General Bonaparte

[The Chief]

Given sensitivities in this forum with regard to self-styled titles and
orders I must apologise for my solecism yesterday with regard to the
"Emperor" Napoleon. Of course, I meant to refer to General
Bonaparte.

Regards,
The Chief

[Peter Constantine]

Post by The Chief
Given sensitivities in this forum with regard to self-styled titles and
orders I must apologise for my solecism yesterday with regard to the
"Emperor" Napoleon. Of course, I meant to refer to General
Bonaparte.

Can't help but find it slightly ironic that it is the anonymous 'Chief'
who is apologising for errors regarding self-styled titles...

...however, Napoleon Bonaparte's titles of Emperor of the French and
King of Italy seem to me to be no more 'self-styled' than those of many
other monarchs throughout history. The Bonarparte family's claim to the
crowns of France and Italy were no less valid than the Grimaldi family's
claim to be sovereigns of Monaco or Duke George of Brunswick-Lüneburg's
claim to the British throne.


x

[Gules two bends sinister between two stars or]

[Andrew]

What are you talking about? The First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte was
elected Emperor of the French by the nation. The Emperor of the French
Napoleon I was recognized as lawful sovereign by other sovereigns of
European states, including his normal (non-morganatic) alliance with
Maria-Louise Habsburg. He never clamed to be a King of France. It was
no any more King of Italy that time. He was the first King of Italy. Do
not forget, that Kingdom of Italy was (secondly) created for Savoy
dynasty at 1871.

[The Chief]

Post by Andrew
What are you talking about? The First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte was
elected Emperor of the French by the nation. The Emperor of the French
Napoleon I was recognized as lawful sovereign by other sovereigns of
European states, including his normal (non-morganatic) alliance with
Maria-Louise Habsburg. He never clamed to be a King of France. It was
no any more King of Italy that time. He was the first King of Italy. Do
not forget, that Kingdom of Italy was (secondly) created for Savoy
dynasty at 1871.

What am I talking about? Well, I had thought that those somewhat
familiar with Napoleon's life were aware that he spent his last years
in exile in St. Helena in a constant petty dispute with the British as
to his title, "General Bonaparte" being the offiical British
designation, as defined by Act of Parliament. At least one officer was
court-martialled for "wilfully designating General Bonaparte.... in a
manner different from that in which he is designated in the Act of
Pariament for the better custody of his person." I do hope you are not
wilfully contravening said Act.

Regards,
The Chief

[Andrew]

Post by The Chief
What am I talking about? Well, I had thought that those somewhat
familiar with Napoleon's life were aware that he spent his last years
in exile in St. Helena in a constant petty dispute with the British as
to his title, "General Bonaparte" being the offiical British
designation, as defined by Act of Parliament. At least one officer was
court-martialled for "wilfully designating General Bonaparte.... in a
manner different from that in which he is designated in the Act of
Pariament for the better custody of his person." I do hope you are not
wilfully contravening said Act.
Regards,
The Chief

Dear Chief,
Your conclusions about Emperor Napoleon I status are wrong.
First of all, such an Act of Parliament has any power just for UK
subjects. Emperor Napoleon was styled as Usurper, etc. This Act of
Parliament of the UK was a legal nihilism and just an political
statement, directed to humiliation of the enemy of the UK and may not
affect (post-factum) any Napoleon's legal status (as former ruling
lawful and recognized sovereign and monarch). His alliance with
Habsburg House was not misalliance, but normal alliance, titles of his
creation are fully legal, his successors must be considered (and they
are considered anywhere even for now) as members of the Imperial
Family.

[Don Aitken]

Post by Andrew

Post by The Chief
What am I talking about? Well, I had thought that those somewhat
familiar with Napoleon's life were aware that he spent his last years
in exile in St. Helena in a constant petty dispute with the British as
to his title, "General Bonaparte" being the offiical British
designation, as defined by Act of Parliament. At least one officer was
court-martialled for "wilfully designating General Bonaparte.... in a
manner different from that in which he is designated in the Act of
Pariament for the better custody of his person." I do hope you are not
wilfully contravening said Act.

Your conclusions about Emperor Napoleon I status are wrong.
First of all, such an Act of Parliament has any power just for UK
subjects. Emperor Napoleon was styled as Usurper, etc. This Act of
Parliament of the UK was a legal nihilism and just an political
statement, directed to humiliation of the enemy of the UK and may not
affect (post-factum) any Napoleon's legal status (as former ruling
lawful and recognized sovereign and monarch). His alliance with
Habsburg House was not misalliance, but normal alliance, titles of his
creation are fully legal, his successors must be considered (and they
are considered anywhere even for now) as members of the Imperial
Family.

Nomenclature, like treason, is a matter of dates. Napoleon's status
post-Waterloo was settled by inter-allied agreement, in which his
Habsburg in-laws concurred, and which the British Act of Parliament
merely implemented. It was not that of a sovereign or ex-sovereign,
but of a "disturber of the public peace of Europe", sentenced to
perpetual imprisonment. He was lucky not to be shot.

[Francois R. Velde]

Post by Don Aitken
Nomenclature, like treason, is a matter of dates. Napoleon's status
post-Waterloo was settled by inter-allied agreement, in which his
Habsburg in-laws concurred, and which the British Act of Parliament
merely implemented. It was not that of a sovereign or ex-sovereign,
but of a "disturber of the public peace of Europe", sentenced to
perpetual imprisonment. He was lucky not to be shot.

For the UK, it is not a matter of dates, but a matter of consistency.
The British government recognized the French Republic, and therefore
general Bonaparte who was one of its three executives, by signing a
peace treaty in 1802. It never recognized the French Empire or
Napoleon as Emperor (the only European government in this case).
The only change in that position was Britain's unilateral acceptance
of those clauses of the treaty of Fontainebleau (Apr 11, 1814)
relating to sovereignty over Elba (i.e., it implicitly recognized
general Bonaparte as sovereign of Elba).

[Anton Sherwood]

Post by Francois R. Velde
The only change in that position was Britain's unilateral
acceptance of those clauses of the treaty of Fontainebleau
(Apr 11, 1814) relating to sovereignty over Elba (i.e., it
implicitly recognized general Bonaparte as sovereign of Elba).

Now that's slightly interesting: did he have a title
such as Grand Whatsit of Elba?

[o***@gmail.com]

He did; it was "Sovereign of the Isle of Elba"

[The Chief]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Andrew

Post by The Chief
What am I talking about? Well, I had thought that those somewhat
familiar with Napoleon's life were aware that he spent his last years
in exile in St. Helena in a constant petty dispute with the British as
to his title, "General Bonaparte" being the offiical British
designation, as defined by Act of Parliament. At least one officer was
court-martialled for "wilfully designating General Bonaparte.... in a
manner different from that in which he is designated in the Act of
Pariament for the better custody of his person." I do hope you are not
wilfully contravening said Act.

Your conclusions about Emperor Napoleon I status are wrong.
First of all, such an Act of Parliament has any power just for UK
subjects. Emperor Napoleon was styled as Usurper, etc. This Act of
Parliament of the UK was a legal nihilism and just an political
statement, directed to humiliation of the enemy of the UK and may not
affect (post-factum) any Napoleon's legal status (as former ruling
lawful and recognized sovereign and monarch). His alliance with
Habsburg House was not misalliance, but normal alliance, titles of his
creation are fully legal, his successors must be considered (and they
are considered anywhere even for now) as members of the Imperial
Family.

Nomenclature, like treason, is a matter of dates. Napoleon's status
post-Waterloo was settled by inter-allied agreement, in which his
Habsburg in-laws concurred, and which the British Act of Parliament
merely implemented. It was not that of a sovereign or ex-sovereign,
but of a "disturber of the public peace of Europe", sentenced to
perpetual imprisonment. He was lucky not to be shot.
--
Don Aitken

Thank you, Don. In addition to being a reminder of the historical
position of Napoleon post-1815, my OP was also a slight tweak at some
correspondents here - the ranks of the self-styled include some very
illustrious characters.

Regards,
The Chief

[Peter Constantine]

Post by Andrew
Your conclusions about Emperor Napoleon I status are wrong.
First of all, such an Act of Parliament has any power just for UK
subjects. Emperor Napoleon was styled as Usurper, etc. This Act of
Parliament of the UK was a legal nihilism and just an political
statement, directed to humiliation of the enemy of the UK and may not
affect (post-factum) any Napoleon's legal status (as former ruling
lawful and recognized sovereign and monarch). His alliance with
Habsburg House was not misalliance, but normal alliance, titles of his
creation are fully legal, his successors must be considered (and they
are considered anywhere even for now) as members of the Imperial
Family.

I would suggest that it is not UK legislation but French law or custom
that should be considered. Perhaps the family's wishes should also be
respected. Charles Napoleon the current head of the family is a
republican and socialist politician, I doubt that he asking anyone to
address him as 'His Imperial Highness'.


x

[George Lucki]

Post by Peter Constantine

Post by Andrew
Your conclusions about Emperor Napoleon I status are wrong.
First of all, such an Act of Parliament has any power just for UK
subjects. Emperor Napoleon was styled as Usurper, etc. This Act of
Parliament of the UK was a legal nihilism and just an political
statement, directed to humiliation of the enemy of the UK and may not
affect (post-factum) any Napoleon's legal status (as former ruling
lawful and recognized sovereign and monarch). His alliance with
Habsburg House was not misalliance, but normal alliance, titles of his
creation are fully legal, his successors must be considered (and they
are considered anywhere even for now) as members of the Imperial
Family.

I would suggest that it is not UK legislation but French law or custom
that should be considered. Perhaps the family's wishes should also be
respected. Charles Napoleon the current head of the family is a
republican and socialist politician, I doubt that he asking anyone to
address him as 'His Imperial Highness'.

Sure. Sure. :)
He's not asking anyone to address him by that title yet.
But history has seen this before with thie family. Napoleon I started out
with as a 'republican' First Consul and then with a purported assasination
attempt there was enough pretext to alter the rules and then suddenly we
have HIH Napoleon I Emperor of the French!
Napoleon III spent three years as President of the French Republic and
then... a coup and then suddenly HIH Emperor of the French.!
George Lucki

[Andrew]

Post by Peter Constantine

Post by Andrew
Your conclusions about Emperor Napoleon I status are wrong.
First of all, such an Act of Parliament has any power just for UK
subjects. Emperor Napoleon was styled as Usurper, etc. This Act of
Parliament of the UK was a legal nihilism and just an political
statement, directed to humiliation of the enemy of the UK and may not
affect (post-factum) any Napoleon's legal status (as former ruling
lawful and recognized sovereign and monarch). His alliance with
Habsburg House was not misalliance, but normal alliance, titles of his
creation are fully legal, his successors must be considered (and they
are considered anywhere even for now) as members of the Imperial
Family.

I would suggest that it is not UK legislation but French law or custom
that should be considered. Perhaps the family's wishes should also be
respected. Charles Napoleon the current head of the family is a
republican and socialist politician, I doubt that he asking anyone to
address him as 'His Imperial Highness'.

For observed question ( who was Napoleon Bonaparte (by the legal
position) - Emperor or an republican general), generally, does not
matter any single local legal bases itself (UK, or France, etc). It is
a matter of International Public Law. Since Emperor of the French was
(once) officially recognised ( and French Empire as well) by other
ruling sovereigns, and instruments of recognition was issued,
diplomatic relations was established, the fact became a legal position
( the UK was the only European with opposite position on this matter).
Even solutions of the Congress of Vienna may not affect his legal
position as former ruling sovereign (post-factum).

It was mentioned here, that the Head of the Bonaparte family: -
Republican (=latent anarchist and misruling-adorer)? Socialist (=latent
communist and nihilist)?? If it is true (but I believe and hope it is a
joke about Napoleon I and Napoleon III successor), sorry, but it is a
great sham and disgrace for Imperial Family of Bonaparte... No more
comments...

[Peter Constantine]

Post by Andrew
It was mentioned here, that the Head of the Bonaparte family: -
Republican (=latent anarchist and misruling-adorer)? Socialist (=latent
communist and nihilist)?? If it is true (but I believe and hope it is a
joke about Napoleon I and Napoleon III successor), sorry, but it is a
great sham and disgrace for Imperial Family of Bonaparte...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/800623.stm


x

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Andrew
Republican (=latent anarchist and misruling-adorer)? Socialist

(=latent

Post by Andrew
communist and nihilist)??

I think it would make a lot more sense to you if you actually learned
what those words meant.

[Andrew]

***@gmail.com wrote:I think it would make a lot more sense to
you if you actually learned
what those words meant.

Short ansver. No. To you, if you would learn ( from the history and
from the present political situation) what thouse words meant in
reality , in non-imaginary world).

[George Lucki]

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew
Republican (=latent anarchist and misruling-adorer)? Socialist

(=latent

Post by Andrew
communist and nihilist)??

I think it would make a lot more sense to you if you actually learned
what those words meant.

Darren -
I actually think he put his view forward clearly.
Andrew expressed the view that support of socialism is the slippery slope to
both communism and nihilism and that support for the inherent instability of
republican systems with their frequent elections and changes of government
is the slippery slope toward anarchy or ineffectual government.
I think you probably disagree with Andrew in these respects.
George

[David Zincavage]

And are you also going to make a practice of discountenancing the
self-awarded title of "Caesar" assumed by the dukes of Moscow?

David Zincavage

Post by The Chief
Given sensitivities in this forum with regard to self-styled titles and
orders I must apologise for my solecism yesterday with regard to the
"Emperor" Napoleon. Of course, I meant to refer to General
Bonaparte.
Regards,
The Chief