Restoration of the Monarchy in Romania


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Of course he would! He wants people to think that the royal family does not exist or after HM the family will not sue to their majesties not having sons. Sometimes playing stupid does not get you far! People can see right through it and I really hope that the people can see through him.

The people know the royal family, and love them. He does not need to!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe he just tries to finish the chapter of Monarchy but he won't succeed.

In the other hand the historic role of the Royal House will be recognized in the first article of the revised constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even the strongest critics of the Royal Family (as the leader who resides at Cotroceni) have to recognize the number of royalists is really increasing:

Traian B
 
Debate "Can Monarchy Still Save Romania?" organized by "Adevarul" newspaper about the incresing support for Monarchy:

Adev
 
Cory said:
Debate "Can Monarchy Still Save Romania?" organized by "Adevarul" newspaper about the incresing support for Monarchy:

Adev
Click to expand...

I recently read somewhere (I believe you may have posted it) about how people are saying that the king should still declare Nicolae his heir rather than his daughter as people feel that the monarchy has a better chance this way?
 
USCtrojan said:
I recently read somewhere (I believe you may have posted it) about how people are saying that the king should still declare Nicolae his heir rather than his daughter as people feel that the monarchy has a better chance this way?
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that when the monarchists were trying to get Michael to name a heir they went first with a male-line, male descendant (in accordance with the old succession laws), then decided that Nicolae would be acceptable as a male descendant, even though it's through a female line. Michael chose to ignore the wishes of the monarchists supporting his restoration and named his daughter as the heir instead, with the expectation that one day Nicolae will be the heir.

If that's true, then Michael's decision can be seen as the monarch going against the wishes of the people. It can also be seen as him putting his personal desires above the laws of the state (or the old ones that dealt with the succession). Finally, it can be argued that it would be better to name an individual who has children, or is capable of having children in the future, as the heir because it enables or ensures the succession of that line. Margareta has no children and is past the age where she would have children.
 
:previous:
It could be argued that King Michael was taking a more practical, realistic and long-term view by formally naming Margarita as heiress.

Nicholas Medforth-Mills was created HRH Prince Nicolae on his 25th birthday in 2010. King Michael was then 89 years old. A boy-King may have romantic appeal for some but history has shown the fundamental flaw of a young politically-inexperienced heir having responsibility suddenly thrust upon him or her. Crown Princess Margarita is known, respected and experienced and has an active husband-partner in support. Plenty of time for young Prince Nicolae to create his own family let alone learn the language, understand the culture, establish a network of contacts, and become familiar with the official and unofficial power structures within and outside Romania. His time will come and until then Margarita will continue to personify the royal heritage, dynastic commitment and stability, and sense of service to the Romanian people and State that the Royal Family represents.
 
I do agree. I think that in choosing his eldest daughter, instead of a male relative, Michael brings the Romanian royal family into the 21st century, while by choosing his child over his grandchild he's attempting to ensure stability - a monarch in their 60s should be a far more secure and stable monarch than one in their 20s/30s.

To me the problem isn't so much in which heir he selected - Margareta is a better heir at this point than Michael - as the reaction of the monarchists, and how much other individuals in the House support Michael's decision, particularly after his death.

I think the decision of Margareta as heir over Nicolao (or someone else) is really really going to be determined as a "good" or "bad" decision once Michael's gone. Right now no one seems to be overly disputing it, but when Michael's gone other people could be make a claim to the throne and the whole thing could become like Russia.
 
I don't see a problem with having a young monarch. King Michael himself was only in his 20s during most of his second reign, and he did a superb job.

However, Margareta would be a superb Queen. She looks so elegant, and I'd think that having Margareta would attract women's support (maybe). Conversely, does her son even speak much Romanian?
 
The monarchy will be restored soon in Romania?
 
CSENYC said:
I don't see a problem with having a young monarch. King Michael himself was only in his 20s during most of his second reign, and he did a superb job.

However, Margareta would be a superb Queen. She looks so elegant, and I'd think that having Margareta would attract women's support (maybe). Conversely, does her son even speak much Romanian?
Click to expand...

Prince Nicolae isn't the son of crown princess Margarita, he is the son of Princess Elena of Romania and Robin Medforth-Mills.
 
Prince Nicolae este becoming a very well prepared future Sovereign.
 
CSENYC said:
I don't see a problem with having a young monarch. King Michael himself was only in his 20s during most of his second reign, and he did a superb job.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you judge him to have done a superb job? He began as a boy king under a regency, then was king under a Nazi supporting government which was succeeded by a Soviet backed government which dethroned Michael. Except for one brief shining moment when Michael managed to overthrow the Nazi backed government and before the Soviets took over Michaels role in Roumania seems to have been pretty insignificant.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NGalitzine said:
On what basis do you judge him to have done a superb job?...
Click to expand...
3 instances:

First, he showed great courage:

(1) His coup, overthrowing Ion Antonescu, who was a very bad man. Plenty of other kings, particularly figureheads, would have just sat back and let others overthrow him.

(2) He did what he could to try to stop the Communists from taking over Romania, even when it was clear that the Communists would murder him if they wanted to (look at what they did in Bulgaria). He refused to sign laws that they passed.

Second, people love him:

(3) He's now one of the most popular leaders in Romania, and huge crowds turned out for him when he came to Romania in 1992. If he hadn't been an admirable leader, people wouldn't be so attached to him. How many people show up to see King Constantine or Jimmy Carter?

Third, he just showed that he is a fundamentally decent man (and when the King shows great decency, that just sets a standard of behavior for others to follow; when one of the few powers that a figurehead King has is the power of moral authority, this is important):

(4) In WWII, I see that he visited American prisoners in Romanian prisons and treated them with great kindness and even mocked Romania's Nazi occupiers. How many leaders would do that with prisoners of a country with which one's country is at war?

King Michael a truly wonderful man and any country would be very fortunate to have him as King. He's sure better than what we've got now in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps it is correct and the people to love the king! Perhaps they do respect margarita! Something I do not question at all.

It's not old news that Michael stood up to the communists and what not. Bashing someone for saying that he supports the monarchy and has hopes for a restoration is not cool.

He does not have to to Romania to see what things are like! That is what the Internet is for!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, USCTrojan. I've actually been to Romania, shortly after Communism fell. One reason that I'm such a fan of King Michael is because I've seen how rough things were there, and what devotion one must have to return there and try to help things.

I also think how much Romania and Romanians have suffered, and how much better things would have been if the Communist invasion, and his overthrow, hadn't happened.

I hope that in his old age, he gets some satisfaction from his rise in popularity and return of his property and stature.
 
Last edited:
CSENYC said:
Thanks, USCTrojan. I've actually been to Romania, shortly after Communism fell. One reason that I'm such a fan of King Michael is because I've seen how rough things were there, and what devotion one must have to return there and try to help things.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way!

Thank you for sharing. I love to see more people on these boards who support the monarchy in Romania and Serbia as well. The Serbian royals (although HM Peter II was never able to return to beloved home) fall into the same boat!

Unfortunately they didn't have a choice and were chased from their homes... Stripped of everything -including their citizenship, and their belongings, and forced to cate lives elsewhere.

It's only now that these families are returning home -in the last twenty years, and all people can say are negative things about how horrible things still are in those nations as you are stating your support!

Like you, I am FULLY aware of the issues that still face the people in Eastern Europe (Romania and Serbia specifically in this case) following the fall of communism. It's not that hard, especially if you have visited or live there!

I have a lot of respect for an individual who fights for who he/she is and what they believe in and does not give in -HM is no exception, and neither was Peter II. Both are/were good men.

I am one who firmly believes that the return of a constitutional monarchy to either country would be good for both people and country!

Just my few cents!
 
USCTrojan, I totally agree with you.

One reason that I'm also in favor of restoring King Michael at least is because his overthrow was done by an evil regime of Communists. Restoring him would be righting a historical wrong and restoring how things would have been if that evil period hadn't ever happened. (If he had screwed up, like other deposed royals did, I'd see it differently- but he didn't do a thing wrong.)

If the US is ever invaded by extremist crazies and our government is ever overthrown, as happened in Romania, when the invaders are forced out, I'd sure hope that we'd restore things.
 
Look, as I see Romania during WWII supporting the Nazis and handing over Jews in large numbers, who were murdered, in wholesale numbers and without protection, I have little respect for them. The King was not part of this, but when the Soviets arrived after being abused by the Germans with the help of Romanians and Hungarians, it was understandable. Not good, understandable.
 
:previous:
This thread is not about Romanians handing over Jews to the Nazis and it would be advisable for you to avoid personally attacking other members.

thanks.
 
NGalitzine said:
On what basis do you judge him to have done a superb job? He began as a boy king under a regency, then was king under a Nazi supporting government which was succeeded by a Soviet backed government which dethroned Michael. Except for one brief shining moment when Michael managed to overthrow the Nazi backed government and before the Soviets took over Michaels role in Roumania seems to have been pretty insignificant.
.
Click to expand...

King Michael of Romania did the best he could under the given circumstances in 1947. He couldn't have done anything else. I have been a huge fan of the Romanian royals and very much in favor of the restoration of the monarchy in Romania up until the early 90s, when, during his several visits to Romania, King Michael has compromised himself decorating, having dinners and collaborating etc. with the nowadays reformed communists turned politicians in the Romanian governing party. That's just too much, even for an enthusiast supporter of the monarchy. To add to our disappointment, it turns out that his one and only grandson, Prince Nicolae - brought up in London - does not speak one iota of Romanian. I mean, come on!

In regards to the comments made by some forum members that Romanian Jews were killed and sold out by the Romanians, that's not entirely true. I would advise those members to issue statements after carefully researching historical data. Not everything is black and white. Mostly just grey.
 
I'm sorry, but Antena 3 in Romania is about as reliable a news source as Daily Mail. Actually, Daily Mail has kept a somewhat journalistic dignity by comparison.

And with the new scandal of the third daughter arrested for illegal activity in the U.S., I don't see how restoration of the former monarchy could save the country. I think the former monarchy has compromised its chances of becoming a solution for Romania's political turmoil a long time ago (the 90s).
If anything, it would probably add more problems to the Romanian people (and their justice system).
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The polls show the contrary.The popularity of the Royal Family and of Monarchy is increasing.
 
Cory said:
The polls show the contrary.The popularity of the Royal Family and of Monarchy is increasing.
Click to expand...

Agreed! And... I don't believe that this is going to affect the royal family in Romania. I don't see Irina (thanks for catching my mistake) ever returning to Romania with the exception of a few times.

Nicolae on more than one occasion has been talked about as the heir by Romanian papers and has been seen as a positive light in terms of a male descendant- born elsewhere or not.

I think so many people forget that many of these families were stripped of their citizenship and had to make lives for themselves outside of their homes. I don't know if the King or even Constantine of Greece, and all of the other monarchs who were displaced thought they would return home.

You must give the kid some credit, he is now living full time in Romania, let alone speak Romanian (sometime in the future).
 
Prince Nicolae speaks Romanian and he represents a lot HM the King.
 
Cory said:
Prince Nicolae speaks Romanian and he represents a lot HM the King.
Click to expand...

I have to say.... HRH has done very well over the short time that he had relocated to Romania full time. He has done a tremendous job with his Romanian which will ate some time to Iron out -it is not an easy language.

And, for a young man who has to work, he sure is busy with royal duties more often than people seem to think.

One really has to hand it to Nicolae! He has done a fine job in his new role since officially becoming a member of the royal house! I only wish him the best of luck as he continues to progress.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Curtea de Argeș Cathedral (burial place of the Romanian Royal Family)
Replies
1
Views
464
Blog Real
Blog Real
Ista
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators--The Royal Family of Romania
Replies
0
Views
304
Ista
Ista
P
King Frederik official business promotion in Poland. January 31-February 2, 2024
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Muhler
Muhler
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
456
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
Margareta, Custodian of the Crown & Prince Radu News & Events 4: Aug 2023 -
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom