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

[Cory]

The Hohenzollerns built the modern state of Romania and the Great Romania and they certainly were very proud to be called Hohenzollerns. You are not more Romanian if you do not have a German title. ..but you hardly speak Romanian.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

The King's Family should have been grateful to the Hohenzollerns. .

In an actuality, the Royal Family of Romania, whom you refer to as the King's Family, are Hohenzollerns.

So...it is hard to understand your point.

The recent Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens have not done anything for Romania, so why should the Royal Family be grateful to them?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Hohenzollerns built the modern state of Romania and the Great Romania and they certainly were very proud to be called Hohenzollerns. You are not more Romanian if you do not have a German title. ..but you hardly speak Romanian.

The King, the Queen, the Crown Princess and her husband, and erst-while Prince Nicholas all speak Romanian.

Further, you fully supported the decision of the King to sever links with the Hohenzollerns four years ago; it was you that started this thread.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

[...] There is genuinely nothing new in a Royal Family wanting to declare themselves uniquely for their nation, and not tied to some other noble house.[...]

The effect of the shameful vaudeville to "forget" the own descendance had no implications for the succession on the throne. It was a cheap and cosmetic change to fool public opinion that a German family has overnight become "British" or "Belgian". The succession to these thrones however did not change.

The example of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte dropping his (short-lived) title Prince of Ponte-Corvo is not a good one in this context because up to today the royal family of Sweden uses the surname Bernadotte. Only when Estelle Westling, pardon "Bernadotte" becomes Queen and decides that the name of the royal dynasty is "av Sverige", then we see a similar act, but even then, such a name-change has no implications for the succession.

What happened in the Romanian case is that the Prince Michael of Hohenzollern declared that he, and his daughters are no longer Prince (Princess) of Hohenzollern ánd that the line of succession is blocked for the Hohenzollerns outside his family. That was (and is) a most discutable, unconstitutional, undemocratic move and a genuine example of a foolish, ill-thought unilateral action.

In Luxembourg there seems to have been a feud between the Grand-Duke and the Head of the House de Bourbon de Parme, about the intended wedding of the Hereditary Grand-Duke with Ms María Teresa Mestre, which seemed not to be in accordance with what the De Bourbon de Parmes required. The Grand-Duke decided to drop the use of the title Prince (Princess) de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants. This was however just a half-baked decision. The Bourbon-Parma Arms remained unchanged in the grand-ducal coat of arms and in the meantime the use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme has returned in the titulature of the current Grand-Duke and his Heir.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

In an actuality, the Royal Family of Romania, whom you refer to as the King's Family, are Hohenzollerns.

So...it is hard to understand your point.

The recent Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens have not done anything for Romania, so why should the Royal Family be grateful to them?

The King's Family gave up the membership of the Hohenzollern House.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

The King's Family gave up the membership of the Hohenzollern House.

A move of which many Romanians, yourself included, were very supportive.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

What happened in the Romanian case is that the Prince Michael of Hohenzollern declared that he, and his daughters are no longer Prince (Princess) of Hohenzollern ánd that the line of succession is blocked for the Hohenzollerns outside his family. That was (and is) a most discutable, unconstitutional, undemocratic move and a genuine example of a foolish, ill-thought unilateral action.

The King declared in a document to be considered by Parliament in the event of a future restoration of the monarchy, how he wishes the continuation of the dynasty, and the crown, to proceed. Meanwhile, since Romania has been a republic since 1947, neither this document, nor the constitution that you point to, has any legal effect and the line of succession of the old constitution is as null and void as the constitution itself. It is neither undemocratic, not odd in any way, for the King to declare his wishes for how the Romanian Royal Family should continue. To sever his own links with the Hohenzollern house is a natural extension of the process to declare the Royal Family to be for, of and from Romania only. There is nothing that hinders politicians to counter the Kings will, and designate another heir, in the event of a restoration.

I don't see this as a likely outcome, and with a monarchical process in Romania on the rise, and the issue being further ahead in peoples minds than at any time since the fall of communism, I don't see how the Kings act to forfeit the Hohenzollern title has in any way damaged his standing, or been ill-advised.

[Cory]

Neither of these events changed the Succession but certainly the relationships between the Hohenzollerns and the King 's Family are not the same anymore.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Neither of these events changed the Succession but certainly the relationships between the Hohenzollerns and the King 's Family are not the same anymore.

The line of succession that you speak, was abolished 68 years ago, and has no validity anymore. When we try to discern the future of the Romanian monarchy, it will, again, be a matter of what is realistically possible. The events of August this year muddled the believed future succession a little, and confused many, but I still believe that because Nicholas has had time to establish himself publically as a successor, and the fact that he is young, male and a grandson of the King, still speak in favour of him being chosen, when that time comes.

If Romanian politicians choose to go a different way with a restored monarchy, and they manage to explain that decision to the population, and gain their support in a referendum, I will be both impressed with a PR-job well done, and thrilled that the monarchy is restored. That, in the end, is the ultimate goal.

[eya]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The line of succession that you speak, was abolished 68 years ago, and has no validity anymore. When we try to discern the future of the Romanian monarchy, it will, again, be a matter of what is realistically possible. The events of August this year muddled the believed future succession a little, and confused many, but I still believe that because Nicholas has had time to establish himself publically as a successor, and the fact that he is young, male and a grandson of the King, still speak in favour of him being chosen, when that time comes.

Totally agree with this point. The Nicolae will always be the suitable successor to the throne. And if that time ever reaching conditions may be appropriate and totally different than it is today.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The line of succession that you speak, was abolished 68 years ago, and has no validity anymore.

Not true. The line of succession was not abolished or something. A communist government seized power, 68 years ago, enforcing the King and his family into exile. That is something entirely different that "abolishing the line of succession".

In 2007 King Michael tried to change the Constitition he once solemnly promised to maintain and to observe, in his own way by vesting a document called "Fundamental Rules to succeed all laws of the State and the House".

However presented as something "modern", via the backdoor the King introduced a limitation on the European basic human right of freedom of religion: "Our family traditions include the Orthodox Christian faith, which will always serve as the guiding principle in all future decisions. While maintaining respect for freedom of religion and conscience of the individual, all members of the dynasty will belong to the Orthodox Christian rite." (I have seldom read such a contradictio in terminis in one and the same sentence!) We can also take away some two cents away of the so-called "family tradition" of being Orthodox as two Kings were "simply" Catholic anyway.

Note also that the "modern" King Michael still observes male preference anyway: "Coroana Romaniei va trece de la Seful Casei Regale la primul nascut barbat, si, in lipsa unui barbat, la prima nascuta femeie." (The Crown of Romania will pass from the Head of the Royal House to the first born male and, when there are no males, to the first born female.) So to the outlook it is sold as "modern" but in essence it was only a change to get Radu Duda, pardon I mean Margareta, in power.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

So to the outlook it is sold as "modern" but in essence it was only a change to get Radu Duda, pardon I mean Margareta, in power.

The denegration of Royal Family members speaks volumes on its own.

As for religious freedom, when the Norwegian constitutional arrangements between church and state were discontinued and the State Church abolished, the Norwegian King insisted that the provisions speaking of the Head of State being a member of, and the head of, the Norwegian Lutheran Church, not be altered in any way.

That is a common feature in monarchies, a connection between the leading Church and the Royal Family. Nothing new here.

[Duc_et_Pair]

The difference with the Norway example is that the King was also the head of the Norwegian Lutheran Church. It is a bit strange to be the head of the Lutheran Church when you are not Lutheran at all...

But in many other monarchies -like Romania- there is no connection between the position of the King and the position of the Church. King Ferdinand I of Romania and King Carol I of Romania "simply" were and remained Catholic, for so far the so-called "Orthodox tradition" and the so-called "freedom of religion" described in Michael's Fundamental Principles...

[Cory]

There are two historic Romanian Churches :The Greek-Catholic and the Orthodox. The Constitution of 1923 spoke about both of them. In nowadays Romanian laws there is no official national Church.

[Cory]

It is known hiw close both King Carol II and his brother Prince Nicolaecwere to their Hohenzollern cousins. What really made King Mihai I to close any dialogue with his relatives in Sigmaringen?

[MAfan]

Wasn't it "obvious" in your post less than four months ago?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The denegration of Royal Family members speaks volumes on its own.

As for religious freedom, when the Norwegian constitutional arrangements between church and state were discontinued and the State Church abolished, the Norwegian King insisted that the provisions speaking of the Head of State being a member of, and the head of, the Norwegian Lutheran Church, not be altered in any way.

That is a common feature in monarchies, a connection between the leading Church and the Royal Family. Nothing new here.

It is not a common feature at all. In Romania anyway all the 18 denominatinations are equal and there is no National Church.

[Cory]

It is clear HM the King did not intend to severe links with His Hohenzollern cousins immediatly after the fall of communism. More than that He continued to have a dialogue with the Hohenzollerns even asking a "title" for his son in law. The idea came only years later and it is not clear which was the real reason of it.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

It is clear HM the King did not intend to severe links with His Hohenzollern cousins immediatly after the fall of communism. More than that He continued to have a dialogue with the Hohenzollerns even asking a "title" for his son in law. The idea came only years later and it is not clear which was the real reason of it.

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...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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...

Who are you to decide the Romanian royalists are " self proclaimed"?
The Hohenzoerns were ok when the Kinf's Family needed a "title" for the Princess's husband but all of the sudden was not ok anymore few years after that?