King Michael severs links with the House of Hohenzollern, May 2011

[LadyRohan]

A title which the Romanian government then went on to accord Prince Radu and which many self-proclaimed Romanian monarchists, such as yourself, employed when referring to Prince Radu. So...

My guess is that the whole process around the titling of Prince Radu made it clear to the King that if the Royal Family was to be from, of and for Romania, time had come for him as head of the Royal House of Romania to adopt, and distribute when needed, purely Romanian titles. It was a very logical choice, applauded at the time, and it is as right today as it was 9 years ago.
If you're for the monarchy, it is highly irregular and illogical to protest the right of a King to decide on titles. That is the way of any Western monarchy, a decision that was acceptable to those few who today choose to sabotage the cause instead of being loyal and constructive in times of change.

 

[Cory]

In Romania only dynasts used to have titles before 1947.

 

[LadyRohan]

In Romania today, only the children of the King and the spouse of the heir, have titles. There's nothing untoward about that, and it is perfectly in line with any existing or abolished monarchy.

 

[Cory]

No person without dynastic rights can get a title from a Romanian King.

 

[LadyRohan]

The King of the Romanians, like the monarchs of other dynasties, decides who gets titles, and a title is not based on dynastic rights of succession. Is it really necessary to make an endless list of princes and princesses in Europe without dynastic rights, but with legitimate titles or titles in pretense?

 

[Cory]

If the King could give titles (which would be against the Constitutions of the Monarchy in Romania) he should not have asked the Prince of Hohenzollern for one.

 

[LadyRohan]

He asked the Fürst of Hohenzollern for his son-in-law to be titled as his wife was, because the family was then titular a branch family of the Hohenzollern house, as well as the Royal Family of Romania. Later, when the King decided the right way forward was for the family to be exclusively named and titled 'of Romania', he did not need to ask permission of anyone. He is the head of his house, and can distribute titles as he sees fit.

The former King of the Hellenes is still titular a Prince of Greece and Denmark, bestowed by the Queen of Denmark, as is his entire family. If the family undertook to have the monarchy of Greece restored, it would not be far-fetched to see them relinquish their Danish titles and make sure no one could question their loyalty and dedication to Greece.
Not sure why the same decent logic can't be applied in the case of the Romanian Royal Family.

 

[Cory]

Every country with its own laws. In Romania Kings do not give titles.

 

[LadyRohan]

On what do you base this view? At no point does the Romanian constitution of 1923 restrict or deny the King the right to defer titles, so what is the basis of your denial of this right of a monarch, and/or the head of a royal house?

 

[Cory]

There were no titles in Romania after 1866. The Princes and Princesses of Romania were born as Princes and Princesses of Hohenzollern. Nobody else had any title. When I speak read first the Constitutions and then I study the history of the country between 1866 and 1947.

 

[LadyRohan]

That isn't an entirely correct reading of the history of titles in Romania. Romanian monarchs were, alongside the Belgians, popular monarchs, who were titled 'of the Romanians', as opposed to the more standard 'of Romania'.
An example of the actual titles, i.e that of Prince Nicholas of Romania, who was stripped of the title 'Prince of Romania' by his brother King Carol II. If he didn't have the title, why would he lose it?
The full titles of princes and princesses of Romania would in most cases be 'Prince(ss) of Romania, Prince(ss) of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, except in the case of Ferdinand I, who was designated heir to the throne of Romania in 1880, and didn't receive the title 'Crown Prince of Romania' until 1886.
No constitution denies royal titles being used or distributed in Romania during the years of the monarchy, and no part of royal history denies the use of titles.

 

[Cory]

Nobody received any title in Romania between 1866 and 1947. Only the dynasts had titles.

 

[LadyRohan]

The meaning of the word 'dynast' is 'a member of a powerful family'. I suppose someone who marries into a Royal Family is then legitimately a dynast.
Do you have some other special definition that you've created to fit this argument?

 

[Zonk]

I am trying to follow this most recent discussion but it is very confusing.

Saying no titles have been issued is a lot different that the King could not issue any titles.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The meaning of the word 'dynast' is 'a member of a powerful family'. I suppose someone who marries into a Royal Family is then legitimately a dynast.
Do you have some other special definition that you've created to fit this argument?

In my understanding a dynast is someone holding dynastic rights (read: rights of succession).

Don Jaime de Borbón, Infante of Spain (1908-1975) was an uncle of King Juan Carlos and gave up his rights on the throne in 1933. Therefore his descendants, all born after that date, are no dynasts. Someone who marries into a royal family is no dynast, in my understanding.

 

[MAfan]

Nobody received any title in Romania between 1866 and 1947. Only the dynasts had titles.

So how should the various titled conferred in Romania to King Michael's mother be justified?
She wasn't a dynast; though, when Carol II renounced his succession rights in 1926 and little Prince Michael became the Heir to the Throne, she was given the title of "Principesă mamă", and later on her title became "Regina mamă".

 

[Cory]

So how should the various titled conferred in Romania to King Michael's mother be justified?
She wasn't a dynast; though, when Carol II renounced his succession rights in 1926 and little Prince Michael became the Heir to the Throne, she was given the title of "Principesă mamă", and later on her title became "Regina mamă".

She was the wife of the Crown Prince and the mother of the future King. She was born as Princess and she married a Crown Prince.

I am trying to follow this most recent discussion but it is very confusing.

Saying no titles have been issued is a lot different that the King could not issue any titles.

Or am I missing something?

The King asked his cousin to give a title because he knew he could not give a title himself.

 

[MAfan]

She was the wife of the Crown Prince and the mother of the future King. She was born as Princess and she married a Crown Prince.

Yes, I do know all that and it doesn't respond to my question.

 

[Cory]

All the wifes (speaking not about morganatic marriages) of Romanian Kings were Queens and all the wifes if the Romanian Princes were Princesses.
Nobody else received any title because the King did not have such a right in the Constitutions of 1866 and 1947.

 

[LadyRohan]

This is just a constructed argument to rail against non-equal marriages in principle, and Prince Radu in particular.
The King did not ask for the title Prince of Hohenzollern because he 'knew he couldn't bestow titles'. If he knew that, he wouldn't bestow titles a year later.
It's clear from the process that he realized, probably in agreement with or following the process of the Hohenzollerns, that new titles given to Romanian consorts and partners should be given by the King, and not by a German princely house.

Just because a person was a Princess who married a Prince, doesn't explain why she was then given a Romanian title, but a commoner who marries a Prince or Princess, gets a title as well and it's all of a sudden wrong.
The old, abolished constitutions of Romania do not speak on the issue of titles, it is therefore not restricted and the King is fully within his rights to continue the tradition of giving a title to the partner of his children and heirs. He is also within full dynastic tradition to give titles as part of his royal prerogative, just as Lady Diana Spencer was given a title upon her marriage to the Prince of Wales, just as Sarah Ferguson, Catherine Middleton, Brigitte van Deurs and Katharine Worsley were given titles upon marriage.
Daniel Westling was create a Prince upon marriage. Katherine Batis became Crown Princess Katherine of Serbia upon her marriage to a non-reigning royal, as did Margarita Gómez-Acebo y Cejuela become Tsaritsa Margarita of Bulgaria following her marriage to the non-reigning Tsar of Bulgaria.

We cannot be so unprincipled that there is one rule for the King of the Romanians, because we don't like a royal partner, but accept and allow just about every other title granted.
Further, when the King created his grandson a Prince in 2010, you were one of the supporters. In the case of Prince Radu, you are completely the opposite.
The King either has the right or he doesn't, and if you claim he doesn't, you have to point to where that is enshrined in law or practice. So far, you haven't shown that at all, and royal tradition in Romania shows that partners of heirs and children of monarchs have received titles in full.

When it comes to Duc's point, that may be what Cory means, but it is neither the meaning of the word, nor is it a correct definition by tradition in Romania, as many people not eligible to reign or rule on their own have received titles, such as consorts.

 

[Cory]

When we speak about a non-reigning House we respect the rules that House had before the end of the Monarchy.
The King ask for a title for his son in.law knowing he could not give one himself. The "titles" given in 2007 have nothing to do with the Constitutions of the Romanian Kingdom.

 

[MAfan]

All the wifes (speaking not about morganatic marriages) of Romanian Kings were Queens and all the wifes if the Romanian Princes were Princesses.
Nobody else received any title because the King did not have such a right in the Constitutions of 1866 and 1947.

So, are you saying that nobody has ever created a specific title in 1926 ("Principesă mamă") for the wife of the then Carol Caraiman, nor in 1940 ("Regina mamă") for the former wife of an ex-King?

 

[LadyRohan]

When we speak about a non-reigning House we respect the rules that House had before the end of the Monarchy.
The King ask for a title for his son in.law knowing he could not give one himself. The "titles" given in 2007 have nothing to do with the Constitutions of the Romanian Kingdom.

You are being too inconstitent on this issue for it to carry relevance, and it's just a way of twisting facts to fit your argument against one person.
Your stance du jour is contrary to the very concept of monarchy, that has rules and systems in place that go beyond that of one individual, and over-arching rules that work for a longer time and a far greater span than that of one person.
It is the purview of the sovereign to bestow titles. As long as the King was a subsidiary Prince of Hohenzollern, he chose to go through that process with regards to the titles of his son-in-law, but as that process clearly showed, this was both antiquated and not the way to run a sovereign Royal House any longer.
A Prince of Romania does not need a subsidiary princely title from a distant house in another land to be royal, regal or legal. What he needs, is the sovereigns permission, to marry, entitle etc., and the King made a perfectly logical choice, that you yourself applauded on this forum, before you decided that Prince Radu was persona non grata, and that he should be reduced into irrelevance, alongside his wife, whom he has clearly made very happy through a long marriage.

The King chose to declare the Royal House of, from and for Romania when he removed subsidiary titles, just as the Swedish King did, when he ascended and dropped the old suffix 'Swedes, Gothes and Vendes King', just as the Duke of Edinburgh ceased to be a Prince of Greece and Denmark when he married Princess Elizabeth, etc. etc.
That was his sovereign choice, and it has no practical implications at all, other than to make clear where the allegiance and belonging of the family lies, with Romania.

A choice you agreed with. In writing, on these forums.
So maybe we can move on, and let this circular debate end?

 

[Cory]

The very concept of Monarchy is to obey rules and the only rules for the Royal House of Romania are those existent in 1947.

 

[LadyRohan]

Show a source of these rules you claim to be in existence, and the discussion is over. Otherwise, the whole constructed point is null and void.

 

[Cory]

TheC onstitution of 1923 could be read online for those that still do not know of its existence .

 

[LadyRohan]

As stated earlier in this very thread, the constitution of 1923 does not refuse the King the right to grant titles. If something isn't illegal, it is legal.

 

[Cory]

The rights of the Romanian Kings were very clearly stated in the Constitution of 1923 and there were no others. The right to give titles did simply not exist. It was like in Norway.

 

[LadyRohan]

No idea what you are referring to, as article 34 of the Norwegian constitution places the power of giving out royal titles with the King. Interestingly, in Norway, article 4 states that the King has to be an evangelical-lutheran, even though there is no official church or state religion in Norway anymore. That provisal was insisted kept by the King when the constitution changed, so what part of the Norwegian constitution do you actually claim support for your views?

In a democracy, unless something is unlawful, it is lawful, and throughout Romanian history of monarchy, titles have been granted to heirs and spouses of the sovereigns children, and at no point have titles been the subject of external approval.

 

[Cory]

Nobody that was not born as Prince or Princess got any title in Romania before 1947. To say that if it's not explicitly forbidden is accepted has nothing to do with the constitutional tradition of Romania. The King had only the rights mentioned in the Constitution snd no others. Any marriage to a commoner brought the loss of dynastic rights and no titles were given to commoners.