Coll 28/39(2) ‘Persia. Printed Correspondence, 1937–’ [‎101v] (202/320)

86
2. The original Fundamental Law, consisting of 51 articles, was promul
gated on the 30th December, 1906. The Supplement of 107 articles
followed on the 7th October, 1907, and the thirty-seventh article here
referred to reads as follows :—
“ The succession to the Throne, in case of there being more than one
son, passes to the eldest son of the King whose mother is a
Princess and of Persian race. In case the King should have no
male issue, the eldest male of the Royal Family who is next of
kin shall rank next in succession to the Throne. If, however,
in the case supposed above, male heirs should subsequently
be born to the King, the succession will de jure revert to such
heir.”
3. This is not the first interpretation that has been decreed in connexion
with the article in question. In consequence of the replacement of the Kajar
by the Pahlavi dynasty, the question of the succession was dealt with in the
Majlis on the 12th December, 1925, by the following modification, which was
reported by Sir P. Loraine in his despatch No. 667 of the 18th December,
1925 :—
“ The eldest son, if born of a Persian mother, shall be the heir apparent
to the Throne. In the event of the Shah having no son, the heir
to the Throne shall be designated by His Imperial Majesty,
subject to the approval of the Majlis. No member of the Kajar
family can, however, be so designated.”
4. The present interpretation, as need hardly be said and is indeed ex
plicitly stated in the preamble to the law, is occasioned by the intended mar
riage of the Crown Prince to an Egyptian Princess. In introducing the law,
the Minister of Justice made a lengthy speech in which he referred, first, to
the constitutional law as being a set of principles couched in general terms,
which required the interpretation of the Majlis provided for by Article 27 of
the Supplement to the Fundamental Law. Secondly, he described the means
by which, according to the Civil Code, Iranian nationality was acquired, and
drew a distinction between “ essential ” means of acquisition {e.g., being bom
of an Iranian father, born on Iranian soil), which conferred an inalienable
title, and “ accessory ” means {e.g. by marriage with an Iranian),
which conferred only a title that might be lost as a result of such
things as divorce or death of the husband. Thirdly, he said that the phrase,
which appears in the translation of Article 37 in paragraph 2 above, as “ of
Persian race ” and which the ‘ Journal de Teheran ’ has conveniently rendered
“ Iranian d’essence ” in the enclosed extract, if it meant that the entire an
cestry had to be proved Iranian, was a thing for which no one could qualify.
And that the intention of the Constitution was that the mother of the future
heir apparent should have, acquired her title to be an Iranian, not by the mere
fact of her marriage with the ruler, but by one of the “ essential ” means en
visaged by the Civil Code, previous to her marriage. Fourthly, he added that
it was not considered sufficient, in the case of the future Empress, that she
should acquire Iranian nationality in one of the ways open to anybody under
the Civil Code, and for this reason the provision for an Imperial decree had
been included in the law.
[Enclosure in Tehran Despatch No. 364 of the 15th November 1938.]
Extract from the ‘ Journal de T 6 h<$ran ’ of 8 th November, 1938.
prEambule.
Le mot Iranien d’essence mentionne a 1’article 37 de la loi fondamentale
compl 6 mentaire de la Constitution n’ayant jusqu’a present pas 6 te clairement
interprete dans les diverses lois de 1 ’Empire.
Afin qu’au moment ou une alliance entres les Families Imp 6 riale de P
Iran et Royale de 1 Egypte est en roie de realisation, aucune imprecision ne
subsiste sur la situation juridique de la Future Imperatrice et du Futur Prince