Restoration of the Monarchy in Romania

[Hairball]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

You're very welcome indeed. I think all subjects should be taught on index-cards, makes it all so much easier :)

I agree!

Do they still own Vlad's Castle in Brasov? Wasn't it a royal residence once? Didn't Queen Marie redecorate it?

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Hairball

I agree!

Do they still own Vlad's Castle in Brasov? Wasn't it a royal residence once? Didn't Queen Marie redecorate it?

Quoted and replied to in the correct thread, http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1907794 :-)

[Katrianna]

Indeed, a very fascinating history and topic. I don't mean to sound flippant, far from it, but how much of a reality is the possible restoration of the Monarchy in Romania? I realize the King was warmly welcomed back after the fall of the Communists and the Royal Family always warmly received by the Romanian public. Nicholas was very popular as I've read and I'm sure especially by the younger generation, now that he's out of the succession, how many younger Romanians are going to be interested in restoration of the Monarchy? I can see interest rising in the Monarchy among older generations and perhaps the younger also in light of a Republic that has had continuous economic ills and corruption for years.
Of course, the Crown Princess is in line to succeed her father, but can the family come up with her successor that will be popular enough to with the up and coming younger generations? Nicholas is out of the question, of course, who could match his popularity? Maybe his sister or could he eventually be placed back in line of succession? I doubt it myself.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Hairball

I just saw this; I'm new here.

Fascinating stuff! But I thought the Hohenzollern family was part of the royal family. Did something happen to them?

There were two branches originated from the Siegmaringen Line: the princile branch and the royal branch of Romania. The second one has its last direct male and after that the other Line can have the Succession like happened in 1889.

[Duc_et_Pair]

In between all the heated debate I must say Cory raised a valid point. Princess Margareta and Mr Duda have been offered a generous deal by the State of Romania, which they can not refuse in my opinion. At the same time it is all very short-term thinking. When you are a royalist, and isn't monarchy per definition a system of hereditary succession?- then "Elisabeta Palace" should be clear about the future.

Is the "deal" indeed meant to appease and to accomodate and to encapsulate the last Romanian Hohenzollern and will the monarchist ideal end with her? If no, who then will be the torchbearer for the monarchist cause? Karina Medforth-Mills? Elisabeth Biarneix? Or will it be the Fürst von Hohenzollern? Are these three intersted at all in Romania and in it's former Royal House?

I agree with Cory that this remains all foggy and unclear. Depending on how you look to it, the impression is not out of the blue that Princess Margarita and Mr Duda have ensured themselves a good life and the monarchy... ach... "Apres nous la deluge".

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Katrianna

Indeed, a very fascinating history and topic. I don't mean to sound flippant, far from it, but how much of a reality is the possible restoration of the Monarchy in Romania? I realize the King was warmly welcomed back after the fall of the Communists and the Royal Family always warmly received by the Romanian public. Nicholas was very popular as I've read and I'm sure especially by the younger generation, now that he's out of the succession, how many younger Romanians are going to be interested in restoration of the Monarchy? I can see interest rising in the Monarchy among older generations and perhaps the younger also in light of a Republic that has had continuous economic ills and corruption for years.
Of course, the Crown Princess is in line to succeed her father, but can the family come up with her successor that will be popular enough to with the up and coming younger generations? Nicholas is out of the question, of course, who could match his popularity? Maybe his sister or could he eventually be placed back in line of succession? I doubt it myself.

King Mihai is still very popular and his grandson was the only possibility of his Family to have a change to restore Monarchy. Now the monarchists continue the campaign for the restoration but many people do not know very well the 13 Princes of Hohenzollern that are in Line for Succession.
In Romania accorxing to the Constitutions of the Kingdom women can inherit the Crown so the King's daughters do not have dynastic rights even if the King ask in a document sogned in 2007 that in case of return of Monarchy his daughters and theirs descendants should be allowed to succeed.
It is a rather complex situation with more and more monarchists are not too keen to support the King's elsest daughter that because of the private document of 2007 styles herself as "Custodian of the rown", a title that has nothing to do with Romanian tradition.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

In between all the heated debate I must say Cory raised a valid point. Princess Margareta and Mr Duda have been offered a generous deal by the State of Romania, which they can not refuse in my opinion. At the same time it is all very short-term thinking. When you are a royalist, and isn't monarchy per definition a system of hereditary succession?- then "Elisabeta Palace" should be clear about the future.

Is the "deal" indeed meant to appease and to accomodate and to encapsulate the last Romanian Hohenzollern and will the monarchist ideal end with her? If no, who then will be the torchbearer for the monarchist cause? Karina Medforth-Mills? Elisabeth Biarneix? Are the interested at all in Romania and in it's former Royal House? I agree with Cory that this remains all foggy and unclear. Depending on how you look to it, the impression is not out of the blue that Princess Margarita and Mr Duda have ensured themselves a good life and the monarchy... ach... Apres Nous La Déluge...

They try to get the best they can for them and that's even understandable but the future of their Family in the country is uncertain. The cause of the restoration can't be stopped by the republican deal but the monarchists must have clear ideas about their strategy for the near future without hoping too much help from Elisabeta Palace.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The King advocates a new line of succession that consists on equal succession, in line with other Western monarchies, and since his illness and withdrawal from public life, he has designated his eldest daughter his heir, Custodian of the Crown and Head of the Royal House of Romania.

Sons are placed before daughters by the house law of December 30, 2007.

Fundamental Rules Of The Royal Family Of Romania: The Complete House Statute

C. The Romanian Crown shall pass from the Head of the Royal House to the first male issue and, in absence of a male issue, to the subsequent female issue.

D. In the absence of direct descendants, the Crown shall be inherited by the eldest brother and, in the absence of one, by the eldest sister of the Head of the Royal House.

E. The place of the persons mentioned at paragraph D, if they are deceased, is occupied by their descendants, whereby male siblings shall take precedence.

In 2007, this was the rule of succession in Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, and Monaco, while the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway followed absolute primogeniture, and Luxembourg and Liechtenstein had male succession only.

[Duc_et_Pair]

What puts me off in King Michael is not my "archaïc" or "outdated" view as some think. I still prefer a clear and written rule above a Ceaucescu-like dictatorship with unlogic inconsequences.

Until 2007 the succession was clear: the Prince of Hohenzollern, and then his son the Hereditary Prince. Period.

Then King Michael changes it all: his daughters will succeed him. One of them, Princess Sofia, made an undynastical marriage with a fraud, an imposter. But after het divorce she and her daughter Elisabeth Biarneix came back in grace and favour and are in the new michaelist line of succession. Allez... one will think: why cast the daughter with her mother's wrongdoing?

But then this same principle was not applied to the children of Princess Irina: after their mother's ridiculous removal from the michaelist succession, they lost their position as well....

The adagium that children are not cast with parental sin is applied on Elisabeth but not on her American cousins. How much more inconsequence does one want?

Where in normal monarchies a successor van not be removed without a whole legislative procedure, in Romania King Michael just removed his grandson from his michaelist succession, including the stripping off from his titles. No explanation, just a cryptic memo via thirds. Nicolae Ceaucescu would not have done it better, these intrigues!

And that, my ladies and gentlemen fellow forummers, is why I favor a written and democratically approved and extensively written system above the daily nood and the whims of a man in Switzerland.

On itself I have an understanding for the Fundamental Rules of 2007, but King Michael is meddling too much with his own rules. It is like the previous Duc d'Orléans becoming on non-speaking terms with his son and therefore seeing his grandson as his Heir. Unacceptable and deadly for royal aspirations, as we have seen with the intrigues around Nicholas Medforth-Mills.

[CSENYC]

The 1923 Constitution is no longer in effect. Romania's current constitution, which provides for a republic, was validly approved after the end of Communism. Let's stop sounding crazy by claiming that the 1923 version is still applicable.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

What puts me off in King Michael is not my "archaïc" or "outdated" view as some think. I still prefer a clear and written rule above a Ceaucescu-like dictatorship with unlogic inconsequences.

I can't remember having seen anyone else using the term 'archaic', so I guess that would be for me. I wouldn't mind so much, unless it was lumped together with a very tasteless reference to a bloody and tyrannical dictator, with whom Romania still struggle to come to terms with. It's not a good point of reference for anything, let alone a democratic King who was forced out of his own country at gunpoint, under threat of massacres in his name if he did not obey.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Until 2007 the succession was clear: the Prince of Hohenzollern, and then his son the Hereditary Prince. Period.

The succession of 1923 was clear. It was abolished in 1947. It hasn't been realistic since. It became even less realistic when the-then Fürst of Hohenzollern made it clear that the Romanian throne was a matter for the Romanian Royal Family, and that his family had no interest in it.
It should be evident to everyone, that there is no call in Romania for the import of a German prince from a family who has never claimed the throne, through the old, abolished line of succession.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Then King Michael changes it all: his daughters will succeed him. One of them, Princess Sofia, made an undynastical marriage with a fraud, an imposter. But after het divorce she and her daughter Elisabeth Biarneix came back in grace and favour and are in the new michaelist line of succession. Allez... one will think: why cast the daughter with her mother's wrongdoing?

But then this same principle was not applied to the children of Princess Irina: after their mother's ridiculous removal from the michaelist succession, they lost their position as well....

The adagium that children are not cast with parental sin is applied on Elisabeth but not on her American cousins. How much more inconsequence does one want?

Here's where it starts to get a little iffy for me. I don't think I've seen anyone on these forums defend the King in these decisions, and I certainly haven't myself. For one, I don't believe the sins of the father-principle should apply to anyone, and frankly, unlike several others, yourself included, I do not care much who a Princess marries and/or have a family with. It's interesting gossip for some, clearly, but in my view, some things are private, and as I've said many times before, love is personal and must be available for everyone.
The snobbery that sometimes shines through when disparagingly referring to Prince Radu of Romania as Mr. Duda, 'the son of a left-wing politician', 'the failed presidential candidate' and so forth, is what makes me cringe. It is awfully easy to sit on a forum and ride a high horse with regards to others, but it's for the most part, deplorable, and at it's very best, not conducive to the very concept of restoring a monarchy, where speaking up a family, not dragging them down at every turn, is fairly basic for the very concept of family-oriented rule, like the monarchy inherently is.

Not once have I defended the King when he has made arbitrary, and I quite agree with you, unbecoming and plain odd decisions, in one direction or another, meddling with the line of succession he himself proposed. I for one see the Princesses, all 5 of them, as equal in most manners, but the King has stripped Princess Irina of her title, because of her affairs in the U.S, which, I agree, are unbecoming of someone of royal blood, but that's the thing that many people in the end react to: These women, when raised as part of a Royal Family in exile, with little prospect of coming home when communism was rampant and the government was hostile, went on to create their own lives, became different people than they would had become had they been raised and lived in the land that elevated them. I think to cut them a little slack for being actual people, while still also having titles, a certain heritage and as both Princesses Margareta and Maria have proven, some have an easier time adapting to a new role in Romania after their re-entry than others, is not too much to ask.

The current proposed line of succession is not set in stone. It is a proposal by the King, which I agree with completely, should not be altered and arbitrarily changed at every turn of events, but I am quite sure that once the proposed law of recognition passes parliament and the senate, and the Head of the Royal House is recognized to be Crown Princess Margareta, we will see a stronger focus on the future of the Royal Family, who will return to Romanian to represent, who will come after Margareta and so on.
These things are a process, and even though I completely understand the confusion, or frankly irritation, at parts of the process, I think it is also a factor in lessening the agitation, to know that the King is a very old and frail man at this stage, and that his decisions, seemingly arbitrary and odd, will be made clearer by the Crown Princess in due course.
I do not have the knowledge in me to know who will represent the Royal Family in the 2nd and 3rd line at this point. I know what I think, and perhaps hope, but I think we should allow a little time for the family to come together, see their new role in a restored, semi-monarchical state, where their positions are much clearer than it is now.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Where in normal monarchies a successor van not be removed without a whole legislative procedure, in Romania King Michael just removed his grandson from his michaelist succession, including the stripping off from his titles. No explanation, just a cryptic memo via thirds. Nicolae Ceaucescu would not have done it better, these intrigues!

It is impossible to disagree with you on this point, despite muddying it with imagery that is just not appropriate. The introduction of Nicholas into the formal Royal Family with a title and a place in the proposed line of succession was a great move in 2010. The removal of the same person in 2015, with the murky and confusing messages given by the Royal House, were not.
The Royal Family has steps to take and lessons to learn about communication, but this is where the law coming into effect is a great thing for them. They need a better organization, stronger people around them to do the formalized work needed and make sure that there aren't big gaps in press releases or that they don't undertake tasks, roles or give interviews or statements that they shouldn't. In other words, the Royal House need to professionalize, and through the current proposals, that's what will happen.
I don't know what happened between the King and Nicholas M-M, but the errors were on multiple fronts. If this was a mutual decision, which it seems it was not, the-then Prince Nicholas should had been the one to give a statement himself, explaining his withdrawal from public life and not using his title anymore, so he could more easily start a private life, while the Royal House worked with the government to find a structure for its future organization.
If it was a one-sided decision by the King and his council, it should had been explained clearly, with a given cause, not overly detailed, but a cause people could understand, to avoid speculation and a never-ending debate.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

On itself I have an understanding for the Fundamental Rules of 2007, but King Michael is meddling too much with his own rules. It is like the previous Duc d'Orléans becoming on non-speaking terms with his son and therefore seeing his grandson as his Heir. Unacceptable and deadly for royal aspirations, as we have seen with the intrigues around Nicholas Medforth-Mills.

Yup, the meddling isn't a great look, and for practical reasons, it clouds the goals of the Royal Family in a less than constructive way.
However, the term 'deadly for royal aspirations' is interesting here. Most monarchists, and most Royal Families and thereto royalty themselves, realize that what is 'deadly' for royal aspirations more than anything else, is the appearance of intransigence and snobbery. A monarchy in Europe today has to be founded in historical traditions, but must also be willing to adapt to a rapidly changing world and circumstances that do not stand still from one moment to another. A monarchy does not need to be at the forefront of change, but it also cannot lag too far behind, unless it wants to be seen as yes, archaic and outdated, very soon indeed. The biggest risk a monarchy runs, is striking the balance wrong, between elevation, history and grace on the one side, and folksy, common and without allure or uniqueness on the other.

The King made the right decisions allow for female succession, through male-preference primogeniture in his proposed line of succession. If the monarchy is restored in Romania, it won't be on the basis of excluding one of the genders anymore, or by bypassing the Royal Family, when they've publicly stated their wish to be of service to the people.
A monarchy today has to be flexible and willing to adjust, without going too far in losing its luster and grace. That's more than doable, but not with deadlocked positions and an unwillingness to cooperate where possible, and compromise when needed. Fortunately, the Royal House is displaying a willingness to work with both politicians and others in order to achieve their ultimate goal; the return of the monarchy to Romania.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

In between all the heated debate I must say Cory raised a valid point. Princess Margareta and Mr Duda have been offered a generous deal by the State of Romania, which they can not refuse in my opinion. At the same time it is all very short-term thinking. When you are a royalist, and isn't monarchy per definition a system of hereditary succession?- then "Elisabeta Palace" should be clear about the future.

Is the "deal" indeed meant to appease and to accomodate and to encapsulate the last Romanian Hohenzollern and will the monarchist ideal end with her? If no, who then will be the torchbearer for the monarchist cause? Karina Medforth-Mills? Elisabeth Biarneix? Or will it be the Fürst von Hohenzollern? Are these three intersted at all in Romania and in it's former Royal House?

I agree with Cory that this remains all foggy and unclear. Depending on how you look to it, the impression is not out of the blue that Princess Margarita and Mr Duda have ensured themselves a good life and the monarchy... ach... "Apres nous la deluge".

The monarchist ideal has nothing to do with Princess Margareta who will probably only promote the deal with the republic to assure she can stay with her husband and sister at Elisabeta Palace and have funds from the state.Her nieces are not even really connected to the country and Mr Medforth Mills was put aside by his own Family.
The monarchist ideal has always been linked with the King and it will be a challenging moment when the King won't be anymore. It is obvious not everybody will support the Hohenzollern Succession but it's hard to know which one of the Hohenzollerns will want to become a Pretender to the Romanian Throne.

[LadyRohan]

There's logic for you; the heir of the King has nothing to do with the 'monarchist ideal', whatever foolishness that is. From where do you draw the wisdom to know that the Crown Princess only is interested in funds and a castle for herself and her husband?
How is it possible to conjure up these claims that the pretender to the throne, when she publicly declares her wish for a restoration of the monarchy, is working to raise its profile, is active in the country, but alas, all that is done because she is not interested in the throne at all?
How can one believe in the institution of monarchy at all, when so much energy is spent trashing those who represent it?
The reason it's hard to know which Hohenzollern would like to be a pretender to the Romanian throne, is that none of them will. There's been no display of interest, no statement of support, no indication at all that they wish to relocate to Romania, contest the claims to the Romanian throne against the Royal Family etc. There's a reason for that: It will never happen.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Sons are placed before daughters by the house law of December 30, 2007.

Fundamental Rules Of The Royal Family Of Romania: The Complete House Statute

In 2007, this was the rule of succession in Great Britain, Spain, Denmark, and Monaco, while the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway followed absolute primogeniture, and Luxembourg and Liechtenstein had male succession only.

Yes, I committed the faux pas of writing equal primogeniture instead of male-preference primogeniture, but either way, both of them allow for female succession, which was the Kings point, and is the point of most, if not close to all, citizens these days, that denying women succession to a throne based on gender is a thing of the past and not a feature one wants to see in a democratic nation any longer. I remain firmly convinced that if one achieved the feat of presenting a referendum to Romanians asking them whether they want the monarchy restored, or the republic kept, with the provision that women were sidelined for men from a distant family line because the constitution in 1923 said so, an overwhelming majority would find the concept ridiculous, and vote for the republic.

[Andy T]

The Monarchists had their chance to ride the wave of enthusiasm for His Majesty's return from exile 20 years ago and they blew it. They've continued to aid the republicans by their internal squabbles and their sowing of the seeds of division and strife by attacking members of the King's family. The King's family, for its part, made two errors: the Crown Princess' husband declaring that he woud run for President and Nicholas' alleged indiscretions, resulting in his 'retirement' from the scene. Irina's actions didn't help either. If the King's family is successfully brought down by the unholy alliance of the Hohenzollern lobby and the republicans, the chances of any restoration will disappear.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

The 1923 Constitution is no longer in effect. Romania's current constitution, which provides for a republic, was validly approved after the end of Communism. Let's stop sounding crazy by claiming that the 1923 version is still applicable.

The 1990 Constitution had no any effect. In 2007 King Michael issuef the Fundamental Rules and until then the succession was exactly like it was for King Michael and his predecessors. You know that very well. Given the circumstances, the former King created his own michaelist line and then meddled with it like I do with my breakfasf: on Monday it is müesli, on Tueasday it are cornflakes and no... wait... I prefer müesli again.

Accepting these whims of Michael is like accepting Emperor Caligula appointing his favourite horse as Senator. Same principle: "Your f*rt smells like perfume, m'lord..."

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The 1990 Constitution had no any effect. In 2007 King Michael issuef the Fundamental Rules and until then the succession was exactly like it was for King Michael and his predecessors. You know that very well. Given the circumstances, the former King created his own michaelist line and then meddled with it like I do with my breakfasf: on Monday it is müesli, on Tueasday it are cornflakes and no... wait... I prefer müesli again.

Accepting these whims of Michael is like accepting Emperor Caligula appointing his favourite horse as Senator. Same principle: "Your f*rt smells like perfume, m'lord..."

My statement was about the 1923 Constitution and claims that it is the valid one. My statement had nothing to do with the rules of succession that King Michael prepared in 2007.

We need to acknowledge that the Republic of Romania is here, and it's valid.

We also need to give up hopes that the monarchy will be restored exactly as it was. I'm not sure which version "the monarchists" want back: the 1923 version, which descended into dictatorship; the 1938 version, which was a dictatorship; the 1940 version, which was puppetry on top of a dictatorship; or the postwar version, which was also on top of a growing dictatorship. None of those are really ideal.

In my view, it's time to decide what the ideal monarchical setup is, and who should fill it after King Michael and the Crown Princess are gone, and work towards establishing that.

In the meantime, until there is a restoration, we should be happy that Romania is a democratic part of the EU but still has such a wonderful and saintly King Michael and flawless (in my view) Crown Princess. Not every country has such esteemed leaders or good position. Would Romania prefer Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Would Romania rather be Ukraine? Would Romania rather be as it was in 1941, with Transylvania gone? I think not. Be satisfied with what you have.

[Benjamin]

A couple more articles in English regarding the specifics of the law on the Royal House of Romania to be approved by the Parliament of the country later this fall:

Government project: Royal House gets juridical personality and administrative service financed by state budget

Romania Recognizes & Finances the Royal House :: European Liberties Platform

[Cory]

Few days before the Royal Funeral in Bycharest, the monarchists of different Associations met at Alba Iulia in order to unite their efforys for the Restoration. The new National Convention for Constitutional Monarchy is now the strongest voice of the monarchists.

[Cory]

Petition of the Monarchists against the proposed law of the government regarding the Royal House:

Din respect pentruÂ*Rege È™iÂ*pentru martiriiÂ*închisorilor comuniste - Petitieonline.com