Government of the Templar Order Constitutional Parliament as a Sovereign Non-Territorial Principality

Reality & Legitimacy of Templar Government

 

T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.org

Official Flag of the Order of the Temple of Solomon as an independent non-territorial Principality and sovereign subject of international law

Official Flag of the Order of the Temple of Solomon as an independent non-territorial Principality and sovereign subject of international law

The 12th century Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon, since its inception, has always possessed independent sovereignty with inherent governmental capacity:

The original Order of the Temple of Solomon was initially granted Royal patronage with autonomous sovereignty by King Baldwin II in 1118 AD [1] [2] [3] [4], including rights “in perpetuity” [5], such that “the Templars were not directly responsible to any secular monarch” [6], nor to any Church [7]. This founding grant was reconfirmed at the Council of Nablus in 1120 AD [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. It was additionally granted autonomous sovereignty by ratification of its Charter as a Vatican Papal Decree in 1129 AD [14].

The Templar Order was directly and officially granted permanent and irrevocable sovereignty with full independence by a Vatican Papal Bull in 1139 AD [15], reconfirmed by supporting Papal Bulls in 1144 AD [16] and 1145 AD [17]. Official Vatican records confirm that the Templar Order did in fact possess and exercise its independent non-territorial sovereignty of statehood, quietly and privately, only in its relations with other historical institutions [18] [19].

The Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon was restored to its full legal legitimacy of sovereignty by historical rules of continuity and succession [20], officially reestablishing its original Grand Mastery by proven legal and canonical precedent [21] [22] in 2013 AD, by rules which remain in full force as customary international law [23] [24] [25] [26] which are binding upon all countries [27].

As a non-territorial sovereign Principality of independent statehood, the modern Templar Order legally holds the status of a “sovereign subject of international law” [28] [29] based upon its authentic substance [30]. As the state representing the “nationality” of cultural Templarism in world affairs, it is sometimes also properly referred to as a “nation-state”.

As a result of these (and many more) proven legal facts, the Order of the Temple of Solomon lawfully has a legitimate constitutional and parliamentary Government, possessing official capacity to exercise all functions of statehood and diplomacy in international relations.

 

Character of the Templar Government

 

The Government of the Templar Order, by modern traditions called a “Parliament”, consists of the Grand Officers of the chivalric and cultural aspect of the Order, supported by the Ministers and other Crown Officers of the governmental aspect of the Order, presided over by the Prince Grand Master as Head of State.

Historically, the Grand Mastery and Government of the Order have always worked together as an egalitarian meritocracy, with all officials coming to the table as equals. It was precisely this tradition which was famously described as the “Knights of the Round Table” of medieval Arthurian legends, which were written and popularized by the Knights Templar themselves [31] [32]. Accordingly, the authentic Templar Order de-emphasizes individual personalities, and does not support the dominating influence of any particular individuals, strictly following the historical Templar motto “Non nobis Domine, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam”: “Not to us, Lord, by to Thy name give the glory” [33].

Upholding these core principles, the Government of the Templar Principality does not “rule” nor impose “governance” over its members or participating organizations. Rather, it serves to represent its membership, representing the national identity of cultural Templarism, while guiding the historical institution by its original doctrines as proven by the historical record. (Indeed, this must be the necessary function of any true “government” – to listen to and faithfully represent the rights and interests of its people, while guiding its public policy by time-tested humanitarian principles and fairness of the Rule of Law.)

All members and participating organizations simply agree to abide by the Acts & Laws established by the Templar Government, as a contractual condition of interacting with and benefitting from this venerable historical institution.

 

Sovereign Head of State

 

The Head of State of the Order as a sovereign subject of international law is the Prince Grand Master of the Order as a historical institution. As Sovereign Head of State, the Grand Master holds the inherent sovereign, chivalric and ecclesiastical Fons Honourum which is vested in the Order itself in its own right [34] [35] [36].  This is the legal basis for official Crown authority of the Order as a sovereign non-territorial principality.

 

Traditional Grand Mastery

 

The Grand Mastery, consisting of the Grand Officers of the Order, is traditionally so named as the entourage of the Sovereign Grand Master.  The Grand Mastery is the primary round table of the constitutional government, thus serving as the “upper house” of Parliament.  The essential role of the Grand Mastery is to guide the centennial policies of the Order as a historical chivalric institution, preserving its ancient and medieval traditions and heritage, maintaining authenticity of its practices with relevance in the modern era, and ensuring its continuity with chivalric legitimacy.

 

Sovereign Council of Ministers

 

The Sovereign Council of Ministers is comprised of Ministers of Parliament of various portfolios, as may be established by the Grand Mastery from time to time.  The Sovereign Council is the secondary round table of the constitutional government, thus serving as the “lower house” of Parliament.  The role of the Council of Ministers is to manage the general operations and implement the sovereign functions of the Government of the Order, directly supporting the Grand Mastery on the most essential projects of worldwide impact, and leading the active missions of the Order.

 

Advisory Council of Crown Officers

 

The Advisory Council of Crown Officers is comprised of Crown Officers of various governmental functions, as may be appointed by the Grand Master from time to time.  The role of the Council of Crown Officers is to advise on policies of the Order, and to actively support the operations of the Templar Government.

 

Office of the Crown Registrar

 

The Office of the Crown Registrar is comprised of Crown Officers as volunteers, who are authorized by the Grand Mastery to officially represent the Order to the general public and its body of membership.  The specialized functions of the Office of Crown Registrar is to handle registrations and titled status for all members of the Order, managing its central database and interactive membership platform, and providing correspondence with applicants and members.

 

Diplomatic Status of Templar Government Officials

 

A (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.org

All government officials, as Crown Officers of the Order of the Temple of Solomon, are protected under the Sovereign Protection & Rule of Law Act of 2010 and related acts and laws enacted by the Templar Government.

The status, authorities, privileges and immunities of Diplomats of the Order under international law are established and governed by the Sovereign Defense and Crown Office Act of 2009 as enacted by the Templar Government.

International law recognizes the “status of diplomatic agents” from all forms of nation states “since ancient times”, including historical sovereign entities of “differing constitutional and social systems” (UN Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Preamble; UN Convention of Consular Relations, Preamble; UN Immunities of States, Preamble: ¶5.) International law specifically requires that countries “shall not discriminate” against a historical form of nation state (UN Convention on Consular Relations, Article 47.1; UN Economic Rights of States, Preamble: ¶3, ¶7, Article 4).  Status as a sovereign “subject of international law” is binding upon all countries regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Articles 3, 38), with inherent diplomatic and consular relations (UN Consular, Articles 3, 1(d), 17.1) as a non-territorial state (UN Diplomatic, Articles 1(i), 3.1(a)).

Diplomatic status is invoked with all privileges and immunities by presenting “Diplomatic Credentials” as issued (UN Diplomatic Relations, Article 13), exempt from accreditation or embassy registration (UN Diplomatic, Articles 1(i), 3.1(a)), without requirement of a consular post (UN Consular Relations, Articles 3, 1(d), 17.1), regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Articles 3, 38).  Crown Officers do not engage in commerce, retaining full immunities (UN Consular, Article 57).  Immunities fully apply by the fact of sovereignty alone (UN Diplomatic, Articles 22-36; UN Consular, Articles 40-57).  High Officials and Parliament hold absolute immunity regardless of scope of functions (ICJ Congo v. Belgium, Articles 51-55).

 

© COPYRIGHT NOTICE – Copying whole sections or pages is prohibited, and subject to civil and criminal liabilities by law.  Smaller parts can be used only with Attribution Credit and a Link to this website.  Please see Legal and Attribution information in the Footer (bottom of this page).

 

Academic Source References for this Topic

Full Public Evidence Proving All Facts – All facts in these materials are abundantly proven publicly, directly from primary sources of the historical record and authoritative scholarship, presented as verifiable academic source references, in hundreds of numbered footnotes, consisting of conclusive evidence provided for the world to see.

Color Coded Quotes Indicating Sources – Quotes directly from verifiable sources are color coded, for convenience of visual reference, as follows:  Brown quotes indicate historical sources; Blue quotes indicate scholarly sources; Purple quotes indicate Canon law sources; Red quotes indicate Royal sources.

[1] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale (1985), 1985 Edition, Macmillan Library Reference (1990), “Knights Templars”.

[2] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5, citing a Vatican document by the 13th century Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon, 1195-1264), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, Lib. iii. p. 82.”

[3] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 1, “Their Humble Beginning”, p.493.

[4] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.

[5] William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (ca. 1172 AD), XII, 7, Patrologia Latina, 201, 526-27, Translated by James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee (1962), pp.70-73.

[6] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5.

[7] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.

[8] Kingdom of Jerusalem, Council of Nablus: Concordat of Canons (1120 AD), established by Patriarch Warmund and Kind Baldwin II of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; Preserved in the Sidon Manuscript, Vatican Library, MS Vat. Lat. 1345:  “Introduction to Canons”; Canon 20.

[9] Hans E. Mayer, The Concordat of Nablus, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge University Press, No. 33 (October 1982), pp.531-533, 541-542.

[10] Dominic Selwood, Quidem Autem Dubitaverunt:  The Saint, the Sinner, the Temple; Published in:  M. Balard (Editor), Autour de la Première Croisade, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris (1996), pp.221-230.

[11] Dominic Selwood, Knights Templar III: Birth of the Order (2013), historian for Daily Telegraph of London, article.

[12] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press (1978), p.5, p.8.

[13] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5.

[14] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard.

[15] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8, pp.59-64: “Master of the Religious Order of the Knighthood of the Temple… and his successors… in perpetuity… the protection and tutelage of the Holy See for all time to come.”; “not only in your Principal [princely] house but also in your dependencies and places subject to them… for ever the head and ruler of all those places belonging to it… [which] may not be infringed nor diminished by any ecclesiastical or secular person.”

[16] Pope Celestine II, Milites Templi, “Knights of the Temple” (5 January 1144), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 64-65.

[17] Pope Eugenius III, Militia Dei, “Knighthood of God” (7 April 1145), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 65-66.

[18] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Jerusalem”, p.363.

[19] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 2, “Their Marvellous Growth”, pp.493-494.

[20] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006).

[21] Ambassadeur Géraud Michel de Pierredon, Histoire Politique de l’Ordre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem (Ordre de Malte), Paris (1926), Tome 5.

[22] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Regular Orders of the Holy See, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 4, “The Order After the Loss of Jerusalem to the French”.

[23] United Nations, Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Vienna (1961), UN Treaty Series, Volume 500, at p.95 et seq., Preamble, Article 47.1.

[24] United Nations, Convention on Consular Relations, Vienna (1963), UN Treaty Series, Volume 596, at p.261 et seq., Preamble.

[25] United Nations, Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States, New York (2005), UN General Assembly Resolution 59/38 of 02 December 2004, Preamble: ¶5.

[26] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Preamble, Article 38.

[27] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Article 38.

[28] Rebecca Wallace, International Law: A Student Introduction, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986).

[29] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Article 3.

[30] Vatican, Tribunal e Cardinalizi o Constituito con Pontifico Chirografo (10 December 1951), Acta Apostolicae Sedis (24 January 1953), XLV (15): 765-767.

[31] Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe, The Warriors and the Bankers, Lewis Masonic, Surrey, England (2006), pp.56-57.

[32] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2003), p.278.

[33] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Psalm 115:1.

[34] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.36.

[35] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.423.

[36] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 1.