Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by 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.

Have miss Karina Medforth-Mills from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and mademoiselle Elisabeth Biarneix from Paris anything to do with Romania?

On itself it does not matter where someone comes from, we know stories of South-Africans or US citizens becoming a Peer because they happened to be the most close Heir male of the body of the last Peer.

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Have miss Karina Medforth-Mills from Newcastle-upon-Tyne and mademoiselle Elisabeth Biarneix from Paris anything to do with Romania?

Nothing besides being the daughters of Princesses of Romania, and descendants of the three previous Romanian Monarchs.

The Prince of Hohenzollern is the first in line of succession according to the Monarchical Constitutional, but he already he wants nothing to do with Romania.

Unless Nicholas Medforth-Mills becomes a Prince of Romania again, eith by his grandfather or aunt's will, or because the Romanian Parliament wants him to be a Prince, I see no chance of a monarchical restoration in Romania.

[Cory]

Maybe Mr Biarneix has more to do with Romania than his daughter.

Originally Posted by 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.

The German Princes are first of all Princes, second are descendants of the brothers of King Carol I, third have dynastic rights and at kast but not at last are proud of their ancestors.
Are Ms Medforth Mills and Ms Biarneix more connected with Romania? The King 's grandaughters do not even speak Romanian.

Originally Posted by MAfan

Just like the Hohenzollern Princes don't speak it...

At least the German Princes are not the grandchildren of a Romanian King.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

At one side you have the "candidates" to the headship of the House according to the pre-2007 changes: Karl-Friedrich and Alexander von Hohenzollern, both with a business education and running a big estate with more than 4.000 (!) staff working for them, managing various castles and estates which have been and still are preserved since more than 900 years.

At the other side there is a lady walking around from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, no idea what background she has, how she is educated, what her career is, she is completely invisible, exactly like her cousine from Paris. And these are the better candidates, for managing and preserving the patrimonium of the Romanian branch of the Hohenzollerns? This British or French lady will maintain the large, historic estate of Peles with the castle and the lodge and the surrounding domains? They are able to maintain and manage the house and the domain in Săvârșin? I think few can fight that Prince Karl-Friedrich, Germany's 3rd biggest private landowner, has proven how to manage an immense historic patrimonium and large estates. His son Prince Alexander has studied Economics in Lausanne (Switzerland) and has already enrolled in the board of the Unternehmensgruppe Hohenzollern. The whole estate is managed by professionals.

Forget about a restoration of the monarchy. Think about the patrimonium of the Kings of Romania. Who can preserve it better than the Hohenzollern cousins? They can add the Romanian lands and estates to their collection and manage it with the well-known German efficiency. When it all goes to the lady in the UK or the other one in Paris, I think the first thing you will see is "For Sale" in front of Săvârșin, so that the girls can lead a good life in London or Paris with the profits.

All the properties of the King will be inherired by his descendants.
The Hohenzollern inherit only the dnastic rights but not the properties of the King.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

He was a fraud. Alain Biarneix claimed to be the illegitimate child of an Archduke. The lawyers of Archduke Otto, the last Heir of Austria and Hungary and Head of the House of Habsburg, summoned him to stop spreading these false claims. When Alain Biarneix continued to call himself a Habsburg, the lawyers of Archduke Otto came in action. He was finally sued for false impersonation and was forced to give up the claim as there was no any relation to the Habsburgers.

Afther this he started to go into society under the pseudonym "Alain de Laufenborg". He came in contact with Princess Sofia of Romania, managed to get her into his spell and married her, very much against King Michael's wishes. The King stripped his daughter from her title Princess of Romania and her style HRH (What is new?) because he thought this fraud, faker and impersonator was an "undesirable" annex to the House of Romania, also seeing the legal intervention by the House of Habsburg against her daughter's partner.

Alain and Sofia got a daughter: Elisabeth Biarneix. Afther the divorce from Alain, King Michael changed his mind once again (what is new?) and restored his daughter's title Princess of Romania and her style HRH. The daughter of this fraud, faker and impersonator was never a member of the Royal House nor was ever in the line of succession, until King Michael changed his mind once more (What is new?) and created a whole new line of succession, including the daughter of the man he disapproved so much that he stripped his own daughter from her royal position...

Is Mr Biarneix living in Romania or just visiting ofen the country?

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

When it are all private properties yes. When it is set into a House Foundation, it depends on the statutes. But indeed, when it all goes to the descendants in the UK, the USA and France, it is logical that the Fürst von Hohenzollern shrugs his shoulders and continue managing his own formidable assets than following cousin Michael's adventures. But a Prince Karl-Friedrich or a Prince Alexander, with their thousands of staff behind them, are a formidable party for a monarchist movement. I can not see how the British girl, Karina, can ever fly the flag for the House of Romania.

The Hohenzollerns can inherit only dynastic rights in Romania and nothing more.

The descendants of King Michael are not dynasts according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom of Romania so al the decisions regarding dynastic rights to them are mot really relevant.

There is no connection know between the Hohenzollrn Princes and the non-dynastic descendants of King Mihai.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

Maybe Mr Biarneix has more to do with Romania than his daughter.

He was a fraud. Alain Biarneix claimed to be the illegitimate child of an Archduke. The lawyers of Archduke Otto, the last Heir of Austria and Hungary and Head of the House of Habsburg, summoned him to stop spreading these false claims. When Alain Biarneix continued to call himself a Habsburg, the lawyers of Archduke Otto came in action. He was finally sued for false impersonation and was forced to give up the claim as there was no any relation to the Habsburgers.

Afther this he started to go into society under the pseudonym "Alain de Laufenborg". He came in contact with Princess Sofia of Romania, managed to get her into his spell and married her, very much against King Michael's wishes. The King stripped his daughter from her title Princess of Romania and her style HRH (What is new?) because he thought this fraud, faker and impersonator was an "undesirable" annex to the House of Romania, also seeing the legal intervention by the House of Habsburg against his daughter's partner.

Alain and Sofia got a daughter: Elisabeth Biarneix. Afther the divorce from Alain, King Michael changed his mind once again (what is new?) and restored his daughter's title Princess of Romania and her style HRH. The daughter of this fraud, faker and impersonator was never a member of the Royal House nor was ever in the line of succession, until King Michael changed his mind once more (What is new?) and created a whole new line of succession, including the daughter of the man he disapproved so much that he stripped his own daughter from her royal position...

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The King 's grandaughters do not even speak Romanian.

Just like the Hohenzollern Princes don't speak it...

[Duc_et_Pair]

At one side you have the "candidates" to the headship of the House according to the pre-2007 changes: Karl-Friedrich and Alexander von Hohenzollern, both with a business education and running a big estate with more than 4.000 (!) staff working for them, managing various castles and estates which have been and still are preserved since more than 900 years.

At the other side there is a lady walking around from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, no idea what background she has, how she is educated, what her career is, she is completely invisible, exactly like her cousine from Paris. And these are the better candidates, for managing and preserving the patrimonium of the Romanian branch of the Hohenzollerns? This British or French lady will maintain the large, historic estate of Peles with the castle and the lodge and the surrounding domains? They are able to maintain and manage the house and the domain in Săvârșin? I think few can fight that Prince Karl-Friedrich, Germany's 3rd biggest private landowner, has proven how to manage an immense historic patrimonium and large estates. His son Prince Alexander has studied Economics in Lausanne (Switzerland) and has already enrolled in the board of the Unternehmensgruppe Hohenzollern. The whole estate is managed by professionals.

Forget about a restoration of the monarchy. Think about the patrimonium of the Kings of Romania. Who can preserve it better than the Hohenzollern cousins? They can add the Romanian lands and estates to their collection and manage it with the well-known German efficiency. When it all goes to the lady in the UK or the other one in Paris, I think the first thing you will see is "For Sale" in front of Săvârșin, so that the girls can lead a good life in London or Paris with the profits.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

All the properties of the King will be inherired by his descendants.
The Hohenzollern inherit only the dnastic rights but not the properties of the King.

When it are all private properties yes. When it is set into a House Foundation, it depends on the statutes. But indeed, when it all goes to the descendants in the UK, the USA and France, it is logical that the Fürst von Hohenzollern shrugs his shoulders and continue managing his own formidable assets than following cousin Michael's adventures. But a Prince Karl-Friedrich or a Prince Alexander, with their thousands of staff behind them, are a formidable party for a monarchist movement. I can not see how the British girl, Karina, can ever fly the flag for the House of Romania.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Hohenzollerns can inherit only dynastic rights in Romania and nothing more.

That is a claim you can not substantiate as long as we do not know of the royal estate is specifically owned by Michael as a private person or by a legal entity which is not subjected to inheritance (and taxation!) laws.

[maria-olivia]

It is sad that the Princesses of Romania with their excellent pedigree married bad commonors and of course divorced .

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That is a claim you can not substantiate as long as we do not know of the royal estate is specifically owned by Michael as a private person or by a legal entity which is not subjected to inheritance (and taxation!) laws.

That's true, but, since the properties were returned to King Michael personally, in the case he put them into a trust or foundation or whatever else legal entity, wouldn't it be unlikely that he settled the thing allowing the properties to be passed to his Hohenzollern cousins rather than to his own descendants?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That is a claim you can not substantiate as long as we do not know of the royal estate is specifically owned by Michael as a private person or by a legal entity which is not subjected to inheritance (and taxation!) laws.

All the proprerties of the Sovereign are own by him and not by any Foundation.

Originally Posted by MAfan

That's true, but, since the properties were returned to King Michael personally, in the case he put them into a trust or foundation or whatever else legal entity, wouldn't it be unlikely that he settled the thing allowing the properties to be passed to his Hohenzollern cousins rather than to his own descendants?

The Hohenzollerns can claim dynastic rights but nothing from the goods of the Sovereign.

[Chubb Fuddler]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

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.

It was certainly a decision motivated by old fashioned standards, but arrogant? That is an odd conclusion to reach from the evidence available. Even odder is the accusation that arrogance equates to begging. Words do, of course, change meaning over time. But not that much. A pompous arrogant king would have too much pride to beg for anything.

Originally Posted by NotHRH

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).

Oh dear, do you really think that is even remotely possible? There's no sting, because there is no logical or evidential foundation for the accusations you make. As there is no sense at all in what you say, the only nerve it hits is in the funny bone.

Originally Posted by NotHRH

People are not narrow-minded just because they have a different opinion.

I completely agree. But when people have no evidence to support their hyperbolic accusations, and stubbornly cling to a view of monarchy that is demonstrably incorrect, then, yes, they are narrow minded.

Anyway, back to Romania. Unfortunately no matter what happens with the succession, it will be a compromise not everyone will support. I thought the then Prince Nicholas was the least objectionable of the solutions, given his age and potential to really make an impact in Romania. But now he is out of the picture, the future of the Romanian Royal House, and the potential for a monarchy, regardless of which branch of the family succeeds, seems set to get very messy. If the opportunist Mr Paul Hohenzollern throws his hat into the ring, with his bizarre wife and biologically questionable son, it will become a farce. In this case, it is a pity the direct legitimate male line succession from Carol I, Ferdinand, Carol II and Michael has failed.

[Cory]

Zizi Lambrino's grandsons and great-grandson has nothing to do with the Succession to the dynastic rights because Mrs Lambrino's wedding was not accepted by King Ferdinand.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

Zizi Lambrino's grandsons and great-grandson has nothing to do with the Succession to the dynastic rights because Mrs Lambrino's wedding was not accepted by King Ferdinand.

This is the House of Romania, dear Cory. E-ve-ry-thing is possible. Princess Sofia married a fraud and an imposter (Mr Alain Biarneix a.k.a. Mr Alain de Habsbourg a.k.a. Mr Alain de Laufenbourg a.k.a. Mr Alain Biarneix de Laufenbourg). The King disapproved the marriage and stripped Princess Sofia from her title, from her style HRH and kicked her out of the Royal House (like he would do later with his daughter Irina and repeated it with his grandson Nicholas.

But look and see... daughter Sofia is back in grace and favour. She is a Princess of Romania again. She is a HRH again. The fruit of her so disapproved marriage with the fraud and imposter is in the line of succession...



So I would not be categoric by denying Mr Paul Lambrino. King Michael's very own inconsequent actions have shed the undynasticality of his late half-brother in a somewhat different light. When he considers Elisabeth Biarneix as dynastic, despite being fruit of a marriage he himself so vehemently disapproved of that he stripped his own daughter from her royal status, then he can not hold the same stance on considering the fruit of his halfbrother as undynastic as well. It is all Michael's very own mess. He has turned the whole royal family into a vaudeville.

[Chubb Fuddler]

Originally Posted by Cory

Zizi Lambrino's grandsons and great-grandson has nothing to do with the Succession to the dynastic rights because Mrs Lambrino's wedding was not accepted by King Ferdinand.

Somehow I don't think Mr and Mrs Paul Hohenzollern give a damn about the niceties of dynastic legitimacy. When King Michael dies I would not be surprised if they really try to stir up some trouble. They are such a vulgar couple.

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree with you but as so often opinions differ. The best thing to the whole operetta would be when Prince Alexander gets a relationship with Karina Medforth-Mills. It would probably bring all mess back in order. Or the out-of-grace Nicholas should date one of the three daughters of the present Fürst. It would work wonders for his position and for the dynasty which is a bit on a dead track now.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

There is no connection know between the Hohenzollrn Princes and the non-dynastic descendants of King Mihai.

I am not sure. Maybe they have been guest at weddings, jubilees, birthdays, funerals. Who knows? The Hohenzollerns and the Romanians keep a low key role in publicity.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

He has turned the whole royal family into a vaudeville.

Some of the decisions the King has made, can sometimes rightly be questioned, but there are several factors one often times tend to overlook, such as the lack of internal knowledge of processes, family 'rules' and guidelines for behaviour etc. It might be the case, that when it comes to f.ex children and grandchildren, the King has firm and clear rules that when broken, results in some form of consequence, like loss of royal title. From the example of Princess Sophie, who was demoted and later restored, it seems clear that members of the Royal Family can overcome issues that occur and be rehabilitated in the eyes of the King.

In democratic monarchies, decisions, even though formally and finally being made by the sovereign with regards to things like titles, are most often made in close consultation with the Prime Minister, relevant minister or cabinet. The problem that happens in defunct monarchies, with active and/or former Royal Families, is the decision-making process. Who decides the rules of succession for a Royal Family in a republic? Who makes the calls on titles, positions and responsibilities?

From the practical examples we have, the Romanian one in particular, it seems both clear and respected by media and the public, that the King has the authority to make such calls. The Crown Princess is called 'Principesa Mostenitoare' (Crown Princess) in almost every arena, although the last constitution does not recognize that. Nicholas Medforth-Mills was elevated to Prince of Romania, and was always referred to as such, when the King had made his call. That is evidence in itself of how Romania sees and treats its Royal Family, and respects the King, and his calls, sometimes derided on these forums for being unlawful etc.

The trouble is, you can't break a law that is gone. Like I've asked many times, who makes sure that the guidelines and rules that exist in a monarchy are up to date, relevant and functional when the monarchy is abolished? The answer has to be the representative(s) of the monarchy has to make that call, and where there is a former sovereign alive, it would seem that authority has to lie with him to make such calls. One can always question the wisdom of calls made, but to question their validity in itself, creates a catch 22 situation that those who oppose the sovereign, will always thrive on.

Look to Romania and the line of succession debate in here. Some are clearly disputing the Kings ability to make changes to the line of succession, and dismiss them as unlawful, against precedence and tradition. At the same time, the same people ridicule when the King abides by the new line of succession, alters titles and orders of precedence. Why would it be relevant that a King makes changes, if you to begin with dismissing his ability to decide them at all?

I ask the question again, quite sure that it will once more go unanswered: If Romania had continued as a monarchy, uninterrupted by the overthrow in 1947, the King and Queen would have raised 5 daughters and had no sons, would Romania had chosen to change their constitution, like every other monarchy faced with only female direct-line successors, or would they had looked abroad for a different solution?

When we talk about a line of succession that is to have any relevance in modern Romania, I think it would be a good idea to have a shared starting point. If the goal is to find a line that would work with the prospect of restoring the monarchy, overlooking the Royal Family completely seems illogical and would ignore any visible royal presence in Romania. If it comes to securing the inheritance of property and possessions after the Kings demise someday, it is important to note that this is not relevant for the line of succession, as the Kings possession will go to his children regardless.

So what is the contention in the end? A line of succession in Romania must have legitimacy with the people, if it is to have any function, other than to be relegated to the scrapheap of history. In the case of Romania, where there actually is a debate about the monarchy, where there is a visible royal presence, and where, in particular, the Crown Princess and Prince Radu keep working to promote the cause of monarchy and represent the family, it seems an intellectual exercise rooted in very little practical realism to try to conjure up a new King or Queen at some point, that are not based on King Mihais family.

[Cory]

You have to understand that only a part of the royalists accept the proposed Line indicated the the former Monarch in 2007 and even those do it thinking usually more at Mr Medforth Mills and not at is eldest aunt.
It is rather strange to say somebody who wanted to become president of the republic is really promoting Monarchy today.
History is made by reality not of " what if" situations.

[Von Schlesian]

LadyRohan's post is probably the most comprehensive, pragmatic and sensible reply to the original question - and clarifies many of the points for those not otherwise so well-acquainted with the topic.

I agree entirely that for any definitive intervention or interference by the present Romanian government, would constitute defacto recognition of the monarchy in Romania, which as we have seen in other former monarchies faced with similar questions, they are keen to avoid.

Until that time, King Michael is free to craft the House Laws according to his own wishes, without any consultation.

To answer the unanswered question, I suspect that had the monarchy not come to an end, the King and government would have adjusted the Law governing the succession to ensure the preservation of the Romanian branch of the house.

Hopefully we should be so lucky to see the day when the question is resolved in the real world.