Imagine a monarch comes back from the dead after their successor was crowned.
(Maybe they went into hiding. Maybe they took Tetrodotoxin.)
So, who's the rightful monarch: the old one or the new one?
(Maybe they went into hiding. Maybe they took Tetrodotoxin.)
So, who's the rightful monarch: the old one or the new one?
Legal Situation
Someone can't be crowned as the monarch unless the previous monarch no longer holds said position. Doing so would be legally illegitimate.
There are two avenues that allow the monarch to be legally replaced by their heir: death or abdication. By legally announcing a new monarch, the old one's position is revoked. The legal contract of monarchy is disolved.
There's also deposing the monarch. However, that doesn't usually lead to the legitimate heir replacing the monarch. Regicide is illegal but then new usurper is then legally recognised as the rightful monarch.
(A monarch fleeing can be seen as them abandoning their duties, though whether this is a legitimate argument for declaring their title void is uncertain.)
There are two avenues that allow the monarch to be legally replaced by their heir: death or abdication. By legally announcing a new monarch, the old one's position is revoked. The legal contract of monarchy is disolved.
There's also deposing the monarch. However, that doesn't usually lead to the legitimate heir replacing the monarch. Regicide is illegal but then new usurper is then legally recognised as the rightful monarch.
(A monarch fleeing can be seen as them abandoning their duties, though whether this is a legitimate argument for declaring their title void is uncertain.)
Legal Return
Let's say new monarch has been legally recognised as such.
For the ex-monarch to reappear? I doubt that would disolve the new monarch's legal, rightful position.
If so, every abdicated monarch would be a threat to a monarch's position. Clearly they're not, so why would another ex-king be a threat?
Whilst 'monarch comes back from the dead' has no legal precedence, there is a well-established legal comparison.
Legal Comparison
The situation of a death disolving a legal contract and then the 'dead' returning does have legal precedence.
War widows often married. There were many instances of the widow's ex-husband then returning from the dead. So, who's the rightful, legal husband?
His 'death' meant their marriage was legally disolved, meaning the war widow could legally remarry. But the 'dead' ex-husband coming back didn't disolve his widow's current marriage.
So, the law is firm that coming back from the dead doesn't disolve any legal contracts. Whether marriage or something else like a title. Why should a monarch coming back from the dead be treated any differently by the law?
Final Thoughts
So, is the rightful monarch the old one (who's come back from the dead) or the new one (who's been legally recognised as such)? Logic and law are clear: the new one.
No comments:
Post a Comment