Romanian Succession, Claimants, Titles and Restoration

[Duc_et_Pair]

That article is trying to straighten bananas. First the thesis is based on the defunct Constitution of the former Kingdom of Romania. After King Michael's death his heir is the Fürst von Hohenzollern. But tja... He seems not interested "and has only one son".

With that hinting that a Fürst von Hohenzollern is too busy with being a Fürst indeed to be a pretender. Conveniently is neglected that besides the Fürst and the Erbprinz there are more Hohenzollerns in line of succession based on the very same Constitution...

Then a jump is made to King Michael's Fundamental Rules. One needs an acrobatic brain to follow the author's argument that Margareta and Elena can not be Queen but their nephew respectively son actually can...

It is pure hineininterpretieren in a virtual world.

[Dalriada]

Virtual world or not, Nicolae’s public profile continues to grow since his grandfather’s passing. All those public appearances throughout Romania with Alina over the past year only serves to build another perspective. I don’t know who is behind this article on the succession but it is fairly timely on the near eve of Nicolae’s Romanian wedding. There is obviously a different “populist” thought abroad that sees Nicolae as a natural successor.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

An article written by Radu Albu Comanescu, who works at Babeş-Bolyai University doing research in International Relations and International History and Politics.

The Heir to the Romanian Crown: Nicholas de Roumanie
Ziua de Cluj _ Moştenitorul Coroanei României_ Nicholas de Roumanie
Google translation

The translation is never good to get to understand everything written in the article. Those, who speak romanian, get a better information of it.

Wow, that's a lot of gymnastics to make king Mihai say something he never did just to promote your own favorite candidate while doing away with the existent male heirs (as that is the premise of the whole discussion). If the king had intended to only allow for male heirs but female line male heirs were fine he would have xhanged his line of succession to two persons: his grandsons. He didn't, however, he included his daughters and granddaughters (and later removed several of his off-spring).

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Wow, that's a lot of gymnastics to make king Mihai say something he never did just to promote your own favorite candidate while doing away with the existent male heirs (as that is the premise of the whole discussion). If the king had intended to only allow for male heirs but female line male heirs were fine he would have xhanged his line of succession to two persons: his grandsons. He didn't, however, he included his daughters and granddaughters (and later removed several of his off-spring).

It is not that difficult. When one is legalistic and looks to the very same document which was the base of King Michael's kingship (the Constitution), then neither Margareta, nor Elena are successors.

When one agrees with the proposed new succession by King Michael, then Margareta and Elena are successors. If one agrees that King Michael can add individuals to the line of succession, then one has to agree that King Michael can remove individuals as well.





I am afraid the authour of this acrobatic salto mortale was not very helpful to Nicholas' case.

[Somebody]

Exactly, it's either or not some convenient combination.

Althoigh I could imagine people arguing that he could pro-actively (waiting for the moment Romania becomes a monarchy again) modernize the monarchy by doing away with salic law without giving him the right to pick and choose between individuals - but that's not what the author is doing/arguing.

[Somebody]

Moved the discussion over here.

Originally Posted by wartenberg7

Thank you so much for another lesson of yours...
It might not be hard to understand for us knowing a lot about Royalty and titles because it is part of our interests. But the average person "from the street" is often mystified!


The difference between Nicolae and the children of these spanish princesses you named or the Casiraghis (who are also often wrongly called "Prince Pierre Casiraghi", for instance) in Monaco is that these persons, other than King Mihai´s grandson, have never been titled Prince/ Princess and have not stripped of it again only by an intrigue of a jealous, childless aunt!

I am sure it is a little confusing for people on the street but I would not include the archbishop among that group nor the royal watchers who hail him as their prince. To me it's rather easy: either you accept Mihai's decisions: in that case he was a prince for 5 years and 4 months and no longer is one and Margareta is currently the head of the family who is the current authority on these matters. Or you don't and in that case he never was a real prince nor is Margareta the current head of the family.

I was wondering what might have happened had the Romanian royal family still been reigning. In that case I would expect that rather early on (see Denmark for example) succession would have turned from salic to semi-salic meaning that the princesses would have been entered in the line of succession as well as their children.
Any children Margareta would have had would surely have been princes and princesses from birth. Her younger sister's children most likely not.

However, when it would have become clear that Margareta was not to have children most likely BOTH children of Elena would have been promoted to prince and princess. So, we would have had prince Nicolae and princess Karina of Romania. In that situation, grandchildren in line of succession would need to ask permission to marry to remain in line to the throne. Under the current circumstances it doesn't seem likely that Margareta would have approved Nicolae's marriage (and especially not if presented after the fact) - and him having a child out of wedlock would probably have meant that he would have been pressured to voluntarily give up his rights to the throne (Monaco is the only monarchy that is extremely lenient; Luxembourg would be an example that seems more comparable and even princes that ended up marrying the mothers of their children had to give up their place in line to the throne) but would have been stripped of his rights at the latest at his wedding day. Making Karina the new heir of her generation.

So, in that case, Nicolae's only hope of remaining in line to the throne would have been to rebuild his relationship with his aunt and mother instead of doing everything to undermine them. Being the 'heir' of his generation they might have been a little more lenient when push comes to shove. Currently, it would still be the right thing to do (next to clearing up the mess around his daughter).

In addition, the Romanian royal family should come up with a clear path forward because a royal house depends on continuity and not knowing who will be the future heir (it is not clear to me whether Karina would be willing to take over some day - I haven't seen any signs that point in that direction) is disastrous in itself.

[maria-olivia]

For the Romanian of the Street a Custudian Queen or an ex prince , they don't know them as their Country is governed by a Sociaist President.
For the Church it seems different , mainly they are for King Michael's Eldest Daughter. (I remember the King's Funerals) .
Princess Margareta has an important press service and all their events are posted but I don't konw in Romanian newspapers .
Nicolae is also asking the press , giving interviews , twitter etc...for his own activites
I wonder what sort Event his wedding will be in Romania. Perhaps the non coming of his family will steal the show. I am sure Nicolae has friends who will attend to be seen on TV and pay the coast of the Wedding. The Romanian of the Street will continue their own life without any interest for the 30 September Wedding in Sinaia.
I am not sure the Duke of Vendome will come he will have his 5th Child at that moment

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Somebody

However, when it would have become clear that Margareta was not to have children most likely BOTH children of Elena would have been promoted to prince and princess. So, we would have had prince Nicolae and princess Karina of Romania. In that situation, grandchildren in line of succession would need to ask permission to marry to remain in line to the throne. Under the current circumstances it doesn't seem likely that Margareta would have approved Nicolae's marriage (and especially not if presented after the fact) - and him having a child out of wedlock would probably have meant that he would have been pressured to voluntarily give up his rights to the throne (Monaco is the only monarchy that is extremely lenient; Luxembourg would be an example that seems more comparable and even princes that ended up marrying the mothers of their children had to give up their place in line to the throne) but would have been stripped of his rights at the latest at his wedding day. Making Karina the new heir of her generation.

Karina is attending her brother and sister-in-law's religious wedding, in what is unlikely a move sanctioned by the Custodian of the Crown.

It is worth remembering that King Michael granted Nicholas the style and title of "HRH Prince of Romania" jure sanguinis (see for reference the Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania). Given this, it is unlikely that the king would have taken the step to strip the style and title - it was accorded as part of Nicholas' birthright, effectively, based on the wording of the Fundamental Rules.

Plenty of Romanian monarchists are of the mind that Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu pressured King Michael into signing the document that stripped Prince Nicholas of his title and position in the line of succession. This could have taken the form of actual pressure exerted on the elderly king (who in 2015 was, along with his wife...though not to the same degree as the Queen, suffering from the typical memory deficits that can accompany being in one's nineties), or simply flying to Switzerland and presenting the King with a document to sign without totally explaining it to him. Review the positing on the Royal Household's blog about this visit to the king, and you can see that he is surrounded by people who solely visited him for the purpose of ensuring that his signature was affixed to the document they had drafted. Michael had been living in Switzerland full time since late 2014; his wife's health had deteriorated more swiftly than this; the king's oldest and youngest daughters (the only offspring to reside in Romania at the time) visited on occasion but were no means omnipresent: there is little likelihood that the king had any idea of the tensions that had built up between his eldest daughter and his grandson.

This is not a totally unlikely or unheard of scenario - people have done things to hold onto their wealth and positions that are far worse than throwing their nephew under the bus. Many observers tend to forget that the Romanian royal family (or, the Head of it, rather) is not stricken by poverty as was the case in exile.

[wartenberg7]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

For the Romanian of the Street a Custudian Queen or an ex prince , they don't know them as their Country is governed by a Sociaist President.
For the Church it seems different , mainly they are for King Michael's Eldest Daughter. (I remember the King's Funerals) .
Princess Margareta has an important press service and all their events are posted but I don't konw in Romanian newspapers .
Nicolae is also asking the press , giving interviews , twitter etc...for his own activites
I wonder what sort Event his wedding will be in Romania. Perhaps the non coming of his family will steal the show. I am sure Nicolae has friends who will attend to be seen on TV and pay the coast of the Wedding. The Romanian of the Street will continue their own life without any interest for the 30 September Wedding in Sinaia.
I am not sure the Duke of Vendome will come he will have his 5th Child at that moment

Romanians don´ t know them only because the country is governed by a socialist?! The people didn´t even forget them during the communist regime! Have you seen the many thousends of people lining the streets when the late King was buried?
M-O, your ignorance of facts is always a big surprise for me!

[LadyFinn]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Karina is attending her brother and sister-in-law's religious wedding, in what is unlikely a move sanctioned by the Custodian of the Crown.

It is worth remembering that King Michael granted Nicholas the style and title of "HRH Prince of Romania" jure sanguinis (see for reference the Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania). Given this, it is unlikely that the king would have taken the step to strip the style and title - it was accorded as part of Nicholas' birthright, effectively, based on the wording of the Fundamental Rules.

Plenty of Romanian monarchists are of the mind that Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu pressured King Michael into signing the document that stripped Prince Nicholas of his title and position in the line of succession. This could have taken the form of actual pressure exerted on the elderly king (who in 2015 was, along with his wife...though not to the same degree as the Queen, suffering from the typical memory deficits that can accompany being in one's nineties), or simply flying to Switzerland and presenting the King with a document to sign without totally explaining it to him. Review the positing on the Royal Household's blog about this visit to the king, and you can see that he is surrounded by people who solely visited him for the purpose of ensuring that his signature was affixed to the document they had drafted. Michael had been living in Switzerland full time since late 2014; his wife's health had deteriorated more swiftly than this; the king's oldest and youngest daughters (the only offspring to reside in Romania at the time) visited on occasion but were no means omnipresent: there is little likelihood that the king had any idea of the tensions that had built up between his eldest daughter and his grandson.

This is not a totally unlikely or unheard of scenario - people have done things to hold onto their wealth and positions that are far worse than throwing their nephew under the bus. Many observers tend to forget that the Romanian royal family (or, the Head of it, rather) is not stricken by poverty as was the case in exile.

Yes, and Nicolae said in one of his interviews that when he talked with his grandfather that only time after the title had been taken away from him, king Mihai asked from Nicolae what projects he then had going on in Romania. So Nicolae understood that the king didn't know/understand that he wasn't a prince anymore.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Yes, and Nicolae said in one of his interviews that when he talked with his grandfather that only time after the title had been taken away from him, king Mihai asked from Nicolae what projects he then had going on in Romania. So Nicolae understood that the king didn't know/understand that he wasn't a prince anymore.

That is Nicholas' version, of course.

Interesting is that the King apparently created Nicholas a prince "by bloodright" but did not apply the same right on any of his other grandchildren. Not even the one who shares Nicholas' very same DNA, his sister Karina.

This shows that King Michael's regulations were ill-thought and his actions towards his completely innocent American grandchildren (thrown out of the succession because their mother Princess Irina was allegedly involved in a misdemeanor) and towards his granddaughter Élisabeth (first undynastic and then made dynastic again) proves that an appeal on the state of mind is weak. The late King was ruthless and difficult to follow in his decisions.

Of course Nicholas or his supporters conveniently avoid this big pink elephant in the room: that the action by the King seamlessly fits with all his previous actions towards his offspring and their issue. Sound of mind, or not.

[maria-olivia]

Prince Lorenz of Belgium was Member of this Commitee . I asked Mrs Marlene Koening why he accepted this and she had no answer.

[wartenberg7]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That is Nicholas' version, of course.

And you have your own versions, too and are determined not to believe anything in this world that would speak FOR N. So in that regard any word to you, no matter how logic it may be, is actually lost!


Instead you stick to an obscure line of Hohenzollern succession which has no relevance to anyone in Romania, not even to the Pr. of Hohenzollern himself, as you yourself have admitted before.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That is Nicholas' version, of course.

Interesting is that the King apparently created Nicholas a prince "by bloodright" but did not apply the same right on any of his other grandchildren. Not even the one who shares Nicholas' very same DNA, his sister Karina.

This shows that King Michael's regulations were ill-thought and his actions towards his completely innocent American grandchildren (thrown out of the succession because their mother Princess Irina was allegedly involved in a misdemeanor) and towards his granddaughter Élisabeth (first undynastic and then made dynastic again) proves that an appeal on the state of mind is weak. The late King was ruthless and difficult to follow in his decisions.

Of course Nicholas or his supporters conveniently avoid this big pink elephant in the room: that the action by the King seamlessly fits with all his previous actions towards his offspring and their issue. Sound of mind, or not.

Perhaps karina did not want to become a Pricness. Even now that she is they only of her generation still in the line of succession she seems to prefer her privacy and does no official Events.
What is also telling is that Nicholas aos only once allowed to see his grandfather after his Title was removed and he was thrown out of the succession.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by wartenberg7

And you have your own versions, too and are determined not to believe anything in this world that would speak FOR N. So in that regard any word to you, no matter how logic it may be, is actually lost!


Instead you stick to an obscure line of Hohenzollern succession which has no relevance to anyone in Romania, not even to the Pr. of Hohenzollern himself, as you yourself have admitted before.

I have nothing with the Hohenzollerns. They are no part of this discussion. Either you accept King Michael's right to arrange his succession as he sees fit. Or you do not accept it.

Then we comes to the point in my previous post you avoided: an appeal on the late King's state of mind is discutable because ALL his actions towards ALL his grandchildren seemed ill-thought and not consequent.

Claiming that Michael must have been influenced on his old day, okay... But the pattern he showed in the pretty short existence of his proposed Royal House and succession shows that it completely fits in the late King's behaviour to treat his own next of kin as pawns on a chess board.

The one claims Michael must have been weak and unconscious. The other claims Michael was lucid and sharp until the latest moment. We were not there. We will never know. To me the late King (an ascetic living, high-demanding and moralistic man) being desillusioned in his grandson seems plausible indeed. His ruthless action towards Nicholas fits in his discutable treatment of Irina, Sofía, and their issue.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I was wondering what might have happened had the Romanian royal family still been reigning. In that case I would expect that rather early on (see Denmark for example) succession would have turned from salic to semi-salic meaning that the princesses would have been entered in the line of succession as well as their children.

Imo it iwould indeed have been different if the Romanian RF was still reigning, than K.Mihai might have still wanted to make his grandson the heir to the throne, but the constitution would have to be adjusted and politicians be involved.
As it was now, all this hasn't happened and the theoretical succession is in limbo imo.
Should Romania want to become a monarchy again the next question would be "okay, but who will be the monarch" and the matter would yet have to be discussed...
And who knows, maybe an entirely different royal monarch would be elected (i'm thinking of a similar situation to the bulgarian throne in the 19th century)

[maria-olivia]

Prince Radu wanted to be President without any succes !

[TRUENORTH]

Since the severance of the ties of the Royal House of Romania with the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, there has not been a clear definition of what is the new dynasty , does the standard still show the quarters representing the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen linage? Also what is the new title and style of the new dynasty? Is the title of "Custodian of the Crown" an ancient title what is its origin, and what does it mean? Thank you.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by TRUENORTH

Since the severance of the ties of the Royal House of Romania with the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, there has not been a clear definition of what is the new dynasty , does the standard still show the quarters representing the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen linage? Also what is the new title and style of the new dynasty? Is the title of "Custodian of the Crown" an ancient title what is its origin, and what does it mean? Thank you.

The dynasty was Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen but at 30 December 2007, with the publication of the Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania, former King Michael vested a new dynasty by ruling that certain members are Princes and Princesses of Romania.

The Custodian of the Romanian Crown is no invention by Margareta but stems from the first article in the Annex to these Fundamental Rules:

1. My eldest daughter, The Princess
Margareta, is to be my successor and
Head of the Royal House of Romania,
after my death. If the Romanian Nation
and Parliament were to decide to
reinstate the Monarchy as the form of
government, I ask the Parliament to cease
to implement the Salic-law as the form
of succession, which does not correspond
either to the elementary rights in Europe
today, or to the values of Romanian
society. Until these events should come
about, The Princess Margareta will
remain, after my death, Head of the Royal
House of Romania and Custodian of the
Romanian Crown.

That Princess Margareta is Her Majesty without being Queen is also not her invention but stems from Article 1, second part, of these Fundamental Rules:

2) The Head of the Royal House of Romania, by all common
practice and convention, is de jure or de facto Sovereign in
terms of their authority over the Royal House of Romania, at
any time. Immediately upon the death of the Head of the Royal
House of Romania, without further proclamation, the Heir
Apparent or Heir Presumptive, whichever shall be living and
first in the line to the succession at that moment in time, shall
from that moment assume the rank or style King or Queen,
regardless of the Family's position as a reigning or non-reigning
Dynasty and regardless of the fact that they may or may not
later choose against the use of such style or designation.

Compare it with Belgium and the UK: from the House of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha it became the House of Belgium resp. the House of Winsdor.

The Royal Coat of Arms has no reference to the House of Hohenzollern anymore. The black-and-white heartshield for Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen has been removed:

Before:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ll_CoA.svg.png

After:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...omania.svg.png

[TRUENORTH]

Thank you for your reply, as always in these matters, your answer brings up useful information, and also brings up more questions.

The non ruling royal houses, that change their dynasty lineage, encounter many challenges. In the case of Romania, the monarchy, was short lived, if you compare it with other European dynasties. The first two kings,Carl I and Ferdinad I, were the German born sons of Karl Anton of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This lineage was fragile from the beginning since the WWI conflict since the kings, thereafter used the name "Of Romania" although they continued to be entitled to the titles and styles of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

In 1950, The furst of the house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen writes a letter to his cousin Carol, in exile in Portugal, asking him to call a family council to discuss the matters of Michael's ,abdication, and the need to choose an heir to the throne of Romania.. The furst, also mentions, that he as the head of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen House, has the authority to call such a council Carol dies in 1953.

So the question of the heir to the throne, remained , and only after the fall of the communist regime in Romania, and the restoration of a democratic state, the Republic, became a constitutional state.

Now the issue, is : when Michael, returned to Romania, he was not king, but he managed to be publicly recognized as a former head of state, and was granted some privileges accordingly, one, was to be recognized in his former dignity of "King".
Once in Romania, Michael, reorganized his House of Romania, his "Fundamental rules" as you mention. At the time, the lineage of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Romania, is still in force, and so all members have the use of title and style.

So comes , 2011, and Michael, breaks ties with the lineage of Carl Anton of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The problem here, is that those changes have to be consulted with the parliament, as was the case with the Windsors.

In the UK, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 was an act of Parliament that authorized the alteration of the British monarch's royal style and titles, The king was authorised to issue a royal proclamation within six months of the Act's passing, authorising him to alter the royal style and titles. Following the precedent set by similar legislation in the past, the Act did not itself set out the form of the new style and titles that were to be adopted.

Of course, the UK, is a monarchy, and Romania, is a republic, and it was not possible for Michael, to seek the approval from the National Assembly of Romania.

So the question remains, how does this new dynasty, legitimizes its claim to the throne of Romania ? One answer, would be by an act of parliament, recognizing Michael I as king, posthumously. But is such a thing possible, or even viable? Even this would be a complicated affair since when Michael abdicated, he was still under the rules of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Romania, and as such regained his former position as Prince Michael Hohenzollern. So, the Parliament, would have to "restore" him posthumously to the throne, then, declare his new "Dynasty" legal, and then name his heir .

So the question of what is the "Custodian of the Crown" , remains unanswered.

Thank you.