Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
ReinoTion

Registered:
Posts: 41
Reply with quote  #1 
A couple days ago, I came across a website written by a Brazilian man who claims to be the current pretender to the Ghassanid Dynasty and the kingdoms and principalities it once ruled over from the time of the Eastern Roman Empire to as late as 1747 when it was only a small sheikdom in modern-day Lebanon. The title he claims is H.I.R.H Prince Gharios of Ghassan, Al-Nu'man VIII.

The royal house's website: http://www.royalhouseofghassan.org/

His genealogy: http://www.royalhouseofghassan.org/gene/

The prince's personal website: http://www.princegharios.com/


What do you guys think? Is his claim as a royal prince legitimate or is he just another crackpot trying to gain respect by making phony assertion to having direct royal descent from 300 years ago?
IsItLegit

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #2 
Reads legit:

Prince Gharios' rights and titles were also recognized by the International Arbitration Award number 0413/2011 that, according to the Brazilian Federal Law number 9307/96 has the very same legal value as a Federal Court Verdict and according to the the "1958 NY Convention on Arbitration" is a legal binding court decision in 148 nations in the world. Even being already "res judicata" (matter already judged not subject to appeal) by Brazilian Law, the International Award was recognized and enforced by the Los Angeles Superior Court in February 2012.  In 2013, Brazilian jurists (one Chief judge and two presiding judges) signed affidavits recognizing the legality of the international arbitration award and Prince Gharios' rights and titles.

http://www.royalghassan.org/royal-family.html
norenxaq

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 57
Reply with quote  #3 
his online genealogy is incomplete. therefor, I consider it untrustworthy.

this is independent of whether anyone recognises his claim as he might be presenting a more complete one to them. 

if so, this should be on his site instead of the one there
todd1983

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #4 

At first glance the claim to descend from a dynasty that ruled from 230-638 (or thereabouts) is quite a stretch. It might also be a stretch to think that there is any meaningful connection between the Sheikhs Chemor and the Ghassanids. I would like to see a document that during the Ottoman Empire the Sheikhs Chemor were recognized as ROYAL. There were many people addressed as 'sheikh' in colloquial usage and this did not imply such exalted status.

I am also skeptical that: "The family's history was kept and validated for centuries by the Maronite Church." In other sections of the website it explains the tumultuous history of the region and the lack of complete documents. The lack of a consistent voice on the website is worrying. Looking at the dispute among various Romanov family members, it is no surprise there is a dispute about the Ghassanid heir.
There is an interesting presentation on a linked website here: https://royalblog.org/2017/11/19/understanding-the-royal-ghassanid-family-tree/


It seems that many of the meetings that the individual had were based on him representing a religiously defined community. His name would naturally be the name that he prefers, which is Prince Gharios (adding or subtracting various honorifics). I do not think any correspondence can be taken to be official recognition (it is certainly not official recognition as Head of State). A good example is QE II addressing a letter to the Principality of Hutt River (http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/gov/PHR_46th_Anniversary_Celebration_Weekend_files/Greetings%20from%20HM%20QEII%202016.pdf).

For such conclusion, the said person seems to be no more than a "intelligent and well learnt" social climber who filled the gap in order to be recognised for status and power. 

norenxaq

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 57
Reply with quote  #5 
another concern: recently I revisited his site while doing other research and discovered his genealogy to be missing. that he removed it is further cause for suspicion...
todd1983

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #6 
The issue is that there is no way to verify him as a descendant let alone a member of a "ruling family" from the Ghassanid tribe. The Ghassanids are not recorded after the early medieval period. In addition. they were more than likely Orthodox Chalcedonians, or perhaps even Miaphysites. But there is no record of them becoming Eastern Rite Catholics, e.g. Maronites. This mixes up the history of the Ghassanids with the Maronites, whose history is murky as well.
Another very interesting point, according to the German news article on Cicero, he is a 3rd class actor in Brazil and transformed himself into a "prince". Surely enough, the creative methods that legal documents can be acquired in Brazil we can all certainly suspect. 
todd1983

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #7 
IMG_5710.jpg the
This faker has posted this to continuously claim he is legit, now let's read what the historian answers to all his defense ..
1. Our original family name is El Chemor, (it has many transliterations: Shoummar, Shemer, Shamir, Chmr, etc.) and it comes from King Chemor Jablah of the Ghassanid Kingdom in the Levant. Some of the King’s sons sought refuge in today’s Lebanon and were known as Bani Chemor (or the children of King Chemor) THIS IS AN INTERESTING HYPOTHESIS, AND MIGHT BE TRUE, BUT DOCUMENTARY PROOF IS NEEDED. WHEN THE KING'S SON'S SOUGHT REFUGE, DID THEY PERHAPS ALSO GIVE UP THEIR CLAIM TO RULE (WAS THEIR CLAIM BASED ON TRIBAL AFFILIATION OR ON LAND OR ON GENEALOGY?). THE WEBSITE SUGGESTS THAT THE RULER OF THE FAMILY WAS SELECTED BY A COUNCIL. DID ANY COUNCIL MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE MODERN CLAIMANT?
 
 
2. The family ruled in the Levant from 220 CE until 636 CE and several other realms ruling the Akoura region in Northern Lebanon from 1211 CE until 1633 CE and the region of Zgharta-Zawie from 1641 CE until 1747 CE but kept the titles until today. WAS THE TITLE OF SHEIKH USED, OR WAS IT PRINCE? 
 
 
3. After the family was deposed, they were hunted and killed by the sheikhs from the Daher family who was placed by the ottomans in our place with all the land and properties. That’s the reason why many members of the family changed their last names after the deposition and many later migrated to the north and South America. Notably the Gharios family and the Hobeika family. WHY THEN IS THE CURRENT CLAIMANT IN A BETTER POSITION TO CLAIM HEADSHIP OF THE FAMILY RATHER THAN THESE OTHER BRANCHES? SINCE THE FAMILY WAS DEPOSED DID THEY NOT GIVE UP THEIR TITLES? 
 
 
4. About 100 years ago, many members of the Gharios family, knowing that they belonged to the El Chemor family, started to publicly use the El Chemor last name again. POINT 2 STATES THE FAMILY (APPARENTLY ALL BRANCHES) KEPT THEIR TITLES, BUT POINT 4 STATES THAT THE GHARIOS FAMILY STARTED TO USE THEIR TRUE LAST NAME ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. SUPPOSEDLY THE GHARIOS FAMILY DID NOT USE ANY TITLE DURING THIS TIME. 
 
 
5. Technically, there are two types of titles: Royal and Noble. Royal titles are the sovereign or semi-sovereign ones and noble are bestowed by a higher (sovereign or semi-sovereign) authority. DOCUMENTARY SOURCES ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF CLAIMED TITLES. 
 
6. In Lebanon, the majority of the sheikh titles are noble, not royal, since they were bestowed by princes after the Ottoman invasion of 1517 CE IT SEEMS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE OTTOMANS COULD AWARD TITLES TO FAMILIES THAT CAN CLAIM NOBLE OR EVEN ROYAL ANCESTRY. THE FACT THAT SOMEONE CLAIMS A TITLE BORNE BY THE FAMILY IN THE LAST SEVERAL CENTURIES MIGHT NOT HAVE A BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF A TITLE FROM MANY CENTURIES BEFORE THAT. 
 
7. The El Chemor titles are royal like the Arab counterparts in the gulf, for example, since weren’t bestowed by any higher authority and they came from the acknowledgment of the Royal decent from King Chemor Jablah. Other undeniable evidence is the fact that it’s documented that the family ruled, at least, from 1211 CE meaning, 306 years before the Ottoman invasion! THE UAE IS MADE UP OF SEVEN EMIRATES WHICH ARE RULED BY A SUPREME COUNCIL. WHILE THE RULER OF AN EMIRATE IS ROYAL, THEY ALSO EXERCISE THEIR FUNCTIONS IN AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED LEGAL FRAMEWORK. I HAVE SEEN NOTHING ON THE WEBSITE TO SUGGEST THAT ANY OF THE EMIRATES HAS RECOGNIZED THE EL CHEMOR TITLES AS ROYAL. THE FAMILY DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR EXERCISING ANY ROYAL PREROGATIVES IN LEBANON EITHER. 
 
8. The El Chemor Sheikhdom survived to 3 different invasions: the establishment of the County of Tripoli, vassals of the kingdom of Jerusalem (until 1289 CE), the Mameluk Sultanate (1289 CE until 1517 CE) and the Ottoman Empire from 1517 CE until the deposition in 1747 CE. IF IT SURVIVED IT WOULD HAVE SURVIVED ALL THOSE EVENTS. 
 
9. The El Chemor titles were NOT bestowed by any of those invading powers being therefore sovereign and ROYAL. The Royal Ghassanid titles are part of the family patrimony as children of King Chemor Jablah. Also important to mention, the family NEVER stopped using the titles until the present day. IS THERE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR CONTINUAL USE?

KamalKhan

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #8 
This might make the debate interesting: 

The world’s leading scholar in Middle Eastern Royal Succession presents sworn statement about Ghassanid Royal Rights

Apparently, the world's top scholar in Middle Eastern Royal Succession, former Fellow of: Standford, UCLA, University of Virginia and currently the only Christian Senior Fellow of the King Faisal Research Center (meaning, recognized by the Saudi Royal Family) 
Well, Dr. Joseph Kechichian signed a sworn document (available in the article for download) saying the following: 

By the beginning of the 20th century, some of the Gharios family decided to use the titles and surname El Chemor once again.  As there are two categories of Shaykhs in Lebanon—the noble (non-sovereign) Shaykh, who may be the counterpart of baron, count or duke—and the sovereign/Royal Shaykh.  The first is mostly honorary but the second is a title bestowed by a semi-sovereign authority under the Ottoman Empire.  A sovereign/Royal Shaykh, like the El Chemor/Shoummar/Gharios family, have roots in the tribal system, and are similar to their counterparts in the Arabian Gulf, like the ruling families in Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Kuwait, among others.  It is this title that is the equivalent of prince and it’s given to the ruler and his sons.  Consequently, HRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Nu‘man VIII (born Ahnume Guerios) is a direct descendant of the Ghassanid Kings and the Shaykhs El Chemor/Shoummar.  He is the sole claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Ghassan with germane claims that are in absolute harmony with Middle Eastern laws of succession and tribal customs.  Critically, he has the bay’ah [loyalty oath] from the heads of the El Chemor/Shoummar family members and, as such, a legitimate claim to his crown.” 

The scholar can be also found in this documentary about the family: 

 

I assume that Dr. Kechichian being a leading scholar, have analyzed all documents or he wouldn't risk his reputation if the guy was a fake. That alone is enough. But let's go further. 

About the title of "Royal Sheikh" being a synonym of "Prince" is mentioned by the professor (see the documentary) but anyone knows, not only the UAE but also all the countries like: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. the title of Royal Sheikh is used as "prince". Sheikh Al Sabah, Prince of Kuwait, etc. 

Also, all the questions raised here seem to be answered on the website:

Complete Genealogy
Documents proving the continuous use of the titles until modern times

Here's one of them 
sheikh_gerges-saad-el-chemor-www1.jpg 
 and a recent passport
nassif passport .jpg 

Apparently, he was also knighted by the authority of the Pope personally by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Fouad Twal, the Grand Prior of the Order. The video can be seen here: 


On his brevet, issued by the Holy See, he's recognized as "Principem" or Prince. 
EOHSJcertwww.jpg 
Another brevet from the Order signed and sealed by the Patriarch himself: 
Concha.jpg  Also available on his website, a certificate signed by the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, they're responsible for coordinating the Diplomatic Corps. Don't they know protocol? A government document recognizing the titles again: 
LDE 2018.jpg  The Family was received officially by the Lebanese President himself as "The Royal Family of Ghassan". The president is a general, would his protocol people allow him to be close to a fake? And announce publicly the private audience?  
Ghassan Lebanese president.jpg  
It's perfectly acceptable for princes not use the titles if they're under some sort of duress. 
HIRH Archduke Otto Von Habsburg was forced to sign a document resigning all of his titles and pretentions. In a declaration dated 31 May 1961, Otto renounced all claims to the Austrian throne and proclaimed himself "a loyal citizen of the republic", "for purely practical reasons".[38] In a 2007 interview on the occasion of his approaching 95th birthday, Otto stated:

This was such an infamy, I'd rather never have signed it. They demanded that I abstain from politics. I would not have dreamed of complying. Once you have tasted the opium of politics, you never get rid of it.[39] ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Habsburg#After_World_War_II


Finally, what's the problem is he's an actor? Are we in medieval Europe now??? This is ridiculous! 

Many deposed princes have "not so glamourous" jobs! A notorious example is one of the legitimate princes of the Kingdom of Myosore (1399-1947) in current India. Even being part of one of the long lasting dynasties in the whole world, Prince Sanwar Ali Shah is so poor that he and his family are pulling a rickshaw in the streets of Kolkata.

 "And so instead of lounging in palaces, three princes who should have been born retired instead earn each rupee the hard way, placing calloused hands on the rickshaw’s handlebars, taking a deep breath, then eyeing the crowded streets for the next passenger." http://mentalfloss.com/article/51824/4-stories-everyday-royals

 






Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 398
Reply with quote  #9 
Just guessing, but I wonder if the Lebanese Ghassanid noble  family described in the posts above is synonymous with, or related to, the Lebanese Gessaphe noble family from whom one of the heirs to the old kingdom of Saxony (Alexander Afif) has an agnatic descent. There's more information available on the Saxe-Gessaphe Wikipedia article.
__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
todd1983

Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #10 
Very interesting discussion.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.