HRH Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu current events part 1 (2004-2015)

[LadyFinn]

Prince Radu attended on Friday at the Studio Cinema in Bucharest, at the gala opening of the sixth edition of "Les Films à Bucarest Cannes".
Les Films de Cannes à Bucarest, ediția a șasea _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

[Cory]

On her message for the King's birthday Princess Margareta spoke about the " extrem weakness and suffrance " of the Queen.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

On her message for the King's birthday Princess Margareta spoke about the " extrem weakness and suffrance " of the Queen.

It's sad, but not unexpected, to hear about the condition of H.M the Queen. All we can do, is keep her in our prayers right now.

[Cory]

It is really sad for the members of the Family to not be together on this so special day.

[LadyFinn]

Crown princess Margarita granted on Monday 16th November high patronage to the educational institution Transylvania College in Cluj-Napoca.
Principesa Moștenitoare, Înalt Patronaj școlii Transylvania College _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

Prince Radu hosted on 17th November at the Elisabeta Palace an evening dedicated to Romanian Federation of Archery. He is the patron of the Federation.
Seara Federației Române de Tir cu Arcul, 17 noiembrie 2015 _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

[NotHRH]

Romania has a "Queen, Crown Princess, and a Prince?" Did I not get the memo? Just as Greece, Hanover, and other countries/former countries, they legally have no monarchy, and thus no royal family. How many centuries must pass before these now commoners realize they are now legally commoners, albeit wealthy ones. They should accept their fate in life, find a way to cope with that fate, and move forward. They were all fired many years ago - but they keep showing up for a job that they no longer have. Really sad!

[MAfan]

Well, Romania may not legally have the monarchy has the current form of government, but the titles of the members of the former Royal House are apparently acknowledged by the current republican government. Not only the title of King Michael, as a former Head of State, but also the titles of Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu.

[Andy T]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Romania has a "Queen, Crown Princess, and a Prince?" Did I not get the memo? Just as Greece, Hanover, and other countries/former countries, they legally have no monarchy, and thus no royal family. How many centuries must pass before these now commoners realize they are now legally commoners, albeit wealthy ones. They should accept their fate in life, find a way to cope with that fate, and move forward. They were all fired many years ago - but they keep showing up for a job that they no longer have. Really sad!

I think you got the wrong memo. What leads you to believe that the people concerned have not moved forward? If HRH Princess Margareta is active in Romania, it is as patron of many charities (the Red Cross and her own excellent foundation to name but two). There is absolutely nothing sad about that; on the contrary, she has helped many, many people. What is more, she does not participate in the government of the state and she certainly does not "show up" anywhere unless invited.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Well, Romania may not legally have the monarchy has the current form of government, but the titles of the members of the former Royal House are apparently acknowledged by the current republican government. Not only the title of King Michael, as a former Head of State, but also the titles of Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu.

Educate me - how does Romania, which legally has no royal family, acknowledge the outlawed royal titles of its own ex-royals? I realize CP Margarita and P Radu do a lot of good things for the Romanian people, but put that aside and enlighten me on the details of this situation.

[MAfan]

The situation is that Romania is a republic, but the former Royal Family plays a semi-official role. The Romanian government has granted to the members of the former Royal House the use of the Elisabeta Palace, where at times they host guests on official visits to Romania; members of the Royal Family (especially Margarita and Radu) at times act as representatives of the Romanian Government abroad; and if you check the various threads, you'll find many other examples.
The Royal Family doesn't have a constitutional role in the Republic of Romania, but still de facto plays a semi-official representative role acknowledged by the government.

[LadyFinn]

Prince Radu hosted on behalf of King Michael a reception for the diplomatic corps at the Peles Castle on 3rd December. Prince Radu read the message of King Michael in romanian, french and english. Ambassadors and other diplomats were invited then music hall for "Diplomatic Luncheon". The Military Orchestra of the Air Force Academy "Henri Coanda" held a concert.
Recepția Regală a Corpului Diplomatic, la Castelul Peleș _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

Prince Radu delivered the first scholarships "Regele Carol I" and "Regina Elisabeta" at the Peles Castle on 3rd December.
Au fost acordate primele Burse “Regele Carol I” și “Regina Elisabeta” _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

[Duc_et_Pair]

Most remarkable. The Corps Diplomatique consists of official representants of states. That these ambassadors go to a reception formally hosted by a former head of state and that an orchestra of the Air Force (paid for by the State of Romania) gives a concert...

Maybe the Romanian model is the best: the State is governed by a democratically elected Government and President. The former royal family has a (semi-)official representative function. That would at the one side end the "democratic deficit" which is the fact that a head of state is designated by birthright and at the other side respect the often centuries long historic and emotional bond to a family.

I am impressed by how nice the Romanian royal family represents, given the minimal financial budget compared to the reigning monarchies.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Educate me - how does Romania, which legally has no royal family, acknowledge the outlawed royal titles of its own ex-royals? I realize CP Margarita and P Radu do a lot of good things for the Romanian people, but put that aside and enlighten me on the details of this situation.

I suppose the same could be said for your own former presidents, who are still and for life referred to as Presidents, whether one likes it or not.
A matter of etiquette, tradition or style is not a matter of personal preference, it's how countries deal with things that have been. A King is a King for life, reigning or not, just as a president is, and his family will remain a former and titular Royal Family, just as Laura Bush, and her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, are for life Former First Ladies. Columba Bush, the wife of Jeb Bush, sister-in-law of Laura and daughter-in-law of Barbara, could still become the next First Lady of the U.S.A. Do I smell the aroma of monarchy in the U.S aswell?

I always love how many so-called die hard republicans seem to live in faux republics, from the Bushes, Clintons and Kennedys in the U.S, to Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, the Gandhis in India, the Assads, the Kims and Parks in North and South Korea, the dynasties in Greek politics, the Aliyevs in Azerbaijan, the Bhuttos in Pakistan and the hereditary republics established in Africa, too many to list. Republics leave a lot to be desired, because a large portion of people, I dare say a majority, desire stability and continuity in our leaders. We want to know they know their job/role, that they can be trusted and they know how to reject things that could harm us mere subjects. There is no other way to explain the popularity and growth of spouses, children and family members of former leaders, and their tendencey to get elected or approved themselves.

Society at large is of the opinion that when people have once been elevated they don't become commoners at the flick of a switch again. They have certain needs for protection and security, and they have an extra need for privacy, as they will always be 'those-who-once' or 'those-who-might'.
In the case of Romania, and to a lesser degree Serbia and Montenegro, despite being republics, they have found both cost-effective and respectful ways of using their Royal Families for representation, diplomacy and charity, which the population responds positively to, and the establishments sees as an acceptable, but not too big, threat to their own positions.

De facto, de jure, titular, pretender. These are all royal concepts throughout our history, that won't be erased easily, and that shouldn't, because if it's one thing we should learn from history, is that we never know what happens tomorrow, and a link to our collective past is often not a bad thing.

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is a difference between what the formal position is and how people react. Best example: in Austria the titles of the former imperial family were revoked, it was not allowed to incorporate these in the surname and even the "von" ("of") was scrapped: His Imperial and Royal Highness Otto, The Prince Imperial, Archduke of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary became "Mr Otto Habsburg". However the people never stopped referring him as "Archduke Otto" and when he died in 2011, his funeral was with full imperial and royal honours -in the presence of the full Austrian Government- and when he was interred in the crypt his full titulature was read aloud, no matter what was written in his passport.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

I suppose the same could be said for your own former presidents, who are still and for life referred to as Presidents, whether one likes it or not.
A matter of etiquette, tradition or style is not a matter of personal preference, it's how countries deal with things that have been. A King is a King for life, reigning or not, just as a president is, and his family will remain a former and titular Royal Family, just as Laura Bush, and her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, are for life Former First Ladies. Columba Bush, the wife of Jeb Bush, sister-in-law of Laura and daughter-in-law of Barbara, could still become the next First Lady of the U.S.A. Do I smell the aroma of monarchy in the U.S aswell?

I always love how many so-called die hard republicans seem to live in faux republics, from the Bushes, Clintons and Kennedys in the U.S, to Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, the Gandhis in India, the Assads, the Kims and Parks in North and South Korea, the dynasties in Greek politics, the Aliyevs in Azerbaijan, the Bhuttos in Pakistan and the hereditary republics established in Africa, too many to list. Republics leave a lot to be desired, because a large portion of people, I dare say a majority, desire stability and continuity in our leaders. We want to know they know their job/role, that they can be trusted and they know how to reject things that could harm us mere subjects. There is no other way to explain the popularity and growth of spouses, children and family members of former leaders, and their tendencey to get elected or approved themselves.

Society at large is of the opinion that when people have once been elevated they don't become commoners at the flick of a switch again. They have certain needs for protection and security, and they have an extra need for privacy, as they will always be 'those-who-once' or 'those-who-might'.
In the case of Romania, and to a lesser degree Serbia and Montenegro, despite being republics, they have found both cost-effective and respectful ways of using their Royal Families for representation, diplomacy and charity, which the population responds positively to, and the establishments sees as an acceptable, but not too big, threat to their own positions.

De facto, de jure, titular, pretender. These are all royal concepts throughout our history, that won't be erased easily, and that shouldn't, because if it's one thing we should learn from history, is that we never know what happens tomorrow, and a link to our collective past is often not a bad thing.

The way you explained the situation to which I was referring now makes better sense to me - it is more a matter of etiquette or tradition. I think as these royal families were legally ran out of their countries, it seems a little odd that now they are welcomed back into their home countries with open arms. For instance, I cannot imagine Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran ever being welcomed in Iran ever, much less as the Crown Prince of Iran. Do you think that a significant passage of time, and the changes brought about during these times makes a difference?😕

[LadyFinn]

It's rather interesting, that in 2014 crown princess Margarita, prince Radu, prince Nicolae and princess Maria attended at the reception for the diplomatic corps. Now only prince Radu.
And in the spring crown princess Margarita and prince Radu announced that they had decided to deliver new scholarship. However, at the delivery was only prince Radu.

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu announced on Monday their decision to deliver from 2015, every year four scholarships for Romanian students.

"In Holy Week, our thoughts turn to our ancestors, who founded the modern Romania. With their example in mind, we are proud to announce that Prince Radu and I have acted. Since 2015, we provide personally every year four scholarships for Romanian students: two in Bucharest, "King Carol I Scholarship" and "Queen Elizabeth Scholarship" at The Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, and two in Chisinau, "King Ferdinand Scholarship" and "Queen Maria Scholarship" at The University of Academy of Sciences of Moldova", said crown princess Margarita.
Familia regală va oferi, începând din 2015, anual, câte patru burse pentru studenţii români - Mediafax
Translation

King Michael gave the high patronage to Asociația Română de Aeromodelism. Prince Radu handed out the certificate of the patronage on behalf of the king on 4th December.
Asociația Română de Aeromodelism a primit patronaj regal _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

Prince Radu is the new patron of Liceul Academic de Arte Plastice „Igor Vieru” (Academic School of Fine Arts "Igor Vieru"). He gave the certificate to the School on 4th December.
Liceul Academic de Arte Plastice din Chișinău a primit patronaj regal _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

[LadyFinn]

Crown princess Margarita and prince Radu are on a visit to Switzerland 6th-10th December. The crown princess participates as president of the National Red Cross Society of Romania in the work of the 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross, held in Geneva.
Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu will meet at the beginning of the visit the Romanian Ambassador to the UN Permanent Mission, Mr. Mr.Vierita.
Vizită regală la Geneva _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

[moby]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Most remarkable. The Corps Diplomatique consists of official representants of states. That these ambassadors go to a reception formally hosted by a former head of state and that an orchestra of the Air Force (paid for by the State of Romania) gives a concert...

Maybe the Romanian model is the best: the State is governed by a democratically elected Government and President. The former royal family has a (semi-)official representative function. That would at the one side end the "democratic deficit" which is the fact that a head of state is designated by birthright and at the other side respect the often centuries long historic and emotional bond to a family.

I am impressed by how nice the Romanian royal family represents, given the minimal financial budget compared to the reigning monarchies.

I'm curious to see the attendance of the luncheon myself. It would be awkward for diplomats to attend such an event unless they have a personal relationship with members of the former Royal family. It's a curious situation, I don't know what the protocol would be in this case. If you're Ambassador though, I guess you'd have to consider whether you're not in any way offending the government for attending an event hosted by the deposed RF (regardless of whether the government and the RF have a good relationship) and if you're respecting the Romanians' official wish to not be a monarchy. A safe thing to do would be to send the Embassy number 2 to the event I suppose. Tricky but very interesting.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

I think as these royal families were legally ran out of their countries, it seems a little odd that now they are welcomed back into their home countries with open arms.

The issue is the royal families in the Balkans were not exactly legally driven out. Rigged referendums, coups by Communists, etc. were more of the order of the day when the Romanians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Yugoslavs were forced into exile.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

The way you explained the situation to which I was referring now makes better sense to me - it is more a matter of etiquette or tradition. I think as these royal families were legally ran out of their countries, it seems a little odd that now they are welcomed back into their home countries with open arms. For instance, I cannot imagine Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran ever being welcomed in Iran ever, much less as the Crown Prince of Iran. Do you think that a significant passage of time, and the changes brought about during these times makes a difference?��

I'll start this post by apologizing for it being slightly off-topic, so as to respond to your comments and questions.

The first error here is whether or not something is/was done legally or not. If a country is taken over by a non-elected grouping, be it military or ideological, and they decide to either force a change, set up a referendum that cannot legally be recognized as free and fair, does that make changes legal? To neutral onlookers, it cannot be validated as legal, but there is always an argument on the other side, about how these forces came to take power in the first place. Was it the will of the people that they did? These questions fill books and rooms of arguments and discussion, but a few factors are usually recognized more universally.
The communist regimes that took over most Eastern European countries after WWII, forced the Royal Families out, and made necessary changes to the laws, to ensure their kegitimacy. Because people didn't sufficiently protest, one might assume that they agreed with the changes made. In some countries, referendums were held, as in Italy and Greece. In Italy, it was made clear a long time ago, that the Catholic church was influenced to recommend the abolishment of the monarchy, and still, in a deeply religious Italy in those days, the monarchy almost won the referendum. Is religious influence rigging an election?
Without having a definitive answer, I would say that it is guaranteed that Italy would be a monarchy today if the church supported it. Such was its power in Italy at the time.
Greece had some of the same dilemma. Even after the King was exiled, and the referendum was to be held, the King, the RF, other institutions etc, were all barred from campaigning for the monarchy, and still the monarchy received over 30% of the votes. Is that a free and fair referendum, or is that rigging a battle to get the result you want?
The former PM of Albania has admitted on several occasions that the referendum in Albania in the 90s over whether or not to restore the monarchy, was rigged, and that the pro-monarchy side had actually won by a clear majority. Still, people didn't revolt or create chaos when it was admitted, why not?

In the countries that became communist post WWII, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary etc, the existing Royal Families were simply forced to leave. Is that a legal way of changing how a government is run, how a country functions? When communism fell, and the families came home, they were greeted with open arms, after 40-50 years in exile. Their language had slipped away, their children and grandchildren born in foreign lands, just knowing that their families once were something special. Coming back to their historical lands now, they don't always know what's expected of them, and we don't always know what to make of them. It's not an easy situation to navigate for anyone, least of all, royal members always on display. In the case of Romania, it seems clear that Crown Princess Margareta and Prince Radu do the very best they can, within the confines their very undefined roles and under the current republican regime. I wish that would sometimes be more understood, instead of scrutinized with suspicious and unkind eyes, that always look to find support for the views one already has about them, or in particular, the Prince.

In countries that have a Royal House that once represented them, there is always going to be an attraction to restoring them to a position of headship, because they're seen as possibly less corrupt, hopefully more fair and potentially more prepared for the job, the role they will undertake. As long as these Royal Houses exist, they will be faced with great opposition, but not mainly from the population. People are quite often either sympathetic or indifferent to the idea of monarchy. The amount of people who are die-hard against the concept are usually not in the majority, but as with any republic, they're filled with certain people with powers and positions they don't want to relinquish or reduce. That's human nature, and one of the things monarchies naturally counter, with their inherited nature and natural rejection of corruption.

Whether or not Crown Prince Reza will ever return to Iran, only time will tell, but I do know 2 things: Every one of my Iranian friends have parents who supported, or didn't care about, the Iranian revolution that led to the Shah leaving Iran. Today, they very much regret the way things played out, as their lives have certainly not improved, their futures are not what they want them to be and Iran has lost its standing in the world. Of all the lands in that region, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, who all were monarchies only a generation or two ago, I am fairly sure Iran is the one country that just might become a kingdom again.

If it's with H.I.H Crown Prince Reza as King, I truly don't know. But the world always changes, and time tends to heal wounds and erase mistakes. Iran has been a proud kingdom and empire for over 2.500 years, and ruled by priests for the past 36. I'm not sure that's what modern Iranians want anymore. In fact, I doubt it's what they ever wanted.

Empress Farah once said: What's done is done. What's been has been. We need to look forward, towards tomorrow. That's where a better day for Iran exists.