​

During an interview on Cadena SER, Pedro Sánchez questioned why King Felipe VI had reigned for twenty years without visiting Ceuta.

It is incorrect to state that the King has reigned for twenty years — King Felipe VI was proclaimed King in 2014 — but it is even more serious that Sánchez should question why the King has never visited Ceuta, completely omitting the fact that this decision does not rest with the King, but with the Government which he himself heads. In fact, it is his own government that has opposed the King visiting Ceuta and Melilla so as not to upset the Moroccan government.

Long before the crisis broke out, the King had already expressed his intention to visit Ceuta and Melilla: https://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/politica/2025-09-08/los-medios-de-marruecos-cargan-contra-la-visita-del-rey-felipe-vi-a-melilla-violan-la-integridad-territorial-del-pais-7293063/

After the crisis began, the King personally informed the President of Ceuta of his intention to visit the city: https://www.canalsur.es/noticias/espana/vivas-afirma-rey-comprometido-visita_1_1427498.html

This is not the first time a member of the Government has attacked the monarchy...

* In May 2026, the Minister for Transport met with the former vice-president to call for the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a Plurinational Republic: https://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/politica/2026-05-21/acto-contra-la-constitucion-en-el-ateneo-iglesias-puente-y-santaolalla-piden-una-republica-plurinacional-7408166/

* In July 2026, the Minister for Inclusion and Equality stated on national television that the Government had no knowledge of the King wishing to visit Ceuta, and falsely claimed that the Royal Household was free to decide its own official agenda. As has been pointed out, the Royal Household must obtain prior approval from the Government to undertake any official visit, both within Spain and abroad: https://okdiario.com/espana/ministra-portavoz-dice-que-rey-dueno-agenda-visitar-ceuta-puente-corrige-gobierno-decide-20163791

In the past, Sánchez prohibited the King from acting as a mediator in the previous Ceuta crisis: https://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2021-05-22/el-gobierno-impidio-la-mediacion-del-rey-con-marruecos-para-resolver-la-crisis-migratoria-en-ceuta-6758596/

https://www.eldebate.com/espana/20221115/sanchez-margino-rey-tres-crisis-marruecos-no-le-informo-nada_72595.html

The King of Sweden is now the last reigning European monarch of his generation still reigning (excluding Hans-Adam). He hasn't had any major health issues except a planned heart surgery in 2023. About his intentions he has said that he would remain on the throne “as long as I can”, which seems to leave a window open if his health starts failing. What do you think could eventually happen?

Yes, the old fashioned telegram does still exist in the year of our Lord 2026 and I am here for it.

I’d choose France, without a doubt. The Bonapartes, with figures like Napoleon I and Napoleon III, left a huge mark on France: Paris, victorious wars, prestige, history, and many other things that still shape the country today.

Seriously, what did she do?

Some screenshots of Haakon VIII entering

Link to my video: https://youtu.be/EVg6orcCEuw?si=6B7A18W7bc6Rfmmx

This is the consecration ceremony of the late King Harald V in 1991

A video about King Haakon VIII swears oath to the Constitution before Parliament, English subtitle has been added according to the owner of the channel.

Mine is some sort of Semi-Theocratic Monarchy

72 percent of Norwegians support the monarchy as a form of government, according to a recent Norstat survey conducted for NRK.

20 percent want a republic or another form of government, while eight percent answer that they do not know.

The survey was conducted over the weekend after King Harald passed away on Friday.

In May, 64 percent answered that they supported the monarchy. Support has thus increased by eight percentage points. In February, support stood at 60 percent.

If there was an election redfunderm if Switzerland should have monarch

Unlike a constitutional monarchy, there are no checks and balances.

"Soon people (the poor) will no longer be able to have children, I suppose that would be fantastic. We could design new humans in a laboratory."

The nation itself, though the responsibility and child of the state, is a distinct entity from the state itself. It has its own foundational principles which must be guarded. Any truly righteous nation must be a Catholic nation, a nation fervently committed to the truth, morality, and the natural law, patriotic, and with its own sacred culture. The nation must also understand that inherent to their humanity, all people have certain rights and certain duties. The rights of the people are those which allow them to accomplish their rightly ordered duties and allow them to pursue their final, natural end for which we are all created. Every man has inherent to him the the right to life, the right to be raised by a mother and father, the right to believe in and practice the Catholic faith, the right to a good education, specifically a catholic one, the right to seek truth, the right to pursue good and avoid evil, the right to live in society, the right to build and provide for a family, the right to own his own property, the right to possess arms, the right to self-defense, and the right to die a natural death. It must also be understood that these rights inherent to human beings are also privileges, and the state, charged with being the guardian and steward of them, has the authority to take these away when man has committed such action as to surrender them. When a man acts against the truth, against morality, against the natural law, against law and order, and or against the Common Good of the nation, he has surrendered certain rights and declared himself an enemy of these sacred values.

Foundation and Key Principles: The principal duties of the state are to uphold the Truth, Morality, and the Common Good of the nation, to support and defend the Catholic faith, to support and defend the Social Kingship of Christ, to uphold the Natural Law, to protect the National Sovereignty, to defend the nation, to protect the people, to uphold Law and Order, and to ensure the welfare of its citizens. These principal duties of the state are in order of importance. 
Other key principles the state must be founded upon and prioritize include ensuring its own survival, the principle of subsidiarity, the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, ensuring rightly ordered localism and communitarianism, and to ensure the overall long-term prosperity of the nation. The duties of the state and the reason for the state’s existence are clearly outlined by the Church, her fathers and theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, by natural reason, and by the established philosophy of thousands of years (such as the philosophy of Aristotle). The state is ordered toward truth first and foremost, which means it must be ordered toward the one true Catholic faith, the objective morality, the objective Natural Law, and by its main purpose, to uphold the Bonum Commune or the Common Good.
The ideal state must be ordered so that it understands with certainty its duties and responsibilities, its right structure, but while also not forgetting what are not its duties, what are not its responsibilities, what is not its right structure. The truth of the faith, its social doctrine, Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy, natural reason, and the Natural Law tell us that all of the duties and responsibilities of public life are given a proper order, given different entities that are charged with the specifics. We know that there are duties of the central state, and then there are duties properly left to the church, to provincial authorities, to localities, to communities and to families. These duties and responsibilities are and must not be opposed to each other, but are integral to each other, complementary. Each part, in its proper duty, structure, and responsibility comes together to form the machine that does its job, all in support of one another. They come together to form a unified, proper society. And as the great philosopher taught, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. This is proper and according to human nature, as detailed by the Church and her doctrines. It is natural, as well, as power and authority is not artificially produced and divided out by a material bureaucracy like in the modern world, but rather developed naturally and righteously, and whose duty is assigned, we can say organically. Therefore, we must understand which responsibilities and duties lie to which entity in accordance with the Natural Law, the right order, and the principle of subsidiarity. 
The chief duties and responsibilities of the central, national state are generally:

• To uphold the Truth, Morality, and the Common Good of the nation.
• To uphold and defend the Social Kingship of Christ and the Catholic faith.
• To uphold the Natural Law and the proper order of affairs.
• To uphold, protect, and defend the nation as an entity itself, the existence of the nation, the sovereignty of the nation, its independence, and its integrity.
• To protect and defend the people of the nation.
• To uphold law and order.
• To ensure the welfare of its citizens.

These duties and responsibilities are best expressed in the following areas of governance commonly discussed in the modern world:

• Morality and Ethics.
• The cooperation of church and state.
• National Defense, National Security.
• Trade and Commerce.
• Foreign Policy
• The national macro-economy.
• Justice, national policing, and domestic security.
• Healthcare.
• Treasury, Currency, Taxation.
• Borders, Immigration, and Culture.

The chief duties and responsibilities of the Church, the regional authorities, localities, communities and the family are generally:

• To uphold, defend, and execute the Truth, Morality, Catholic faith, the Social Kingship of Christ, and the Natural Law.
• The affairs of the family unit.
• The procreation of children and future generations.
• The education of children and future generations.
• The local economy, workers’ rights, trade unions, and guild associations.
• Locality and community governance.
• Public utilities, infrastructure, community image and beauty.
• Community development and construction.
• The environment, conservation, and agriculture.
• Local emergency services, emergency management.
• Local policing, local public order.
• …

On the Crown: Its Succession, Its Authority, and Its Limits

Just as the family is the first and most natural society, ordered under the authority of the father for the good of its members, so too the nation, in its organic development, is rightly ordered under a single sovereign who stands to the nation as a father stands to his household. The Crown is therefore not an office invented by convention or won by ambition, but a trust descending through the natural order of generation — hereditary by right of primogeniture, so that the peace and continuity of the realm are not subject to the discord of contested claims. Where the heir is a minor or incapacitated, the realm is governed by a regency bound by the same oaths and the same limits as the king himself.

This authority, however, is not the private property of the monarch to be exercised for his own will. Following St. Thomas, all just authority is a stewardship held from God for the sake of the Common Good, not a possession held in the manner of goods. The king reigns as minister of the divine and natural order, not as its author — a distinction sealed in the rite of coronation, wherein the king is anointed and swears, before the Church and the estates of the realm, to defend the Catholic faith, uphold the Natural Law, and preserve the rights proper to the family, the locality, the guild, and the Church. This oath is the constitutional bond by which the Crown's power is bound, prior to and independent of any grant by the people.

From this follows the true meaning of subsidiarity as applied to the Crown: not an administrative convenience, but a limit on central power as a matter of justice. A king who arrogates to the central state duties properly belonging to the family, the parish, the guild, or the province oversteps his own office, whatever efficiency he claims for it. The estates of the realm — clergy, nobility, and the corporate representatives of commune and guild — form a natural council to which the Crown is bound to attend on matters touching the whole nation, not as a grant of popular sovereignty in the liberal sense, but as the organic union of the bodies that constitute the realm.

The Church holds no direct temporal dominion and does not rule in the Crown's place; but by her charge over man's eternal end she retains the right and duty to admonish the sovereign when his rule departs from the faith or the moral law, and to withhold her sanction from what is unjust — the potestas indirecta recognized by Bellarmine and Suárez.

Because the king's power exists for the Common Good and not his own, a ruler who governs for private advantage rather than the good of his people is, as Aquinas teaches in De Regno, no longer a king in the full sense but a tyrant, whatever title he retains. The tradition's response to this is graded rather than singular: no unjust law binds in conscience, and the faithful may refuse cooperation with what contradicts the Natural Law; the estates and lesser magistrates retain the right to resist unjust command corporately, to withhold consent, and to seek redress.

Who is the legitimate Head of the Royal House of Saxony?

Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe, Daniel Timo von Sachsen, or is the Albertine line dynastically extinct?

Before voting, I would like to provide a detailed and, as far as possible, neutral overview of one of the most complicated succession disputes among the former German royal houses.

An important preliminary clarification: this poll concerns only the headship of the Royal House of Saxony, historically the Albertine branch of the House of Wettin.

It does not concern the headship of the entire House of Wettin.

The Wettin dynasty historically divided into two great branches: the Ernestine and Albertine lines. The Albertine line eventually became the royal house of the Kingdom of Saxony, while the Ernestine line produced the various Saxon duchies, including Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Saxe-Meiningen.

Therefore, the question here is specifically:

«Who, if anyone, became the legitimate successor to Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen and undisputed Head of the Royal House of Saxony, after his death in 2012?»

The three options are:

- Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe

- Daniel Timo von Sachsen

- No one: the Albertine/Royal Saxon line became dynastically extinct

The purpose of this post is not to tell anyone which answer is correct, but to present the arguments behind each position as fairly as possible.

The historical background

The last undisputed Head of the Royal House of Saxony was:

HRH Maria Emanuel Prinz von Sachsen, Herzog zu Sachsen, Markgraf von Meißen

(1926–2012).

Maria Emanuel became Head of the Royal House of Saxony in 1968, following the death of his father, Friedrich Christian, Crown Prince of Saxony.

Since the abolition of the Kingdom of Saxony in 1918, the titles involved have naturally had no constitutional or governmental authority. Nevertheless, within the traditional dynastic framework, the Head of the Royal House continued to be regarded by monarchists and dynastic historians as the personification and representative of the former Royal House and, consequently, as the claimant to the abolished Saxon throne.

Maria Emanuel died on 23 July 2012 without children.

This immediately created a major succession problem.

The difficulty was not simply that Maria Emanuel had no sons. The deeper problem was that, by 2012, virtually every possible line of succession was affected by disputes concerning the interpretation and applicability of the traditional Saxon house laws.

The controversy therefore revolves around a fundamental question:

«What rules should determine the succession to a former royal house after the abolition of the monarchy, particularly when the last undisputed head attempted to establish a succession arrangement that appears to conflict with older dynastic law?»

The traditional dynastic laws of the Royal House of Saxony

To understand the dispute, it is necessary to understand the traditional principles of Saxon dynastic succession.

Historically, the succession of the Royal House of Saxony was governed by the Royal Saxon House Law of 30 December 1837 and by the broader principles of German princely and dynastic law.

Several principles are particularly important.

A) Agnatic succession and the male line

The traditional succession principle was fundamentally agnatic.

This means that succession was based primarily on descent through the male line.

In practical terms, a male descendant belonging dynastically to the House had priority over descendants related to the dynasty exclusively through a female line.

This principle is central to the argument against Alexander's claim.

Alexander is a biological descendant of the Saxon royal family through his mother, Princess Anna of Saxony, but he is not descended from the Wettins in the direct male line.

By contrast, the descendants of Prince Timo descend patrilineally from the Albertine Wettin dynasty.

However, the supporters of Alexander argue that the extraordinary circumstances of the extinction crisis, combined with the decisions made by Maria Emanuel and other members of the family, created a valid exceptional succession arrangement.

B) Equality of birth

Traditional German dynastic law generally distinguished between marriages that were considered ebenbürtig, or equal in rank, and marriages that were considered unequal or morganatic.

Traditionally, a prince who contracted a marriage considered unequal could produce descendants who were legitimate in the ordinary civil sense but excluded from full dynastic succession rights.

This principle is extremely important because it affects both major rival claims.

Alexander's father, Roberto Afif, did not belong to one of the traditionally recognised reigning or mediatized European dynasties normally associated with equal marriage requirements.

Therefore, if the traditional equality-of-birth requirements are applied strictly, Alexander's maternal descent from Princess Anna does not automatically make him a dynast of the Royal House of Saxony.

However, the descendants of Prince Timo also face a similar problem.

Prince Timo's marriage to Erina Eilts was regarded as unequal under the traditional dynastic standards of the Royal House. Consequently, their son, Rüdiger Prinz von Sachsen, and therefore his descendants, were traditionally regarded by Maria Emanuel and his supporters as lacking full dynastic succession rights.

Thus, one of the most striking features of the dispute is that:

«Both sides challenge the consequences of the traditional dynastic rules in different ways.»

Alexander's supporters must defend the possibility that an adopted descendant through the female line could become dynastic heir.

Daniel's supporters must defend the possibility that the descendants of an unequal marriage could nevertheless inherit dynastic rights because of their agnatic descent from the Wettins.

C) Adoption

Another extremely important provision of the historical Saxon House Law concerns adoption.

The traditional House Law contained a prohibition on adoption by members of the Royal House.

This creates one of the strongest legal objections to Alexander's succession.

Maria Emanuel formally adopted Alexander in 1999 and gave him the surname and style associated with the Saxon family.

However, the critics of Alexander argue that:

«An adoption that was prohibited by the historical House Law could not, by itself, create dynastic membership or succession rights.»

Alexander's supporters, on the other hand, generally do not rely exclusively on the adoption itself.

Their argument is broader: Maria Emanuel had already designated Alexander as his successor, and the adoption formed part of a wider family settlement concerning the future of the House.

Therefore, the real question is not simply whether adoption was historically permitted, but whether the Head of a former ruling House and the relevant members of that House could validly establish a new succession arrangement under exceptional circumstances.

The succession arrangement of 1997

The central event supporting Alexander's claim occurred in 1997.

Maria Emanuel had no children and faced the prospect that the Albertine branch might become extinct.

An earlier potential successor, his nephew Prince Johannes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, had died young.

Maria Emanuel therefore looked for another solution.

In 1997, Alexander Afif, the eldest son of Maria Emanuel's sister Princess Anna of Saxony, was designated as the intended successor under an agreement supported at the time by several members of the Royal House.

The arrangement was particularly significant because it attempted to secure the continuation of the House through Maria Emanuel's nephew.

Two years later, in 1999, Maria Emanuel formally adopted Alexander.

Alexander subsequently became known as:

Alexander Prinz von Sachsen, also commonly referred to as Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe.

For Alexander's supporters, these events are the foundation of his claim.

For his opponents, however, the arrangement itself is precisely the problem.

They argue that a family agreement cannot simply override the fundamental succession principles contained in the historical House Laws.

Furthermore, some individuals who had originally supported the 1997 arrangement later withdrew or repudiated their support.

This would become one of the central weaknesses of Alexander's position.

The claim of Alexander Prinz von Sachsen-Gessaphe

The basic argument

Alexander's claim can be summarised as follows:

1. Maria Emanuel was the undisputed Head of the Royal House of Saxony.

2. Maria Emanuel had no children and faced the extinction of his branch.

3. Maria Emanuel deliberately selected Alexander as his successor.

4. The succession arrangement was initially supported by important members of the Royal House.

5. Alexander was formally adopted by Maria Emanuel.

6. Maria Emanuel maintained Alexander as his designated successor.

7. Therefore, when Maria Emanuel died in 2012, Alexander succeeded him as Head of the Royal House of Saxony and as claimant to the former Saxon throne.

The strengths of Alexander's claim

1. He was personally chosen by Maria Emanuel

This is arguably the strongest element of Alexander's position.

Maria Emanuel was not merely a distant family member expressing an opinion. He was the undisputed Head of the Royal House for more than four decades.

He personally selected Alexander as the solution to the succession crisis.

Supporters of Alexander therefore argue that the intention of the last undisputed Head of the House should carry enormous weight.

2. The 1997 family agreement

Alexander's designation was not initially a purely private decision made without consultation.

The 1997 arrangement received support from important members of the Royal House.

This gives his claim significantly more weight than if Maria Emanuel had simply named Alexander unilaterally.

Supporters therefore argue that the succession plan represented a conscious attempt by the family to solve an unprecedented dynastic crisis.

3. The exceptional circumstances

The Albertine line was facing a genuine extinction problem.

Maria Emanuel had no children.

Other potential successors were either unavailable, deceased, or affected by questions concerning unequal marriages and dynastic status.

Alexander's supporters therefore argue that rigidly applying rules designed for a functioning nineteenth-century monarchy to a former royal house in the twenty-first century could produce an absurd result: the extinction of the dynasty despite the existence of a carefully chosen successor.

From this perspective, Maria Emanuel's actions represented a legitimate attempt to preserve the continuity of the Royal House.

4. Alexander is biologically descended from the Saxon royal family

Although not descended through the male Wettin line, Alexander is not unrelated to the dynasty.

He is the son of Princess Anna of Saxony, the sister of Maria Emanuel.

He is therefore a direct descendant of the Royal Saxon family through the female line.

Supporters argue that this close blood relationship, combined with Maria Emanuel's explicit designation and adoption, makes his claim substantially stronger than that of a completely unrelated adopted successor.

5. Continuity through his descendants

Alexander has descendants of his own.

His supporters argue that recognising Alexander provided a practical means of ensuring the continuation of the Royal House for future generations.

The weaknesses and objections to Alexander's claim

1. The traditional Saxon succession law was agnatic

The most important objection is that Alexander is not a male-line descendant of the Wettin dynasty.

He descends from the House through his mother.

Critics therefore argue that, under the traditional succession principles, he could not inherit the headship of an agnatic dynasty.

2. Adoption was prohibited by the historical House Law

The formal adoption of Alexander is also problematic from a strict traditionalist perspective.

If the historical House Law prohibited adoption by members of the Royal House, critics argue that the adoption could not create the dynastic status necessary for Alexander to become Head of the House.

In other words:

«A civil adoption and a dynastic succession are not necessarily the same thing.»

3. The equality-of-birth question

Alexander's paternal background has also been questioned under the traditional German concept of equal marriage.

Critics argue that his mother's marriage did not satisfy the classical requirements for producing dynastic descendants.

Alexander's supporters may respond that the 1997 agreement and the subsequent actions of Maria Emanuel effectively resolved this issue.

Nevertheless, whether such a resolution was legally effective remains one of the disputed points.

4. Some supporters of the 1997 arrangement later withdrew their support

Another serious weakness is that the consensus surrounding the 1997 agreement did not remain intact.

Some members of the family later rejected the arrangement.

This raises an important question:

«If the agreement was the foundation of Alexander's succession, could its later repudiation undermine its validity?»

Alexander's supporters may argue that the agreement had already been validly concluded and could not simply be revoked.

His opponents argue that the later withdrawals demonstrate that no lasting dynastic consensus ever existed.

5. The rejection by the Ernestine heads in 2015

In 2015, the heads of the three remaining Ernestine branches of the House of Wettin issued a joint declaration rejecting Alexander's status.

The signatories were:

- Michael Prinz von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach

- Andreas Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha

- Konrad Prinz von Sachsen-Meiningen

The declaration stated that Alexander, despite bearing the name Prinz von Sachsen through adoption:

- was not a member of the House of Wettin;

- had not succeeded Maria Emanuel as Head of the Albertine line;

- had not succeeded to the dignity and title associated with the Head of the House, Markgraf von Meißen.

This declaration represents a major challenge to Alexander's claim.

However, it is important to note something equally significant:

«The declaration rejected Alexander, but did not explicitly identify Daniel, Rüdiger, or anyone else as the legitimate Head of the Royal House of Saxony.»

This is crucial because the rejection of Alexander does not automatically prove the validity of Daniel's claim.

The claim of Daniel Timo von Sachsen

The alternative dynastic claim is based on the descendants of Prince Timo of Saxony.

Prince Timo was a male-line member of the Albertine branch of the House of Wettin.

His son was:

Rüdiger Prinz von Sachsen.

Rüdiger, in turn, had sons, including:

Daniel Timo von Sachsen.

Following the death of Maria Emanuel, the supporters of the agnatic line argued that the succession should follow the male Wettin bloodline rather than pass to Alexander through adoption and maternal descent.

After the death of Maria Emanuel in July 2012, his brother Prince Albert claimed or was recognised by supporters of the agnatic interpretation as the successor.

Albert died only a few months later, in October 2012.

The succession dispute then moved to the descendants of Prince Timo.

Rüdiger subsequently presented himself as the Head of the Royal House according to this interpretation, and the claim is now associated with his son Daniel Timo.

The basic argument supporting Daniel Timo's claim

The argument can be summarised as follows:

1. The Royal House of Saxony was historically an agnatic dynasty.

2. Succession should therefore follow the male Wettin line.

3. Alexander does not belong to the male Wettin line.

4. Alexander's adoption could not override the traditional prohibition on adoption or the agnatic succession principle.

5. Prince Timo's descendants, although descended from an unequal marriage, are nevertheless biological male-line descendants of the Albertine Wettins.

6. Therefore, after the extinction of the unquestionably dynastic male line represented by Maria Emanuel and Albert, succession should pass to the remaining male-line descendants of Prince Timo.

7. Under this interpretation, the succession ultimately reaches Daniel Timo von Sachsen.

7. The strengths of Daniel Timo's claim

1. Male-line descent from the Wettin dynasty

This is Daniel's strongest argument.

Unlike Alexander, Daniel descends from the Wettins through the direct male line.

If the traditional agnatic principle is regarded as the supreme and decisive rule, Daniel's position becomes substantially stronger.

The argument is essentially:

«A male-line Wettin descendant should take precedence over a maternal descendant adopted into the House.»

2. Greater consistency with traditional agnatic succession

Supporters of Daniel argue that his claim preserves the fundamental historical character of the House as a patrilineal dynasty.

They argue that recognising Alexander would transform the succession from an agnatic dynastic succession into something fundamentally different.

Daniel's supporters therefore regard his claim as the more conservative and legally traditional interpretation.

3. Alexander's adoption problem

Because the historical House Law prohibited adoption, Daniel's supporters argue that Alexander's adoption cannot be used to displace a biological male-line descendant.

From this perspective, Daniel's claim is strengthened by the argument that Alexander never legally became a dynast at all.

4. The 2015 Ernestine declaration against Alexander

Although the 2015 declaration did not explicitly recognise Daniel, it rejected Alexander's claim in terms that are broadly compatible with several arguments made by Daniel's supporters.

The declaration stated that Alexander was not a member of the House of Wettin and had not succeeded Maria Emanuel as Head of the Albertine line.

Therefore, Daniel's supporters can reasonably argue that the declaration removed one of their principal rivals from consideration.

However, this must not be confused with an explicit recognition of Daniel himself.

The weaknesses and objections to Daniel Timo's claim

1. The marriage of Prince Timo was regarded as unequal

This is the central problem.

Daniel descends from Prince Timo through Rüdiger.

However, Prince Timo's marriage was historically regarded as unequal or morganatic according to the standards applied by the Royal House.

Consequently, Maria Emanuel did not regard Rüdiger and his descendants as unquestioned dynastic members with succession rights.

This creates a fundamental contradiction in Daniel's position:

«Can someone rely on the old agnatic succession law while simultaneously rejecting the consequences of the old equality-of-birth requirements?»

Critics argue that Daniel's supporters cannot selectively apply only the rules that favour them.

2. Was there ever a valid restoration of dynastic rights?

For Daniel's claim to be fully accepted under traditional dynastic principles, one must determine whether Rüdiger and his descendants ever acquired or recovered full dynastic status.

This is highly disputed.

Daniel's supporters point to the decisions and intentions associated with Prince Albert and the later succession arrangements of the agnatic branch.

Critics argue that no universally recognised and legally unambiguous act restored the full dynastic rights of Rüdiger's line.

Therefore, the question is not simply whether Daniel is a male-line Wettin descendant.

He clearly is.

The real question is:

«Was his line dynastic under the historical House Laws?»

3. The position of Maria Emanuel himself

Another difficulty is that Maria Emanuel, the last undisputed Head of the House, did not accept Rüdiger's line as his chosen dynastic succession.

Instead, he deliberately selected Alexander.

Daniel's supporters must therefore argue that Maria Emanuel either lacked the authority to override the traditional succession law or that his succession arrangement was legally invalid.

This is possible as an argument, but it requires rejecting the succession decision of the last undisputed Head of the House.

4. The 2015 declaration did not recognise Daniel

The joint declaration of the Ernestine heads is sometimes presented as support for the anti-Alexander position.

However, it did not state:

«"Daniel Timo von Sachsen is the legitimate Head of the Royal House of Saxony."»

Nor did it explicitly recognise Rüdiger as the legitimate successor.

Therefore, the declaration is strong evidence against Alexander's recognition by the Ernestine heads, but it is not, by itself, evidence that Daniel's claim was officially accepted by them.

The third position: the Albertine branch is dynastically extinct

The third possible interpretation is perhaps the strictest.

According to this view, the Royal House of Saxony became dynastically extinct because neither Alexander nor the descendants of Prince Timo satisfy the requirements of the historical Saxon House Laws.

The argument works as follows.

A) Alexander cannot succeed

Under a strict interpretation:

- he is not a male-line Wettin;

- he descends from the dynasty through the female line;

- his mother's marriage raises questions concerning equality of birth;

- adoption was prohibited by the historical House Law;

- therefore, his adoption could not transform him into a dynastic Wettin.

Therefore, Alexander cannot succeed.

B) Daniel's line cannot succeed

Under the same strict interpretation:

- Prince Timo's descendants descend through the male line;

- but they originate from a marriage historically regarded as unequal;

- therefore, they did not automatically possess full dynastic succession rights.

If those rights were never validly restored, Daniel's line cannot succeed either.

C) Therefore, the Royal Albertine House is extinct

If both Alexander and Daniel are excluded by the traditional rules, the conclusion is that:

«Maria Emanuel was effectively the last undisputed dynastic representative capable of transmitting the headship of the Royal House of Saxony.»

Under this interpretation, the Albertine Royal House became dynastically extinct upon the death of its last unquestionably recognised dynastic representatives.

This does not mean that the entire House of Wettin became extinct.

The Wettin dynasty continues through the surviving Ernestine branches.

But the specific Albertine Royal House of Saxony would have ceased to exist as a continuing dynastic branch.

The 2015 declaration and the extinction argument

The 2015 joint declaration of the heads of the three surviving Ernestine branches is particularly important for this interpretation.

The three signatories rejected Alexander as:

- a member of the House of Wettin;

- the successor of Maria Emanuel;

- Head of the Albertine line;

- bearer of the headship dignity associated with the title Markgraf von Meißen.

But they deliberately did not name another person as the legitimate Head of the Royal House of Saxony.

This silence is one of the most interesting aspects of the entire dispute.

If the signatories believed that Daniel or Rüdiger was unquestionably the legitimate successor, they could theoretically have said so.

They did not.

Of course, this does not necessarily mean that they believed the Albertine line was extinct. There may have been other reasons for refusing to intervene in the internal succession dispute.

Nevertheless, supporters of the extinction thesis argue that the declaration is highly significant because:

«It rejects Alexander without providing an alternative successor.»

From their perspective, this is consistent with the possibility that no claimant satisfied the historical dynastic requirements.

The strengths of the extinction thesis

1. It applies the traditional rules consistently

This is arguably its strongest point.

The extinction thesis argues that the traditional rules should either be applied consistently or not at all.

If Alexander is excluded because he does not satisfy agnatic succession and dynastic membership requirements, then Daniel must also be examined according to the equality-of-birth rules.

The thesis therefore avoids selectively applying different rules to different claimants.

2. It explains why rejecting Alexander does not automatically validate Daniel

This is an important logical point.

There are not only two possible answers.

The question is not necessarily:

«Alexander or Daniel?»

It may also be:

«Neither Alexander nor Daniel.»

The fact that Alexander's claim may be invalid does not automatically mean that Daniel's claim is valid.

3. It is compatible with the fact that no universally recognised successor exists

Since 2012, there has been no universally accepted settlement of the dispute.

Different dynastic historians, royal genealogists and members of the extended Wettin family have supported different interpretations.

The absence of a universally recognised successor is therefore consistent with the argument that the succession crisis may never have been successfully resolved.

The weaknesses of the extinction thesis

1. It may be excessively rigid

The strongest objection is that the Royal House no longer governs a sovereign state.

The monarchy was abolished in 1918.

Some therefore argue that the old House Laws should not necessarily be treated as an immutable legal constitution incapable of modification.

From this perspective, Maria Emanuel had to find a practical solution to an unprecedented situation.

2. Dynastic law historically evolved

German dynastic history contains many examples of family laws being amended, succession arrangements being negotiated and exceptional situations being resolved through agreements among dynasts.

Therefore, supporters of Alexander may argue that the extinction thesis assumes that historical House Laws were completely incapable of adaptation.

3. It gives little weight to Maria Emanuel's explicit intention

The last undisputed Head of the House clearly attempted to prevent the extinction of his branch.

He selected Alexander and took formal steps to establish him as successor.

The extinction thesis must therefore conclude that these actions, despite being deliberate and supported at least initially by important family members, were ultimately ineffective.

That is a possible legal interpretation, but it remains a controversial one.

The central problem: which authority can finally decide?

One reason this dispute remains unresolved is that the Kingdom of Saxony no longer exists.

There is no reigning Saxon monarch.

There is no royal court exercising constitutional authority.

There is no state institution responsible for determining the succession to an abolished throne.

As a result, the dispute is fundamentally a question of:

- historical house law;

- dynastic tradition;

- genealogy;

- family agreements;

- the interpretation of the acts of Maria Emanuel;

- and the legitimacy attributed to competing claimants.

Different people can therefore reach different conclusions depending on which principle they consider most important.

Territorial peaks of Moroccan dynasties, from 789 to now: Idrisid, Almoravid, Almohad, Marinid, Wattasid, Saadian, Alaouite.

The Alaouites have reigned since the 17th century and still do. Morocco is one of the oldest monarchies still standing and it never became a republic.

Appropriate Historical Legitimacy: When a new regime adopts the symbols of the previous one to claim territorial or cultural continuity, but NOT ideological continuity; for example, when a republic decides to use banners, coats of arms, etc., that belonged to a monarchy. This is, essentially, a recontextualisation of the symbols (where the symbol is adopted but given a new republican or national meaning).

* Currently, the standard of the Austrian Gardebataillon (Honour Guard) features the double-headed eagle crowned with the imperial crown and even bears the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece around it.

* The Crown of St Stephen forms part of the coat of arms on the personal standard of the President of Hungary and on the standard of the 32nd Budapest Guard and Ceremonial Regiment (Honour Guard).

I noticed that some members of the sub (non-Hungarians) were enthusiastic about the images and statements by Péter Magyar (Prime Minister of Hungary) regarding the Crown of St Stephen, but I do not know whether they are aware that the Holy Crown is now more of a national symbol fully integrated into Hungary — as a republic — than a symbol of monarchist aspirations. When the grand ceremony marking the transfer of the Holy Crown to the Hungarian Parliament Building took place, the Hungarian Government (led at the time by Viktor Orbán) did not even bother to invite Otto von Habsburg-Lorraine to the event.