Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Cory]

The comments acknowledged there are different possibilities for the Succession and that is exactly what the Consitution of 1923 said:the Hohenzollerns or another European Family if the Hohenzollerns refuse the Throne.

[Andy T]

Originally Posted by Cory

The comments acknowledged there are different possibilities for the Succession and that is exactly what the Consitution of 1923 said:the Hohenzollerns or another European Family if the Hohenzollerns refuse the Throne.

This is how you want to read it, no doubt, but it is not what is said. If the 1923 succession rules are applied, the succession quesiton is closed (i.e. determined) until such time as there are no eligible/willing Hohenzollerns left.

The statement says the question of the succession is "open", now, not if/when the Hohenzollerns decline the throne. This is as clear a statement as you can have that the association does not advocate the automatic application of the 1923 rules, while at the same time not ruling them (or any other proposed set of rules) out.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Andy T

This is how you want to read it, no doubt, but it is not what is said. If the 1923 succession rules are applied, the succession quesiton is closed (i.e. determined) until such time as there are no eligible/willing Hohenzollerns left.

The statement says the question of the succession is "open", now, not if/when the Hohenzollerns decline the throne. This is as clear a statement as you can have that the association does not advocate the automatic application of the 1923 rules, while at the same time not ruling them (or any other proposed set of rules) out.

This in turn, is exactly what most of us, myself included, advocate. The question of succession is open, and the Royal Family might not be returned to the throne. Those in favour of the monarchy as an institution superior to that of a republic, would support a Kingdom of Romania in 2020 whether it be under the current Royal Family, or a branch of the old dynasty.

The question that has been raised, is how likely it is that the Royal Family in its entirety will be bypassed because the old constitution said so. I will always claim the following:
- If the Royal Family of Romania is not restored to the throne, it will not be because the children of the King are all women, and because the eldest one has no children. It will be because the Royal Family either disgraces and disqualifies itself, or because they are unwilling to return.
The first one can be argued through the expulsion of Nicholas M-M, although this is mostly seen as a resolvable issue. The second is moot, as the Crown Princess has declared herself willing to ascend the throne if asked.
- If the politicians of Romania choose to bypass the Royal Family against their will, it will be the death knell to the monarchical process, as most people will not understand it. If however, it is done with the consent of the Royal Family, and explained to the people well, it is doable.
It is however very unlikely, as most will find that the time for starting a monarchy completely from scratch, or going into older lines of the current dynasty to find an heir, belongs to a time gone by.

Should that however be the case, I will still happily cheer in the streets of Romania during the restoration. It is however, a less likely route than a monarchical restoration under the current Royal Family, who is in the country, representing the King and the family, and the hope of most everyone who supports the cause.

A monarchical restoration is an uphill climb, and a tricky thing to achieve. That is why it has so rarely been done in recent decades. In order to make it possible at all, it needs cleverness, logic and a healthy dose of realism, from everyone involved, and everyone sympathetic to the ultimate goal of restoring the monarchy in Romania.

[Cory]

The question of the Succession is opened and depends of the attitude of the royalists and of the Romanians in general but also of the Hohenzollerns themselves.

[MAfan]

Personally I think that the attitude of the Hohenzollerns (or at least of those who would be most directly involved) is rather clear: Romania isn't in their plan for the present and the future.
But this attitude doesn't really matter taking in consideration the 1923 Constitution, does it?

[Cory]

Without a formal renounciation things are still opened.

[MAfan]

Maybe I missed something, but wasn't a formal renounciation to their succession rights of all the male members of the House of Hohenzollern the only way for opening the question of the succession to the throne?

[Cory]

Only when the Princes of Hohenzollern renounce formally at their Succession right a new Prince from a European Sovereign House can become the solution.

[MAfan]

So - since the formal renounciation has never been signed - currently things about the succession are not an open question if you follow the old constitution, are they?

[Cory]

You are right from this point of view!

[LadyFinn]

Article at the website of the royal family:
Succesiunea la Coroană _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

[Cory]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Article at the website of the royal family:
Succesiunea la Coroană _ Familia Regală a României _ Royal Family of Romania
Translation

The usual ideas that ignore the Romanian constitutional traditions.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The usual ideas that ignore the Romanian constitutional traditions.

The future of the Romanian monarchy is almost universally accepted as being based from the Royal Family, and under a contemporary, functional and acceptable line of succession, that takes into account the times we live in. The Romanian monarchy must be relevant to the future if it is to return to the throne, and the realistic approach used in conversation, media and political circles, is based on and from the Romanian Royal Family. To envisage a blank restoration of a constitution that has long been gone, without alterations, updates to our time and a realistic assessment of the current and future shape of the Royal Family, is both futile and counterproductive to the goal of restoring the kingdom of Romania.

[Cory]

And who represent the future of this "Line"?

[Cory]

The well known leader of the royalist Association "Movement for Kingdom and Crown" Marilena Rotaru mentioned today in an Open Letter to Princess Margareta that: "Respectul față de întregul adevăr istoric m-a făcut să cred că, la aniversarea a 150 de ani ai Coroanei Române, vor fi invitați și reprezentanți ai rădăcinilor regalității noastre, ai Casei Princiare de Hohenzollern, care ni i-au dat pe măritul Rege Carol I și pe Regele Ferdinand."( " The respect for the full historic truth made me believe that at the 150th anniversary of the Romanian Crown will be invited also those that represent the roots of our Royalty, the Princely House of Hohenzollern, that gave us the great King Carol I and the King Ferdinand I").

[MAfan]

And what does that have to do with the "succession to the Romanian throne"?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by MAfan

And what does that have to do with the "succession to the Romanian throne"?

This means that part of the monarchist movement backs the succession as written down in the last Constitution of the Kingdom of Romania and not the succession as invented by the michaelists.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

The well known leader of the royalist Association "Movement for Kingdom and Crown" Marilena Rotaru mentioned today in an Open Letter to Princess Margareta that: "Respectul față de întregul adevăr istoric m-a făcut să cred că, la aniversarea a 150 de ani ai Coroanei Române, vor fi invitați și reprezentanți ai rădăcinilor regalității noastre, ai Casei Princiare de Hohenzollern, care ni i-au dat pe măritul Rege Carol I și pe Regele Ferdinand."( " The respect for the full historic truth made me believe that at the 150th anniversary of the Romanian Crown will be invited also those that represent the roots of our Royalty, the Princely House of Hohenzollern, that gave us the great King Carol I and the King Ferdinand I").

This is really a very petulant statement to make. The Romanian dynastic history is represented by the actual Romanian Royal Family, and to say that because no representatives from parts of where the family was 150 years ago were not present at the celebrations of 150 years of the Royal Family in Romania, is ridiculous, unnecessary and arbitrary.

With friends like these..

It is perfectly natural for a dynasty working towards its own restoration, to promote the fact that it is sovereign, functioning and uniquely Romanian, at every occasion it has, and certainly one celebrating its own establishment 150 years ago. The Hohenzollerns have made it clear they're not claiming the throne of Romania, and that the future of the Romanian monarchy is in the hands of the Royal Family itself, as late as 2008.

I understand someone who doesn't think the monarchy should be restored or is on the agenda, making the Hohenzollern argument repeatedly, although it has been debunked so clearly. What I don't understand, is the clear sabotage being done by those who claim to support the monarchy as a cause, but not the Royal Family itself.

It's rather hard to have one without the other.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

This means that part of the monarchist movement backs the succession as written down in the last Constitution of the Kingdom of Romania and not the succession as invented by the michaelists.

But that's not what Mrs. Rotaru wrote in her letter (or at least in the excerpt mentioned by Cory), is it?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by MAfan

But that's not what Mrs. Rotaru wrote in her letter (or at least in the excerpt mentioned by Cory), is it?

The noble art of reading between the lines comes handy in the case of Madame Rotaru.