Titles of Nobility (TON) Prohibitions Around the World

The United States Constitution (ratified 1788, effective 1789) is widely regarded as the oldest single-document national constitution still in continuous use in its original form (with amendments). San Marino’s 1600 statutes are older but are a collection of six books of decrees rather than a single codified constitution, and Norway’s 1814 document is the second-oldest single-document one still in force.

The Titles of Nobility prohibition is not unique to the U.S. Several other countries’ constitutions contain similar or identical clauses banning the granting of titles of nobility (or hereditary honors/privileges). These bans are usually part of broader republican or egalitarian principles, often adopted during transitions from monarchy/aristocracy to republic or democracy.

The U.S. version remains one of the broadest and most absolute (no exceptions for domestic grants, no “consent of Congress” loophole for the ban itself). No other country has an identical “no grant” + “no accept foreign without consent” pair at both federal and state levels.

Below is a list of countries whose constitutions explicitly prohibit or refuse to recognize titles of nobility (or hereditary titles/honors/privileges). I focused on active constitutions with clear language.

Constitutions with Explicit Titles of Nobility Prohibition / Ban

United States (1787/1789) Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 (federal): “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States…” Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (states): “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.” Status: Dormant; no major modern enforcement.

France (1958 Fifth Republic) Article 1: “France shall be a Republic… Equality before the law… No title of nobility shall be conferred.” Status: Titles abolished 1870; no new grants.

Germany (1949 Basic Law) Article 109 (via Weimar carryover): “Public legal privileges or disadvantages of birth or of rank are abolished. Titles of nobility are valid only as part of a name and may no longer be conferred.” Status: Titles abolished 1919; “von” or “zu” as surname only (no privileges).

Austria (1920 Federal Constitutional Law) Article 7: “There shall be no privileges of birth, of rank, of class, or of profession. Titles of nobility… are abolished.” Status: Strict; even “von” prohibited unless pre-1919.

Italy (1948) Article 3: “All citizens have equal social dignity… Titles of nobility are no longer recognized.“ Status: Titles abolished 1946; surnames only.

Portugal (1976) Article 13: “All citizens possess the same social dignity… Titles of nobility and other privileges of birth are not recognized.” Status: Titles abolished 1910.

Mexico (1917, rev. 2015) Article 12: “No titles of nobility, nor prerogatives and hereditary honors shall be granted in the United Mexican States.” Status: Dormant since independence.

Norway (1814) Article 21: “Titles of nobility may be conferred only by the King… but no new titles of nobility shall hereafter be conferred.” Status: No new titles since 1821; ceremonial only.

Sweden (1974 Instrument of Government) Chapter 1, Article 2: “No one may be favored… on account of birth, descent… Titles of nobility may be conferred only by the King… but no new titles of nobility shall hereafter be conferred.” Status: No new titles since 1974.

Spain (1978) Article 14: “Spaniards are equal before the law… Titles of nobility… shall be protected by law.” Status: Titles ceremonial; no privileges.

Netherlands (1983) Article 1: “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally… No privileges shall be granted on account of birth.” Status: Titles ceremonial/non-hereditary since 1848.

Belgium (1831) Article 11: “Titles of nobility may be conferred by the King… but no new titles of nobility shall hereafter be conferred.” Status: Ceremonial only.

Greece (1975, rev. 2008) Article 7: “Titles of nobility or distinction are neither conferred upon nor recognized in Greek citizens.” Status: Dormant; no recognition.

Philippines (1987) Article II, Section 31: “No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.” Status: Dormant.

Dominican Republic (2015) Article 39: “No entity of the Republic may give titles of nobility nor hereditary distinctions.” Status: Dormant.

Venezuela (1999, rev. 2009) Article 21: “People will only be officially addressed as Citizens… No titles of nobility or hereditary distinctions shall be recognized.” Status: Dormant.

India (1950, rev. 1971) 26th Amendment (1971): Abolished all noble privileges and privy purses. Status: Titles not recognized; no privileges.

Ireland (1937) Art. 40.2: No titles of nobility conferred. Status: Dormant; no recognition.

Finland (1999) §14: No titles of nobility or hereditary distinctions. Status: Dormant.

Iceland (1944) Art. 1: No titles of nobility. Status: Dormant.

Costa Rica (1949) Art. 23: No titles of nobility or hereditary distinctions. Status: Dormant.

Ecuador (2008) Art. 11: No titles of nobility or hereditary privileges. Status: Dormant.

Honduras (1982) Art. 58: No titles of nobility or hereditary distinctions. Status: Dormant.

Nicaragua (1987) Art. 25: No titles of nobility or hereditary honors. Status: Dormant.

Panama (1972, rev. 2004) Art. 21: No titles of nobility. Status: Dormant.

Paraguay (1992) Art. 35: No titles of nobility or hereditary privileges. Status: Dormant.

Uruguay (1967, rev. 2004) Art. 74: No titles of nobility or hereditary distinctions. Status: Dormant.

Key Notes

• Most are in republics that abolished monarchies (France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, Greece, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Venezuela).
• Constitutional monarchies (Norway, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium) often allow ceremonial titles but ban new hereditary grants or privileges.
• Exceptions — UK, Japan, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden have monarchies and still recognize titles (ceremonial, no legal power). Their constitutions do not ban them.
• No major modern action/enforcement — these clauses are largely dormant (no significant court cases or repeals in recent decades).
• No other country has the U.S.-style dual federal + state prohibition.
• Action — Virtually none in recent decades. These clauses are “self-executing” relics of 19th/20th-century republicanism or anti-aristocracy reforms. No widespread modern litigation or repeal attempts.

A self-executing constitutional provision (or clause/treaty provision) is one that operates automatically and can be enforced directly by courts without needing additional legislation from Congress or a state legislature to “activate” it.

Key characteristics:

• Immediate legal effect It creates rights, duties, or prohibitions that courts can apply right away in cases.
• No implementation law required The provision is complete on its face; it doesn’t say “Congress shall enact laws to…” or “subject to legislation.”
• Examples:
  • U.S. Constitution’s Titles of Nobility Clauses are self-executing. Courts could strike down a law granting nobility without Congress needing to pass anything first.
  • Free speech (1st Amendment), due process (5th/14th), equal protection (14th) are all self-executing.
  • Non-self-executing examples: Some treaty provisions or constitutional mandates that explicitly require legislation (e.g., certain spending clauses or implementing laws for treaties).

In short: Self-executing = “ready to go, courts can enforce it now.”