Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

History is made by reality not of " what if" situations.

With all due respect, and a solid dose of self-censorship, it is difficult to take that statement seriously, all the while you are constantly proclaiming support for a dead constitution, an abolished line of succession and a way of establishing monarchies that hasn't taken place in Europe since 1905 (if you disregard a few months in Finland in 1918), when a Danish Prince was asked to relocate and take up a foreign throne in Norway. Even back then it was objected to by many as an outdated way of restarting an independent monarchy.

Try imagining the realism of finding a German Prince somehow related to the current Royal Family, and selling the idea of him becoming King of the Romanians, so the country can skip the current RF altogether, because the King has daughters, some daughters have had bad marriages and because the grandchildren have not been raised in the country their family was banned from for over 40 years.

Reality is what I am advocating as a red line throughout my posts. It is the key word that people who strongly believe in a specific cause, often forget. If you want to create a line of succession that has any legitimacy and support in todays world, it needs people in it who are known in the country the line represents. It needs to represent the tradition and history, while making clear a course for the future. It needs to respect that in our corner of the world, women are equal to men even in royal lines of succession. It needs to emotionally connect with the people it is meant to represent.

To continually abuse Prince Radu, because he once ran for President of the Republic, serves no purpose in a thread about the line of succession to the Romanian throne. The only role he can ever achieve is the one he has today, to be a Prince, being married to a woman who might someday become Queen.

We can always keep on discussing Prince Radu, his activities and choices, but it both belongs in a different thread and is irrelevant to the royal line of succession to the currently defunct throne if Romania, that most of us hope can be revived, in a strong, constitutional and forward-looking form.

[Cory]

The Hohenzollerns are the only Princes in Line to the Throne of Romania. It is another matter which one of them will accept the responsability to lead the Royal House after King Mihai.
Any decisions of a former Monarch refarding Succession can be accepted only if made according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom. Anyhow such decisions have no relevance at all in a republic.
There are of course persons that do not really know the Romanian realities that could think the Romanians could accept the grandaughters of the King. The Romanians would hardly accept anybodybody that does not speak the language even if their grandfather wad the King of Romania.

A constitutional reigning Monarch can never change without the Parliament the Laws of Succession. And we are speaking here even about a former Monarch so...

If a former Monarch wants his decisions to be repected by everybody and to have a future then he remains faithful to the Constitution of the Kingdom he has swirn to respect. Otherwuse he does what he likes but his decisions won't be respected and won't have any relevance.
Interesting that all the controversial decisions of the gormer Monarch were taken after and not before 1996.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Chubb Fuddler

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, <b>it will become a farce</b>. In this case, it is a pity the direct legitimate male line succession from Carol I, Ferdinand, Carol II and Michael has failed.

The whole thing is a farce already, with or without Paul. It's what makes the Romanian's interesting to be honest (similar can be said about the Romanovs).

You have a dead constitution that some monarchists cling to. You have a pretender who likes to change the composition of the Royal house seemingly at will with little to no communication with the public, and minimal explanation. You have the Crown Princess who has no children and her husband who seems to be hated within the monarchist community. You have the former future of the House and his alleged illegitimate child. You have the foreign royals who get a lot of support from the monarchists (at least if Cory is any indication), despite having shown an active disinterest in the throne. And to top it all off you have the son of the king's elder half brother who claims that he should be king.

It's all a farce.

[Cory]

It is not a farce but only a sad and complicated story.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by 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.

Any " House Laws" have no constitutional consequences at all anyway. The King recognized only the Parlianent can decide on the matter of the Succession.

[Chubb Fuddler]

Originally Posted by Cory

Any decisions of a former Monarch refarding Succession can be accepted only if made according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom.

That is in itself an opinion that can be accepted or rejected, and the former monarch's decisions will be accepted by anyone who thinks they are reasonable, and rejected by those who think otherwise. That's why this argument is doomed to forever chase its own tail.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Cory

Any " House Laws" have no constitutional consequences at all anyway. The King recognized only the Parlianent can decide on the matter of the Succession.

Did I not make those exact two points?

My use of the term House Laws is strictly in the context that as the head of a former reigning House, King Michael is at liberty to define the composition of and precedence within his own family as he sees fit.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Chubb Fuddler

That's why this argument is doomed to forever chase its own tail.

Precisely.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian

Did I not make those exact two points?

My use of the term House Laws is strictly in the context that as the head of a former reigning House, King Michael is at liberty to define the composition of and precedence within his own family as he sees fit.

Any family can decide what is best for its future but in this case we speak about dynastic rights and the King can't decide alone and without Parliament on such issue .

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Any family can decide what is best for its future but in this case we speak about dynastic rights and the King can't decide alone and without Parliament on such issue .

And the fact still remains that when a country is a republic, there is no parliament that can or will have an opinion on changing/altering a dead constitution or defunct line of succession. The only thing left then, is for a King or head of a Royal Family to use current principles within the country and the EU (when a memberstate thereof), including current practice in other monarchies, to write an updated document that he encourages parliament to consider, IF they look towards a restoration at some point.

There is no other way open to the King. If he made no statement on the issue at all, chose to remain silent until his passing and let the Royal Family, the properties etc wither away, he would be criticized for ignoring the royal heritage, being reckless with the future of the monarchy and so on. There is no way for the King to resolve this issue legitimately in everyones eyes, and so what remains is what he did, write a document of succession that encourages a change in line with every other European and Western monarchy, in line with the human rights act and principles enshrined in EU law.

When the Hohenzollern heir made it clear they do not wish to press a claim to the defunct Romanian throne, that ends that avenue of thinking effectively, and when the Royal Family headed by the former King, makes clear they are in Romania to serve, there is no logic in pursuing a different way of reasoning.

Whether one likes this person or that person, should be less relevant than raising from the ashes an institution that would serve the Romanian people far better than their corrupt, nepotist republic, and if one wishes a future line of succession to have any relevance at all, that has to be the start and the end of the line.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

And the fact still remains that when a country is a republic, there is no parliament that can or will have an opinion on changing/altering a dead constitution or defunct line of succession. The only thing left then, is for a King or head of a Royal Family to use current principles within the country and the EU (when a memberstate thereof), including current practice in other monarchies, to write an updated document that he encourages parliament to consider, IF they look towards a restoration at some point.

There is no other way open to the King. If he made no statement on the issue at all, chose to remain silent until his passing and let the Royal Family, the properties etc wither away, he would be criticized for ignoring the royal heritage, being reckless with the future of the monarchy and so on. There is no way for the King to resolve this issue legitimately in everyones eyes, and so what remains is what he did, write a document of succession that encourages a change in line with every other European and Western monarchy, in line with the human rights act and principles enshrined in EU law.

When the Hohenzollern heir made it clear they do not wish to press a claim to the defunct Romanian throne, that ends that avenue of thinking effectively, and when the Royal Family headed by the former King, makes clear they are in Romania to serve, there is no logic in pursuing a different way of reasoning.

Whether one likes this person or that person, should be less relevant than raising from the ashes an institution that would serve the Romanian people far better than their corrupt, nepotist republic, and if one wishes a future line of succession to have any relevance at all, that has to be the start and the end of the line.

The document of the King signed in 2007 could be consider a wish of the former Monarch. He could have asked the Hohenzollern Princes to accept the Succession but he did not even if he had previosly asked the Hohenzollern to give a title to his son in law.
The former Monarch expeessed his wish but the Hohenzollerns did not formally give up their dynastic rights but only HH Prince Karl said in an interview about his personal interest in the matter.
Only two daughters of the former Monarch live in Romania and both do not have descendants. Their sisters do not speak the language and have their lives abroad. So ...

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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.

The only Romanian does not really play a low key role on the contrary.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The document of the King signed in 2007 could be consider a wish of the former Monarch. He could have asked the Hohenzollern Princes to accept the Succession but he did not even if he had previosly asked the Hohenzollern to give a title to his son in law.
The former Monarch expeessed his wish but the Hohenzollerns did not formally give up their dynastic rights but only HH Prince Karl said in an interview about his personal interest in the matter.
Only two daughters of the former Monarch live in Romania and both do not have descendants. Their sisters do not speak the language and have their lives abroad. So ...

The other arguments aside, it might be time to put a pin in the question of language and move on. There is not one German Hohenzollern who speak Romanian either, so the fact that some in the Romanian Royal Family do and some don't, is not an argument against them and for the Hohenzollerns.

When it comes to the King asking permission of the Hohenzollern family, there are 2 things to say about that: You and I do not know what communication was made between the King and the Hohenzollern house prior to the document of succession under the seal of the King. Secondly, when Prince Karl made clear he had no interest in the Romanian throne, any other descendant of his family could had come out and made it clear that the Prince was speaking for himself and not his whole family. They did not.

In the soon 10 years that have passed since Prince Karl rejected the Hohenzollern claim to the Romanian throne, there has been no visit to Romania by any family member. There has been no public call for their coming to Romania. There have been no statements from any Hohenzollern member with regards to the Romanian throne and succession. There is no known group supporting the old line of succession and constitution, as you yourself have said.

Having your own life and living abroad happens in every Royal Family. Norwegian Princess Ragnhild lived in Rio de Janeiro her whole adult life. Swedish Princess Birgitta has lived in Spain most of her life.

The Romanian Royal Family was sent in exile almost 70 years ago. The Princesses were born abroad, raised abroad, worked abroad and lived abroad. They're also the only ones who have returned to Romania, where some have adopted the language, taken up local and regional issues and begun representing the Crown.

That's history in practice. That's how you represent a Royal Family, and it's how you reconstruct a monarchy in a modern world.

[Cory]

HH Prince Karl DID NOT rejected the Romanian dynastic rights but said he was not interested at that time when anyhow it was not an urgent matter. A formal renounciation has never been made. No other Prince of Hohenzollern could speak about a subject that regarded the future of the Romanian Throne They could do it only when their time to succeed comes.
Regarding the language: it is weird that somebody who pretends to belong to a Romanian family does not speak Romanian. The descendants of the King are as Romanians as the Hohenzollerns only that the Hohenhollerns have dynastic rights and the descendants of the King do not have such rights.

[Chubb Fuddler]

Originally Posted by Cory

A constitutional reigning Monarch can never change without the Parliament the Laws of Succession. And we are speaking here even about a former Monarch so...

Again, it is an opinion that a former constitutional monarch is bound by the conventions of the constitution under which he reigned. You can also argue that the former monarch is free to do whatever he likes. I'm not saying one or the other is right or wrong, just that there is no way to prove definitively that one is right and the other is wrong. It is an issue that always will be, by its very nature, open to different interpretations, opinions and, as we clearly see here, an awful lot of bickering.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

If a former Monarch wants his decisions to be repected by everybody and to have a future then he remains faithful to the Constitution of the Kingdom he has swirn to respect. Otherwuse he does what he likes but his decisions won't be respected and won't have any relevance.
Interesting that all the controversial decisions of the gormer Monarch were taken after and not before 1996.

Once again, this is an unfounded statement contrary to every inch of evidence so far. Not one monarchist group in Romania supports this view. Every publication and media outlet has respected the Kings changes to titles, and through that, to an updated line of succession that clearly respects that the world has moved on since the 1920s. Where is the factual or empirical evidence to support your claim that the King has thwarted claims by the house of Hohenzollern at all? They clearly, visibly and anecdotally do not want to claim the Romanian throne. If they did, there would be evidence to the contrary.

The Romanovs visibly disagree about succession. The Savoys and the Aostas visibly disagree. The 3 French monarchical branches disagree.

The Romanian RF and the Hohenzollerns don't, and I'm starting to genuinely believe that the only goal here, is to sow discontent where none exist.

There is one cause of worry to the future of the Romanian monarchy, and therein a line of succession with any relevance, and that is the rift between the King and Nicholas M-M. If and when that us mended, the path ahead is clear.

In the meantime, send a letter to the head of the Hohenzollerns and ask for his views. You might be surprised at the answer.

[Cory]

Once again you do not know the Romanian realities and you rely only on the information favourable to the proposed " new Line". There are many royalists that do not agree with the " changes of 2007" even if they are not organized OFFICIALLY in an Association.
The Hohenzollern would be able to speak about their dynastic rights only after King Mihai not during his life.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Hohenzollern would be able to speak about their dynastic rights only after King Mihai not during his life.

What do you base this claim on?

[Cory]

Logics and common sense. They can speak about King Mihai's Succession only after King Mihai.

Have you ever heard about formal renounciation to dynastic rights?That's not about an interview but a giuridical act.

With the passing away of HH Prince Johann Georg the constitutional Line of Succession to the Romanian Throne has only 14 Princes.

Wonderful article on www.monarchia.it regarding the Romanian Succesion.

A very balanced article on the matter.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Logics and common sense. They can speak about King Mihai's Succession only after King Mihai.

Then I will say that logic and common sense dictates that these decisions are made based on long-term perspectives, and that the Hohenzollerns are not interested in sidelining the actual Romanian Royal Family to press an illogical and old claim that died with the old constitution. Logic and common sense means that the Hohenzollerns know and agree, by their complete abscence from Romania and the campaign for the monarchy, that the old line will never be revived, and that a restarted monarchy naturally will be based on the RF.

Logic and common sense means that questions of succession are resolved early on, not after the fact, and a responsible Princely house will never press a claim after the death of the Romanian King, when he has heirs willing and able to continue the work.

Logic and common sense would be to recognize that the statement of Prince Karl, while the King is alive btw, so your argument falls flat, that they are not interested in the Romanian throne, is the end of the issue.