Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Obviously you do not know Romania too much if you suppose Romanian would ignore not only the Constitutions of the Kingdom but also long established traditions.
If you were also realistic you would notice no grandchild of the King lives in the country and so the King's descendants are not really linked with the country except the two daughters of the King that are childless.

I have never commented on your bonds with Romania and your knowledge of the land and its people. I would thank you to extend the same courtesy to me.

You keep using the argument that the Crown Princess and her sister, Princess Maria, are childless. Would you support their succession if they weren't?

Nicholas is closely linked with the country, and despite your best efforts to always call it a 'closed chapter', I guess reading the news, blogs etc, might help you realize that to many Romanians, it is not, and to many monarchists, he represents the future of the monarchy after his aunt, the CP.

If a single mother can become Queen of Norway, I'm sure a single Prince who has a child out of wedlock can become King in a restored kingdom of Romania. Nicholas has far closer ties to Romania than any Hohenzollern, he represents his grandfathers heritage and for whatever reason last years events took place, I believe he is the future still, and that he will be restored and return to Romania at some point.

I have yet to meet a Romanian who doesn't think a restored monarchy will be based on someone from the RF. They might not all think it will happen, and not all of them like the King, or the CP, or Prince Radu, but that is where they see it as realistic.

I remember asking one of my best friends not long ago if he would support restoring the monarchy under a Prince of Hohenzollern being asked to assume the throne. I'll never forget his face as he shouted: Hohen-who?!

I guess the world has moved on.

[Cory]

There are Romanian royalists that support the constitutional Line of Succession even if many Romanians do not kno the nowadays Hohenzollerns. The majority of Romanians have no clue who Ms Medforth Mills or Ms Biarneix are too.
The two Princesses that live in Romania are childless and this is a fact. The others descendants of the King do not live in the country and are not really envolved in the Romanian society. This is a fact too. Mr Medforth Mills has his supporters but his supporters are not neccesarily the supporters of his eldest aunt. Another fact.
All those that respect the royalist Romanian traditions know what the Constitution of 1923 said about Succession.

[Cory]

The article 78 who spoke about the succession of the Hohenzollerns did not mention that.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by eya

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

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 :)

[Cory]

Article 77 speaks about the Orthodox religion of the descendants of the King. The First two Kings of Romania were Catholic. Nobody had asked Prince Ferdinand to convert to Orthodoxy in order to become Crown Prince of Romania when King Carol I did not have sons. Now we are in the same situation like with the Succession of Carol I but now there is no more a National official Church in Romania but 18 equal religious denominations.
Article 78 speaks about what happens if the King has no descedants in direct male Line and indicates the descendants of the brothers of King Carol I without any other requirements.

[Cory]

We are in the same situation like in 1889 when King Carol I did not have children and Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern became Crown Prince. The Constitution of 1866 had had the same rules like that of 1923 but Crown Prince Ferdinand was not asked to convert.
It is not required any Prince of Hohenzollern to become Orthodox in order to inherit the Throne. The future Constitution will anyhow respect the freedom of conscience taking into account there is no official National Church in Romania like in 1866.

King Michael modified his proposed List different times in the last years.

The constitutional Line is very clear but I was just saying there are no polls regarding the future of the Royal Family after the King.
The Constitution of 1923 is the Constitution anolished illegally by the Communists in 1947 and it is certainly dear to all those that respect the democratical royal past of Romania.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by eya

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.

Indeed, the article in question does require that the Sovereign be of the Orthodox faith. This is why all of King Michael's children were raised Orthodox--for the additional reason that had a son been produced, and made the succession less complicated, it would have been necessary for him to be of the faith prescribed by the Constitution.

I agree with you eya that the Hohenzollerns would be required to convert if they desired to press a claim in Romania.

[Cris M]

Oh, how nice that you think a new Constitution must respect freedom of conscience, while it can completely ignore five women simply because they are women.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cris M

Oh, how nice that you think a new Constitution must respect freedom of conscience, while it can completely ignore five women simply because they are women.

Hear, hear! 👏🏻

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Indeed, the article in question does require that the Sovereign be of the Orthodox faith. This is why all of King Michael's children were raised Orthodox--for the additional reason that had a son been produced, and made the succession less complicated, it would have been necessary for him to be of the faith prescribed by the Constitution.

I agree with you eya that the Hohenzollerns would be required to convert if they desired to press a claim in Romania.

We are in the same situation like of the Succession of Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern to King Carol I. Nobody asked him to convert and he remained a devout Catholic all his life and probably the most important of the Romanian Kings. Nobody is asking the Princes of Hohenzollern to convert now in order to succeed to the Romanian dynastic rights.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Chubb Fuddler

That's because you seem steadfastly determined not to look beyond the narrow and dismissive way you have misunderstood constitutional monarchy as a form of national government. You make sweeping generalisations about whinging and begging royals, without actually providing any evidence to support such accusations. King Michael, who first became king 89 years ago, is a living symbol of Romania's history. He has not begged for anything, and there is absolutely nothing pretentious or arrogant about this fine old gentleman who served the people of Romania as king. The only arrogance here has been the way you have totally refused to even consider that the Royal House of Romania has found a niche for itself within the Republic of Romania. As such, even as an historical institution, King Michael's successor as Head of the Royal House of Romania is a topic of interest to many people who join in this discussion.

No I have read about various situations involving royals and have my own thoughts and opinions about the subject. Banishing Nicholas because he fathered an out of wedlock child is arrogant and equates to begging his hopeful future subjects not to think his family is immoral. Pompous arrogance on his part and it is begging for his people not to think badly of his family so they can restored to the throne. When a person views a situation differently than you, maybe they have also given much thought to it and came to a different conclusion. I think my thoughts about Michael and his family sting some people because (maybe just maybe) it hits a raw nerve (=made you think about the situation from a different point of view and actually does make sense). I never try to change anybody's thoughts on any subject, when I post something I am only stating my thoughts and opinions. People are not narrow-minded just because they have a different opinion.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Cory

There is no poll regarding who the people consider as future Heir to the Throne.

What purpose would it serve? Doesn't your dear 1923 Constitution clearly says who the future Heir to the Throne should be?

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cris M

Oh, how nice that you think a new Constitution must respect freedom of conscience, while it can completely ignore five women simply because they are women.

Hear, hear indeed!

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

No I have read about various situations involving royals and have my own thoughts and opinions about the subject. Banishing Nicholas because he fathered an out of wedlock child is arrogant and equates to begging his hopeful future subjects not to think his family is immoral. Pompous arrogance on his part and it is begging for his people not to think badly of his family so they can restored to the throne. When a person views a situation differently than you, maybe they have also given much thought to it and came to a different conclusion. I think my thoughts about Michael and his family sting some people because (maybe just maybe) it hits a raw nerve (=made you think about the situation from a different point of view and actually does make sense). I never try to change anybody's thoughts on any subject, when I post something I am only stating my thoughts and opinions. People are not narrow-minded just because they have a different opinion.

I'll just answer this quickly to make clear that your views touch no nerve on my part, that would make me re-think a position or change my mind on monarchies and royalty. They are however, very uninformed, generalized and tabloid, and show very little insight into what royalty is, what it symbolizes and how it functions in modern monarchies.

There are many facts behind monarchies, and royalty (some of which can be found in the monarchy vs. republic thread, and to trivialize and denegrate the effort most of them do for their countries, and people who want them to do the job they do, is not nerve-touching. It's just uninformed.

About Nicholas and King Michael, you may use the word arrogance again as much as you want. I am deeply disappointed at the decision that was taken, but we actually do not know the basis for it. We can speculate and hypothesize, but I recommend saving the strongest words for when there are facts on the table, and not just hyperbole.

[MAfan]

As reminded by a fellow Moderator only a few hour ago, this is NOT the republic vs. monarchy thread nor the place for such a discussion.
So please move on and return on topic.
Thanks.

[Countessmeout]

The constitution of 1923 doesn't exist any more. The last constitution of Romania is from 1991, as a republic. If a monarchy was to be reinstituted, a new constitution would have to be written as the 1923 no longer exists, it was replaced. I don't see why the new constitution would not allow for at the very least male preference, even if they don't want full equality.

I see these arguments that the Princesses who have kids don't live in Romania. Well either do the Hohenzollerns, they live in Germany. Do they speak Romanian? Are they involved in Romania in any way?

It just seems odd to me. Yes they are related to Carol I. But why would they go so far back, when there are descendents of the actual line? IMO it would be like if the Greeks restored their monarchy but instead of Constantine and his children they named Fred or Joachim as heir. The first king of Modern Greece was a Danish prince, Marge's sons are descended from his older brother just as the Hohenollerns are descended from Carol I's older brother.

[Cris M]

If Romania ever decide to restore the Monarchy during the King's lifetime, I'm sure he'll get his throne back, but certainly with the Crown Princess as Regent. I also believe Parliament will appoint Nicholas as the Crown Princess' heir, even if the King and the Crown Princess don't like the idea.

And I think the Crown Princess will put her nephew back in the line of succession, once she becames the Head of the Royal House. I may be wrong, but she seems to be more interested in a restoration than her father, and she surely knows her nephew is their only hope.

[Cory]

You are right when you say Mr Medfoth Mills was their only hope for popular support but they certainly chaged everything in august 2015.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

The constitution of 1923 doesn't exist any more. The last constitution of Romania is from 1991, as a republic. If a monarchy was to be reinstituted, a new constitution would have to be written as the 1923 no longer exists, it was replaced. I don't see why the new constitution would not allow for at the very least male preference, even if they don't want full equality.

I see these arguments that the Princesses who have kids don't live in Romania. Well either do the Hohenzollerns, they live in Germany. Do they speak Romanian? Are they involved in Romania in any way?

It just seems odd to me. Yes they are related to Carol I. But why would they go so far back, when there are descendents of the actual line? IMO it would be like if the Greeks restored their monarchy but instead of Constantine and his children they named Fred or Joachim as heir. The first king of Modern Greece was a Danish prince, Marge's sons are descended from his older brother just as the Hohenollerns are descended from Carol I's older brother.

The Succession respects the Constitution that was in place when Monarchy was abolished as in many other cases in Europe. If Monarchy will be restored the Hohenzollerns would be asked to reign. If they refuse it could be another Royal Family.
It is true the Hohenzollerns do not live in Romania but they have the dynastic rights.
The descendance of the King have only two grandaughters " in Line" that have nothing to do with Romania so nobody would choose them.

[Cris M]

Instead of choosing one the last King's descendants, Romania would prefer a German Prince "that has nothing to do with Romania" as the new King.

Strong logic.