You do indeed ask an interesting question. It is a bit of a quirk in international law that’s born, I think, from the the Order’s historic movement from Jerusalem, to Rhodes and then Malta. A share of international scholars would certainly not consider the Order a sovereign entity and it should not have the privileges it has. They also tend to argue that the Holy See doesn’t qualify either, as technically, it is non-territorial. It really depends on how strictly you want to interpret or adhere to three consensus agreed upon criteria for sovereignty:
1. A delineated territory with a population
2. A legitimate governing entity that exerts power over said territory and population
3. It is recognised by other sovereign entities as holding sovereignty.
If you think that’s clear as mud, welcome to International Law and international relation. 😅
Also a good question. If we assume that the order already has sovereignty, then that doesn’t necessarily get abrogated by another sovereign entity meddling with core structures, in the same way that the US effectively wrote the post-war Japanese constitution without necessarily annexing Japan as the 52 state or negating it’s sovereign statehood.
In theory the Queen of England as the Head of State in Australia could rewrite or amend our constitution and ‘fire’ the Prime Minister (the second part happened via the Governor General in 1972) but that doesn’t make Australia less of a sovereign state. However, the Queen would not do this and well there’d be an armed rebellion if she did for anything other than truly extraordinarily circumstances.
Honestly is a pretty unique situation really and there isn’t really much precedent for this in either secular international relations or Catholic organisations.
Interessting is also, that Fra' John also does not meet the requirements of nobility normaly set for this office. It might be a hinch of the pope wich way of changes in the constitution he expects....
That might have been nessecary in times when even the honorary knight have to be noble - but with the "invention" of the "knight of magistral grace", it would not be the case anymore. Nearly all American knights are "of magistral grace" - indicated by the missing fleur-de-lis between the arms of the cross on the church robe.
As knight of justice this becomes irrelevant - exept for the offices Grandmaster and Grand Commander, as written down in the constitution....
That is one aspect of a reform of the constitution - no exclision of knights anymore, because they are not of noble decent....
You do indeed ask an interesting question. It is a bit of a quirk in international law that’s born, I think, from the the Order’s historic movement from Jerusalem, to Rhodes and then Malta. A share of international scholars would certainly not consider the Order a sovereign entity and it should not have the privileges it has. They also tend to argue that the Holy See doesn’t qualify either, as technically, it is non-territorial. It really depends on how strictly you want to interpret or adhere to three consensus agreed upon criteria for sovereignty:
1. A delineated territory with a population
2. A legitimate governing entity that exerts power over said territory and population
3. It is recognised by other sovereign entities as holding sovereignty.
If you think that’s clear as mud, welcome to International Law and international relation. 😅
Also a good question. If we assume that the order already has sovereignty, then that doesn’t necessarily get abrogated by another sovereign entity meddling with core structures, in the same way that the US effectively wrote the post-war Japanese constitution without necessarily annexing Japan as the 52 state or negating it’s sovereign statehood.
In theory the Queen of England as the Head of State in Australia could rewrite or amend our constitution and ‘fire’ the Prime Minister (the second part happened via the Governor General in 1972) but that doesn’t make Australia less of a sovereign state. However, the Queen would not do this and well there’d be an armed rebellion if she did for anything other than truly extraordinarily circumstances.
Honestly is a pretty unique situation really and there isn’t really much precedent for this in either secular international relations or Catholic organisations.
Interessting is also, that Fra' John also does not meet the requirements of nobility normaly set for this office. It might be a hinch of the pope wich way of changes in the constitution he expects....
If memory serves, Americans are dispensed (if the rule hasn't been fully abrogated all together), from proves of quartering.
That might have been nessecary in times when even the honorary knight have to be noble - but with the "invention" of the "knight of magistral grace", it would not be the case anymore. Nearly all American knights are "of magistral grace" - indicated by the missing fleur-de-lis between the arms of the cross on the church robe.
As knight of justice this becomes irrelevant - exept for the offices Grandmaster and Grand Commander, as written down in the constitution....
That is one aspect of a reform of the constitution - no exclision of knights anymore, because they are not of noble decent....