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

[Cory]

When we speak about a non-reigning House we respect the rules that House had before the end of the Monarchy.
The King ask for a title for his son in.law knowing he could not give one himself. The "titles" given in 2007 have nothing to do with the Constitutions of the Romanian Kingdom.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Cory

All the wifes (speaking not about morganatic marriages) of Romanian Kings were Queens and all the wifes if the Romanian Princes were Princesses.
Nobody else received any title because the King did not have such a right in the Constitutions of 1866 and 1947.

So, are you saying that nobody has ever created a specific title in 1926 ("Principesă mamă") for the wife of the then Carol Caraiman, nor in 1940 ("Regina mamă") for the former wife of an ex-King?

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

When we speak about a non-reigning House we respect the rules that House had before the end of the Monarchy.
The King ask for a title for his son in.law knowing he could not give one himself. The "titles" given in 2007 have nothing to do with the Constitutions of the Romanian Kingdom.

You are being too inconstitent on this issue for it to carry relevance, and it's just a way of twisting facts to fit your argument against one person.
Your stance du jour is contrary to the very concept of monarchy, that has rules and systems in place that go beyond that of one individual, and over-arching rules that work for a longer time and a far greater span than that of one person.
It is the purview of the sovereign to bestow titles. As long as the King was a subsidiary Prince of Hohenzollern, he chose to go through that process with regards to the titles of his son-in-law, but as that process clearly showed, this was both antiquated and not the way to run a sovereign Royal House any longer.
A Prince of Romania does not need a subsidiary princely title from a distant house in another land to be royal, regal or legal. What he needs, is the sovereigns permission, to marry, entitle etc., and the King made a perfectly logical choice, that you yourself applauded on this forum, before you decided that Prince Radu was persona non grata, and that he should be reduced into irrelevance, alongside his wife, whom he has clearly made very happy through a long marriage.

The King chose to declare the Royal House of, from and for Romania when he removed subsidiary titles, just as the Swedish King did, when he ascended and dropped the old suffix 'Swedes, Gothes and Vendes King', just as the Duke of Edinburgh ceased to be a Prince of Greece and Denmark when he married Princess Elizabeth, etc. etc.
That was his sovereign choice, and it has no practical implications at all, other than to make clear where the allegiance and belonging of the family lies, with Romania.

A choice you agreed with. In writing, on these forums.
So maybe we can move on, and let this circular debate end?

[Cory]

The very concept of Monarchy is to obey rules and the only rules for the Royal House of Romania are those existent in 1947.

[LadyRohan]

Show a source of these rules you claim to be in existence, and the discussion is over. Otherwise, the whole constructed point is null and void.

[Cory]

TheC onstitution of 1923 could be read online for those that still do not know of its existence .

[LadyRohan]

As stated earlier in this very thread, the constitution of 1923 does not refuse the King the right to grant titles. If something isn't illegal, it is legal.

[Cory]

The rights of the Romanian Kings were very clearly stated in the Constitution of 1923 and there were no others. The right to give titles did simply not exist. It was like in Norway.

[LadyRohan]

No idea what you are referring to, as article 34 of the Norwegian constitution places the power of giving out royal titles with the King. Interestingly, in Norway, article 4 states that the King has to be an evangelical-lutheran, even though there is no official church or state religion in Norway anymore. That provisal was insisted kept by the King when the constitution changed, so what part of the Norwegian constitution do you actually claim support for your views?

In a democracy, unless something is unlawful, it is lawful, and throughout Romanian history of monarchy, titles have been granted to heirs and spouses of the sovereigns children, and at no point have titles been the subject of external approval.

[Cory]

Nobody that was not born as Prince or Princess got any title in Romania before 1947. To say that if it's not explicitly forbidden is accepted has nothing to do with the constitutional tradition of Romania. The King had only the rights mentioned in the Constitution snd no others. Any marriage to a commoner brought the loss of dynastic rights and no titles were given to commoners.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Paul's half-brother has never called himself "of Romania" but "Hohenzollern".
The romanian Royal Family has anyhow no link with Zizi Lambrino's grandchildren.
Today decision will be surely much applauded by the Romanians.

This important decree was signed by the King today at 10.30 a.m. in the presence of a part of the members of the Romanian Royal Family, some legal advisers and counselors of the Sovereign.

The main Romanian newspapers announce with joy the hystoric decision of the King:

http://www.cotidianul.ro/145216-Rege...e-Hohenzollern

When the titles were changed, you supported the decision, stating it was in keeping with the wishes of King Ferdinand.
Duc_et_Pair explained how it was the exact same steps as the King of the Belgians had taken, when removing certain titles, and the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg, when doing the same.
You further raised the point that the King of the United Kingdom did the same after World War I, to ensure that the loyalty of the monarchy was firmly enshrined with the British.

Originally Posted by Cory

The lawer of the Royal House explains the decision is formal and has nothing to do with the Succession to the Throne , explaining the decree underlines the members of the Royal Family are Romanians and have nothing to do with a Principality dissapeared in the XIXth century:

Motivul pentru care Casa Regala a Romaniei a rupt legatura cu Hohenzollern www.stirileprotv.ro

Following the decision of the King to sever the links with the Hohenzollern family, you stated that the Royal Family, as you called them then, were Romanians who had nothing to do with a Principality that had disappeared a century ago.

Now you trash them, call them the King's Family, ordinary people without relevance and deserters of the cause of monarchy, while elevating the Princely family you said had disappeared, and that have shown no interest at all in the monarchy of Romania returning, and the line of succession they had a place in, being restored.

If the Royal Family are now such ordinary people without relevance, leave them alone and go hunt for a Hohenzollern willing to move to Romania.

If you can't find one, maybe then we can move on to the only relevant and possible way of returning the monarchy in Romania, the one through the actual Royal Family, that you clearly used to support yourself.

[Cory]

Everybody understands now what had happened in the ladt 15 years and the real reasons for everything.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Only the Head of the Romanian Royal Family can confer titles to the members of it.The Fundamental Laws of the Royal Family will registrate this change and any reference to the Hohenzollern surname will dissapear.

Familia Regala - Activitati curente

Meeting yourself in the door a little, perhaps?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

Princess Margareta was born as a Princess of Hohenzollern and at the beginning I suppose even her official surname was like this.
The decision could be linked to the importance of being Romanians because even today some argue the daughters of the King are not Romanians. The truth is that only Princess Margareta speaks a quite good Romanian.

Also, nice to see your confirmation that Crown Princess Margarita *does* in fact speak Romanian well, despite your recent assertions to the contrary.

[Cory]

Obviously you do not know too much Romanian if you expect me to tell you how good she speaks the language. She certainly speaks a good Romanian if compared to her sisters and nephews and nieces.

[LadyRohan]

No, I don't think anyone would expect you to state how well Margareta speaks Romanian. That would be asking you to say something supportive or non-derogatory, and it's been a few years since that last happened.

The Crown Princess' Romanian is fine, and is not a factor in the restoration process, the severing of links with the Hohenzollerns and so on.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Everybody understands now what had happened in the ladt 15 years and the real reasons for everything.

Who is 'everybody'?
Were you and these 'everybody' fooled when you supported the King and his choices a few years ago?
Who tricked you, and how?

What are these 'real reasons for everything'?

[Cory]

Only a Romanian could state how good is The Romanian spoken by the Princess.
Now it us obvious there was a strategy in different steps to arrive at what's going on now. It was important to try to avoid the House of Hohenzollern to be envolved in Romanian issues so that's why the Family severed the relationship with the Hohenzollern.

[Cris M]

A conspiracy theory now?

[Cory]

Not at all. Just a strategy.