprise, survival of the fittest is the law of the land. Each corporation is competing for the same limited resources. They are only held in check by criminal and civil law. And where an executive knows he cannot be found out, he'll do whatever it takes to make himself look good. But this applies not just to executives, but all sorts of white collar individuals, yuppies, trendy urbanites and suburbanites.

I suppose the only place where such ideals prevail would be in the warrior class (as they always have), i.e. the military. My hats off to those that serve. But their's is a difficult lot and there isn't much fame to be had. I certainly do not advocate or worship violence. I don't like the military because they blow things up. I like them because of their ancient codes of honor and ethics, something absolutely missing from the rest of our society.

Monarchy vs. Republic

His Imperial Highness, Archduke Otto von Habsburg wrote the following article about a Monarchy versus a Republic:

We come here to the formal aspect of the State -- the question of monarchy versus republic -- which is mostly discussed from a highly emotional rather than a rational point of view. The debate proceeds by arguments ad hominem. A few undignified occupants of royal thrones are enumerated, and are then presented as examples of monarchy as such. The defenders of monarchy are no better. They point to corrupt professional politicians, of whom there exist a sufficient number, and claim that this is the necessary consequence of a republican constitution. Neither is a rational argument. There have been good and bad monarchies -- good republics (like Switzerland), and others which are far from living up to the same standard.

Every human institution, after all, has its good and bad sides. As long as this world is inhabited by men and not angels, crimes and mistakes will continue to occur... Republicans are fond of claiming that a monarchical regime means the rule of the aristocracy. Monarchists, on the other hand, point to the economic difficulties, the tax burdens, and State interference in private life in present-day republics, and compare this state of affairs with the freedom and economic well-being under the pre-1914 monarchies. Both arguments are unconvincing. They use the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Anyone who is honest will compare present-day monarchies with present-day republics. It will then be apparent that the aristocracy of birth occupies no greater share of leading positions in monarchies than in republics, and that all states, whatever their form of government, are equally affected by the serious problems of the present day.

Republicans frequently claim, in addition, that monarchy is a form of government belonging to the past, while republicanism is that of the future. Even a slight knowledge of history is enough to disprove this. Both forms have been in existence since the earliest times (though the monarchical periods have usually lasted considerably longer than the republican ones). In any case, it is misleading to call an institution which we already find in ancient Greece, Rome and Carthage, the form of government of the future.

In any objective discussion, we must also assign this question its proper place in our hierarchy of values. It is not an accident that we speak of the "form" of government. There is a great difference between the "form" and the "content" -- or purpose -- of the State. The latter is its essential raison d'etre, its very soul. The former corresponds to the bodily form of a living being. The one can certainly not exist without the other; but in any sane hierarchy of values the soul occupies a higher place than the body.

The essential purpose of the State, its "content," is rooted in natural law. The State is not an end in itself; it exists for the sake of its citizens. It is therefore not the source of all law (a claim that is still far too widely accepted), nor is it all-powerful. Its authority is circumscribed by the rights of its citizens. It is only free to act in those fields that are outside their free initiative. The State is therefore at all times the servant of natural law. Its task is to give practical effect to this law; nothing more.

If the mission of the State is the practical realization of natural law, the form of government is a means by which the community attempts to achieve this aim. It is not an end in itself. This explains the relatively subordinate importance of this whole question. Undoubtedly a great deal of importance attaches to the choice of the right means, since this choice will determine whether or not the end is attained. But what is lasting in political life is only natural law. The attempt to realize this law in practice will always have to take account of current conditions. To speak of an eternally valid form of government, right under all circumstances, shows ignorance and presumption.

From this it would seem to follow that it is fruitless to try to determine -- mostly from the wrong philosophical premises -- the objective value of one or the other form of government. The discussion will only become fruitful if we keep in mind the end which every such form is intended to serve. It is therefore not a question of investigating what value we are to attach to monarchies or republics as such. What we must ask ourselves is which form offers the best chances of safeguarding natural law under present-day conditions.

Once this point has been clarified, we can pass on to two other problems, which have frequently been dragged into this discussion and are threatening to poison the whole atmosphere. There is constant controversy about the relation between monarchism, republicanism and democracy. Here again we encounter the blurred thinking characteristic of our era of slogans and propaganda. The concept of democracy has become infinitely elastic. In Russia it is compatible with mass liquidations, secret police and labour camps. In America, on the other hand -- and occasionally in Europe -- even political theorists are frequently unable to distinguish between republicanism and democracy. Furthermore, both words are used to designate conceptions and characteristics that go far beyond the political field, and belong to the economic or sociological sphere. It must therefore be clearly stated that, generally speaking, democracy means the right of the people to participate in determining their own development and future.

If we accept this definition, we shall see that neither of the two classical forms of government is by nature linked with democracy. Democracy can exist under both forms, just as there exist authoritarian republics as well as monarchies. Monarchists, in fact, frequently claim democracy functions better under a monarchy than under a republic. If we look at present-day Europe, there is certainly some truth in this argument, though its validity may be restricted in time and space. At the same time, it is necessary to point out that in small states which are strongly rooted in their traditions, like Switzerland, democracy and republicanism can coexist successfully.

Still more hotly discussed is the question of monarchism and socialism, and republicanism and socialism. The reason for this is largely that in German-speaking countries the great majority of the official socialist parties are republican in outlook. Hence we find there among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that socialism and monarchism are incompatible. This belief is due to a basic confusion. Socialism -- at least in its present- day form -- is essentially an economic and social program. It has nothing to do with the form of government. The republicanism of some socialist parties does not arise from their actual programs, but is due to the personal beliefs of their leaders. This is shown by the fact that the majority of the really powerful European socialist parties are not republican but monarchist. This is the case in Britain, in Scandinavia and in Holland. In all these countries we not only find excellent relations existing between the Crown and the socialists, but one cannot escape the impression that a monarchy provides a better soil for working-class parties than a republic. In any case, experience shows that socialism remains longer in power under a monarchy than under a republic. One of the great leaders of the British Labour Party explained this by the moderating and balancing influence of the Crown, which enabled socialists to carry through their program more slowly, more reasonably, and hence also more successfully. At the same time, a ruler standing above the parties represented a sufficient safeguard to the opposition, so that it need not have recourse to extreme measures in order to regain power. It could watch developments more calmly.

Whether or not this is true, the facts prove that it is unjustified to draw an artificial dividing-line between monarchism and socialism, or between monarchism and classical democracy. The same applies to republicanism. One other point must be mentioned. This is the frequent confusion, particularly among those not trained in political science, between monarchy as a form of government and one or other monarchical dynasty; in other words, the confusion between monarchism and legitimism.

Legitimism, a special tie with one person or one dynasty, is something that can hardly ever be discussed in reasonable and objective terms. It is a matter of subjective feeling, and is therefore advocated or opposed by arguments ad hominem. Any rational discussion of current problems must therefore make a clear distinction between monarchism and dynastic legitimism. The form of government of a State is a political problem. It must therefore be discussed independently of the family or person who stand, or stood, at the head of the State. Even in monarchies dynastic changes take place. In any case, the institution is of greater importance than its representative; the latter is mortal while the former is, historically speaking, immortal.

To look at a form of government merely with an eye to its present representative leads to grotesque results. For in that case republics, too, would have to be judged not on political grounds, but according to the characters of their presidents. This would, of course, be the height of unfairness.

It should be added that among the protagonists of monarchism in republican Europe, there are relatively few legitimists. King Alfonso XIII of Spain once remarked that legitimism cannot survive one generation. It is valuable where there exists a strongly established, traditional form of government, with which most of the citizens are satisfied. But this kind of legitimism can be found in republics as well as in monarchies. One can speak of republican legitimism in Switzerland and the United States just as one can speak of monarchist legitimism in Britain and Holland. In most countries of Europe, of course, there have been so many profound changes in the course of the centuries that legitimism is less frequently encountered. Under such conditions, it is particularly dangerous to have recourse to emotional arguments.

We are now in a position to define what we understand by a monarchy and a republic. Monarchy is that form of government in which the head of State is not elected, bases his office on a higher law, with the claim that all power derives from a transcendental source. In a republic, the highest officer of State is elected, and hence derives his authority from his electors, that is, from the particular group which elected him.

Leaving aside purely emotional considerations, there are good arguments for both of these basic forms of government. The most important arguments in favour of republicanism can be summarized as follows: In the first place, republics are, with few exceptions, secular. They require no appeal to God in order to justify their authority. Their sovereignty, the source of their authority, derives from the people. In our time, which turns increasingly away from religious concepts, or at least refers them into the realm of metaphysics, secular constitutional concepts and a secular form of government are more easily acceptable than a form rooted, in the last resort, in theocratic ideas. It is, therefore, also easier for a republic to embrace a secular version of the Rights of Man. The advantage this form of government offers would therefore seem to be that it is in closer touch with the spirit of our time, and hence with the great mass of the population.

In addition, the choice of the head of State depends not on an accident of birth, but on the will of the people or of an elite. The president's term of office is limited. He can be removed, and if he is incapable it is easy to replace him. Himself an ordinary citizen, he is in closer touch with real life. And it is to be hoped that, with better education, the masses will become increasingly capable of choosing the right man. In a monarchy, on the other hand, once a bad ruler has ascended the throne, it is almost impossible to remove him without overthrowing the whole regime. And lastly it is claimed that the fact that every citizen can, at least theoretically, become president, encourages a sense of political responsibility and helps the population to attain political maturity. The patriarchal character of a monarchy, on the other hand, leads the citizens to rely on their ruler, and to shift all political responsibility on to his shoulders.

In favour of monarchism, the following arguments are put forward: Experience shows that kings mostly rule better, not worse, than presidents. There is a practical reason for this. A king is born to his office. He grows up in it. He is, in the truest sense of the word, a "professional," an expert in the field of statecraft. In all walks of life, the fully qualified expert is rated higher than the amateur, however brilliant. For particularly in a difficult, highly technical subject -- and what is more difficult than the modern State? -- knowledge and experience outweigh sheer brilliance. The danger certainly exists that an incompetent may succeed to the throne. But was not a Hitler chosen as leader, and a Warren Harding elected president? In the classical monarchies of the Middle Ages, it was almost always possible to replace an obviously incapable successor to the throne by a more suitable one. It was only with the decadence of monarchism, in the age of the courtly despotism of Versailles, that this corrective was discarded. Nothing would be more appropriate in a modern monarchy than the institution of a judicial tribunal, which could, if necessary, intervene to change the order of succession to the throne.

Even more important than the king's "professional" qualifications is the fact that he is not tied to any party. He does not owe his position to a body of voters or the support of powerful interests. A president, on the other hand, is always indebted to someone. Elections are expensive and difficult to fight. The power of money and the great mass organizations always makes itself felt. Without their help, it is almost impossible to become the head of State of a republic. Such support is not, however, given for nothing. The head of State remains dependent on those who helped him into the saddle. It follows that the president is mostly not the president of the whole people, but only of those groups that helped him to attain office. In this way, political parties or groups of economic interests can take over the highest command positions of the State, which then no longer belongs to the whole people, but, temporarily or permanently, becomes the privileged domain of one or another group of citizens. The danger exists therefore that a republic will cease to be the guardian of the rights of all its citizens. This, it is stressed by monarchists, is particularly dangerous at the present time. For today the rights of the individual and of minority groups are in greater danger than ever before. Financial power- concentrations and large, powerful organizations generally are everywhere threatening the "little man." Particularly in a democracy, it is extremely difficult for the latter to make himself heard, since this section of the population cannot easily be organized and is of no great economic importance. If even the topmost pinnacle of the State is handed over to political parties, there will be no one to whom the weak can turn for help. A monarchical ruler, on the other hand -- so it is claimed -- is independent, and is there for all citizens equally. His hands are not tied in the face of the powerful, and he can protect the rights of the weak. Particularly in an age of profound economic and social transformations, it is of the highest importance that the head of State should stand above the parties...

And, finally, the Crown contributes to political life that stability without which no great problems can be solved. In a republic, the firm foundation is lacking. Whoever is in power must achieve a positive success in the shortest possible time, otherwise he will not be re-elected. This leads to short-term policies, which will not be able to cope successfully with problems of world-historical scope.

There is one more point we must consider before we can answer the question of which form of government will best serve the community in the future. Generally speaking, democratic republics represent a regime dominated by the legislature, while authoritarian regimes are dominated by the executive. The judicial power has not had the primacy for a long time, as we have shown above. It found its earlier expression in the Christian monarchies. It is frequently forgotten that the true ruler has always been the guardian of law and justice. The most ancient monarchs -- the kings of the Bible -- came from the ranks of the judges. St. Louis of France regarded the administration of justice as his noblest task. The same principle can be seen in the many German "Palatinates," since the Count Palatine (Palatinus) was the guardian of law and justice delegated by the King- Emperor. The history of the great medieval monarchies shows that the legislative power of the king -- even of a king as powerful as Charles V -- was severely limited by local autonomies. The same is true of the ruler's executive function. He was not, in the first place, a law-giver or head of the executive; he was a judge. All other functions were subordinate, and were only exercised to the extent necessary to make his judicial function effective.

The reason for this institutional arrangement is clear. The judge must interpret the meaning of law and justice, and to do this he must be independent. It is essential that he should not owe his position, his function, to any man. The highest judge, at least, must be in this position. This is only possible under a monarchy. For in a republic, even the highest guardian of the law derives his position from some other source, to which he is responsible and on which he remains dependent to some extent. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. His most important task is not to pass judgment in actual legal disputes, but to stand guard over the purpose of the State and natural law. Above all, it is the task of the supreme judge to see that all legislation is in accordance with the State's fundamental principles, that is, with natural law. The monarch's right to veto legislation passed by parliament is a remnant of this ancient function...

The future form of the State will be something entirely new, something which will represent principles of eternal validity in a form appropriate to the future, without the errors of the past...

The hereditary character of the monarchial function finds its justification not merely in the "professional" upbringing of the heir to the throne. Nor is it merely a question of continuity at the summit of the political hierarchy, though such continuity is highly desirable when it is a question of planning for generations to come. Its deepest justification lies in the fact that the hereditary ruler owes his position not to one or another social group, but to the will of God alone. That is the true meaning of the frequently misunderstood words, "by the grace of God," which always signify a duty and a task. It would be wrong for the ruler by the grace of God to regard himself as an exceptional being. On the contrary, the words, "by the grace of God," should remind him that he does not owe his position to his own merits, but must prove his fitness by ceaseless efforts in the cause of justice.

While there is thus much to be said for a hereditary transmission of the supreme position of the State, there is also one serious drawback, which has already been mentioned. If the succession occurs automatically, there is the possibility that the throne will be occupied by an incompetent. This is the greatest danger of the monarchial system. On the other hand, this danger only dates from the period when the inflexible legitimism of Versailles came into being, and the safeguards present in one form or another in most classical monarchies disappeared. Such safeguards would therefore have to be built into any future monarchical constitution. It would be wrong to hand this task over to political bodies, as that would open the door to private interests. The decision should be left to a judicial tribunal. The king, as the highest constitutional judge of the State, cannot exercise his function in a vacuum. He will have to be assisted by a body representing the highest judicial authority, of which he forms the head. It is this body which should pronounce on whether a law or a regulation is constitutional, that is, in accordance with the purpose of the State. When the ruler dies, the other judges will continue in office. It should be their duty to pronounce on the suitability of the heir presumptive, and, if necessary, to replace him by the next in succession.

The activity of the head of State will undoubtedly go beyond the purely judicial field. He will have to control the executive, since it is his duty to see that the decisions of the judicial power are carried out in practice. Nevertheless, all these tasks will remain of secondary importance. It is in his judicial function that a twentieth-century monarch will find his primary justification.

A Note On My Noble House

It would probably be more correct of me if I translate my surname from Hungarian into something more recognizable and explain it a bit further.

The first part of my Hungarian noble surname is Deési, which mean from or of Deés. Second, the actual surname, is Décsey, which literally means from or of Decse. Decse refers to the then-Hungarian town of Maros-Decse which is now called Decea in Romanian. Deés, on the other hand, refers to the present day city of Dej (the Romanian language version of Deés). There is also the German language versions of these cities. Deés in German in Burglos. Decse in German is Dycha. I could saying House Deési Décsey would be strictly Hungarian and may be a bit antiquated.

Thus the House could be refer to by its Romanian language variant, Decea din Dej or possible House Decea-Dej or just plain House Dej. The Noble Houses of Anjou and Habsburg, for example, also take their House names from locations. And that is because if you were noble, people wanted to know where you hailed from. If not, people didn't really care.

There is also the Germanized version: House von Dycha-Burglos.

It's interesting as place names change.

Comes

We are familiar with, owing thanks to Bram Stoker, the title of Count. This was the title of the fictional Vlad Dracula of Transylvania, the fabled vampire lord. The real Vlad Dracula was actually not a count but a Voivode of Transylvania and a Prince of Wallachia. We also have probably heard of some nobles from continental Europe that have the title Count.

But what does this title mean? What is the origin of this title? What about the title Earl?

Count is actually the French version of the original Latin title from the Roman Empire Comes, which means "companion". In the early days and the height of the Roman Empire, the title Comes was actually a very high-ranking title, even higher than that of Dux (Duke). Often times the folks holding the title of Comes were members of the Imperial Court, advisers to the Emperor, governors, knights, and military leaders. This is where we get all the variant Count titles from German (Graf = Count), like Burgrave (German: Burg Graf, Latin: Comes Castri - literally "Count of a Castle") and Landgrave (German: Land Graf - a landlord Count). There is also Margrave, which is more commonly Marquis (from the French version, German: Mark Graf, Latin: Marca) which is a type of Count that oversees the administration and military personnel of a March (less civilized borderland). There is also the title Viscount (Latin: Vice Comes), which is literally a Vice Count, like USA has a Vice President. And generally the most powerful form of Count or Comes was Comes Palatinus or Count-Palatine (sometimes referred to as Paladin or just plain Palatine). This figure was Princely and generally heading the government of an Emperor or King, as in the Holy Roman Empire and Kingdom of Hungary.

Over time the titles were inherited and became hierarchical, though originally they were more or less equal in rank. The hierarchy general became Viscounts on the bottom of the Comitatus ranks, then plane old Count, then Marquis and then Count-Palatine. Dukes back in medieval times were usually related to the royal family and weren't Comitatus rank, but were Princely rank.

Then there is Earl, which is a uniquely British title. It originates from the Norse word Jarl, which means the same as Graf in German: Count.

Bring His Royal Majesty Back!

After being essentially forced to abdicate the Romanian throne in 1947, Romania fell even further into the tight grip of Communism. What awaited the Romanian people? a mass-murdering slave-driving corrupt police state that terrorized Romanians until December 25, 1989 when the brutal and psychotic dictator, Nicolae Ceauşescu and his equally psychotic wife Elena were executed for crimes against the Romanian people. Mass starvation, bread lines, murder and mass theft prevailed during those days propagated by the illegal state.

It was indeed illegal and unconstitutional. The government of the prime minister in 1947, that of Petru Groza, was responsible for establishing a Communist-Stalinist state and the only institution standing in their way was the Crown: His Royal Majesty, King Michael I. The patriotic and loyal National Peasants Party, which rightfully won elections, were not allowed to participate in government. HRH King Michael couldn't do much about that, with a Soviet presence in Romania still fresh, but HRH King Michael did refuse Royal Assent to pro-communist legislation. The Communists illegally forced HRH King Michael to "abdicate" by threatening to execute over 1,000 students and HRH King Michael was forced to comply. Whether the monarchy was a constitutional matter or an ecclesiastical matter (divine right) is not particularly relevant at the moment.

The rightful Chief Executive is HRH King Michael I. Returning the King to power in Romania would do wonders for the country. It would mean a sharp decrease in corruption and waste as well as moderation and stability. These are what the Crown has always stood for in any nation with a Monarchy, especially moderation and stability.

If one considers the economies and political situations in nations that do have a monarchy, they may very well be obliged to agree: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, United Kingdom, Spain, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Luxembourg, Belgium, et al. Their economies are fantastic, though not perfect, and standards of living are high. Of course it would be foolish of me to think that this would happen instantaneously with the return of His Majesty the King, but it would certainly do better for Romanians than the last few jokers that have held the "Presidency" in Romania since the fall of Communism.

Oh, and let's not forget intangibles like increased respect abroad and an increase in national and cultural pride.

...and the tourism ;-)

European Union or Roman Empire?

The EU is the economic first step to an eventual political and geographic European secular super-state. But what sort of lasting or binding legacy would it have? A super-state of economic dominance? There are no symbols more recognizable and lasting throughout the centuries and throughout the world as the symbols of the Roman Empire, the once mighty Pan-European super-state. When you mention Rome, one instantly thinks of Emperors, Senators, Legions and gladiators. And of course SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romanus. But by that time, all civilized Europeans were considered Romans.

And what is the lasting legacy of Rome? Well, few consider that for most of its existence, the Roman Empire was a Christian state, not a pagan or secular state. Furthermore, Rome brought together like no other entity the various peoples of Europe: Italians, Greeks, Celts, Germans, and Slavs. The empire incorporated the cumulative knowledge and culture of the Greco-Romans and was flexible enough to incorporate Germano-Celt-Slav cultures. It truly was a super-state; but it still allowed for individual cultural adherence to a large extent. A Celtic man from Britannia could still be a Celt and a Roman.

But I digress. The title of this piece can be a bit misleading. I'm not suggesting that the European Union is equivalent to Rome. In fact, I am suggesting the opposite: The European Union cannot hold a candle to Rome! The EU seems to me intent on buying people out. EU supporting suppose that money shall be enough to win people over. These wealthy elite of the European Union break down cultural barriers using Euros and TV advertising. No sir, the EU is not even CLOSE to Rome and nor will it ever be.

But People will surely say "but Rome is dead and has been for centuries". Sure, Rome officially fell in 476 AD in the West and in 1453 AD in the East... officially. While the city of Rome fell to Germanic invaders and Emperor Romulus Augustus was killed, don't forget that he was a co-emperor with those in Constantinople. The title of Roman Emperor lived on even beyond the Ottoman Turkish taking of Constantinople in 1453.

Let's not forget that the elected German kings of the Holy Roman Empire (a theoretical continuation of the Roman Empire of the West) were crowned as Roman Emperors; and the Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1815! And from 1815 until 1918, the Habsburg dynasty continued the line of Emperors from the West. And of course there are claimants from the Byzantine side as well to the title of Roman Emperor, but that's for another time and article.

The point here being that the EU is a laughable attempt to unite Europe. A far better attempt would be the theoretical refounding (or rather, continuation) of Rome. Imagine... living in the reborn Roman Empire!

Princes and Kings

As a continuation of yesterday's Bánffy de Losoncz relation, I also found that the member of Bánffy de Losoncz, László, his mother was a member of the legendary Báthory dynasty. And it was around this time that the Báthorys produced a King of Poland (King Stefan) and several Princes of Transylvania. They were perhaps the most powerful Hungarian noble family at the time.

What this essentially means is that I have, 400 years ago, a line (and a very faint claim) to the Crown of Poland. It's very interesting though, that it should be Poland. I was fairly sure that if there was royal blood in me, it would come in the form of an Austrian Habsburg or a Romanian Hohenzollern. So in genealogy, you can receive a lot of surprises and this certainly was a pleasant surprise.

I also found out that House Báthory is originally not Hungarian, but Swabian (south west German). It's a good bet that my own family, being Transylvanian Saxon in origin, may be from the same area.

The Bánffy de Losoncz Line

Now this proves interesting indeed. In my genealogical research I came across a relationship between the Décsey family and the Bánffy de Losoncz family through Fruzsina Décsey de Marosdécse during the 15th century. Fruzsina was the daughter of Péter Décsey de Marosdécse and she married Count Lászlo Bánffy de Losoncz and had at least one child, also named Lászlo.

This is an unexpected turn because while I knew I am descended from Nobility, I did not know that there was a possibility of a relationship to a royal line. While the Bánffy line itself is not royalty, they spent much more time with royalty. They've had castles and lots of lands as well as close relationships to the Habsburg monarchs (they served in the Royal Court during the Horthy regency). There could be possibly relationships to the Habsburgs, the Bourbons, the Hohenzollerns, or the Windsors.

We'll just have to see where this one goes.

Source: Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Freiherrliche Häuser

All Hail Republicanism!

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I am absolutely sickened by the Presidential campaigns. It gets worse and worse every time. By the time all is said and done, by the end of the Primary elections and the General elections, billions of dollars would be spent on becoming the President of the United States.

And in the end what would we have? more partisan squabbling? Absolutely. Lawyers will continue make more and more money, lobbyists will continue to get more and more power, the rich will keep getting richer. Wonderful. What a bright future to look forward to. Traditions and culture are slowly but surely eroding. After all, what is to stop the President and the Congress or even the states from doing what they please other than conflict with each other? Sure, there is the Constitution, but I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would have imagined in their wildest dreams that the USA would become such a bureaucratic surveillance-society.

And certainly you get upstarts like Ross Perot in 1992, Pat Buchanan in 2000, Ralph Nader in 2004 and now Ron Paul in the GOP Primary. They have a snowball's chance in hell of course. And the USA is more likely to get hit by a rogue asteroid than become a monarchy again. But what can I say about monarchy that hasn't been said (and immediately dismissed by republicans) before? Even Founding Father Alexander Hamilton even said of the government structure of Great Britain as perhaps the greatest ever devised. Alexander Hamilton also argued for checks against the passions of the People.

So what institution do we have as a check against the People? In other words, what do we have to counter the political garbage we are forced to live with? Billions spent on financing campaigns that could have gone to better causes. And what about special interest groups and lobbyists? Oh, the list goes on. They'll hide behind the Constitution and the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights (and to hell with what is best for the country).

The closest thing we have to a monarchy is the United States Supreme Court and the panel of nine Justices. The trick is, though, is that they cannot seek out cases. Cases have to come to them. So again, our fate is left to Lawyers to file the necessary paperwork and then wait years before the Supreme Court will even spit in your general direction. It's a very passive institution compared to the others (like Congress and the Presidency).

So what real check do we have against passion and absurdity? And is it getting any better? The President is hovering around a 30% approval rating. Congress is worse with a 25% approval rating. This is perhaps the worst and most unpopular government EVER in US history.

On the other hand, how much does HRH Queen Elizabeth II cost her people annually? It costs the people of the United Kingdom less than £40 million ($78 million )per year.

Now compare that to the over $4 BILLION spent on the 2004 Presidential election alone.

You do the math.

Neofeudalism part II

Yesterday I mentioned an ideology of my own concoction which I refer to as neofeudalism. Don't let the neo portion of the term fool you, it's really nothing new, but rather a look back to a time when the Nobility were actually noble. The structure of society would work essentially like it did in medieval times, but it would be far more enlightened and there would be no serfs. Commoners not of ancient noble descent would be encouraged to excel and do what is good for all, not just for themselves.

In this respect, wealth and business ownership would not be a qualification for new nobility. Laborers, scientists, doctors and such would be allowed in. They must show excellent moral character and live up to the standards of medieval chivalry.

Depending upon the size of the population, tens of thousands may be nominated for nobility. These new nobles would then pass on Lordship to their descendants. These descendants, however, must maintain the good and noble standing of the Lordship and will be limited to immediate family.

Ranks such as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquis, Duke and so forth would be strictly administrative titles with actual duties. For example, the head of a town would be a Baron and then head of a county would be a Count. Of course these positions would not be absolutist despot positions. They would be held in check by a constitution, the monarch, the courts and the people.

No more Secretary of such-and-such and Minister of so-and-so. The Royal or Noble Court would be the cabinet. The head of a Noble Court would be a Seneschal and the head of the Royal Court would be a Palatine.

Take a look at the Hungarian royal court for example, or, better yet, take a look at the Great Offices of State in the United Kingdom. It has a Chancellor, a High Steward, a High Marshal, a High Constable and so on.

These Court positions are ancient and require a dedication to duty. This is what nobility is about... DUTY.

In Defense of the Ancient Nobility

Ever wonder why there was always so much romanticism involved with knights and nobility? It's not just because membership was rare and for a certain elite, it's also because they had a strict code of conduct and had made an oath to God, King, and Land to honor that code.

Sadly, the latter days of the ancient nobility were littered with petty squabbling and pro-bourgeois wealth and privilege attitude. But there was a time when they defended commoners and earned their station through valor and merit. Nobles weren't always nobles, after all!

Every Royal House started off as a Noble and every Noble started off as a commoner that proved their worth as outstanding examples of Christendom.

The Nobility must be composed of scientists, warriors, doctors, thinkers, inventors, hard-working folk, men of God, writers, painters -- no more of this nonsense of "just because I have money"!

Noblemen! Do not forget! God, King, Country!

Neofeudalism

On top of being a history junkie, I'm also a political junkie. I've mulled over ideologies such as republicanism, socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism and many of their variants. I've even taken a look at anarchism. To me, they are nothing more than "-isms". They are a way to fracture society and these ideologies are certainly good at mass murder.

Also, the traditional Left-Center-Right political spectrum is far too oversimplified and one-dimensional. I can consider myself neither Left nor Right, as I believe in aspects of both. The one thing I cannot deny is my heritage, which I am fiercely proud of. That heritage includes Christianity and service to society. I also cannot simply consider myself a Conservative nor simply just a monarchist. Being a Christian, I must believe in the Social aspect of religion. These are Charity, Compassion, Humility, Justice, etc. In this respect, I am a Christian Socialist. On a social level, I am forgiving and compassionate, though traditional values and institutions must be preserved.

My own political-social-economic concoction, Neo-Feudalism (unlike the definition on Wikipedia of the same term) would preserve traditional institutions such as God, King and Country. It is based on Plato's notion of a philosopher-king -- the enlighten autocrat.

Yes, there would be nobility and monarchy, but the People would be defended against parasitic and Darwinistic ideologies. Nobility in my society could only be achieved by doing great things. Scientists, Doctors, Writers, Artists, Clergy, etc. would all be encouraged to seek this nobility (similar to Nobel prize) where profit is not the motive, but helping and advancing humanity. The nobility would be based on merit, though certain titles may be inherited once gained.

It should be pointed out that once Lordship is gained does not mean it will last forever. If a descended that has acquired lordship through birthright must also work to maintain it. If they spend their time partying and doing drugs, they would be a top candidate for censure and removal. They must live up to the chivalric code of ethics and Christian morals. They must provide an example for the rest of society to follow.

Also, that is not to say that the average person will not have a say in matters. What I believe in is a Constitutional Monarchy preserving the rights of the individual, including the right to rise up against and to overthrow tyranny. My philosophy would be pro-Labor, pro-Family, pro-God, pro-Science and Technology.

More details later on the structure of society that I envision, which would be somewhat similar to medieval Europe, but far more enlightened.

The Hungarian Royal Court

The most powerful court position in medieval Hungary (and, in seemingly every other Continental royal court) was Count-Palatine, who served as a medieval prime minster and viceroy. The position then, like the prime minister today, was a very powerful position. But unlike many prime ministerships of today, involved a great sense of duty to land and sovereign and was not part of the partisan bickering.

Perhaps if many monarchies today adopted the position of Count-Palatine, we'd see less politics and more duty, honor, and service to the People and Crown.

The Royal Court:

• the Palatine (comes palatinus) – hung. nádor
• the Voivode of Transylvania (woyuoda Transsiluanus) – hung. erdélyi vajda
• the judge of the royal court (iudex curiae regiae) – hung. országbíró
• the bans of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Macva (hung. Macsó), and Severin (hung. Szörény) (bani) – hung. horvát-dalmát bán, horvát-szlavón bán, macsói bán and szörényi bán
• the master of the treasury (magister tavernicorum) – hung. tárnokmester
• the master of janitors (ianitorum regalium magister) – hung. főajtónálló
• the master of stewards (dapiferorum regalium magister) – hung. főasztalnok
• the master of cup-bearers (pincernarum regalium magister) – hung. főpohárnok
• the marshal (agasonum regalium magister) – hung. főlovászmester
• counts of Bratislava (hung. Pozsony) and Timis (hung. Temes) – hung. pozsonyi ispán and temesi ispán
• the high treasurer (summus thesaurarius) – hung. főkincstárnok
• the count of the Szeklers – hung. székelyek ispánja
• the secret chancellor – hung. titkos kancellár

Some Possions of House Décsey von Deés

I came across more information regarding manors belonging to some Décsey brothers in various villages in Bihor county dating 1806:

1806-ban Détseÿ Sándornak, Józsefnek és Ferencznek 5 adómentes lakótelkök, 4 lakott és 1/2 puszta antiqua meg 13 lakott nova jobbágytelkök volt Ippon. Legtöbb telke volt Sándornak. Itt 2 adómentes lakótelek, 4 lakott és 1/2 puszta antiqua meg 7 lakott nova, Lecsméren 1 lakott antiqua jobbágytelke, Józsefnek és Ferencznének 2 lakott és 1 puszta antiqua meg 1 lakott nova jobbágytelke volt Márkaszéken. Ferencznének Cseresén 1/2 lakott antiqua meg 2 lakott és 1 puszta jobbágytelke.

Here is a Google Map of the locations with their modern-day Romanian names


View Larger Map

Note on the Google Map

As a note on the Google map just posted, there are 4 cities listed, so you may need to zoom out a bit to see all four.

The four cities are: Deés, Zilah, Kraszna and Doboka. They are marked with their modern Romanian names: Dej, Zalău, Crasna and Dăbâca.

Google Map of Cities/Towns inhabited by Décsey Family

View Larger Map

Some Titles earned by House Décsey von Deés

Below is a partial list of the titles and offices gained by members of House Décsey von Deés over the centuries. Included are the original Hungarian titles along with their English translation:

1563 - Tamás (Thomas) kisdobai birtokos - landlord of Kisdoba

1681 - Sámuel szilágyszegi ev. ref. pap. - Royal Szilagy Reformed Priest

1702 - István (Stephen) krasznavármegyei szolgabíró - Kraszna Lord Magistrate

1706 - János (John) krasznavármegyei szolgabíró - Kraszna Lord Magistrate

1732 - Zsigmond (Sigmond)- dobokai alispán - Viscount of Doboka

1790 - 1825 László (Ladislau) zilahi szenátor - Senator of Zilah (capital of Szilagy)

1793 - Dániel - középszolnoki commissarius - lord commissioner of Középszolnok

1810–1817 - Ferencz (Francis) - középszolnoki alszoglabíró - Deputy Lord Magistrate of Középszolnok

1834 - Károly (Charles) - krasznavármegyei főszolgabíró - Chief Lord Magistrate of Kraszna

1847 - 1848 - László - képviselő - Member of Parliament/Congressman

Introduction

I've decided to start a blog documenting my journey to claim the heritage, the lands, and the titles of my noble ancestors, the House of Décsey von Deés (in Hungarian - Deési Décsey) from Transylvania (now located in modern Romania in Eastern Europe). I intend to present my case to the government of Romania at some point this year to return what was taken from my family during the Communist takeover of Romania after World War II.

I'm also going to post some genealogy and some history as well. I'm a bit of a Medieval history buff, so this task of mine goes hand-in-hand with my love of history.

The story starts roughly in the 15th century, where I've found the first documented mentions of the Décsey family in the Kindgom of Hungary. At this point, Transylvania was part of the Kindgom of Hungary and it was also during this period that there was a great deal of activity in this area due to the various incursions of the Ottomans into Christendom.

The family is documented to have lived in the Royal County of Szolnok-Doboka and Szilágy. The specific city where they resided and administered the county for the Kings of Hungary was then called Dés (in German - Burglos, in Romanian - Dej). This city eventually became the capital of Szolnok-Doboka royal county. The Décsey family also spent a great deal of time in Zilah, the capital of Szilágy county (in German - Waltenberg, in Romanian - Zalău).

While the first documented instances of the Décsey family show up in the 15th century, the official family Coat of Arms (displayed in this article) wasn't commissioned until 1591, the family is considered Ancient Nobility and was active in the aristocracy long before 1591.

The likelihood is that the family was originally Transylvanian Saxon (Germans from the Holy Roman Empire) and later adopted a Hungarianized family name. I have no official proof of this, as it is just a theory of mine, but the theory is founded. The area this family was from had in those days a large Saxon population that had a privileged status among the peoples of Transylvania.

The House of Décsey was likely ennobled in the 12th or 13th century as a reward from the Kings of Hungary and the Voivods (Princes) of Transylvania for helping defend the borders of the Carpathian Mountains against the Turkish Ottoman horde and the Tatars.

Back during this time, prior to the Habsburg takeover of the Hungarian Crown, Lords were Lords. What I mean by this is that there wasn't a hierarchy per se in noble titles that we know of today. In England, we have in ascending order: Knight, Baronet, Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess, and finally Duke. The Austrian Habsburgs introduced something similar and you were able to inherit this titular rank (this is where the COUNT comes from, the late Habsburg period).

In medieval pre-Habsburg Transylvania, titles weren't simply inherited -- you had to actually earn them by deed or merit. Of course you had to be a Lord for that to happen, but it was more meritocratic in those days.

For example, one ancestor of mine had the title of Viscount of Doboka. This title only applied to this particular ancestor, though his children and other relatives did inherit Lordship. It was more generic back then and titles such as Viscount actually had administrative duties.

Of course that's not to say all Transylvanian Lords were equal. Names like Báthory, Apaffy, Nadasdy, and Rákoczi tended to show up more in the historical records for the higher-up titles like Voivod. Some of these families even ended up marrying into Royalty. No such luck for me, but I can live with Count ;-)