Restoration of the Monarchy in Romania - Page 53

Cory · #**1041** 06-26-2016, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

Cory, to your two posts:

1. Yes, the Royal Family will cost taxpayers money. But the Royal Family should show what a good value it is: it should do much more than the official head of state, at lower cost.

2. In every European monarchy, the Royal House is subordinated to the legislature, and succession is a matter of law passed by the legislature; the Royal House has to submit an annual report; etc. That's how things work in a democracy. So I see no problem with the Royal House being democratically accountable to the legislature. Yes, the legislature could take away the Royal House's funds if the Royal House gets too popular but the Romanian Royal Family is very wealthy and could survive without the government's pay if needed, if doing without that pay is required in order to for the Royal House to do what it wants to have a real restoration.

In 1990 a lot of people feared the daughters of the King would want money and that's why they returned and now they could claim they had a point.
You can't compare the Reigning Royal Families and their relationships with Governments/ Parliaments and a country that is a republic and the republican authorities control the descendants of the King in order to be sure Monarchy will never be restored.
What's going on now is in contradiction not only to the ideal of the restoration of Monarchy but also with the Constitution.

CSENYC · #**1042** 06-26-2016, 08:28 AM

How do "republican authorities control the descendants of the King in order to be sure Monarchy will never be restored"?

The government gives the Royal Family money and can take away that money if the Royal Family agitates for a restoration. But we're not at that point yet; there is no near-term prospect of a restoration because the Romanian people do not want it. If the Romanian people decide that they want a restoration and the government takes away the Royal Family's funds, then the Royal Family can just pay for its own existence, just like I do for myself and billions of people around the world do. Further, if the Royal Family became popular and the government cut off its funding, then surely that would generate sympathy for the Royal Family and only help the prospects of a restoration.

How is "what's going on now...in contradiction...with the Constitution"? If the bill is unconstitutional, wouldn't a court stop the law?

And currently there is no near-term prospect of restoration. There is no long-term prospect of restoration, either, particularly as Margareta and Radu are the only members of the Royal Family who even bother living in Romania. Why focus on the harm that the new law could do when restoration isn't going to happen without the law, either?

Cory · #**1043** 06-26-2016, 09:03 AM

The couple that you speak about are private citizens with no dynastic rights and enough properties to be able to carry on the events they organize.

LadyRohan · #**1044** 06-26-2016, 02:35 PM

That is a view designed by you to reduce an actual Royal Family because you disagree with their place in the order of things.
A Royal Family has been defined in this thread before, they meet the criteria.
The Romanian government, President, politicians and those among the public who know about them, count the King and his family as the Royal Family, and the republican, democratically elected government is about to establish beyond any doubt where the dynastic rights in Romania lie through their acts of law, that the Royal House, and the Custodian, representing the King, have wisely and smartly negotiated and worked out.

To reduce the King and the Crown Princess, born to a blue-blooded King and a blue-blooded Princess is talk that really should be reserved to hardened republicans, who hate anything monarchist and would like to see the institution and all who represent it sent to the hinterlands as soon as possible.

Just because you disagree with the succession proposed by the King, the politicians clearly accept that times have changed since 1947, and that female heirs of a King is more acceptable than foreign princes who haven't held a title or position legally for a century. I never thought I'd have to say this in a monarchical thread on a monarchical forum, but thank God for politicians who manage to have a wider and more functional view than narrow-minded, self-declared 'supporters'.

LadyRohan · #**1045** 06-26-2016, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

How do "republican authorities control the descendants of the King in order to be sure Monarchy will never be restored"?

The government gives the Royal Family money and can take away that money if the Royal Family agitates for a restoration. But we're not at that point yet; there is no near-term prospect of a restoration because the Romanian people do not want it. If the Romanian people decide that they want a restoration and the government takes away the Royal Family's funds, then the Royal Family can just pay for its own existence, just like I do for myself and billions of people around the world do. Further, if the Royal Family became popular and the government cut off its funding, then surely that would generate sympathy for the Royal Family and only help the prospects of a restoration.

How is "what's going on now...in contradiction...with the Constitution"? If the bill is unconstitutional, wouldn't a court stop the law?

And currently there is no near-term prospect of restoration. There is no long-term prospect of restoration, either, particularly as Margareta and Radu are the only members of the Royal Family who even bother living in Romania. Why focus on the harm that the new law could do when restoration isn't going to happen without the law, either?

The politicians act in a very, very supportive way of the Royal Family, and they get scolded for it.
The politicians ignore the Royal Family and they get scolded for it.

Talk about burning your light in both ends.

Cory is referring to the defunct constitution of 1923, that will never be restored and that he is reading as literal as some read the Holy Book. The trouble and the marked difference from the latter, is that a defunct constitution is universally accepted as having gone when it's abolished. No constitution has ever been restored, replacing a new one, without significant changes, because it would be out of place and out of date in many areas.
Denying female succession would be one of the areas.

CSENYC is correct, restoration isn't on the current agenda (although more royals than the Crown Princessly couple live in Romania, like Princess Maria), but the most important thing right now, is to ensure progress for the family and the institution they represent, while at the same time making sure that what they do and agree to, does not in any way hinder the ideals and goals of the Royal Family, the ultimate one being restoring the monarchy.

The Royal Family made clear last year they're in Romania to serve, in whatever way people want them to. That's code for, 'we're ready for the monarchy to be restored, at your request'. If they want to earn that trust and privilege, this arrangement being offered, is a very, very, very good start.

Cory · #**1046** 06-26-2016, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

How do "republican authorities control the descendants of the King in order to be sure Monarchy will never be restored"?

The government gives the Royal Family money and can take away that money if the Royal Family agitates for a restoration. But we're not at that point yet; there is no near-term prospect of a restoration because the Romanian people do not want it. If the Romanian people decide that they want a restoration and the government takes away the Royal Family's funds, then the Royal Family can just pay for its own existence, just like I do for myself and billions of people around the world do. Further, if the Royal Family became popular and the government cut off its funding, then surely that would generate sympathy for the Royal Family and only help the prospects of a restoration.

How is "what's going on now...in contradiction...with the Constitution"? If the bill is unconstitutional, wouldn't a court stop the law?

And currently there is no near-term prospect of restoration. There is no long-term prospect of restoration, either, particularly as Margareta and Radu are the only members of the Royal Family who even bother living in Romania. Why focus on the harm that the new law could do when restoration isn't going to happen without the law, either?

The new project of law at section 5 article 2 says the this law does not bring to any change of the Constitution regarding the form of government. I seriously doubt the couple that leads now the King's Family has ever believed in the restoration of Monarchy in the country but now they agree to go against the 30% of the population that asks for the return of Monarchy and the changes in the Constitution to make this possibility happen.This detail of the new project of law shows that the ultimate goal for this Family is not the restoration of Monarchy but the preserve of a republican status quo in change of an official role in the republic with extra finances and the palace to be used. All that the King and the royalists built for 26 years is now put aside. No wonder of the reaction of many people not only monarchists. Before commenting about this please read the new project of law section 5 article 2:

http://www.sgg.ro/legislativ/docs/20...tbm8vdz2jk.pdf

LadyRohan · #**1047** 06-26-2016, 03:07 PM

You make an assumption that Princess Margareta does not want to restore the monarchy, despite her saying the opposite as late as in several interviews before Christmas last year.
Do you base that on any facts, or do you claim to know she lies based on clairvoyance?
You say the Crown Princess and Prince Radu go against everyone who support the monarchy by making a formalized agreement on representing more, receiving, travelling and doing more for Romania in return for housing, infrastructure and allocated funds. In what way does that differ from what a Royal Family does? In what way does it differ from Montenegro and Serbia?

Cory · #**1048** 06-26-2016, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC

Cory, based on your posts, it sounds like the Royal Family doesn't care about restoration. I doubt that, but if it's true, then in order to have a restoration, Romania will need a different Royal Family. It also sounds like the royalists who want a restoration want nothing to do with this new official status for the Royal Family.

If that's the case, then there is zero chance of a monarchy being restored: a Royal Family that doesn't push for it, a need for a brand-new royal family and royalists who don't really want what the Royal Family is accepting. What you have is a complete mess, if the goal is restoration.

I think that the new arrangement should be treated as a restoration, although the King's powers will be more the power of influence rather than official powers in government, and people should be satisfied with it for now. We can have this official status for the Royal Family, with official duties, official titles, an official residence and official pay from the government, and treat the King as an officially-recognized king, but with zero official governmental powers. I'm fine with that; just consider it the 21st century version of monarchy. The Royal Family now has a platform to show Romania what it can do for it, with an official role. That's a good starting point.

I agree that in order to have a restoration of Monarchy there is the need for a Prince outside the King's Family (but from the Hohenzollern House) to be supported by the monarchists.
The new "arrangement" is not a restoration of Monarchy at all but a strenghtening of the republic.

CSENYC · #**1049** 06-26-2016, 04:45 PM

While I'm not Romanian, I would think that there is almost zero chance that Romanians would vote for a Hohenzollern (and thus German-speaking) prince to become their monarch. Just why would they?

Does the law prohibit the Royal Family from advocating for a restoration? If so, isn't that an unconstitutional prohibition on freedom of conscience (under EU law or Romanian law)? Or does the law just say that the Constitution isn't changed by the law (which would allow future changes)?

Either way, this new law is the best alternative for now.

Cory · #**1050** 06-26-2016, 05:43 PM

This project of law is probably quite anticonstotutional but that must be decided by the Constitutional Court at the right moment. The law strenghten the republican regime.
The King's descendants are not seen as Romanians by many Romanians. So...

Duc_et_Pair · #**1051** 06-26-2016, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory

I agree that in order to have a restoration of Monarchy there is the need for a Prince outside the King's Family (but from the Hohenzollern House) to be supported by the monarchists.
The new "arrangement" is not a restoration of Monarchy at all but a strenghtening of the republic.

I would like to see the Fürst von Hohenzollern as well because I believe that going the Margareta-Elena-Karina way leads to nothing as the last two are totally invisible and seems not to pursue any role in the Royal House. The problem is that also the Fürst von Hohenzollern, the rightful heir before the michaelist acadabra with the succession, and his son are also not very interested in playing a role in Romania. The only one really and actively promoting a role for the former royal family are Princess Margareta and Radu. They -not even the King- were the ones to keep the royal torch burning. It is thanks to them that the former royal family is not vegetating somewhere in a London suburbia.

Benjamin · #**1052** 06-26-2016, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

Just because you disagree with the succession proposed by the King, the politicians clearly accept that times have changed since 1947, and that female heirs of a King is more acceptable than foreign princes who haven't held a title or position legally for a century. I never thought I'd have to say this in a monarchical thread on a monarchical forum, but thank God for politicians who manage to have a wider and more functional view than narrow-minded, self-declared 'supporters'.

All very well said.

Also, it is worth remembering that Cory was for the 2007 Fundamental Laws before he was against them.

He continually referred to the King's heiress as Crown Princess Margarita before he reverted to simply calling her Princess Margarita.

He regularly accorded the title of Prince of Romania to the consort of the Crown Princess before he started alluding to Prince Radu as simply "the husband of Princess Margarita."

Etc., etc., etc.

Cory · #**1053** 06-26-2016, 07:48 PM

The fact to give a news about the King's Family does not mean to agree with it. Instead of trying to offend me you'd better try to understand Romania.

CSENYC · #**1054** 06-26-2016, 08:03 PM

Why don't we let the Romanian legislature define the succession rules for the Royal Family? That's how other European monarchies set those rules. Can't have it both way: a restoration, with the current Royal Family actually governing, but with the Royal Family totally exempt from democratic accountability. Democracy doesn't work that way.

If this Royal Family doesn't have acceptable successors (and German-speaking Hohenzollerns are not going to be acceptable), why not pick Prince Charles, a "real" Royal who actually spends time in Romania? Romania and the UK could be separate monarchies with one King. Sounds far-fetched, but those kinds of things happened in the past, and Prince Charles is a celebrity enough who could maybe get a restoration.

Cory · #**1055** 06-26-2016, 08:08 PM

A republican Parliament has no right to decide about the dynastic rights. Only in case of the restoration of Monarchy that would be acceptable.
Who tells you the Hohenzollerns won't be acceptable?And by the way acceptable to who?

CSENYC · #**1056** 06-26-2016, 08:31 PM

Parliament can set the law for the country, and if it is giving the Royal House official status, it has the right to determine who individually will benefit from that official status, restoration or not.

There is no precedent whatsoever for a citizens of a republican democracy in the 20th or 21st centuries to freely vote to accept, as a monarch, a foreigner who does not even speak the language of the country. Let's get real.

Also, like it or not (and I don't like it), but Romania is a republic, and the republican system is in charge. Denying its legitimacy just makes royalists sound crazy; that serves no practical purpose. Work within the republican system to get a restoration instead of going on and on about how the republican regime is illegitimate.

Cory · #**1057** 06-27-2016, 03:18 AM

Is Princess Margareta less foreigner than her Hohenzollern cousins?She does not speak a good Romanian after so many years.Probably the Hohenzollerns could lear a better Romanian if they try.
Of course Romania is a republic and now the republic is even stronger with this new project of law. A republic has no tigh and no constititional basis to decide on who is the Head of a Royal House.

Duc_et_Pair · #**1058** 06-27-2016, 03:33 AM

The Duke of Aosta and his son Prince Aimone served in the Italian armed forces. So did Prince Henri d'Orléans and Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia. Italia is a republic. France is a republic. Germany is a republic. All have to live on and find a place in the realities of their respective countries. They have to pay taxes to the republican State. They have to obey the laws of the republican State. They themselves use the legislative and juridicary system of the republican State when they have a conflict and start a lawsuit. They make use of the infrastructure, the public services, the security and the protection of the republican State. Still Amedeo di Aosta, Henri d'Orléans and Georg Friedrich von Preussen are very much royalborn Princes and have a role as Chef of their royal dynasties. What else can one expect them to do???

By my understanding the State of Romania has stated nothing about the succession in the Royal House. King Michael is still the former head of state of Romania, is still the Chef of the House. I have not seen a document in which Romania states anything at all about the succession. When the Royal House finds that the Fürst von Hohenzollern is the new head of the House of Romania, then that is nice. It is an affaire particulier, the state seems not to take any position in that. Exactly like the State of Bavaria or the State of Württemberg do not interfere at all in decisions in the House of Wittelsbach or the House of Württemberg.

Cory · #**1059** 06-27-2016, 03:56 AM

Obviously you did not read the project of law of the republican government of Romania issued few days ago. In the project it is clearly stated that the two Chambers of the Parliament would recognize the Head of the Royal House. I hardly believe the Italian or French Parliament would do so for Prince Louis of Bourbon or for Prince Amedeo of Savoy.

Duc_et_Pair · #**1060** 06-27-2016, 11:17 AM

The head of the Romanian Royal House they would eventually recognize is their very own former headf of state, isn't it?

French Parliamemt indeed would never do so for a Spanish-born citizen from a Spanish father and a Spanish mother, from a non-dynastical branch of the Spanish royal family which have up all rights on the throne of France 300 years ago and whose claim is a farce.

Italian Parliament indeed would never do so either since the headship of the Royal House of Italy is disputed. The headship of the Royal House of Romania is not disputed. By no one. Here the Romanian Parliament essntially recognizes the headship of the Royal House of the very same person who was indeed their very own King. Twice even.