Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Cory]

The King was allowed to use Elisabeta Palace because of the law regarding former Heads of State. The head of thr government does not agree the King's Family to continue to live in the Palace. According to the Law the Family will have to move in February. The Pretender to the Throne will live in his own residence.

 

[Andy T]

Shouldn't all this stuff about the palace be in the thread about palaces and residences? It has nothing to do with the question of succession. The state owns the palace and the lawmakers decide what happens to it.

 

[Cory]

The problem of Succession is indeed much more complex than the question of how long the King's Family will remain in the Elisabeta Palace.

 

[MAfan]

They are actually two very different matters and not necessarily correlated.
Please keep each discussion to its proper thread. Thanks.

 

[Cory]

HRH Princess Iriba,Mrs Walker, was I suppose declared innocent after the trial in the States so she could be put back on the List of the 2007 proposed Line. Also her children and grandchildren.

 

[MAfan]

IIRC she and her husband pleaded guilty, didn't they?

 

[Cory]

IIRC she and her husband pleaded guilty, didn't they?

But which was the verdict in the end? The case must be closed by now.

 

[Ish]

But which was the verdict in the end? The case must be closed by now.

The verdict is guilty as that’s how she and her husband plead.

You can’t be found innocent if you plead guilty.

 

[Cory]

The case is closed anyway. Certainly everything that had happened was not because if her.
Her children had nothing to do with that story but they don't seem to be on the proposed Line list either.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is an absurd saga anyway. With Christmas I will eat a Bambi which was killed for me. My new car has leather seats, I dare not to ask how many animals died for it. The Prince of Wales hunts foxes. The Infanta Elena loves bullfights. And oh yes, Princess Irina was somehow linked to cockfighting. Anyone can have thoughts about it, but that three successors are removed because one was involved in this, shows the complete over-reaction of former King Michael. We saw it again with his grandson Nicholas. The, how to say it, relation between sanction and misdemeanour is completely lost.

 

[Ish]

The case is closed anyway. Certainly everything that had happened was not because if her.
Her children had nothing to do with that story but they don't seem to be on the proposed Line list either.

The case was closed before Irina was removed from the succession; she plead guilty and was sentenced on 22 October, 2014, and on 29 October 2014 King Michael issued a statement stripping her of her titles and removing her and her line from the succession.

I wouldn't expect Irina to be restored to the succession. Her children and grandchildren are a different issue altogether, and I agree that it was a bit heavy handed to remove them as well, but as they live in the US and have nothing to do with Romania it doesn't seem like there's any point in restoring them to the succession - the issue of the Romanian RF is that the next generation doesn't want anything to do with Romania. In turn, why should Romanian monarchists support them?

It is an absurd saga anyway. With Christmas I will eat a Bambi which was killed for me. My new car has leather seats, I dare not to ask how many animals died for it. The Prince of Wales hunts foxes. The Infanta Elena loves bullfights. And oh yes, Princess Irina was somehow linked to cockfighting. Anyone can have thoughts about it, but that three successors are removed because one was involved in this, shows the complete over-reaction of former King Michael. We saw it again with his grandson Nicholas. The, how to say it, relation between sanction and misdemeanour is completely lost.

This is a false comparrison. Your deer dinner and leather seats do not violate a law. The Prince of Wales does not hunt foxes anymore, and when he did it was not in violation of the law. Bullfighting is not illegal nationwide in Spain. Irina violated US law - not simply in that cockfighting is illegal (which it is), but also in that she and her husband were running an illegal gambling business.

I don't disagree that it may have been an overreaction to strip Irina's adult children and her grandchildren of their succession rights (in as much as the female-line grandchildren of a non-reigning royal family that used to follow Salic Law can have succession rights), but you're not going to convince me that Irina violating the US law in such a way isn't reason to take away whatever succession rights she had.

 

[Cory]

Michael and Angelica Kreuger live abroad like the other grandchildren of the King
This is not a reason to be excluded from the proposed new Line.

 

[Somebody]

Wouldn't they (have) need(ed) permission for their respective marriages to be in line to the throne? And was Angelica's older daughter born before marriage? If so, that might have played into the removal as she was apparently born in 2007 (and her marriage is dated in 2009).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The case was closed before Irina was removed from the succession; she plead guilty and was sentenced on 22 October, 2014, and on 29 October 2014 King Michael issued a statement stripping her of her titles and removing her and her line from the succession.

I wouldn't expect Irina to be restored to the succession. Her children and grandchildren are a different issue altogether, and I agree that it was a bit heavy handed to remove them as well, but as they live in the US and have nothing to do with Romania it doesn't seem like there's any point in restoring them to the succession - the issue of the Romanian RF is that the next generation doesn't want anything to do with Romania. In turn, why should Romanian monarchists support them?



This is a false comparrison. Your deer dinner and leather seats do not violate a law. The Prince of Wales does not hunt foxes anymore, and when he did it was not in violation of the law. Bullfighting is not illegal nationwide in Spain. Irina violated US law - not simply in that cockfighting is illegal (which it is), but also in that she and her husband were running an illegal gambling business.

I don't disagree that it may have been an overreaction to strip Irina's adult children and her grandchildren of their succession rights (in as much as the female-line grandchildren of a non-reigning royal family that used to follow Salic Law can have succession rights), but you're not going to convince me that Irina violating the US law in such a way isn't reason to take away whatever succession rights she had.

It was a complete overteaction and a show of the dictatorship which fundaments the proposed Royal House and the drafted succession. Do you know how arch-difficult it is to remove a successor in most monarchies? Often it requires an Act of Parliament with a qualified majority. In most monarchies it is even not possible to renounce succession on own request.

We are talking about serious cases. High treason. Collaborating with enemies of the state. Undermining the Sovereign. Supporting attempts to change the succession. Damaging the interests of state. Criminal acts of the highest category (murder, manslaughter, rebellion against the legal authority, secede parts of the national territory, etc.)

Cockfighting, "lacking moral values" or even having a spotless banner (the children of Princess Irina): it were enough reasons for former King Michael to humiliate these four members of family and throw them out.

I was thinking about the other monarchies: would the UK Government, the Dutch Government, the Spanish Government, etc. have convincing arguments, backed by the supreme courts, to initiate and defend a Bill to get Nicholas, Irina, Michael and Angelica removed? With a qualified majority? In both Houses of Parliament? Asking this question gives the obvious answer: no. It would not even come to a Bill because these four do not even come close to reasons to get punished this way.

 

[Cory]

A proposed Line lacks any credibility if only in few years half of those on the List are excluded for more or less futile reasons.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

A proposed Line lacks any credibility if only in few years half of those on the List are excluded for more or less futile reasons.

The problem however is: if one accepts that former King Michael had the right to add his daughters and their children, to change the Royal House and the line of the hereditary succession, no one can dispute he had the very same right to remove them again.

That is the problem I have with King Michael. There are posters labelling me homesick for the Hohenzollerns. But that is not the case. In my point of view a glass dome has been placed over the Royal House when the kingdom ended. The situation has frozen. There is a moratorium.

Others will say: there is no Kingdom of Romania, there is no royal Government, there is no royal Parliament. Michael had to do this.

In my view the Royal House of Romania has become extinct in the male lineage: the Hohenzollerns have no interest. The Medforth-Mills, Kreuger and Biarneix grandchildren are no successors from legalistic views. And that was it.

 

[Cory]

The problem however is: if one accepts that former King Michael had the right to add his daughters and their children, to change the Royal House and the line of the hereditary succession, no one can dispute he had the very same right to remove them again.

That is the problem I have with King Michael. There are posters labelling me homesick for the Hohenzollerns. But that is not the case. In my point of view a glass dome has been placed over the Royal House when the kingdom ended. The situation has frozen. There is a moratorium.

Others will say: there is no Kingdom of Romania, there is no royal Government, there is no royal Parliament. Michael had to do this.

In my view the Royal House of Romania has become extinct in the male lineage: the Hohenzollerns have no interest. The Medforth-Mills, Kreuger and Biarneix grandchildren are no successors from legalistic views. And that was it.

For the survival of Monarchy a solution is needed. Nobody knows if ALL the Hohenzollerns are not interested. On the other hand the only grandchild of the late King who seems to be very interested in Romania is Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills.

 

[M. Payton]

I am not one to say I know what is going on here, so I read a few dozens of pages here to learn, one thing in particular came to me real fast, why is everyone in the royal family so unhappy all the time and what I take is fighting over what......there is no longer a *Kingdom of Romania*. It has disappeared into the history books and in time will most likely be forgotten if not taught in the schools. There is nothing left but a few jewels, a palace here or there.....the republic will never let the royal family take over again, they themselves can not live with each other let alone an entire country...sad but very true.

 

[Cory]

I am not one to say I know what is going on here, so I read a few dozens of pages here to learn, one thing in particular came to me real fast, why is everyone in the royal family so unhappy all the time and what I take is fighting over what......there is no longer a *Kingdom of Romania*. It has disappeared into the history books and in time will most likely be forgotten if not taught in the schools. There is nothing left but a few jewels, a palace here or there.....the republic will never let the royal family take over again, they themselves can not live with each other let alone an entire country...sad but very true.

The Monarchy has still many supporters and there is a debate about the politicians about the role of Monarchy. It is not something of the past but of the present.
The problem is according to the last royalist Constitution only the Princes of Hohenzollern would have rights to the Throne. A new proposed Line was presented in 2007 and is with the descendants of the King but this list was modified too many times in the last few years.

 

[LadyRohan]

It was a complete overteaction and a show of the dictatorship which fundaments the proposed Royal House and the drafted succession. Do you know how arch-difficult it is to remove a successor in most monarchies? Often it requires an Act of Parliament with a qualified majority. In most monarchies it is even not possible to renounce succession on own request.

We are talking about serious cases. High treason. Collaborating with enemies of the state. Undermining the Sovereign. Supporting attempts to change the succession. Damaging the interests of state. Criminal acts of the highest category (murder, manslaughter, rebellion against the legal authority, secede parts of the national territory, etc.)

Cockfighting, "lacking moral values" or even having a spotless banner (the children of Princess Irina): it were enough reasons for former King Michael to humiliate these four members of family and throw them out.

I was thinking about the other monarchies: would the UK Government, the Dutch Government, the Spanish Government, etc. have convincing arguments, backed by the supreme courts, to initiate and defend a Bill to get Nicholas, Irina, Michael and Angelica removed? With a qualified majority? In both Houses of Parliament? Asking this question gives the obvious answer: no. It would not even come to a Bill because these four do not even come close to reasons to get punished this way.

I think the processes around the line of succession in the last years of the late Kings life, probably shows the difficulties the family has had throughout their adult lives in exile, and finding a way to get back into Romanian civic life, more than it shows the genuine dynastic reflections of the King.
Most ordinary families end up punishing members who act in ways they don't like, by withholding inheritances, excluding from events etc., it becomes slightly more tricky when such a family is a royal one, with much more at stake and far more visibility. The King made some choices that I think most disagree with, withdrawing titles for 'weak' reasons to most onlookers, but as most have said in here time and again; if the question of restoration comes on the agenda, government and the Royal House together will work out a feasible way to implement a line of succession designed for the future.
Until then, one can hope that when court mourning is over, the Custodian has thought some things through and made decisions that will show a new and inclusive way forward for the Royal Family.

 

[Ish]

Duc, I don't disagree that Michael's stance was an overreaction at all. I do disagree that you can in any way compare Irina's actions to the actions you described - none of the comparisons you made were of people committing a crime, Irina's (however mild it may be) were.

The issue of the Romanian succession isn't something that can really be compared to any ruling house; the British, Spanish, Dutch etc, all have institutions in place that allow for the change of their succession. The rules are clear within each reigning royal family, and thus if the monarch wants to remove someone from the succession (or if someone wants to be removed), it's clear what channels to follow.

None of this is true with Romania (or Russia, or Greece, etc). It's fairly logical that had history gone differently most, if not all, former realms would have eventually changed their succession to abandon Salic Law. Like it or not, it's the trend in Europe right now; changing successions to allow for gender equality. Had Michael not been overthrown in 1947, it's fairly safe to assume that Romania would have followed Denmark's example and changed the constitution once it became clear that Michael and Anne were not going to have sons.

But that's not what happened. Michael was overthrown and thus has had no means for changing the succession. I don't agree with his many changes and I do agree that they're frivilous, but I'm not sure I agree that they're dictatorial as you've described it; to me it seems as if Michael has always sought the guidance of his family; he seemes like he acted with the guidance and support of his wife, daughters (at least some of them), and son-in-law. I 100% agree that the removals they've made to the succession in the last few years have been arbitrary and seem somewhat petty, and a lack of transparency on his behalf has not helped things. I disagree, though, that Michael wasn't in his rights to add, or remove, people from his proposed succession. In being overthrown, Michael was removed from an institution under which he could properly address succession issues. As such, when a succession issue came up (as pressed initially by Monarchists, not him, in 1997), his means to resolve the issue were limited.

I actually think that Michael's changes have probably damaged a chance of a restoration in Romania; when you have a number of different claimants and serious infighting in the RF, you deter people from wanting to support a restoration. If he had named a Hohenzollern as his heir presumptive in 1997 and stuck with it (as the Monarchists wanted), he could have used their support to build on the monarchist movement. Or, had he not removed Nicholas, he could have used Nicholas' popularity to build on the monarchist movement. But, in naming Margareta his successor he stuck by his principles and the values of Romania and Europe (instead of just the values of the Monarchists), and we really don't know what the full story is behind him removing Nicholas (with the apparent support of his family). We don't even know the full story behind him removing Irina and her children - for all we know he did it at her request. The issue to me isn't so much the removals, but rather the lack of transparency.

 

[Cory]

Duc, I don't disagree that Michael's stance was an overreaction at all. I do disagree that you can in any way compare Irina's actions to the actions you described - none of the comparisons you made were of people committing a crime, Irina's (however mild it may be) were.

The issue of the Romanian succession isn't something that can really be compared to any ruling house; the British, Spanish, Dutch etc, all have institutions in place that allow for the change of their succession. The rules are clear within each reigning royal family, and thus if the monarch wants to remove someone from the succession (or if someone wants to be removed), it's clear what channels to follow.

None of this is true with Romania (or Russia, or Greece, etc). It's fairly logical that had history gone differently most, if not all, former realms would have eventually changed their succession to abandon Salic Law. Like it or not, it's the trend in Europe right now; changing successions to allow for gender equality. Had Michael not been overthrown in 1947, it's fairly safe to assume that Romania would have followed Denmark's example and changed the constitution once it became clear that Michael and Anne were not going to have sons.

But that's not what happened. Michael was overthrown and thus has had no means for changing the succession. I don't agree with his many changes and I do agree that they're frivilous, but I'm not sure I agree that they're dictatorial as you've described it; to me it seems as if Michael has always sought the guidance of his family; he seemes like he acted with the guidance and support of his wife, daughters (at least some of them), and son-in-law. I 100% agree that the removals they've made to the succession in the last few years have been arbitrary and seem somewhat petty, and a lack of transparency on his behalf has not helped things. I disagree, though, that Michael wasn't in his rights to add, or remove, people from his proposed succession. In being overthrown, Michael was removed from an institution under which he could properly address succession issues. As such, when a succession issue came up (as pressed initially by Monarchists, not him, in 1997), his means to resolve the issue were limited.

I actually think that Michael's changes have probably damaged a chance of a restoration in Romania; when you have a number of different claimants and serious infighting in the RF, you deter people from wanting to support a restoration. If he had named a Hohenzollern as his heir presumptive in 1997 and stuck with it (as the Monarchists wanted), he could have used their support to build on the monarchist movement. Or, had he not removed Nicholas, he could have used Nicholas' popularity to build on the monarchist movement. But, in naming Margareta his successor he stuck by his principles and the values of Romania and Europe (instead of just the values of the Monarchists), and we really don't know what the full story is behind him removing Nicholas (with the apparent support of his family). We don't even know the full story behind him removing Irina and her children - for all we know he did it at her request. The issue to me isn't so much the removals, but rather the lack of transparency.

Strangely enough none of the new proposals of Succession were made before the King was very old. He had always known the Hohenzollerns were the rightful Heirs according to the very Constitution the King had always supported. Some saw the adoption of Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills as a solution too. What happened in the end does certainly not help now the cause of Monarchy.

 

[Ish]

Strangely enough none of the new proposals of Succession were made before the King was very old. He had always known the Hohenzollerns were the rightful Heirs according to the very Constitution the King had always supported. Some saw the adoption of Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills as a solution too. What happened in the end does certainly not help now the cause of Monarchy.

Or he wasn't overly concerned with the succession until the Monarchists pushed him into officially naming a heir presumptive, when he was fairly old.

 

[Cory]

Or he wasn't overly concerned with the succession until the Monarchists pushed him into officially naming a heir presumptive, when he was fairly old.

As far as it us known he has always been concerned about Succession. The royalists leaders discussed with the Sovereign this issue after 1989. Until the most important royalist politician, Corneliu Coposu, was alive the King did not do anything against the Salic articles of the late Constitution.

 

[Andy T]

Ish's post is very well reasoned and a timely reminder that the King's choices were not those of the "monarchists" but his own, firstly in naming his daughter as successor of the Royal house and secondly in asking that she be considered as the next monarch were the monarchy ever restored.

The monarchist choice, based on the provisions of the 1923 constitution, was the Hohenzollerns. Since the King's decision, they have done what they can to undermine the King's proposal, primarily through attacking his son in law but also by exploiting other issues. The Hohenzollerns have not contested, overtly or tacitly, the King's proposal, as shown by their total disengagement from Romania.

In the meantime, Margareta has devoted a quarter of a century of her life to her country and Nicholas was clearly prepared to follow in his aunt's footsteps, doing much good work in the years before 2015.

Nicholas' arrival on the scene gave the "monarchists" a different angle of attack: promote the King's grandson as an alternative, bypassing the King's named successor. In the absence of the Hohenzollerns, he is male and a blood descendant of the last King, so his gender, his origins and his clean image (as was) could be used as weapons against his female aunt, and his Romanian uncle, tarnished by his past. In other words, they set up the young man against his grandfather's wishes and carefully laid plans, and undermined his aunt's work.

The King clearly understood that for there to be any chance of a return to monarchy, his family needed to be beyond reproach and exhibit exemplary standards and behaviour. This tallies precisely with his own moral outlook on life in general. Seen in this light, the removal of his daughter, following her criminal conviction concerning cockfighting and illegal gambling, and his grandson, following his alleged fathering of a child and subsequent failure to resolve the arising paternity issues, are entirely coherent.

Irina admitted her guilt and accepted the judgement of the law. She made no comments on the King's decision and there has been no lingering media fixation over her removal from the succession because, as third daughter, she is not in the direct line of succession and of all the Princesses, she had probably had the least to do with Romania since the family were allowed to return.

Nicholas' removal, however, is a different kettle of fish as, without him, the "monarchists" are stuck: there is no realistic alternative to promote. With growing evidence that the King's days were numbered, and the chances of a legal recognition of the Royal house in the form that the King had proposed, they needed somehow to disrupt as much as possible the succession which the King had chosen but that they did not want. However, with no legitimacy either from the 1923 constitution or from the King's house rules, Nicholas has lost his effectiveness as their weapon against Margareta.

But he's still the only weapon they have.

Now, with the King gone, they have taken their gloves off, even to the point of interrupting the mourning period with an "open letter" imploring Margareta to rehabilitate Nicholas. They are desperate to have him reinstated so that once again they can use him to their own ends.

Nicholas doesn't need anyone, especially Rotariu, to write open letters to his aunt. He needs to sort out his own affairs with the paternity case and thus prove to his family that he wishes to make amends. He also needs to cut off the oxygen supply to these vipers by avoiding making public statements to the media, and through lawyers, and publicly distance himself from their machinations by proclaiming his recognition of and loyalty to the fundamental rules as they stand. He needs to make the vipers understand that he won't be a pawn in their kingmaking games.

With the paternity issue resolved and Nicholas free from the clutches of the vipers, there is a chance for the family to reconcile, initially on a human level and then down the line, for Nicholas' reinclusion in the succession. The "monarchists" need to back off and accept that their only hope for a monarchy in Romania is if the family is united and if they are united behind a united family.

 

[Cory]

It is true the monarchists wanted a clear Succession after 1989 and different leaders asked the King to recognize a Hohenzollern Heir or to adopt his grandson Nicholas. When the King finally signed a new proposal in 2007 the Sovereign was very old and certainly not everybody was happy of the proposed Line. Then the very oroposed Line was modified different times with more or less reason producing confusion among the monarchists.
It is unfair and offensive to speak about the Romanian monarchists in less than respectful ways only because they want their country to be a Monarchy again and obviously do not support any compromise that is contrary to that.
The monarchists are the one who support the reconciliation among the King's descendants.

 

[Benjamin]

Nicholas' arrival on the scene gave the "monarchists" a different angle of attack: promote the King's grandson as an alternative, bypassing the King's named successor. In the absence of the Hohenzollerns, he is male and a blood descendant of the last King, so his gender, his origins and his clean image (as was) could be used as weapons against his female aunt, and his Romanian uncle, tarnished by his past. In other words, they set up the young man against his grandfather's wishes and carefully laid plans, and undermined his aunt's work.

Based on the King's own words, it is hard to argue that Nicholas' inclusion as a member of the royal family, and one that would embody its very continuation at that, was against King Michael's wishes.

In 1992, during a course of interviews with author Philippe Vigué Desplaces, which resulted in the publication of the book Michel de Roumanie: Il Règne Inachevé, King Michael stated:

“Like all the families in our situation, we regretted not having sons, since the royal constitution of 1923, in accordance with the Salic law, forbids women to reign over the Kingdom of Romania.
Margarita, however, is the presumed heiress, but nothing is established. This is something we will have to resolve in due course. Many countries, Sweden, for example, have repealed the Salic law, which is no longer in accord with our times…
If I died before returning to the throne, my eldest daughter would most likely become the head of the royal family. Then, if she does not marry and has no descendants, this role will be played by the eldest son of my younger daughter [Helen’s son Nicholas]. This choice seems to conform to the preferences of all the Romanians that I have consulted on the question. But nothing is established yet. I cannot take such a decision alone.
I have four grandchildren today. None of them bear the title of prince, because they have to receive it through the Romanian parliament. On the other hand, it is essential that they be known in Romania and that they speak the language of their compatriots. Nicholas, Helen’s eldest son, is now six years old. The age I was when I ascended the throne ... If destiny calls him to rule one day in Romania, Nicholas will have to fulfil his duty.” (p.147, Desplaces)

This was before the Royal Family returned to Romania and before Radu joined it.

 

[Cory]

Based on the King's own words, it is hard to argue that Nicholas' inclusion as a member of the royal family, and one that would embody its very continuation at that, was against King Michael's wishes.

In 1992, during a course of interviews with author Philippe Vigué Desplaces, which resulted in the publication of the book Michel de Roumanie: Il Règne Inachevé, King Michael stated:

This was before the Royal Family returned to Romania and before Radu joined it.

The King had always thought the Parliament would decide the Line of Succession WHEN the Monarchy is restored.

 

[LadyRohan]

Ish's post is very well reasoned and a timely reminder that the King's choices were not those of the "monarchists" but his own, firstly in naming his daughter as successor of the Royal house and secondly in asking that she be considered as the next monarch were the monarchy ever restored.

The monarchist choice, based on the provisions of the 1923 constitution, was the Hohenzollerns. Since the King's decision, they have done what they can to undermine the King's proposal, primarily through attacking his son in law but also by exploiting other issues. The Hohenzollerns have not contested, overtly or tacitly, the King's proposal, as shown by their total disengagement from Romania.

In the meantime, Margareta has devoted a quarter of a century of her life to her country and Nicholas was clearly prepared to follow in his aunt's footsteps, doing much good work in the years before 2015.

Nicholas' arrival on the scene gave the "monarchists" a different angle of attack: promote the King's grandson as an alternative, bypassing the King's named successor. In the absence of the Hohenzollerns, he is male and a blood descendant of the last King, so his gender, his origins and his clean image (as was) could be used as weapons against his female aunt, and his Romanian uncle, tarnished by his past. In other words, they set up the young man against his grandfather's wishes and carefully laid plans, and undermined his aunt's work.

The King clearly understood that for there to be any chance of a return to monarchy, his family needed to be beyond reproach and exhibit exemplary standards and behaviour. This tallies precisely with his own moral outlook on life in general. Seen in this light, the removal of his daughter, following her criminal conviction concerning cockfighting and illegal gambling, and his grandson, following his alleged fathering of a child and subsequent failure to resolve the arising paternity issues, are entirely coherent.

Irina admitted her guilt and accepted the judgement of the law. She made no comments on the King's decision and there has been no lingering media fixation over her removal from the succession because, as third daughter, she is not in the direct line of succession and of all the Princesses, she had probably had the least to do with Romania since the family were allowed to return.

Nicholas' removal, however, is a different kettle of fish as, without him, the "monarchists" are stuck: there is no realistic alternative to promote. With growing evidence that the King's days were numbered, and the chances of a legal recognition of the Royal house in the form that the King had proposed, they needed somehow to disrupt as much as possible the succession which the King had chosen but that they did not want. However, with no legitimacy either from the 1923 constitution or from the King's house rules, Nicholas has lost his effectiveness as their weapon against Margareta.

But he's still the only weapon they have.

Now, with the King gone, they have taken their gloves off, even to the point of interrupting the mourning period with an "open letter" imploring Margareta to rehabilitate Nicholas. They are desperate to have him reinstated so that once again they can use him to their own ends.

Nicholas doesn't need anyone, especially Rotariu, to write open letters to his aunt. He needs to sort out his own affairs with the paternity case and thus prove to his family that he wishes to make amends. He also needs to cut off the oxygen supply to these vipers by avoiding making public statements to the media, and through lawyers, and publicly distance himself from their machinations by proclaiming his recognition of and loyalty to the fundamental rules as they stand. He needs to make the vipers understand that he won't be a pawn in their kingmaking games.

With the paternity issue resolved and Nicholas free from the clutches of the vipers, there is a chance for the family to reconcile, initially on a human level and then down the line, for Nicholas' reinclusion in the succession. The "monarchists" need to back off and accept that their only hope for a monarchy in Romania is if the family is united and if they are united behind a united family.

Hear, hear. This post, alongside Ish, sums up the situation in a very comprehensive way, and I think it is worth underlining, again, that the work of these so-called supporters and well-wishers are causing more harm than good with their ill-reasoned actions towards the Royal Family.

I think it’s clear to most that the King made the logical choice to advocate abandoning salic law, as most other monarchies had done at that stage, and every monarchy that only had female pretenders had done. In so doing, he sought to bring the Romanian RF into line with the other current-day monarchies in Europe and clearly showcase how a restored monarchy would be. He was also determined from an early age to include Nicholas in the titled RF, being the one designated to carry the royal house forward after his aunt.

Then the campaign began, from these fake supporters, trashing the Crown Princess because of her husband, lifting up Nicholas as an alternative and the preferred future king and voila, they probably contributed to damaging relations rather than building up the very institution they claimed to support.

We don’t know the full extent of the reasoning behind recent decisions, and even though they seem, on the surface, to be more reckless than well thought out, it might also be that Nicholas became too much of a vehicle for some circles to rally around, thereby deliberately or not, undermining the legitimate and intended line of succession with his aunt first in line etc etc.

It is in my view, a good example of how people who seek to influence and affect change, can damage the very thing they say they’re trying to protect, when they don’t think their actions through, and the endgame may well be that the cause of restoration in Romania is harmed to a degree that is hard to repair.

You won’t get a majority of Romanians to support the monarchy in future unless you have a fairly harmonious and clear Royal Family who communicate well with people, keep their noses clean and do visible and benefitial work for the nation. To send open letters through the media and having public debates around the legitimacy of a woman heiress, by the people who insist they support the cause she’s trying to advocate, is just foolish and illogical. At some point, maybe that sinks in and the RF is allowed to spend a little time forward making some decisions that they are well aware of the need for. That’s all we should wish for at this stage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Ish's post is very well reasoned and a timely reminder that the King's choices were not those of the "monarchists" but his own, firstly in naming his daughter as successor of the Royal house and secondly in asking that she be considered as the next monarch were the monarchy ever restored.

The monarchist choice, based on the provisions of the 1923 constitution, was the Hohenzollerns. Since the King's decision, they have done what they can to undermine the King's proposal, primarily through attacking his son in law but also by exploiting other issues. The Hohenzollerns have not contested, overtly or tacitly, the King's proposal, as shown by their total disengagement from Romania.

In the meantime, Margareta has devoted a quarter of a century of her life to her country and Nicholas was clearly prepared to follow in his aunt's footsteps, doing much good work in the years before 2015.

Nicholas' arrival on the scene gave the "monarchists" a different angle of attack: promote the King's grandson as an alternative, bypassing the King's named successor. In the absence of the Hohenzollerns, he is male and a blood descendant of the last King, so his gender, his origins and his clean image (as was) could be used as weapons against his female aunt, and his Romanian uncle, tarnished by his past. In other words, they set up the young man against his grandfather's wishes and carefully laid plans, and undermined his aunt's work.

The King clearly understood that for there to be any chance of a return to monarchy, his family needed to be beyond reproach and exhibit exemplary standards and behaviour. This tallies precisely with his own moral outlook on life in general. Seen in this light, the removal of his daughter, following her criminal conviction concerning cockfighting and illegal gambling, and his grandson, following his alleged fathering of a child and subsequent failure to resolve the arising paternity issues, are entirely coherent.

Irina admitted her guilt and accepted the judgement of the law. She made no comments on the King's decision and there has been no lingering media fixation over her removal from the succession because, as third daughter, she is not in the direct line of succession and of all the Princesses, she had probably had the least to do with Romania since the family were allowed to return.

Nicholas' removal, however, is a different kettle of fish as, without him, the "monarchists" are stuck: there is no realistic alternative to promote. With growing evidence that the King's days were numbered, and the chances of a legal recognition of the Royal house in the form that the King had proposed, they needed somehow to disrupt as much as possible the succession which the King had chosen but that they did not want. However, with no legitimacy either from the 1923 constitution or from the King's house rules, Nicholas has lost his effectiveness as their weapon against Margareta.

But he's still the only weapon they have.

Now, with the King gone, they have taken their gloves off, even to the point of interrupting the mourning period with an "open letter" imploring Margareta to rehabilitate Nicholas. They are desperate to have him reinstated so that once again they can use him to their own ends.

Nicholas doesn't need anyone, especially Rotariu, to write open letters to his aunt. He needs to sort out his own affairs with the paternity case and thus prove to his family that he wishes to make amends. He also needs to cut off the oxygen supply to these vipers by avoiding making public statements to the media, and through lawyers, and publicly distance himself from their machinations by proclaiming his recognition of and loyalty to the fundamental rules as they stand. He needs to make the vipers understand that he won't be a pawn in their kingmaking games.

With the paternity issue resolved and Nicholas free from the clutches of the vipers, there is a chance for the family to reconcile, initially on a human level and then down the line, for Nicholas' reinclusion in the succession. The "monarchists" need to back off and accept that their only hope for a monarchy in Romania is if the family is united and if they are united behind a united family.

Very good and insightful post. I am sure that Nicholas being somewhat too close to these ermine fleas, the "monarchists" supporting him and obstructing Margarita and Radu, is a point of anger with the princesses.

As you say: he need to solve his problems and of course affirm his unbreakable loyalty to his grandfather's rules, show respect in public to Margareta and make clear to these "monarchists" that he is loyal to the "Custodian of the Crown".

And why would he not? When he is back in grace and favour, in two or three decades it will be his turn. Of course, assuming that his mother Elena or his aunt Margarita are willing to give him a new chance.