Talk:Iraqi Constitutional Monarchy

message: I'm not sure this statement is true: "Some critics assert he is not even in line to the throne according to the constitution of the old Iraqi monarchy. According to this constitution, the heir to the monarchy would be Prince Ra'ad (born 1936), Lord Chamberlain of Jordan." I took a look at the old constitution, and that's not what it appears to say. For one thing, as far as I can see, it says that the heir to the throne should be the eldest son of the previous king, and it is doesn't say anything about anyone else inheriting it. However, it does say that the throne is entrusted to Faisal I and to his heirs, which leads to the quite reasonable presumption that his other heirs are acceptable. It's not clear, though, why Ra'ad would be that heir. Ra'ad is the heir of Faisal I's younger brother, but the kings of Jordan are the heirs of his older brother (and this Sharif Ali fellow is the descendent of the oldest brother, albeit on his mother's side). Now, the constitution does say that the King of Iraq can't then become the king of Someplace Else without the permission of parliament, which could be seen to exclude King Abdullah of Jordan, but a) this appears to create a loophole for someone to become king of something else first, and then become the king of Iraq; and b) it would only require a vote by the parliament in any event; and c) it certainly doesn't exclude other members of the House of Jordan who are not king, such as Abdullah's uncles or his infant son. So, unless there is some further explanation, I will eventually modify the text. - Nat Krause 19:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon posted some interesting information on Talk:Ra'ad, arguing that the constitution was altered in 1943 to specify the line of descent as passing through the male-line (agnatic) descendents of Faisal I's father, in order of seniority (in the event that Faisal I himself had no eligible descendents). It also specified that the heir must be an Iraqi national, which the old constitution didn't. Assuming that this is true, it would appear to strengthen Prince Ra'ad's case somewhat, especially since, under the spirit of the law, the "Iraqi national" clause must have been understood at the time to exclude the royal family of Jordan from the succession (every other major branch of the family, at that point, was in Iraq). Under the law, though, if one of the Jordanians had been able to obtain Iraqi citizenship before 1958, he would have been able to pre-empt Zeid's claim. The current situation is not entirely clear. One of the Jordanian royals could try to gain Iraqi citizenship (which, as I recall, is possible on a dual-citizenship basis under the new occupation constitution) and stake a claim. Ra'ad's claim would then be superior only if one assumes that his father "actually" was king while in exile, although this seems like a fairly normal assumption to make in the wacky world of international pretendership. Still, there's the issue of what constitutes Iraqi nationality; Ra'ad has been living abroad since 1958, but I guess he still counts as a national, since he was born in Iraq, assuming he hasn't waived his citizenship (or perhaps had it revoked by the post-monarchical government?) I'm not sure if his children, who were all born abroad, could be counted as Iraqi nationals, though, so the claim might become completely up for grabs after Ra'ad dies, until the next time some Hashemite bothers to move back to Iraq. - Nat Krause 18:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In truth, if ever Iraq reverted to a monarchy, that restored monarchy could alter the succesion (to whatever it wished).  GoodDay 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old constitution