Interesting information about the British monarchy

[Craig B]

England has Common Law, derived from Viking and Saxon tradition, not Roman Law.
We had Romans for a while but they cleared off.

England's customary law was well developed by the Middle Ages, so it is not a disparagement of England to state that England, rather than Scotland, was an exception in regard to the reintroduction of Roman Law^WP. I was speaking, in general terms, about Western civilisation.

By the middle of the 16th century, the rediscovered Roman law dominated the legal practice of many European countries. A legal system, in which Roman law was mixed with elements of canon law and of Germanic custom, especially feudal law, had emerged. This legal system, which was common to all of continental Europe (and Scotland) was known as Ius Commune.​

 

[Border Reiver]

England's customary law was well developed by the Middle Ages, so it is not a disparagement of England to state that England, rather than Scotland, was an exception in regard to the reintroduction of Roman Law^WP. I was speaking, in general terms, about Western civilisation.

By the middle of the 16th century, the rediscovered Roman law dominated the legal practice of many European countries. A legal system, in which Roman law was mixed with elements of canon law and of Germanic custom, especially feudal law, had emerged. This legal system, which was common to all of continental Europe (and Scotland) was known as Ius Commune.​

Not disparaging, but it's the English common law that has spread, not the roman law. Heck even countries that got rid of the British monarchy have kept the legal system.

 

[Craig B]

Not disparaging, but it's the English common law that has spread, not the roman law. Heck even countries that got rid of the British monarchy have kept the legal system.

Heck, not ALL countries were in the past subject to England, and the fragmentation of Roman Law has not had the same result everywhere. As the wiki article explains:

The practical application of Roman law and the era of the European Ius Commune came to an end, when national codifications were made. In 1804, the French civil code came into force. In the course of the 19th century, many European states either adopted the French model or drafted their own codes ... In some parts of Germany, Roman law continued to be applied until the German civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) came into force in 1900.​

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

That is indeed what I am doing; and I am moreover saying that such is the generally accepted definition too. My point is that there is a difference between de facto control and political legitimacy. Example: the West acknowledged both as fact and as legitimate (but not democratic) the rule by Stalin's government over Belarus. But Soviet rule over the Baltic Republics was acknowledged as a factual reality, but not recognised as legitimate, because that was the result of the Soviet Union dissolving previous representative governments and imposing its own authority in 1940.

The application of the Stimson Doctrine by the Welles Declaration where a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval for the Soviet conquest, the resistance by the Baltic people to the Soviet regime, and the uninterrupted functioning of rudimentary state organs in exile support the legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, which implied that occupation sui generis (Annexionsbesetzung or "annexation occupation") lasted until re-independence in 1991. Thus the Baltic states continued to exist as subjects of international law.
...
The legal principle, ex injuria jus non oritur (law cannot arise from unjust acts), differs from the competing principle of ex factis jus oritur (the facts determine the law). On one hand, legal recognition of Baltic incorporation on the part of other sovereign nations outside the Soviet bloc was largely withheld based on the fundamental legal principle of ex injuria jus non oritur, since the annexation of the Baltic states was held to be illegal.​

Of course, this ignores the fact that the government of Lithuania at the time was the result of a military dictatorship, so, by your definitions equally illegitimate.

 

[Craig B]

Of course, this ignores the fact that the government of Lithuania at the time was the result of a military dictatorship, so, by your definitions equally illegitimate.

And that ignores that I have already stated that it is not a sufficient cause for invasion of a country, that it has a non democratic non representative government, for which please see this.

Now, there are in existence political entities which do not adhere to the representative principle, and I am far from suggesting that such governments should be overthrown, or their territories invaded, by for example the USA acting in the role of "world policeman" of democracy. I'm simply saying that kleptocracies, theocracies or tyrannies are not founded on any form of legitimacy, as political formations.

Because of that, it is permissible for their subjects to attempt to overthrow them, as I explain here.

If forces enjoying the support of the majority of the people were able to recover power from the military leaders, so as to hold an election, that would be a "return to legitimacy", I think.

Stalin's annexation of Lithuania exchanged one authoritarian government for a worse one, which was also a foreign imperialist invader; so the cause of legitimacy was damaged rather than advanced by Stalin's actions, however delinquent in this respect the previous Lithuanian régime may have been.