Abnegate

Abnegate (pronounced ab-ni-geyt)

(1) To refuse or deny oneself (privileges, pleasure, rights, conveniences etc); reject; renounce.

(2) To relinquish; give up.

1650–1660: From the Latin abnegātus (denied), past participle of abnegāre (to deny), the construct being ab- + negate.  The Ab- prefix was from the Latin ab-, from the primitive Indo-European hepo (off, away) and a doublet of apo- and off-.  The alternative prefixes were (1) a- (with root words starting with m, p, or v) & (2) abs- (with root words starting with c or t).  Ab- was used to convey (1) “from” & (2) “away from” & “outside of”.  Negate was from then Latin negātus, past participle of negāre (to deny, refuse, decline), reduced from nec-aiare (or some similar form), the construct being nec (not, nor) + aiere (to say).  Abnegate is a verb, abnegated & abnegating are verbs & adjectives, abnegation & abnegator are nouns; the most common noun plural is abnegations.

Abnegate should not be confused with abdicate.  Dating (perhaps surprisingly) only from 1541, abdicate was from the Latin abdicātus (renounced), perfect passive participle of abdicō (renounce, reject, disclaim), the construct being ab + dicō (proclaim, dedicate, declare), akin to dīcō (say).  Abdicate now (except informally) is used almost exclusively to refer to a reigning monarch renouncing their throne in favour of a successor (chosen or imposed) but was once applied with greater latitude.  Between the mid-sixteenth & early nineteenth centuries, it was used to mean “to disclaim and expel from the family” (as a parent might of a child) and when this is done now, one is said to have disowned (as a statement of family & social relations) or disinherited (at law in the matter of inheritance).  Between the mid-sixteenth & late seventeenth centuries it could mean “formally to separate oneself from or to divest oneself of”.  Between the early seventeenth & late eighteenth centuries, it could mean “to depose” which meant (1) remove from office suddenly and forcefully (ie what might now be thought a forced (or “constructive”) abdication or (2) in law, to testify to or give evidence under oath (usually in writing).  Between the mid-sixteenth & late seventeenth centuries it could mean “to reject; to cast off; to discard (an object, an association, an obligation etc).

The modern meaning has existed since the mid-sixteenth century (though not commonly used for another two-hundred odd years) and means “to surrender, renounce or relinquish, as sovereign power; to withdraw definitely from filling or exercising, as a high office, station, dignity.  This can apply to anyone personally exercising sovereign authority (kings, queens, popes, tsars et al) and is the act of renouncing the throne (and thus sovereignty).  Procedurally, most monarchies have detailed administrative procedures (and abdication has of late assumed a new popularity) to ensure the transfer from old to new is legally identical in consequence to what happens in the case of a sovereign dying but the lawyers have previously resolved cases where formalities were lacking.  In the matter of James VII and II (1633–1701; King of England and King of Ireland (as James II) & King of Scotland (as James VII) 1685-1688 who left the throne in the circumstances of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the act of “abandonment” or “forfeiture”, even in the absence of any formal mechanism, was held to be an abdication, albeit one that might (analogously with use in other aspects of law) be styled a “constructive abdication”.

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile (Mercedes-Benz ML 430 (W163)), 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, 2008.

Although the term abdication is sometimes used of papal resignations, the Vatican is emphatic the word is not used in any official documents of the Church.  This imprecise use of abdication is attributable to the Holy See being (as well as the universal government of the multi-national Roman Catholic Church) the authority ruling the Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory since the Lateran Concordat of 1929.  The Pope is thus the ruler of both Vatican City State and the Holy See; collectively an absolute theocracy.  It’s thus a fine point and were the Holy See to prefer “abdicate” to “resign”, it would seem not a substantive change and the fact the office is elected and not dynastic is not significant, Holy Roman emperors and the some early kings of England all elected. 

Pope Benedict XVI in Popemobile, Seravalle stadium, San Marino, 2011.

What none can deny is that the Holy See has a long (if of late infrequent) history of precedent, five popes between the tenth & fifteenth centuries resigning with a further four between the third & eleventh possibly having done so.  Mysteriously, there’s even another event which may or may not have been a resignation and indeed the subject may not even have been a pope but rather an anti-pope, somewhat analogous with the idea the MAGA Republicans have of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) being an anti-president.  The revisions to canon law in 1917 and 1983 only clarified certain aspects of the resignation process and had no effect on anything definitional.  Thus, what Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) did when renouncing office in 2013 was an act of abnegation and not an abdication and that he chose subsequently to be styled pope emeritus remains of no legal or constitutional significance.

Concordat

Concordat (pronounced kon-kawr-dat)

(1) An agreement or compact, especially an official one Agreement between things; mutual fitness; harmony.

(2) A formal agreement between two parties, especially between a church and a state.

(3) In Roman Catholic canon law, a pact, treaty or agreement between the Holy See and a secular government regarding the regulation of church matters.  In early use it was sometimes a personal agreement between pope and sovereign.

1610–1620: From the the sixteenth century French conciordat, replacing concordate from the Medieval Latin concordātum (something agreed), a noun use of the Latin concordatum, neuter of concordātus, past participle of concordāre (to be in agreement; to be of one mind), from concors (genitive concordis) (of one mind)  from concors (genitive concordis) (of one mind).  The original definition in Roman Catholic canon law was "an agreement between Church and state on a mutual matter".  Concordat is a noun, the noun plural is concordats and concordatory is an adjective.  Concord dates from 1250-1300, from the Middle English and Old French concorde from the Latin concordia, (harmonious), genitive concordis (of the same mind, literally “hearts together”).  Concordat is a noun and concordant an adjective; the noun plural is concordats.

The Duce, Benito Mussolini (1883–1945; Prime Minister of Italy 1922-1943) and Cardinal Pietro Gasparri (1852–1934; Cardinal Secretary of State 1914-1930) signing the Lateran Concordat in 1929.

The concordat, a formal agreement between the Holy See and a sovereign state, dates from a time when the relationship between the Church and sovereign entities was different than what now exists.  Indeed, the dynamics of the relationships have changed much over the centuries but, at any given moment, concordats have always been practical application of Church-state relations and, like all politics, were an expression of the art of the possible, a concordat not necessarily what a pope wanted, but certainly the best he could at the time manage, the best known tending to be the controversial, notably (1) the treaty of 1801 with Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815), (2) the Lateran Accord agreed in 1929 with Mussolini which created the modern city-state of the Vatican and which was the final step in Italian unification and (3) The Reich Concordat of 1933, the accommodation with Hitler’s Germany which was supposed to resolve the issue of relations which had been unsettled since Otto von Bismarck's (1815-1989; Chancellor of the German Empire 1871-1890) time but which Berlin repeatedly violated.

La Signature du Concordat aux Tuileries 15 juillet 1801 (The Signing of the Concordat at the Tuileries, 15 July 1801) (1803-1804) by François Pascal Simon Gérard (1770–1837) (titled as Baron Gérard in 1809); the original hangs in the Musée National des Châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon, Versailles.  

At least those violations weren’t wholly unexpected.  Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958; Pope Pius XII 1939-1958) had been Apostolic Nuncio (ambassador; 1926-1929) to Berlin and was Cardinal Secretary of State (foreign minister; 1930–1939) when the Reich Concordat was signed and he was under no illusion.  When it was said to him that the Nazis were unlikely to honor the terms, he replied with a smile that was true but that they would probably not violate all its articles “at the same time”.  The sardonic realism would serve the cardinal well in the years ahead when often he would required to choose the lesser of many competing evils.  Some though, for a while, retained hope if not faith.  As late as 1937, Archbishop Conrad Gröber (1872–1948; Archbishop of Freiburg 1932-1948) thought the Reich Concordat proof that “…two powers, totalitarian in their character, can find agreement, if their domains are separate”.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), another cynic though then still a realist, viewed the concordat much as Hermann Göring (1893-1946) would in his trial at Nuremberg describe all the treaties executed by the Nazis: “so much toilet paper”.  Actually an admirer of the Roman Catholic Church which had survived two-thousand years of European rough and tumble, he was resigned to a co-existence but one on his terms, noting the day would come when there would be a reckoning with “those black crows”.

Two of the twentieth century's great survivors, German vice chancellor Franz von Papen (1879-1969) (second from left) and the Holy See's secretary of state Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) (head of the table) meet in the Vatican on 20 July 1933 to sign the Reischskonkordat which some six weeks later was ratified by the Nazi-dominated Reichstag (the German parliament).  The cardinal calculated the Church would gain from the arrangement but had few illusions about the Nazis.  Upon being told the Nazis would probably violate the agreement, he agreed but observed they probably wouldn't violate all of the clauses "at the same time".  Later when being driven through Rome where he saw two men fighting in the street, he remarked to his companion "I imagine they've probably just signed a concordat".

That’s not to say there haven’t always been theorists who wandered a bit beyond the possible.  After the Reformation, there were those in the Church who held that the Church sits above the state in all things (the “regalist” position), while others (maintaining the “curialist” position) held that although the Church is superior to the state, the Church may grant certain privileges to the state through agreements such as concordats.  In the modern age, the accepted understanding of concordats is that the Church and the various sovereign states are both legal entities able to enter into bilateral agreements.  Concordats are thus no different than other treaties & agreements in that being executed under international law, they are enforceable according to legal principles.  Church and state may in some ways not be co-equal but canon law does recognise the two exist in distinct spheres and is explicit in respecting the bilateral agreements that the Holy See has entered into with other nation-states.  The Code of Canon Law states unambiguously that concordats override any contrary norms in canon law: “The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code.”  This is an unexceptional statement familiar in many constitutional arrangements where two legal systems interact, the need being to define, where conflict may exist, which has precedence and is no more than an application of a legal maxim known to both canon and secular law: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be honored).  Concordats can both protect and clarify the rights of the Church by precisely defining relationship between the Church and a state, expressed by the Second Vatican Council’s (Vatican II 1962-1965) pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et spes (Joay and Hope) in the statement:

“The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it.  She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority.  She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods.”

In other words, “if you can’t beat them, join them”, or, at least, enter into peaceful co-existence with them, a position in the modern age possible, if not uncontroversial with sovereign and sub-national entities notionally with Catholic majority populations (eg Bavaria 1966, Austria 1969, Italy 1985) but also with countries where Christians exist only as tiny minorities (eg Tunisia 1964, Morocco 1985, Israel 1993).  Nor does a concordat need to be a complete codification, the agreement between the Holy See and Tel Aviv noting that in certain matters, agreement had not been reached and discussions need to continue.  Such “framework” or “stepping-stone” agreements have been in the diplomatic toolkit for centuries but they’re a statement of professed intent and in the decades since there’s been little apparent progress in many of the unresolved matters important to the Holy See regarding physical property in the Holy Land and the “working document” was never ratified by the Israeli parliament (the Knesset).  At least partially filling this diplomatic lacuna was something which has thus far proved a coda to the Holy See’s official recognition in 2012 of the State of Palestine.  In 2015, The Vatican concluded a concordat with “the State of Palestine” (sic), supporting a two-state solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel “on the basis of the 1967 borders”.  According to Rome, the provisions in the agreement concern technical (ie financial & legal) aspects of the legal status of Catholic facilities and personnel on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  That may be as boringly procedural as it sounds but what’s aroused interest is that the Vatican has refused to publish the text or comment on the details, thus arousing suspicion that the treaty between with the Palestinians might, at least in part, contradict the earlier concordat with Israel.  From Washington to Tel Aviv, many are interested in the small print.

Rome 1929: The Duce reads the Lateran Concordat's small print.

Interestingly, Vatican II struck the term concordat from canon law, apparently in a nod to the Council's declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis humanae (Of the Dignity of the Human Person) which mused on the evolution of a “…different model of relations between the Vatican and various states [which] is still evolving.”  Whatever might have been intended to be the implications of that, it reappeared with the Polish Concordat of 1993 and seems to be here to stay.

Dominion

Dominion (pronounced duh-min-yon)

(1) The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

(2) Rule; control; domination; predominance; ascendancy.

(3) A territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single ruler-ship holds sway (used sometimes figuratively).

(4) Lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

(5) In political science, a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire.  Formerly applied to self-governing former colonies of the British Empire; Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and later, others.

(6) In law, a rare (probably archaic) alternative spelling of dominium.

(7) In taxonomy, kingdom.

(8) A specialized classification in theology; in biblical scholarship, an order of angel in Christian angelology, ranked above virtues and below thrones.

Mid 1400s: From the Middle English dominion (lordship, sovereign or supreme authority), from the Middle & Old French dominion (rule, power), from the Medieval Latin dominionem (nominative dominio) or dominium (lordship, right of ownership), from dominus (lord, master), corresponding to dominium (property, ownership) from domus (house) from the primitive Indo-European root dem (house, household).  The meaning "territory or people subject to a specific government” dates from the 1510s, the specific legal meaning at law “power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal" was codified by the 1650s.  In law, dominion was used from the 1510s to refer to (a territory or people subject to a specific government or control) and in the law of real property, from the 1650s assumed the meaning "power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal".

British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, Dominion Day, the Canadian national holiday in celebration of the union, and “Old Dominion”, the popular name for the US state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.  Dominions are best remembered as the quasi-independent nations under the British Crown, constituting the part of the British Empire best remembered as “the white dominions” or, later, “the white commonwealth”.  Canada was the first, declared in 1867 and Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa followed.  Later additions included the Irish Free State and the states of the old Raj, India, East and West Pakistan, and Ceylon.  The Balfour (Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour), 1848–1930, UK prime-minister 1902-1905; Lord President of the Council 1925-1929) Declaration of 1926 recognized the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be "...autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." and the Statute of Westminster (1931), in what was the first general enactment for the constitution of the British Empire since Lord North's (later Lord Guilford, 1732–1792; GB prime-minister 1770-1782) regulating act of 1778, granted them what was close to legislative independence.

The word dominion was earlier used to refer to a geographically-defined political entity without legal status mentioned above.  Wales was thus described between 1535-1801 and New England between 1686-1689.  It was also the popular name for the US state of Virginia, the use first recorded in 1778.  While never bothering fully to define the status, the covenant of the League of Nations made provision for the admission of any “fully self-governing state, Dominion, or Colony”, the implication being that Dominion status was something between that of a colony and a state.  That certainly reflected British Empire practice.

Flag of Canada, adopted 1965.

Canada, officially still uses the title though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created such a dominion by passing into law the British North America Act which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.  It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next major event in 1982 when the structurally significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).

Canada, officially still uses the title “Dominion of Canada”, though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created the dominion by passing into law the British North America Act (1967) which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.

It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next structural event in 1982 when the significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).  In this context the difference between "patriation" & “repatriation” was merely political, lawyers agreeing there was no technical point to be argued but as a symbolic gesture, it appealed to politicians who wished to make the point that the Canadian constitution was, for the first time, fully to be in Canadian hands.  Prior to the 1982 act, the process to amend the constitution required the parliament in Ottawa to request the parliament in Westminster to give effect to the change; the United Kingdom assembly thus still functioning as an imperial parliament.  This was the arrangement which prevailed upon the granting of dominion statue in 1867 and while the 1931 Statute of Westminster (limiting the circumstances win which the British Parliament's could legislate for Canada) and the 1949 British North America (No 2) Act (granting the (federal) parliament in Ottawa significant authority to amend the constitution) did render Canada de facto independence, the device of needing to refer major amendments to London remained.

The retention of this authority in London was not the choice of the colonial oppressors, successive British governments having offered to expedite any (patriative or repatriative as preferred; repatriate from the Latin repatriare, the construct being re- (back, backwards, again) + patria (homeland) and cognate to repair (to return)) request from the Canadian parliament, but rather the inability of the politicians in Ottawa to secure the agreement of the politicians in Quebec City about the exact model of any locally-held authority.  In one of the charming quirks which emerged as the decolonization processes of the twentieth century unfolded, the view, rightly or wrongly, of the French-speaking politicians in Quebec was that the UK politicians would be less likely to make changes disadvantageous to them than would other Canadian politicians.

In the end, despite decades of discussion, debate and dissent, unanimous agreement between the federal and provincial governments proved impossible to secure and it was announced by Ottawa that regardless of that, the request would be made unilaterally to patriate the constitution from Britain.  Several provinces challenged that in the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges (in something of an echo of the prevailing view about the circumstance of the 1975 dismissal of an Australian prime-minister in 1975) ruled that provincial consent was not a legal necessity although “substantial consent” by the provincial assemblies was a longstanding constitutional convention.  As it turned out, with a small legislative tweak, the Canadian prime-minister was able to obtain the agreement of nine of the ten provinces, thereby presumably satisfying both spirit and letter.

In Westminster, a few MPs took advantage of the situation to do a bit of virtue-signaling and generally practice the politics of “warm inner glow” by voting against the Canada Act (1982) claiming to be concerned about Canada’s prior treatment of Quebec and its indigenous peoples.  The UK government however, although concerned about a couple of technical points, quickly passed the act and from that point, Canada became wholly independent, the position of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state an entirely personal relationship with the Canadian government with no connection to the government of the UK.  Presumably to try to show the people of Canada something had happened, the name of the Dominion Day national holiday was changed to Canada Day.

King George V with prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Back row: WS Monroe (Newfoundland), JG Coates (New Zealand), SM Bruce (Australia), JBM Hertzog (South Africa) and WT Cosgrave (Irish Free State).  Front row: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, Mackenzie King (Canada).

Creating some confusion, which they seem often to have enjoyed, the Colonial Office referred to all the Empire’s possessions as dominions (with a small d) while those with a capital D were the Dominions (Australia, NZ et al) proper.  Thus all Dominions were dominions but not all dominions were Dominions.  How the Foreign Office must have envied the pedantry.  

Dylan Thomas’ poem And Death Shall Have No Dominion recalls Romans 6:9 (King James translation) “death hath no more dominion”.

And death shall have no dominion.

Dead man naked they shall be one

With the man in the wind and the west moon;

When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,

They shall have stars at elbow and foot;

Though they go mad they shall be sane,

Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;

Though lovers be lost love shall not;

And death shall have no dominion.

 

And death shall have no dominion.

Under the windings of the sea

They lying long shall not die windily;

Twisting on racks when sinews give way,

Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;

Faith in their hands shall snap in two,

And the unicorn evils run them through;

Split all ends up they shan't crack;

And death shall have no dominion.

 

And death shall have no dominion.

No more may gulls cry at their ears

Or waves break loud on the seashores;

Where blew a flower may a flower no more

Lift its head to the blows of the rain;

Though they be mad and dead as nails,

Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;

Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,

And death shall have no dominion.

Interregnum

Interregnum (pronounced inn-ter-reg-numb)

(1) (a) An interval of time between the close of a sovereign's reign and the accession of his or her normal or legitimate successor.  (b) A period when normal government is suspended, especially between successive reigns or regimes.  (c)  Any period during which a state has no ruler or only a temporary executive

(2) The period in English history from the execution of Charles I in 1649 to the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.

(3) An interval in the Church of England dioceses between the periods of office of two bishops.

(4) In casual use, any pause or interruption in continuity.

1570-1580: From the Latin interregnum (an interval between two reigns (literally "between-reign), the construct being inter (between; amid) + rēgnum (kingship, dominion, reign, rule, realm (and related to regere (to rule, to direct, keep straight, guide), from the primitive Indo-European root reg- (move in a straight line), with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line", thus "to lead, rule"). To illustrate that linguistic pragmatism is nothing new, in the Roman republic, the word was preserved to refer to a vacancy in the consulate.  The word is now generally applied to just about any situation where an organization is between leaders and this seems an accepted modern use. The earlier English noun was interreign (1530s), from French interrègne (14c.).

The classic interregnum.  One existed between 1204 and 1261 in the Byzantine Empire.  Following the Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire was dissolved, to be replaced by several Crusader states and several Byzantine states.  It was re-established by Nicean general Alexios Strategopoulos who placed Michael VIII Palaiologos back on the throne of a united Byzantine Empire.

The retrospective interregnum.  The Interregnum of (1649–1660) was a republican period in the three kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland.  Government was carried out by the Commonwealth and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell after the execution of Charles I and before the restoration of Charles II; it became an interregnum only because of the restoration.  Were, for example, a Romanov again to be crowned as Tsar, the period between 1917 and the restoration would become the second Russian interregnum, the first being the brief but messy business of 1825, induced by a disputed succession following the death of the Emperor Alexander I on 1 December.  The squabble lasted less than a month but in those few weeks was conducted the bloody Decembrist revolt which ended when Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich renounced his claim to throne and Nicholas I declared himself Tsar.

The constitutional interregnum.  In the UK, under normal conditions, there is no interregnum; upon the death of one sovereign, the crown is automatically assumed by the next in the line of succession: the King is dead, long live the King.  The famous phrase signifies the continuity of sovereignty, attached to a personal form of power named auctoritas.  Auctoritas is from the Old French autorité & auctorité (authority, prestige, right, permission, dignity, gravity; the Scriptures) from the Latin auctoritatem (nominative auctoritas) (invention, advice, opinion, influence, command) from auctor (master, leader, author).  From the fourteenth century, it conveyed the sense of "legal validity" or “authoritative doctrine", as opposed to opposed to reason or experience and conferred a “right to rule or command, power to enforce obedience, power or right to command or act".  It’s a thing which underpins the legal theory of the mechanics of the seamless transition in the UK of one the sovereign to the next, coronations merely ceremonial and proclamations procedural.  Other countries are different.  When a King of Thailand dies, there isn’t a successor monarch until one is proclaimed, a regent being appointed to carry out the necessary constitutional (though not ceremonial) duties.  A number of monarchies adopt this approach including Belgium and the Holy See.  The papal interregnum is known technically as sede vacante (literally "when the seat is vacant") and ends upon the election of new pope by the College of Cardinals.

The interregnum by analogy.  The term has been applied to the period of time between the election of a new President of the United States and his (or her!) inauguration, during which the outgoing president remains in power, but as a lame duck in the sense that, except in extraordinary circumstances, there is attention only to procedural and ceremonial matters.  So, while the US can sometimes appear to be in a state with some similarities to an interregnum between the election in November and the inauguration in January, it’s  merely a casual term without a literal meaning.  The passage of the twenty-fifth amendment to the US Constitution in 1967 which dealt with the mechanics of the line of succession in the event of a presidential vacancy, disability or inability to fulfil the duties of the office, removed any doubt and established that there is never a point at which the country is without a chief executive.

Fashions change: The dour Charles I (left), the puritanical Oliver Cromwell (centre) and the merry Charles II (right).

The famous interregnum in England, Scotland, and Ireland began with the execution of Charles I (1600-1649) and ended with the restoration to the thrones of the three realms of his son Charles II (1630-1685) in 1660.  Immediately after the execution, a body known as the English Council of State (later re-named the Protector's Privy Council) was created by the Rump Parliament.  Because of the implication of auctoritas, the king's beheading was delayed half a day so the members of parliament could pass legislation declaring themselves the sole representatives of the people and the House of Commons the repository of all power.  Making it a capital offence to proclaim a new king, the laws abolished both the monarchy and the House of Lords.  For most of the interregnum, the British Isles were ruled by Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658) an English general and statesman.  He combined the roles of head of state and head of government of the republican commonwealth.

When Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of England and other places variously 1952-2022) took her last breath, Charles (b 1948) in that moment became King Charles III; the unbroken line summed up in the phrase "The King is dead.  Long Live the King".  In the British constitution there is no interregnum and the coronation (which may happen weeks, months or even years after the succession) is in secular legal terms purely ceremonial although there have been those who argued it was substantive in relation to the monarch's role as supreme governor of the established Church of England, a view long regarded sceptically by most.  As a spectacle however it's of some interest and given the history, there will be interest in the wording used in reference to the queen consort.  However, any constitutional loose ends which may persist after the moment of the succession will have been tidied up at a meeting of the Accession Council, comprised of a number of worthies who assemble upon the death of a monarch and issue a formal proclamation of accession, usually in the presence of the successor who swears oaths relating to both church (England & Scotland) and state.

Thistle

Thistle (pronounced this-uhl)

(1) Any of numerous perennial composite plants of the genera Cirsium, Cynara, Carduus, Onopordum and related genera, having prickly-edged leaves, pink, purple, yellow, or white dense flower heads, and feathery hairs on the seeds: family Asteraceae (composites).

(2) A common term for many other prickly plants.

(3) The national emblem of Scotland since the fifteenth century.

(4) As the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle (1687), a United Kingdom order of chivalry associated with Scotland; the word denoting membership of this order.

Pre 900: From the Middle English thistel, from the Old English thīstel (the earlier form was þistel).  The origin was probably the Proto-Germanic þistilaz & thistilaz, the source also of the Old Saxon thistil, the Old High German distil & thīstil, the German Distel, the Old Norse þistell & thīstill, the Scots thrissel, the Danish tidsel, the Dutch distel and the Icelandic þistill.  The root is uncertain origin but may have been an extended form of the primitive Indo-European (s)teyg & steig- (to prick, stick, pierce).  The adjective is thistly and the noun plural thistles.

Insignia of The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle.

The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle is an order of chivalry of the United Kingdom which, unusually, is one of a small class in the personal gift of the sovereign whereas most are conferred on the basis of a recommendation from the various governments where the British monarch remains head of state.  The order was founded in 1687 by King James VII of Scotland (1633-1701; James II of England and Ireland) who at the time asserted it was a revival of an earlier order but historians doubt the claim, the royal warrant of 1687 containing some dubious history and most doubtful chronology.  Nor is there any documentary evidence to support the idea an award in some way linked to the thistle was instituted after the Scottish victory at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, the earliest vaguely plausible claim dating from the fifteenth century when James III (1451-1488) adopted the thistle as the royal insignia and minted coins depicting thistles.  There’s nothing however to support any link with knighthoods or other orders of chivalry and all that is certain is that the thistle became established as an emblem of Scotland, attached firstly to the royal court and later to the national identity.

The troublesome Bull Thistle.

Not discouraged by tiresome, inconvenient history, in 1687 James VII issued letters patent for an order of knighthood "reviving and restoring the Order of the Thistle to its full glory, lustre and magnificency".  Intended to be exclusive, membership was limited to twelve but James was deposed in the Glorious Revolution (1688) and no appointments to the order were made beyond the original eight although the exiled House of Stuart continued to issue what came to be referred to as “the Jacobite Thistle”, these not acknowledged by the British Crown.  The award of the Thistle resumed in 1704, before even the 1707 Acts of Union under which the kingdoms of England and Scotland united as a single sovereign state known as Great Britain.  The motto of the order is Nemo me impune lacessit (No one provokes me with impunity), an adoption of that which had been used by the Royal Stuart dynasty of Scotland since at least the 1570s.  It's used also by three of the British Army's Scottish regiments and appears on both the royal coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland and the version of the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland.

In the UK’s order of precedence, Knights and Ladies of the Thistle rank second only to the Order of the Garter and the wives, sons, daughters and daughters-in-law of Knights of the Thistle also can rise a few notches on the order of precedence, a courtesy not extended to any relative of a Lady of the Thistle, something which must be seen as an anomaly in the early twenty-first century but which probably cannot easily be reformed in isolation, any alteration in these things likely to trigger a chain-reaction of events in a system designed to resist change.  The television show Yes Minister did offer an alternative explanation for the mechanism for awarding the Thistle, suggesting “…a committee sits on it”.

Sir Robert Menzies (1894–1978; prime minister of Australia 1939-1941 & 1949-1966) in his Knight of the Thistle robes.

Like the Most Noble Order of the Garter (1348) and the Royal Victorian Order (1896), the Thistle lies in the personal gift of the sovereign rather than being an award made by governments as is the case with most honors.  Unusually too, the Thistle is geographically specific, awarded only to those with some connection to Scotland, although, they need not be actually Scottish.  The equivalent Irish Order, the Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick (1783) was for those with an association with Ireland handled in a similar manner to the Thistle but awards were restricted after independence was granted to Eire (southern Ireland) in 1922 and the order has been dormant (though not abolished) since 1936.  This follows the practice applied to imperial honors tied to particular colonies of the Raj and the old British Empire, the Indian (the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India (1861) & the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire (1878)) and Burmese (the Order of Burma (1940)) orders dormant since the respective grants of independence in 1947 & 1948.  Presumably, were Scotland to become an independent state, the Thistle too would lapse into a similar state of abeyance.

Clan Lindsay car seat covers.

Clan Lindsay is a Scottish clan of the Scottish Lowlands although the origins of the Lindsay name lie in England, south of the border.  Lindsay is a toponym (a word derived from the name of a locality), itself drawn from the Old English toponym Lindesege (Island of Lind), a reference to the city of Lincoln, in which Lind is the original Brittonic form of the name, the “island” referring to Lincoln being an island in the surrounding fenland.  Under Roman occupation, the area in Lincolnshire now occupied by the city of Lincoln was known as Lindum Colonia, shortened in the Old English to Lindocolina and later to Lincylene, Lindum a Latinized form of a native Brittonic name which had been reconstructed as Lindon (pool or lake).  In the late nineteenth century, as the modern convention in the Western World (Christian name + Surname) became (more or less) standardized, like many others, surnames Lindsay and Lindsey began to be used as given names although it wasn’t until the mid-1960s that it became common in the Commonwealth to use them for girls, a trend which spread quickly to the US and by late in the century, the use for boys rapidly declined, the two trends presumably not unrelated.

Lindsay Lohan in tartan for Freaky Friday (2003) costume test photos (left), the Clan Lindsay tartan garden flag with swan crest, augmented by the thistle (national flower of Scotland) emblems (centre) and Clan Lindsay T-Shirt with stylized thistle (right).  The Clan Lindsay motto is Endure Fort (Endure Bravely).

Westphalia

Westphalia (pronounced west-fey-lee-uh or weat-feyl-yua)

(1) Of or relating to the historic north-west German region of Westphalia or its inhabitants (now a subdivision (landschaftsverband) of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony).

(2) A term in the Holy Roman Empire to describe the power of second sight for which the peasants of Westphalia were said to be noted

(3) One of the major dialect groups of West Low German spoken in Westphalia.

(4) In geology, a European phase of the upper-Carboniferous period.

(5) A warm-blood horse bred in the Westphalia region.

(6) A term to describe the treaty (Peace of Westphalia) ending the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648).

(7) A description of the international system of co-existing sovereign states said to have originated with the Treaty of Westphalia and formalised first in the new political order created in Europe.

Circa 1200:  A regional & geographical name, from Middle Dutch falen, from Old French faillir (From Old French falir, from Vulgar Latin fallire, from Latin fallere, present active infinitive of fallo.)  The term "Westphalia" contrasts with the much less used term "Eastphalia", which roughly covers the south-eastern part of the present-day state of Lower Saxony, western Saxony-Anhalt and northern Thuringia.

The nation-state and Westphalian sovereignty

Although never a part of the negotiations which culminated in the Peace of Westphalia which in 1648 ended the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), the concept of Westphalian (or state) sovereignty emerged and was refined over the subsequent three-hundred years.  The principle, one of the foundation concepts in international law, is that each state enjoyed exclusive sovereignty within its territory, a principle upheld in its purest form in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Opinion of its desirably has always been contested, especially by those poor, misguided souls who attempt to inject ethics into international relations but as power-realist Henry Kissinger (B 1923, US national security advisor (1969-1975) & secretary of state 1973-1977)  noted, it was “a practical accommodation to reality, not a unique moral insight…[which depended on] states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and …[maintaining stability and a balance of power].”

The doctrine of absolute state sovereignty began most obviously to fray in the 1920s when the League of Nations was formed, lawyers and political scientists there developing theories which inherently justified intervention in sovereign states.  The League prove ineffectual in translating these theories and policies into effective action but the legal principles subsequently developed for the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946) provided the basis of the framework of what came to be called the “doctrine of the international community", a school of thought which has produced both quasi-legal gestures such as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and actual institutions like the international criminal courts.

Treaty of Westphalia in Münster, 24 October 1648, Woodcut after a painting, circa 1900, by Fritz Grotemeyer (1864–1947).

Paramount

Paramount (pronounced par-uh-mount)

(1) Chief in importance or impact; supreme; pre-eminent; of the highest importance.

(2) Above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction.

(3) A supreme ruler; overlord (now rare thought often in historic texts).

(4) In law (in a hierarchy of rights), having precedence over or superior to another.

1525-1526: From the Anglo-Norman paramount & paramount (pre-eminent; above), the construct being the Old French par & per (by) + amont & amunt (upward).  Par was from the Latin per (by means of, through), from the primitive Indo-European per- (to go through; to carry forth, fare).  Amont & amunt were from the Latin ad montem (to the mountain; upward), the construct being ad (up to), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European héd (at; to) + montem (the accusative singular of mōns (mount, mountain), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European men- (to stand out, tower).  Synonyms include predominant, preeminent, outstanding, capital, cardinal, chief, commanding, controlling, crowning, dominant, eminent, first, foremost, leading, main, overbearing, predominate, premier, preponderant utmost & prevalent while the most common antonyms are insignificant, secondary & unimportant (in historic land law, the antonym paravail was from the Old French par aval (below), the construct being par + aval (down), the construct being the Latin a(d) + val (a valley), from the Latin vallis; of feudal tenants, it referred to those at the bottom of the hierarchy of rights).  Paramount is a noun & adjective, paramountcy paramountship & paramountness are nouns, paramountly is an adverb; the noun plural is paramounts.

Land law and freehold title

Paramount Pictures promotional poster for Mean Girls (2004).

Paramount was originally a term in feudal land-title law.  It described the lord paramount, the one who held absolute title to his fiefdom, not as a grant dependent upon (or revocable by) a superior lord.  A paramount lord was thus superior to a mesne lord (a landlord who has tenants holding under him, while himself the subject of the holding of a superior lord (a kind of sub-letting), mesne being the general legal principle of something intermediate or intervening) whose title to a fief existed ultimately at the pleasure of a superior. The concept endures in modern land law where titles are listed in documents and, even today, there exist jurisdictions where land, said to enjoy an indefeasible title, can still be subject to “paramount interests” which, although unregistered, can prevail over those formally registered.  In land law, a lord paramount could be male or female but in a charming quirk, in the sport of archery, the noun "lady paramount" (the plural being ladies paramount) is the title awarded to the woman who achieves the highest score.

In Australia, the lord paramount is not the crown but the person of the sovereign.  In a legal sense, the king or queen (of Australia) “owns” all the land that constitutes the nation of Australia and those who “own” their own little piece by virtue of holding a valid freehold title (fee simple), in the narrow technical sense, actually hold only a revocable grant from the crown (via some instrument of the state) exercising rights delegated by the sovereign (the king or queen).  Although of no practical significance, it’s not a legal fiction and the position of Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) as lord paramount in the system of land tenure in Australia was affirmed by the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992).