Royal Family of Romania current events

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

To celebrate 135 years since the house of Hohenzollern started its reign is wonderful. No Hohenzollern was invited to the event though.

This years celebrations is meant to mark the establishment of an independent and sovereign Romanian kingdom. If you want, as you for some reason always do, it can probably be spun as sad that no member of the Princely House of Hohenzollern is present, but if one is slightly more generous, and supportive, one will see that it is both logical and appropriate that the celebrations of the kingdom is done by the actual Romanian Royal Family. To add in distant relations who are not connected to the running of the Royal House or the future of the monarchy in Romania at such an event, would just be confusing and out of place.

I wonder why you don't raise critical questions when the umpteenth Bernadotte cousins of H.M King Carl XVI Gustav are not invited when Sweden celebrates the establishment of a new royal dynasty 200 years ago. Is there some special rule for Romania that does not apply to other houses?

Whether or not they were invited and chose to decline behind the scene, is something you do not know, which is why your statement is null and void, again. When one knows that a person, or a group, would not attend an event, one would avoid inviting them and looking foolish.

Besides, if you were fair, you would see this as further proof that the Romanian kingdom is independent of the Hohenzollern family, and is represented in Romania by an actual Royal Family. What more can a monarchist ask for?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

This years celebrations is meant to mark the establishment of an independent and sovereign Romanian kingdom. If you want, as you for some reason always do, it can probably be spun as sad that no member of the Princely House of Hohenzollern is present, but if one is slightly more generous, and supportive, one will see that it is both logical and appropriate that the celebrations of the kingdom is done by the actual Romanian Royal Family. To add in distant relations who are not connected to the running of the Royal House or the future of the monarchy in Romania at such an event, would just be confusing and out of place.

I wonder why you don't raise critical questions when the umpteenth Bernadotte cousins of H.M King Carl XVI Gustav are not invited when Sweden celebrates the establishment of a new royal dynasty 200 years ago. Is there some special rule for Romania that does not apply to other houses?

Whether or not they were invited and chose to decline behind the scene, is something you do not know, which is why your statement is null and void, again. When one knows that a person, or a group, would not attend an event, one would avoid inviting them and looking foolish.

Besides, if you were fair, you would see this as further proof that the Romanian kingdom is independent of the Hohenzollern family, and is represented in Romania by an actual Royal Family. What more can a monarchist ask for?

There was no invitation for the descendants of Carol I of Hohenzollern's brothers even if they are as related to the first Monarch as much as King Mihai I of Romania's daughters.

[MarleneKoenig]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

Thanks Eya for sending the interesting article about the relationship of Princess Magarita and Gordon Brown when they were students and her life when she was young.

On an interesting board about scandinavian royals there is a thread concering Princess Margaretha of Denmark and her husband Prince René of Bourbon Parma.

The Princesses of Roumania were closer to Queen Helen than their Danish Grandmother.

The 4 Princesses of Romania were on the list of many royal families as future bride .
(e.a. Luxembourg) but it failed.

Except Margarita, they married commoners and divorced !

A royal marriage was unlikely for the princesses largely due to the fact that they did not move in royal social circles - and did not attend royal events while kids. King Michael and Queen Anne were remained largely insular, and rarely attended family events except close family events. The king and queen were very much involved in Frank Buchman's Moral Rearmament group (and this group formed their primary social circle) ... Queen Anne writes about it in her memoirs Moral Re-Armament (MRA) | religious movement | Britannica.com

[maria-olivia]

Thanks Marlene for your answer.
The King and the Queen of Roumania attended the royal weddings in Brussels, Greece, were seen at a lot of other royal events.
Not the girls stay home and were never seen either with her french cousins Bourbon Parma !

[Cory]

Even other non-reigning Royal Families were in exile but each one had the choice to meet the royal relatives or not.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Even other non-reigning Royal Families were in exile but each one had the choice to meet the royal relatives or not.

As has been stated before, they met royal relatives at functions where that was appropriate, and to imply otherwise, is as inappropriate as the inference you make that they would themselves be more royal or regal if they had married a royal relative than the ones they eventually chose.

[Cory]

They married whom they loved and that was their choice. As we all know marriages with "commoners" have never been accepted for Romanian Princes but we speak here about Princesses.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

They married whom they loved and that was their choice. As we all know marriages with "commoners" have never been accepted for Romanian Princes but we speak here about Princesses.

As we all also should know, we speak here about Princesses living in this century, and not in some gilded cage that you seem eager to construct for royals trying to live their lives within the confines of a modern day world. In this day and age, when even royalty finds love that they appreciate and enjoy, and that hopefully produces happy marriages, like in the soon 20-year example of the Crown Princess and Prince Radu, I certainly think that that is something to be applauded, and not scoffed at, by petulant bystanders who harks back to the days of imperial marriages to try to keep nations friendly to each other.

[Cory]

we have to be really happy if a marriage is a success.

[MarleneKoenig]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

Thanks Marlene for your answer.
The King and the Queen of Roumania attended the royal weddings in Brussels, Greece, were seen at a lot of other royal events.
Not the girls stay home and were never seen either with her french cousins Bourbon Parma !

The princesses were sent to boarding schools in the UK, and fees were paid by friends, including the tennis player, Bunny Austin, who was a member of the Moral rearmament group.

[Cory]

The Princesses believed probably their father would not reign again.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

As we all also should know, we speak here about Princesses living in this century, and not in some gilded cage that you seem eager to construct for royals trying to live their lives within the confines of a modern day world. In this day and age, when even royalty finds love that they appreciate and enjoy, and that hopefully produces happy marriages, like in the soon 20-year example of the Crown Princess and Prince Radu, I certainly think that that is something to be applauded, and not scoffed at, by petulant bystanders who harks back to the days of imperial marriages to try to keep nations friendly to each other.

To quote the -then- Prince of Orange: "That is an opinion. There are other opinions as well."

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

As we all also should know, we speak here about Princesses living in this century, and not in some gilded cage that you seem eager to construct for royals trying to live their lives within the confines of a modern day world. In this day and age, when even royalty finds love that they appreciate and enjoy, and that hopefully produces happy marriages, like in the soon 20-year example of the Crown Princess and Prince Radu, I certainly think that that is something to be applauded, and not scoffed at, by petulant bystanders who harks back to the days of imperial marriages to try to keep nations friendly to each other.

I would not recommend to start about modern times and such. After all the ultimate modernization is that the well-educated and independent people of Sweden, the Netherlands or Spain want to decide by themselves who will be the next democratic head of state. You have a monarchy or you have no monarchy. Calling others archaïc, oldfashioned, outdated, etc. because they stick to the rules of the game: that is one. But two is that these 'modern' people bite in the own tail and choke in it: you are 'modern' but apparently not modern enough to advocate the end of the monarchy...

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I would not recommend to start about modern times and such. After all the ultimate modernization is that the well-educated and independent people of Sweden, the Netherlands or Spain want to decide by themselves who will be the next democratic head of state. You have a monarchy or you have no monarchy. Calling others archaïc, oldfashioned, outdated, etc. because they stick to the rules of the game: that is one. But two is that these 'modern' people bite in the own tail and choke in it: you are 'modern' but apparently not modern enough to advocate the end of the monarchy...

That is a very narrow-minded and simplistic way of attacking my arguments, but be that as it may, you're wrong on several counts.
'You have a monarchy or you have no monarchy' is a very generic statement without any real content, and despite myself seeing where you're going with that reasoning, it is beyond questioning that there is no such thing as 'here's a monarchy. It's the only way to do it', as you seem to advocate.

Wanting a monarchy to stay relevant to the times we live in, is not counter to the idea of monarchy itself, but is itself a defense of the very idea of monarchy; how to ensure that those on top of a governing, national system, is trained and prepared for the role they undertake, within the confines of the evolving world we live in.

Monarchies are dynamic entities, despite often mistakenly being seen as less dynamic than their systemic counterparts. A monarchy is updated, reformed and refreshed constantly, through its rules of succession, its house rules, its organization and how finances are organized, handled, published and scrutinized. There is no such thing as a uniform way of deciding how a monarchy should run, other than to have a sovereign at the top, and most rules of the game change to keep up with, yes, I know you dislike this, but guess what, the times.

The times is where we exist, and despite proclaiming that the rules of monarchy must be followed, you seem to allow absolutely no room for the fact that the rules of monarchy always change. I guess I should be glad that monarchies themselves are far more flexible than you seem to allow.

That's part of why they stay relevant, why they survive and why they work.

[Von Schlesian]

Duc et Pair;
If I may be so bold, the spirit of your post above, seems to be intentionally lacking in flexibility, especially considering the post immediately preceding it.

How can any institution survive without a certain degree of change? Modernism in this context (could also be considered institutional evolution, or adaptability), is a key for survival. It includes the possability that should the people desire, they may bring about a peaceful end to their monarchy. But in reality, these great institutions continue by weathering all manner of changes over time.

The Papacy is probably the most rigid monarchy we have ever known and that too adapts and evolves. No monarch, or any other institution for that matter, is beyond being enhanced to equip it to better serve it's purpose.

We can't all exist in the vacuum of extremes that seem to attract some.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

To quote the -then- Prince of Orange: "That is an opinion. There are other opinions as well."

The-then Prince of Orange made a statement that clearly is more in support of mine than yours, and I simply advocated exactly what he chose to do: Follow his heart and marry the woman he loved.

If it's good enough for the King of the Netherlands, it's surely good enough for Princesses of Romania as well.

[Cory]

The King's daughters married non-royal men but this does not affect in any way the dynastic future of the country.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The King's daughters married non-royal men but this does not affect in any way the dynastic future of the country.

'The King's daughters', Princesses of royal blood, born in a dynastic marriage between H.M the King of the Romanians and H.M Queen Anne, née Princess of Bourbon-Parma, form the Royal Family of Romania along with their father, and as with the marriages of Princes and Princesses in established dynasties, demoted or reigning, their life choices have consequences for the future of the dynasty.

If they didn't, I doubt you would continue your efforts to undermine their status as Princesses, question their roles in the dynasty or reduce their importance as part of the process of revitalizing and restore monarchical functions in Romania.

[Marengo]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The-then Prince of Orange made a statement that clearly is more in support of mine than yours, and I simply advocated exactly what he chose to do: Follow his heart and marry the woman he loved.

If it's good enough for the King of the Netherlands, it's surely good enough for Princesses of Romania as well.

The-then prince of Orange quoted an article signed by Jorge Videla himself. It was a major gaffe and the Prime Minister was rather angry. Considering the context, the quote does not make sense here. But indeed, the quote and his goal was to follow his heart, which he did and which has worked out splendidly so far. It seems that the same goes for Crown Princess Margareta.

[Cory]

A reigning House with a different history and traditions anyway.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

A reigning House with a different history and traditions anyway.

Are you advocating that all Royal Houses and dynasties should be returned to how they were run in 1947, or does this intransigence only apply to the Royal Family of Romania?