Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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

What do you mean?

The Movement for Kingdom and Crown supports the Monarchy but as far as I know does not speak explicitly about the Line of Succession this royalist association supports.

[Cory]

In the Petition signed yesterday by the leaders of the Movement for Kingdom and Crown, by the leaders of different Monarchist Clubs and by important cultural personalities it is for the first time underlined that the Fundamental Norms of 2007 have no constitutional consequences and the text that continues to represent the rule is that of 1923:

"Singurul act de referință la reglementările din Statutul Casei Regale, susținut și evocat de nenumărate ori de Regele Mihai, este Constituția din 1923. Numai Parlamentul transformat în Adunare Constituantă poate, împreună cu Casa Regală, să aprobe acest statut, după acceptarea amendamentelor ce se impun în textul Constituției monarhice. Altfel, atâta vreme cât România este republică, Statutul Casei Regale, cu modificările Regelui Mihai (din 2007 și august 2015) este funcțional doar în interiorul Familiei Regale. "( "The only fundamental act regarding the rules of the Statute of the Royal House, supported and remembered very many times by King Mihai, is the Constitution of 1923. Only the Parliament changed in Constitutional Assembly can, together with the Royal House, aprove this Statute after accepting the emandments that must be done in the text of the monarchist Constitution. Otherwise, while Romania is still a republic, the Statute of the Royal House with the changes made by the King in 2007 and august 2015 is functioning only inside the Royal Family").

http://www.flux24.ro/doina-cornea-si...-casei-regale/

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is what many, which oppose the unilateral michaelist changes, have always stated. It is up to the people of Romania, in the utmost unlikely ever possibility of a restoration, to decide about changes in the succession.

[Cory]

Of course! The royalists must be very clear on this issue.

[Cory]

HSH Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern is the fourth in the Line of Succession to the Romanian Throne (according to the royalist Constitutions of Romania). His wife is countess Ilona Ilona Kálnoky de Köröspatak. The Kalnokys are very present in Transylvania and welcome the Prince of Wales when the Prince Charles visits the area. Has Prince Ferdinand himself visited the area?

[Cory]

The Hohenzollerns from the Princely House visited Romania different times after the fall of communism and Prince Georg for example loved northern Bucovina.

[LadyRohan]

The monarchy itself is clear on this issue. The suggested line of succession is a suggestion, not enshrined in law. It is the suggestion of the sovereign, for parliament to consider, in the event of a restoration.
Parliament will decide who the crown will be offered to, and the question will be put to the people in a referendum (most likely).
That is it.
The King has made it clear he stands firm on the principles of human rights of equality and societal progress, and that his eldest daughter is his designated heir.
That is his right to do, and that is what he has done.

[Cory]

The Succession is automatic so after King Michael the titular Kong will be Prince Karl as Carol III and if he gives up formally the next in Line from the Hobenzollern branch.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

The Succession is automatic so after King Michael the titular Kong will be Prince Karl as Carol III and if he gives up formally the next in Line from the Hobenzollern branch.

Actually, per the last Constitution of the Kingdom, the Fürst of Hohenzollern (and any male member of his family) would have to convert to Romanian Orthodoxy before legally being able to become Head of House.

This is indisputable.

Full stop.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Actually, per the last Constitution of the Kingdom, the Fürst of Hohenzollern (and any male member of his family) would have to convert to Romanian Orthodoxy before legally being able to become Head of House.

This is indisputable.

Full stop.

Article 78 of the Constitution of 1923 does not require it. When Prince Ferdinand was called to be Crown Prince because his uncle did not have male heirs nobody had asked Prince Ferdinand to abandon his faith.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

Article 78 of the Constitution of 1923 does not require it. When Prince Ferdinand was called to be Crown Prince because his uncle did not have male heirs nobody had asked Prince Ferdinand to abandon his faith.

You're right, article 78 doesn't, because nobody is referring to article 78.
The relevant article is article 77, which states that 'coboritorii Maiestatii Sale vor fi crescuti in religiunea ortodoxa a Rasaritului', which roughly translates to 'the Sovereign and his heirs will be raised in the Eastern Orthodox religion'.

Now, if you want to read this article as literal as some read the Bible, you cannot be so unprincipled as to remove or adjust articles you feel like changing, and say that anyone else who suggest the same to other articles they deem out of touch or irrelevant today, (such as the King asking Parliament to abolish the salic law provision in article 77) is committing heresy and falsifying the alleged guiding light and beacon of monarchy in Romania, the beloved constitution of 1923.

Either ALL paragraphs remain unchanged and you stand by your principles, or ANY paragraph can be changed, not just the one you want to, based on your own views, which we know from reading this forum, can and does change at irregular intervals.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Actually, per the last Constitution of the Kingdom, the Fürst of Hohenzollern (and any male member of his family) would have to convert to Romanian Orthodoxy before legally being able to become Head of House.

This is indisputable.

Full stop.

The article refers to the Sovereign and the Heir. Here we are talking about the Head of the House, as there is no kingdom and no throne. I think the Orthodox requirement oncly comes Im Frage when the Head of the House becomes Sovereign indeed under the workings of the former Constitution.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The article refers to the Sovereign and the Heir. Here we are talking about the Head of the House, as there is no kingdom and no throne. I think the Orthodox requirement oncly comes Im Frage when the Head of the House becomes Sovereign indeed under the workings of the former Constitution.

And this thread is about the succession to the Romanian throne, not succession to a noble house in a never-to-be-restored monarchy. The Royal Family of Romania will obviously not abdicate their rights to their place in the Royal House, and as is clear from recent debates and discussions in Romania with regards to legal acts, the Royal Family is regarded as the legal and rightful custodians of the monarchy and the family itself.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The article refers to the Sovereign and the Heir. Here we are talking about the Head of the House, as there is no kingdom and no throne. I think the Orthodox requirement oncly comes Im Frage when the Head of the House becomes Sovereign indeed under the workings of the former Constitution.

All the laws of Romania today underline the equality of all denominations. There is no national Churches as in the past. No person could be forced or asked to convert. To ask somebody to convert would be against all the laws of the UE too.
The article 78 of the Constitution of 1923 refers to the dynastic rights and this article apply for the Succession now.

[MAfan]

But shouldn't the Royal Family still be subject only to the rules and laws in force before 1947, as you stated very clearly here?

Originally Posted by Cory

The very concept of Monarchy is to obey rules and the only rules for the Royal House of Romania are those existent in 1947.

At the time article 77 of the 1923 Constitution was still in force, so it should still be respected by the Royal House, shouldn't it?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Nicholas Medforth-Mills was created Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth-Mills.
Was this a cosmetic name change or a real one? Meaning that the municipal register in Romania (?), Switzerland (?) or the United Kingdom (?) has changed the surname? On base of which legislation and which authority was this name change done? Or was it purely fictional and was the official surname always and ever Nicholas Medforth-Mills, no nore, no less?

"Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth-Mills" was created HRH Prince Nicholas of Romania.
Is there a Decree, referring to statutes or other legislation, with the grounds on which the legitimacy of this decison rests? I assume this title has not been registered in any official register?

HRH Prince Nicholas of Romania has been stripped of his title.
Is there a Decree, referring to statutes or other legislation, with the grounds on which the legitimacy of this decison rests?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by MAfan

But shouldn't the Royal Family still be subject only to the rules and laws in force before 1947, as you stated very clearly here?

At the time article 77 of the 1923 Constitution was still in force, so it should still be respected by the Royal House, shouldn't it?

The religion of the King was stated also in the Constitution of 1866 but the King remain Catholic. The Constitution of 1923 did the same and the King was still Catholic.

[MAfan]

Not much in line with the "very concept of Monarchy"...
So, summarizing, since the two first Kings of Romania didn't respect a certain provision of the Constitution, that provision can be forgotten and now it's fine to ignore it?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Not much in line with the "very concept of Monarchy"...
So, summarizing, since the two first Kings of Romania didn't respect a certain provision of the Constitution, that provision can be forgotten and now it's fine to ignore it?

They respected the Constitution even when it brought to crisis of conscience. The two Constitutions were speaking about the denominational affiliation of the members of the Family that needed to be raised according to Orthodoxy. Neither of the two Constitutions spoke about the conversion to Orthodoxy of adults. That's why the two first Kings remain Catholics but their children were raised as Orthodox.
Nobody could ask today the Princes of Hohenzollern to abandon their Catholic faith and the laws of nowadays Romania would not make possible to even ask them to raise their children as Orthodox if they do not want to.

[MAfan]

While under a very personal point of view I do agree with the last point you expressed, under another point of view I find it very much in contradiction with the pretension that the Royal Family should nowadays still be ruled by the laws in force before 1947, totally ignoring the changes - political, institutional and constitutional, cultural - that have happened in Romania in the past seven decades, as well as in contradiction with the claim that rules and tradictions are unchangeable and untouchable.
On the contrary, I think it is the demonstration (as if we needed it) that also rules and traditions change and evolve with the passing of the time.