In international jurisprudence, the concept of "Fons Honorum," or "Fountain of Honour," refers to individuals or entities with the exclusive legal authority to confer titles of nobility and honours as recognised under international law. These individuals, by virtue of their origin or role, must inherently possess attributes of sovereignty.

The recognised sources of "Fons Honorum" include:

• Heads of State (both monarchies and republics). While monarchs may grant noble titles and honours, republican Heads of State are typically limited to granting merit-based awards.
• Heads of Dynasties (from deposed monarchies). Internationally, it is accepted that they retain the "Jus Conferendi" (right to confer honours), even if their thrones have been lost.
• Heads of Traditional Christian Churches (Roman Catholic and Orthodox), provided they can demonstrate apostolic succession—direct ordination lineage tracing back to one of the original apostles.

This discussion will focus primarily on the role of reigning and deposed monarchs as "Fons Honorum."

It is widely understood that reigning or deposed sovereigns face no inherent limitations in bestowing titles and honours. They may establish or restore Orders of Merit and Chivalry, create noble titles, or revoke honours at their discretion. Interestingly, reigning monarchs often operate under greater constraints due to constitutional, political, or procedural obligations, which can deter them from freely granting honours.

Conversely, deposed monarchs, freed from political interference, exercise full control over their dynastic prerogatives.

Common Misconceptions About "Fons Honorum"

There is a proliferation of misinformation regarding dynastic law and the legitimacy of sovereign rights. Often, assertions are made by individuals who lack the necessary expertise, relying instead on popularity or social media influence. In some cases, even those with academic credentials make baseless claims, demonstrating a lack of specialised knowledge.

Let’s clarify: just as an orthopaedic surgeon is not qualified to perform brain surgery, a historian or lawyer without specific expertise in dynastic law is not automatically equipped to analyse matters of royal succession. Furthermore, expertise in European succession laws does not necessarily extend to African or other regional dynastic traditions.

Reliable sources on these topics are scarce, leaving many questions unanswered. Below, we address some of these key questions.

Can Deposed Sovereigns Legally Retain Their Titles?

International law does not provide a rigid code for such situations. However, it acknowledges the concept of "governments-in-exile" and recognises hereditary rights ("jus sanguinis") as perpetual ("ad aeternum"). In essence, sovereign rights persist indefinitely through bloodlines unless explicitly renounced. Any abdication must be formalised through a legal instrument free from coercion, fraud, or other undue influences. Without such explicit abdication, these rights remain intact.

One complicating factor is the lack of competent courts to adjudicate claims involving deposed monarchies. Republican courts are often seen as biased in such matters, akin to appointing a member of one team as a referee in a competitive match. The International Court of Justice, for example, limits its jurisdiction to disputes between states, as outlined in its statutes:

Article 34: Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.

A deposed monarch’s sovereignty is not contingent on territory, population, or politics. It encompasses distinct sovereign rights:

• Ius Imperii: The right to command and govern a territory.
• Ius Gladii: The right to enforce rule and command military forces.
• Ius Majestatis: The right to be honoured and respected in accordance with one's title.
• Ius Conferendi: The right to bestow honours and titles of merit.

While "Ius Imperii" and "Ius Gladii" are tied to statehood, "Ius Majestatis" and "Ius Conferendi" are rooted in dynastic sovereignty, independent of territorial control. Claims related to these latter rights may be adjudicated as matters of immaterial inheritance, but courts cannot rule on issues involving territorial sovereignty ("Ius Imperii" or "Ius Gladii").

Can Any Organisation "Recognise" Sovereign Claims or Orders of Chivalry?

No official international body exists to validate royal claims or chivalric orders. While numerous "commissions" and associations offer recognition, they lack legal authority. These groups, although often well-intentioned, operate independently, and their assessments are merely opinions. International law holds that only the sovereign house that originally granted a title or order can determine its validity.

For example, if the House of Bourbon bestows a title, only the current Head of the House can confirm its legitimacy. Titles and honours are the immaterial patrimony of the sovereign house, and no external entity has the authority to invalidate or recognise them.

The Problem with Arbitrary Recognition Criteria

Some commissions set arbitrary criteria for recognising chivalric orders, often leading to contradictions. For instance, one commission claims that only higher degrees of modern state orders can be considered knightly if they are conferred by a traditional ruler. However, this interferes with the sovereignty of independent states, contradicting the principle that states have the right to establish their own orders with their chosen rules.

Hypothetically, if a republic enacts a law creating an order of chivalry, and the law is sanctioned by the Head of State, the order is legally valid under international law. No commission can invalidate it.

Dynastic Orders and Sovereign Rights

Sovereign rights, including the power of "Fons Honorum," are hereditary and passed through bloodlines. Whether or not a sovereign was deposed, these rights persist indefinitely unless explicitly renounced. The legitimacy of a dynastic order does not depend on the timing of its creation (e.g., during a monarch's reign versus in exile) but on the sovereign's bloodline and prerogative.

As distinguished scholars such as Professor Dr W. Baroni Santos and others have noted, sovereign qualities are perpetual and inseparable from the lineage of a dynasty. The exercise of these rights does not require external validation or recognition but is inherent to the sovereign bloodline.

In summary, the authority of "Fons Honorum" resides solely with the sovereign house, and its exercise is independent of political or territorial considerations. Claims of legitimacy, therefore, require careful evaluation grounded in historical, legal, and dynastic principles.