I can't remember having seen anyone else using the term 'archaic', so I guess that would be for me. I wouldn't mind so much, unless it was lumped together with a very tasteless reference to a bloody and tyrannical dictator, with whom Romania still struggle to come to terms with. It's not a good point of reference for anything, let alone a democratic King who was forced out of his own country at gunpoint, under threat of massacres in his name if he did not obey.
The succession of 1923 was clear. It was abolished in 1947. It hasn't been realistic since. It became even less realistic when the-then Fürst of Hohenzollern made it clear that the Romanian throne was a matter for the Romanian Royal Family, and that his family had no interest in it.
It should be evident to everyone, that there is no call in Romania for the import of a German prince from a family who has never claimed the throne, through the old, abolished line of succession.
Here's where it starts to get a little iffy for me. I don't think I've seen anyone on these forums defend the King in these decisions, and I certainly haven't myself. For one, I don't believe the sins of the father-principle should apply to anyone, and frankly, unlike several others, yourself included, I do not care much who a Princess marries and/or have a family with. It's interesting gossip for some, clearly, but in my view, some things are private, and as I've said many times before, love is personal and must be available for everyone.
The snobbery that sometimes shines through when disparagingly referring to Prince Radu of Romania as Mr. Duda, 'the son of a left-wing politician', 'the failed presidential candidate' and so forth, is what makes me cringe. It is awfully easy to sit on a forum and ride a high horse with regards to others, but it's for the most part, deplorable, and at it's very best, not conducive to the very concept of restoring a monarchy, where speaking up a family, not dragging them down at every turn, is fairly basic for the very concept of family-oriented rule, like the monarchy inherently is.
Not once have I defended the King when he has made arbitrary, and I quite agree with you, unbecoming and plain odd decisions, in one direction or another, meddling with the line of succession he himself proposed. I for one see the Princesses, all 5 of them, as equal in most manners, but the King has stripped Princess Irina of her title, because of her affairs in the U.S, which, I agree, are unbecoming of someone of royal blood, but that's the thing that many people in the end react to: These women, when raised as part of a Royal Family in exile, with little prospect of coming home when communism was rampant and the government was hostile, went on to create their own lives, became different people than they would had become had they been raised and lived in the land that elevated them. I think to cut them a little slack for being actual people, while still also having titles, a certain heritage and as both Princesses Margareta and Maria have proven, some have an easier time adapting to a new role in Romania after their re-entry than others, is not too much to ask.
The current proposed line of succession is not set in stone. It is a proposal by the King, which I agree with completely, should not be altered and arbitrarily changed at every turn of events, but I am quite sure that once the proposed law of recognition passes parliament and the senate, and the Head of the Royal House is recognized to be Crown Princess Margareta, we will see a stronger focus on the future of the Royal Family, who will return to Romanian to represent, who will come after Margareta and so on.
These things are a process, and even though I completely understand the confusion, or frankly irritation, at parts of the process, I think it is also a factor in lessening the agitation, to know that the King is a very old and frail man at this stage, and that his decisions, seemingly arbitrary and odd, will be made clearer by the Crown Princess in due course.
I do not have the knowledge in me to know who will represent the Royal Family in the 2nd and 3rd line at this point. I know what I think, and perhaps hope, but I think we should allow a little time for the family to come together, see their new role in a restored, semi-monarchical state, where their positions are much clearer than it is now.
It is impossible to disagree with you on this point, despite muddying it with imagery that is just not appropriate. The introduction of Nicholas into the formal Royal Family with a title and a place in the proposed line of succession was a great move in 2010. The removal of the same person in 2015, with the murky and confusing messages given by the Royal House, were not.
The Royal Family has steps to take and lessons to learn about communication, but this is where the law coming into effect is a great thing for them. They need a better organization, stronger people around them to do the formalized work needed and make sure that there aren't big gaps in press releases or that they don't undertake tasks, roles or give interviews or statements that they shouldn't. In other words, the Royal House need to professionalize, and through the current proposals, that's what will happen.
I don't know what happened between the King and Nicholas M-M, but the errors were on multiple fronts. If this was a mutual decision, which it seems it was not, the-then Prince Nicholas should had been the one to give a statement himself, explaining his withdrawal from public life and not using his title anymore, so he could more easily start a private life, while the Royal House worked with the government to find a structure for its future organization.
If it was a one-sided decision by the King and his council, it should had been explained clearly, with a given cause, not overly detailed, but a cause people could understand, to avoid speculation and a never-ending debate.
Yup, the meddling isn't a great look, and for practical reasons, it clouds the goals of the Royal Family in a less than constructive way.
However, the term 'deadly for royal aspirations' is interesting here. Most monarchists, and most Royal Families and thereto royalty themselves, realize that what is 'deadly' for royal aspirations more than anything else, is the appearance of intransigence and snobbery. A monarchy in Europe today has to be founded in historical traditions, but must also be willing to adapt to a rapidly changing world and circumstances that do not stand still from one moment to another. A monarchy does not need to be at the forefront of change, but it also cannot lag too far behind, unless it wants to be seen as yes, archaic and outdated, very soon indeed. The biggest risk a monarchy runs, is striking the balance wrong, between elevation, history and grace on the one side, and folksy, common and without allure or uniqueness on the other.
The King made the right decisions allow for female succession, through male-preference primogeniture in his proposed line of succession. If the monarchy is restored in Romania, it won't be on the basis of excluding one of the genders anymore, or by bypassing the Royal Family, when they've publicly stated their wish to be of service to the people.
A monarchy today has to be flexible and willing to adjust, without going too far in losing its luster and grace. That's more than doable, but not with deadlocked positions and an unwillingness to cooperate where possible, and compromise when needed. Fortunately, the Royal House is displaying a willingness to work with both politicians and others in order to achieve their ultimate goal; the return of the monarchy to Romania.
Last edited:
