Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Cory]

The last members of the Romanian Royal Family from the descendants of the King are the 4 Princesses.

[maria-olivia]

In a thread about Princess Margarthe of Denmark and Prince René of Bourbon Parme it was told that a Princess of Roumania has a relationship with former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown between 2007 and 2010 ?

Is that correct ? I never heard about that before.

[eya]

Yes is true. Here an old article about that

'Romantic. Beautiful. I fell madly in love' - Telegraph

The Romania has and have Royal Family. When and if monarchy restore the currently Royal Family there is the first option.

I agree JR76 just pure fantasy!

This constitution of 1923 did (i don't have read it)says something about the religion that should be the future king?

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

It says that the King has to be orthodox, but for some reason, some people here say that this should be ignored as being irrelevant in 2016, while those of us who advocate updating a line of succession to correspond with 2016, are ignorant of history.

Figure it out those who can :)

It says that should be Orthodox? But then should not ignore the constitution. But I imagine that if the Hohenzollerns accept the throne that can simply be changed and their religion.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

In a thread about Princess Margarthe of Denmark and Prince René of Bourbon Parme it was told that a Princess of Roumania has a relationship with former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown between 2007 and 2010 ?

Is that correct ? I never heard about that before.

The relationship took place in the late 70's, while they were both at university.

[Cory]

Here we speak about the Succession rights ofvthe House of Hohenzollerns not about the love affairs of a Princess.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Here we speak about the Succession rights ofvthe House of Hohenzollerns not about the love affairs of a Princess.

This thread is about the succession to the Romanian throne. It is not singled out as a propaganda-thread for the Princely House of Hohenzollern.

To ask, and answer, a question about the Crown Princess of Romania, in one sentence, probably does not wreak havoc on the thread. It could instead lead to amusing thinking around whether the Romanian heiress would be married to someone who became PM in Britain now, and what that would had done for the question of succession.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

This thread is about the succession to the Romanian throne. It is not singled out as a propaganda-thread for the Princely House of Hohenzollern.

To ask, and answer, a question about the Crown Princess of Romania, in one sentence, probably does not wreak havoc on the thread. It could instead lead to amusing thinking around whether the Romanian heiress would be married to someone who became PM in Britain now, and what that would had done for the question of succession.

Romania does not have an heiress as they have an ex-royal family. It has been stated that when the ex-king served as one of country's prime ministers, the ex-royal family of Romania validated that Romania is now a republic. C'est la vie!

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Romania does not have an heiress as they have an ex-royal family. It has been stated that when the ex-king served as one of country's prime ministers, the ex-royal family of Romania validated that Romania is now a republic. C'est la vie!

The King of Romania was never Prime Minister. It was the King of the Bulgarians who served as Prime Minister of his country.

The King of Romania was deposed by a Communist coup d'état in 1947, and he never validated that Romania is now a Republic.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Romania does not have an heiress as they have an ex-royal family. It has been stated that when the ex-king served as one of country's prime ministers, the ex-royal family of Romania validated that Romania is now a republic. C'est la vie!

Like Cris M said, you're mixing up Romania and Bulgaria here..

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Romania does not have an heiress as they have an ex-royal family. It has been stated that when the ex-king served as one of country's prime ministers, the ex-royal family of Romania validated that Romania is now a republic. C'est la vie!

Romania does not have an heiress, but the House of Romania does.

Princess Margareta is, according her father, the Heiress to the current head of the House of Romania.

Prince Alexander is the Heir to his father, the Fürst von Hohenzollern, the current head of the House of Hohenzollern.

Lord Henry Miles Fitzalan-Howard is the Heir to his father, the Duke of Norfolk, the current head of the House of Norfolk.

Don Fernando Juan Fitz-James Stuart y de Solís is the Heir to his father, the Duke of Alba, the current head of the House of Alba.

Etc.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Romania does not have an heiress as they have an ex-royal family. It has been stated that when the ex-king served as one of country's prime ministers, the ex-royal family of Romania validated that Romania is now a republic. C'est la vie!

An enjoyable miss on your part, but here's a few more words on the subject. Imagine if your own country, USA, had been invaded and had its system of governance forcibly overthrown. Long live Communism, the republic is dead, and then 70 years later, communism would fall, but your republic was not restored. Instead, Congress was appointed by ruling factions around the nation, the Speaker was de facto head of state and the White House was turned into a museum.
Would you accept that, as you ask monarchists in forcibly overthrown monarchies to do, or would you demand a return to the system your country (for some unknown reason), prides itself on today?

In many former countries that used to be monarchies, there are former Royal Families still in existence, and in some of them, they serve functions and act as conduits for those who wish for the former system of governance to be restored, i.e Romania, Serbia, Montengro and others, including Bulgaria. These families carry their old titles, and often times grant new titles, that are respected, accepted and used, by media, officials and the general public. Inside of Romania, Crown Princess Margarita is seen as the heir to her father, the King, as is shown by most sources calling her 'principesa mostetinoare,', 'Crown Princess'.

Is it pretentious to carry and use a title that you no longer formally have? To some, sure. Just as pretentious as it is to call H.Clinton, 'the Secretary', because that's her former, most senior position, or Bill Clinton 'President Clinton', because he once was.

That's how titles work, they represent the most senior position once held, and in former monarchies, they are carried for life and used with respect, to the position, the history and for many, the hope that the system of government that was taken away against their will, will be restored some day.

PS. In a thread named 'succession to the Romanian throne', it would be odd not to talk about members of the Romanian Royal Family, and use their titles or functions, ie the word heiress. Inside of Romania, the RF is seen as the conduit for monarchical movements, and if the King, long may he live, were to pass away tomorrow, the history of the kingdom would be represented by Margareta, whether some like it or not.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Cris M

The King of Romania was never Prime Minister. It was the King of the Bulgarians who served as Prime Minister of his country.

The King of Romania was deposed by a Communist coup d'état in 1947, and he never validated that Romania is now a Republic.

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Like Cris M said, you're mixing up Romania and Bulgaria here..

My bad - I get them mixed up all the time sorry.

[maria-olivia]

Thanks Eya, tis article is to me interesting to know more about the Heiress of Romania.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

An enjoyable miss on your part, but here's a few more words on the subject. Imagine if your own country, USA, had been invaded and had its system of governance forcibly overthrown. Long live Communism, the republic is dead, and then 70 years later, communism would fall, but your republic was not restored. Instead, Congress was appointed by ruling factions around the nation, the Speaker was de facto head of state and the White House was turned into a museum.
Would you accept that, as you ask monarchists in forcibly overthrown monarchies to do, or would you demand a return to the system your country (for some unknown reason), prides itself on today?

In many former countries that used to be monarchies, there are former Royal Families still in existence, and in some of them, they serve functions and act as conduits for those who wish for the former system of governance to be restored, i.e Romania, Serbia, Montengro and others, including Bulgaria. These families carry their old titles, and often times grant new titles, that are respected, accepted and used, by media, officials and the general public. Inside of Romania, Crown Princess Margarita is seen as the heir to her father, the King, as is shown by most sources calling her 'principesa mostetinoare,', 'Crown Princess'.

Is it pretentious to carry and use a title that you no longer formally have? To some, sure. Just as pretentious as it is to call H.Clinton, 'the Secretary', because that's her former, most senior position, or Bill Clinton 'President Clinton', because he once was.

That's how titles work, they represent the most senior position once held, and in former monarchies, they are carried for life and used with respect, to the position, the history and for many, the hope that the system of government that was taken away against their will, will be restored some day.

PS. In a thread named 'succession to the Romanian throne', it would be odd not to talk about members of the Romanian Royal Family, and use their titles or functions, ie the word heiress. Inside of Romania, the RF is seen as the conduit for monarchical movements, and if the King, long may he live, were to pass away tomorrow, the history of the kingdom would be represented by Margareta, whether some like it or not.

Yes it is pretentious to use you no longer formally have. It's arrogance at its utmost to use a royal title of country that no longer has royal titles and many countries with former monarchies, such as Austria and Hanover, have actually banned their former royal titles. I get it that these families were ousted of homeland and they want to live there and do good things for and in their homelands. But many of them are too pushy? And why is that REALLY? They seek publicity for their cause now, but if put back as THE royal family, they will constantly moan and complain about the press (and yes, the press are a brutal bunch) and maybe even ban the press from being anywhere near them. Royals and ex-royals alike are also a brutal bunch - most act like spoiled brats and demand their terms be met always. To me, the royal family of any country has no right to any privacy outside of their private residences, which was basically bought by royals through stealing and robbing their own people blind. This how they all have amassed great wealth over the centuries. So if they really wanted to good for their citizens, liquidate stolen assets accumulated throughout the centuries, put it into their home county's economy, go get a job on your own merit (no royal title, and have a first name and last name), yelping as they run with their "tails" behind them. Doing easy work whenever you feel like it and having your subjects support your lazy --- they are simply the products of an expensive welfare system. These ex-royals are just looking for expensive handouts to restore them to their former glory. They should have all started working and earning a living many years ago. I will not be a part of any pity party for any of these people. I really hope they get it sooner rather than later and their descendants 500 years from now will not still consider themselves King-Queen-Prnce-Princess, etc. That would be really a sad situation. We must all learn when to let go - it is emotionally painful, but it is the reality of the situation. If a country wants their ex-royals back, I'm sure their country will seek them out. These people really need to get a life. I do not feel sorry for any of them; their ancestor's corrupt and lavish ways lead to their own demise. They did it to themselves plain and simple - you always end up reaping what you sow.

[LadyRohan]

That is one way to put it, much in line with how some tabloid newspapers would describe it. Luckily, there are other ways, based on actual facts about how monarchies work, and how royalty functions, and the best example of the strength of monarchies, is that there are only around 40 monarchies in the world today of close to 200 countries, but 7 of 10 nations that are consistently ranked in the top 10 of democratic function, wealth, happiness etc, are kingdoms.
They must be doing something right :) That nations that had their government overthrown against the will of the people, have movements working to restore the legal form of government, is not a surprise, and that the former Royal Families of these lands support the cause, would be, for most, logical.

To claim that people are pretentious for using titles they are born with, or have gained, as royalty, but that republican people are allowed to use whatever title they once had, is a logical disconnect at best, or just an attempt at being difficult at worst.

'These people' have lives. I recommend visiting the website of the Royal Family for updates on their activities, and a scroll through the Romanian newspapers online, for articles displaying their recent outings. With regards to succession to the Romanian throne, if the monarchy is to be restored, as there is growing sentiments in Romania for, it is through the examples of the members of the Royal Family, their activities and connections made with Romanian society.

[NotHRH]

Your argument to me has no bases: I wrote yes it IS PRETENTIOUS for our ex-govt officials to use their former titles officially or otherwise, but it also pompous arrogance for ex-royalty to do likewise. You should have thoroughly read and comprehended what I posted before you decided to argue with me. Start over - your arguments are mute because I already addressed them in the post that YOU are trying to argue with me about. Wow, really???? Understand ex-royalty will never get a pity party from me. Life is full of gut-wrenching sadness, but you must keep moving forward and make peace with past because it cannot be changed and none of us knows what our futures hold. And that's all there is to. There is nothing to argue about because I will not state my position under this topic again.

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is not pompous arrogance. Their titles have always been part of their name. Let us take an example and use a well-known noble family: in 1601 the family De Ligne was raised to princely rank. Their patrimonium was part of the Holy Roman Empire, then of the French Empire, then of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and finally now the kingdom of Belgium.

Imagine that tomorrow an egalitarian, republican Government in Brussels declares all titles null and void. The titles of the De Lignes (Prince de Ligne, d'Amblise et d'Épinoy) have been used for centuries and centuries and are still in countless of registers, acts, warrants, patents, letters, streetnames and name it all. It is not at all pretentious when titles remain used in social custom. To be pretentious is to make a claim or put on an act on. Their titulature however is real and it is their very own history.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Your argument to me has no bases: I wrote yes it IS PRETENTIOUS for our ex-govt officials to use their former titles officially or otherwise, but it also pompous arrogance for ex-royalty to do likewise. You should have thoroughly read and comprehended what I posted before you decided to argue with me. Start over - your arguments are mute because I already addressed them in the post that YOU are trying to argue with me about. Wow, really???? Understand ex-royalty will never get a pity party from me. Life is full of gut-wrenching sadness, but you must keep moving forward and make peace with past because it cannot be changed and none of us knows what our futures hold. And that's all there is to. There is nothing to argue about because I will not state my position under this topic again.

The weakness with the arguments, and often times the 'American model', is that is disregards history and connections with the past. Monarchies are centuries-old, in many cases millennial institutions, that link our current nations to our past, they intertwine history with today and tomorrow, and allows people to both feel and experience a sense of purpose to their country, their state and their existence. This is often a hard thing to explain to people who are born in countries that are very young, and is often why there is a disconnect between the 'New World' and the 'Old World', when it comes to systems of governance.

With regards to titles, Duc explains it very well, and it is how we have internationally accepted their use. The highest one achieved in life, is the one used afterwards, in the appropriate settings. For a man raised as a Prince, later becoming King, then being forcibly removed, to use and be referred to as King later in life, is not arrogance. It is respectful, a matter of decorum and how all men and women of position is treated.

Humans are emotional beings. We connect with our royalty, those of us who have them, on levels that have nothing to do with democracy or equality. We don't mind families living in castles or wearing crowns, because they remind us of their parents, or grandparents, and the work they did for us and our country, in times of need, crisis and war. They remind us of our own families, and the people that went before us. Monarchies links past and present, while optimally safeguarding the political and diplomatic processes that take place in modern countries, and if done properly, monarchies can be restored in nations that lost or chose to leave the institution behind in earlier days and different circumstances.

That is what this thread is about. Who could, who should and who would succeed in assuming the Romanian throne, should it be restored.

[Cory]

Titles has nothing to do with the fact thatca country is a republic or a Monarchy.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

The weakness with the arguments, and often times the 'American model', is that is disregards history and connections with the past. Monarchies are centuries-old, in many cases millennial institutions, that link our current nations to our past, they intertwine history with today and tomorrow, and allows people to both feel and experience a sense of purpose to their country, their state and their existence. This is often a hard thing to explain to people who are born in countries that are very young, and is often why there is a disconnect between the 'New World' and the 'Old World', when it comes to systems of governance.

With regards to titles, Duc explains it very well, and it is how we have internationally accepted their use. The highest one achieved in life, is the one used afterwards, in the appropriate settings. For a man raised as a Prince, later becoming King, then being forcibly removed, to use and be referred to as King later in life, is not arrogance. It is respectful, a matter of decorum and how all men and women of position is treated.

Humans are emotional beings. We connect with our royalty, those of us who have them, on levels that have nothing to do with democracy or equality. We don't mind families living in castles or wearing crowns, because they remind us of their parents, or grandparents, and the work they did for us and our country, in times of need, crisis and war. They remind us of our own families, and the people that went before us. Monarchies links past and present, while optimally safeguarding the political and diplomatic processes that take place in modern countries, and if done properly, monarchies can be restored in nations that lost or chose to leave the institution behind in earlier days and different circumstances.

That is what this thread is about. Who could, who should and who would succeed in assuming the Romanian throne, should it be restored.

My point (made in one of my earlier posts) is if Romania wants to restore their monarchy, the government of Romania will seek out their former royal family and restore them to the throne. It's really sad this family is still looking for a very expensive handout. They actually want Romanian citizens to support them again - wow! Unbelievable! It is so easy to spend money that you didn't earn yourself. This "royal" family should have been earning their own living for years now. You CANNOT change the past and no one knows what the future holds. Romania to their former royals: don't call us, we'll call you.

As far the US political system - it is NOT anywhere near perfect, it's not even in the same universe as "perfection." But granted, we have a system of checks and balances, not just amongst the 3 branches of govt - executive, judicial, legislative- but also between the 2 major political parties, and between the American people and the US federal government as a whole. We have a presidential election in November, and so far, Donald Trump is leading in all the polls and also in the primaries. The working class is tired of the govt doling out our hard-earned money (from taxes we pay based on our earnings) to lazy people that do nothing all day. In effort to make everybody happy, our govt is realizing that it is NOT possible for that to be. One group will always be unhappy. Anyway, royalty is just a type of welfare system - an extremely expensive one paid to a family that feels it is their right to take, and live lavishly while doing so. A royal family here would be taken out (sadly) in a similar way the Imperial Russian family was murdered, but it would probably be much more brutal and horrific. Our lives here would never allow one family throughout the centuries to become immensely wealthy from the sweat of our collective brow, especially when their role is ceremonial (=they did nothing to earn it). To me it's laughable that people who live in countries with a monarchy find that acceptable - I really do not understand that and NEVER will.