Originally Posted by Cory
A reigning King can decide to change the surname of thid Royal Family and the Parliament can approve it. King Michael's decision is a private one and the Hohenzollerns did not even isdued a Statement to answer to such a decision.
The royal history of Romania is all linked with Hohenzollerns that were proud to be Hohenzollerns.
Now anyway it is irrelevant .
That is true. All those changes, additions and removals by Michal's own personal whims are most discutable. What I say: when a monarchy is no longer functional, a glass dome is placed over it. Everything is frozen. Too bad for them.
Some German Hohenzollern-relatives went to Court to fight the Hausgesetz
which also regulates who is in line of succession for the headship of the House. Some German Hohenzollerns found the Hausgesetz
outdated (as some fellow posters here find the Romanian Royal Constutition outdated). Some thought they were unlawfully removed because of a non-Standesgemäß
marriage, some thought that females and males should have equal rights, etc. Anyway, plenty of reasons also heard here why the Romanian rules "should cope with modern time".
(the highest administrative and civil Court of Justice in Germany) ruled the Hohenzollern Hausgesetz
as lawful and applicable. The Justices ruled that violations of fundamental rights of descendants in a Will can cause that -in exceptional cases- the protected testamentary freedom of a testator should be overruled because the testamentary disposition is immoral and therefore void. For an example when a regulation aims to restrict the freedom of those affected in their highly personal decisions or reducing them in their human dignity.
disagreed that the disputed Erbunfähigkeitsklausel
(the clausule making Heirs unfit for succession) would aim to intervene in the selection of a particular spouse or children, or to defame not evenly matched marriage according to the views of the Nobility. Rather the aim was that a suitable successor should be found for the historic and traditional patrimonium. Such an objective is covered by the testamentary freedom. In contrast, the invasion of the fundamental rights falls not so significant that the Erbunfähigkeitsklausel
would be immoral and therefore void. The legitimate interests of the descendants are already safeguarded by the inheritance laws, which assures every legal heir a part of the estate.
After this verdict by the Bundesgerichtshof
the present head of the House, Prince Georg Friedrich, remained the head indeed, notwithstanding the fact that he is by no means the most senior agnate at all and that according "modern idea" Standesgemäß
marriages are rubbish and that these Hohenzollerns who violated the Hausgesetz
should be in line of succession too. This shows that the Justices still attach importance to legal documents from before 1918, even though there is no longer an existing monarchy.
The most senior male Hohenzollern, the Evangelic Vicar Prince Philipp Kirill von Hohenzollern (* 1968) can -like King Michael- take a pen and paper, call himself the Chef des Hauses
and place his six children with Mrs Anna Soltau in line of the Prussian succession, but this is not how it works. The Bundesgerichtshof
was clear that House rules are in force as long as no legal rights are infringed. So Cory is right: a King in exile can not just change everything to his own whims.