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

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Stefan

No one from the romanian Royal Family attended the funeral of the late Fürst Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern in 2010 so i don't expect someone from the Hohenzollern Family in Romania on Saturday.

In 2007 King Michael cut the ties with his an ancestral House, he threw Fürst Friedrich Wilhelm, Erbprinz Karl Friedrich, Prince Alexander and the rest out of the succession, he ended the use of the Hohenzollern titulature. It is hardly surprising that in 2010, three years after this, there were deep waters between the Hohenzollerns and the no-longer-Hohenzollerns. I can imagine the waters are still deep. We only need to look into other royal dynasties how such actions can wreak havoc in relations.

[Cory]

The family document of 2007 did not bring unity and harmony between the two branches of the Family.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The family document of 2007 did not bring unity and harmony between the two branches of the Family.

It wasn't intended to.
It was a document making clear (to most) that the Royal House of Romania was a separate entity from the Princely House of Hohenzollern, and that Romanian royalty would no longer carry princely titles from a foreign house.

If one wishes to interpret that as a hostile act, that's a choice one can make, but equally, if one wishes to see the logic in separating, for restoration and continuation purposes, the clear independence of the Romanian Royal Family, it makes perfect sense.

I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

In 2007 King Michael cut the ties with his an ancestral House, he threw Fürst Friedrich Wilhelm, Erbprinz Karl Friedrich, Prince Alexander and the rest out of the succession, he ended the use of the Hohenzollern titulature. It is hardly surprising that in 2010, three years after this, there were deep waters between the Hohenzollerns and the no-longer-Hohenzollerns. I can imagine the waters are still deep. We only need to look into other royal dynasties how such actions can wreak havoc in relations.

At the end of the first world war there was something similar but from the other part. In the end things changed after the war. We will see if the two families can get closer again.

[Katrianna]

We can hope, however, I don't foresee the two families ever becoming closer unless it would occur in both families younger generations way down the line of time.

[Cory]

The younger generation is represented by Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills and by young Prince Alexander.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

The younger generation is represented by Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills and by young Prince Alexander.

You mean: by Elizabeth Medforth-Mills and Élisabeth Biarneix, as Nicholas Medforth-Mills has been removed, out of the "new" Royal House and out of the proposed succession.

After all: when you accept that King Michael had the right, by his very own personal will and pleasure, to add his daughters and grandchildren to the succession, you can not deny that King Michael had the same right to remove one daughter and three grandchildren...

It is A and B. If you accept A ("Yes, he can make his grandson a heir") then you have to accept B as well ("Yes, he can remove his grandson as a heir").

[Cory]

The two young ladies are not involved in Romania as Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills is.

[Marengo]

And on that note, let's return to the topic of this thread, which is the relationship between the two Hohenzollern branches - or lack thereof.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

The two young ladies are not involved in Romania as Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills is.

What is not there, can come. Elizabeth Medforth-Mills only has to attend so now and then, aside her aunt Princess Margareta or her mother Princess Elena and voilà, there is her royal role. It is not that complicated.

[Cory]

A marriage with a Hohenzollern Prince would certainly bring to the branches again together.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

A marriage with a Hohenzollern Prince would certainly bring to the branches again together.

Did we just fall through the looking glass and into the world of Cinderella, ca 1296 A.D?
Just as there is no need for a Windsor royal to marry a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha royal to 'bring the branches together again', there is equally no such need in Romania.
The late King made the wise decision to abandon foreign dynastic titles and focus the Royal Family purely on their role as Romanian royals many years ago now. Most dynasts have made similar gestures in monarchies, both active and defunct, across Europe, for a century by now. Why it should be a matter of such discontent among a select few, and a point of contention against the late King and the Royal Family, is difficult to fathom.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Because it is effectively dictatorship. By the personal will and pleasure of a former King in exile people are added and thrown out of the monarchy. Successors on base of legislation of the kingdom of Romania are removed and a new line of succession is proposed, and in the short existence we already have seen four successors removed: one for something banal as cockfighting, two who have done nothing at all but happened to be children from the one with the cockfighting and finally the fourth because he would lack moral values. Wham! You are in! And wham! You are out!

All this is acceptable? Yes Michael, Amen Michael, Sure Michael ? Fellow posters who have a more legalistic view are shoven aside as oldfashioned, conservative, stuck in time, whatever. But when this is all completely acceptable, then any non-reigning House has free play. It is then solely up to the personal whim of the day of the person pretending to be the head of the dynasty to arrange anything he/she likes.

All the actions King Michael permitted, are unthinkable in a democracy. I understand that King Michael would like to change things, but he is no King, there is no throne but when you aim for a restoration you want to go back to a situation which was unlawfully ended. But what Michael does makes this impossible. He can not go back to the old situation because the successors according that systematic have removed by his "logic". He can not go back to the once reigning Royal House because there is a newly created Royal House and -with the same ease- alrwady four people were removed from that young, new Royal House. With one scratch from his pen, in Aubonne, Switzerland: "Out!". It is really not that strange that there are fellow posters on this forum with other opinions on all what happened in the former Royal House of Romania.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

Did we just fall through the looking glass and into the world of Cinderella, ca 1296 A.D?
Just as there is no need for a Windsor royal to marry a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha royal to 'bring the branches together again', there is equally no such need in Romania.

We only have to go back to 2009: the marriage of prince Davit and princess Ana - who had to divorce her first husband to be able to marry David and give birth to a heir (the currently 6 year old prince Giorgi). The couple had marital problems within a few months, reconciled, conceived Giorgi and divorced in 2013.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Somebody

We only have to go back to 2009: the marriage of prince Davit and princess Ana - who had to divorce her first husband to be able to marry David and give birth to a heir (the currently 6 year old prince Giorgi). The couple had marital problems within a few months, reconciled, conceived Giorgi and divorced in 2013.

Though, having followed that family for some time, their situation was *quite* different.

Both the Bagrationi-Gruzinski and the Bagrationi-Mukhranski felt that they actually had a realistic chance of attaining a restored throne if Princess Anna and Prince David married and provided an heir with the blood of both branches.

Clearly, that has not worked out - for the couple, at least.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Because it is effectively dictatorship. By the personal will and pleasure of a former King in exile people are added and thrown out of the monarchy. Successors on base of legislation of the kingdom of Romania are removed and a new line of succession is proposed, and in the short existence we already have seen four successors removed: one for something banal as cockfighting, two who have done nothing at all but happened to be children from the one with the cockfighting and finally the fourth because he would lack moral values. Wham! You are in! And wham! You are out!

All this is acceptable? Yes Michael, Amen Michael, Sure Michael ? Fellow posters who have a more legalistic view are shoven aside as oldfashioned, conservative, stuck in time, whatever. But when this is all completely acceptable, then any non-reigning House has free play. It is then solely up to the personal whim of the day of the person pretending to be the head of the dynasty to arrange anything he/she likes.

All the actions King Michael permitted, are unthinkable in a democracy. I understand that King Michael would like to change things, but he is no King, there is no throne but when you aim for a restoration you want to go back to a situation which was unlawfully ended. But what Michael does makes this impossible. He can not go back to the old situation because the successors according that systematic have removed by his "logic". He can not go back to the once reigning Royal House because there is a newly created Royal House and -with the same ease- alrwady four people were removed from that young, new Royal House. With one scratch from his pen, in Aubonne, Switzerland: "Out!". It is really not that strange that there are fellow posters on this forum with other opinions on all what happened in the former Royal House of Romania.

The King remained faithful to the last Constitution of the Kingdom as much as that was possible. It would be interesting to see the reasons for the split with the Hohenzollerns. Is is even more interesting to see why such a move was not made earlier.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Though, having followed that family for some time, their situation was *quite* different.

Both the Bagrationi-Gruzinski and the Bagrationi-Mukhranski felt that they actually had a realistic chance of attaining a restored throne if Princess Anna and Prince David married and provided an heir with the blood of both branches.

Clearly, that has not worked out - for the couple, at least.

Not saying that situation is exactly the same - although some Romanian royalists might consider a wedding the solution for just that: a step to further their case in bringing back the monarchy. I was mainly trying to show that the suggestion was not as farfetched or 'old fashioned' as it seems given this very recent example of an arranged royal marriage to unite different 'branches'/claims of a defunct throne.

Not trying to promote it in any way - marriage is too sacred for it to be 'used' for these political purposes (although I know it has happened all throughout history).

[Cory]

A marriage can't be imposed to anybody.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Cory

A marriage can't be imposed to anybody.

Unfortunately, that isn't true in many places in the world (cf. girl not bride campaign) but I am sure that Elisabeta Karina and Alexander will be free to marry other people (or free to marry each other ).

[Cory]

We must wish the best of luck to the younger generations of the two branches. They should never forget their common ancestors.