Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills is indeed very popular so he could become King if the Parliament of the Kingdom receives a formal renunciation of the Princes of Hohenzollern.

There is no any desire for a restoration of the monarchy, why would Parliament do anything at all? There is no kingdom, there is no throne, there is no succession in the republican State of Romania.

Even when the Fürst von Hohenzollern renounces, his son, or his brother, or his nephews, or his cousins have not renounced. Such an act would be meaningless. Charles can renounce. William can renounce. Can underaged George renounce? And underaged Charlotte? And then comes Harry, etc. Such a renunciation by Karl Friedrich does not mean all Hohenzollerns have given up.

[Cory]

No Hohenzollern formally renounced. Obviously we do not speak only about the Furst and his son. The Parliament would decide on such an issue only if the Monarchy is restored.We speak about dynastic rights not about something else.

[Duc_et_Pair]

The problem is that the head of the dynasty (King Michael) changed the rules. The dynasty, that are his daughters minus one, his grandchildren minus three. Opinions differ if King Michael could do all this to his own will and pleasure, but okay, so to see the constitutional heirs are out and no more relevant.

[Cory]

The King knew very well he could not change the rules by Himself and he asked in the 2007 family document the Parliament to solve the issue in case of restoration. At the moment different interpretations are available but the only one that is popular and known to the Romanians seem to be Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills.

[Gaudete]

The problem is, that’s anecdotal. We have no evidence to suggest that Nicholas is universally popular in sufficient numbers with monarchist movements. I can’t even find figures to show public support for the new arrangements set for the Royal House by Parliament, let alone approval ratings for Nicholas. This all seems very bizarre. Margareta is clearly being offered semi-official status with a set role. If that isn’t good enough, I’ve no idea why anyone is wasting their time. A 1920s monarchy in Romania in 2017? There’s more chance of Elvis being elected Pope.

[Cory]

There are no polls about the popularity of Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills and no polls about the controversial bill either

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Cory

There are no polls about the popularity of Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills and no polls about the controversial bill either

But you’re saying that he’s very popular and seen as a unifying force for monarchists? You must be basing that on something?

[Cory]

Interviews with royalists leaders, comments of the people on different blogs,Facebook in the last period.

[Gaudete]

With respect, that isn’t representative. Twitter predicted a Clinton win and a Brexit loss. And look what happened. Even polls aren’t all that reliable. I just can’t see that there’s any real evidence to support the idea that Romanians are demanding Nicholas take over on some redundant legal document from 90 years ago which most have probably never heard of.

[Cory]

The majority of Romanians are not officially royalists so it's hard to say. Everybody remembers the 1992 Easter visit and how the King was presenting his grandson Nicholas to the people.

[Gaudete]

I’m sure they do but that isn’t proof enough in itself. The idea that there’s a powerful movement that’s demanding such changes isn’t really accurate if in fact it’s a handful of angry people on a Facebook page.

[Cory]

The fact many well known royalists are promoting Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills can't be denied. To speak about a powerful movement would be really too much.

[Gaudete]

But who are these people and what influence do they have? Enough to overturn the decision of the Romanian Parliament? Because that’s all that really matters in the here and now. The rest is wishful thinking.

[Cory]

The Parliament of a republic can recognize an ngo and decide funds for it but has no power to decide the Succession to the Throne.

[Gaudete]

What throne? There is no throne. And if they decided to restore the throne, why would anybody have any serious reason to believe they would take anything away from Margareta? And if that was even a consideration, Margareta would surely just restore her nephew’s succession rights?

I appreciate that you’re saying she has no right to do that or that King Michael left it for parliament to decide but where’s the Romanian pro-Nicholas monarchist party with sufficient public and parliamentary support who are going to pull that off? How many Romanian politicians are going to say that the Royal House’s position is now being upgraded but the cast are being changed based on a piece of paper from 1923?

The Romanian Parliament can decide whatever it wants. In the same way the English Parliament restored the Crown to Charles II and in the same way that the Greek Parliament created and then abolished the monarchy several times over. Any referendum will have to be created by a bill of law and the results of that referendum enforced by legislation. Which is passed by Parliament, not Margareta, not Nicholas or a random owner of a Facebook page.

The parliament of a constitutional monarchy can decide succession laws, so can the parliament of a republic. They’re unlikely to however considering they’ve just semi-restored the Royal House which must have at least more support than what you’re suggesting or it would never have happened.

It’s lovely to stick to traditions and to be rigid in what once was but it’s never going to achieve anything close to what you really want.

[maria-olivia]

Cory, you are back again. Where are your proofs?

[Cory]

The Parliament can become Constitutional Assembly and restore the Monarchy but that's hardly the case now. The republic decides only about things that are not contrary to the republican system. The dynastic rights and the Line of Succession can't be decided by the Parliament until the country is a republic.
Regarding those monarchists that support Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills they certainly see in him the descendant of the King that can become a symbol for the future restoration. If the Monarchy will be restored and the rules of 1923 will be considered as finished the Parliament will certainly have the right to choose a new King and a new Line of Succession.

[Gaudete]

I’m going to disregard the latter half of your post because I have yet to see anything to substantiate those claims.

But I think you’re overlooking the way that modern European democracies operate. Constitutions are the rulers today, not Crowns. Certain constitutions may invest some crowns with rights and privileges over things like succession rights but for the most part, these things are dealt with by parliaments. With or without the approval of the Sovereign.

If the British Parliament today decided to introduce a bill to deny the Prince of Wales his succession rights and it passed, there would be absolutely nothing the Queen could do about it except refuse to give her assent. And even then, it would be ignored, put to a referendum and the people would decide.

What you’re suggesting is that parliaments have no right to regulate monarchies. It hasn’t been that way in Europe for decades and nobody will ever return to that either.

If the Romanian parliament passed a bill tomorrow recognising Margareta as the Queen regnant and abolishing the presidency, that’s all there is to it. If the bill is introduced, voted on and passed according to the constitution in effect in Romania today, that’s the law. That’s the binding decision of a sovereign parliament. And whether you have a President or a King, it’s parliament that decides such things today.

What you’re saying is contradictory because you’re suggesting that a republican parliament can not pass any bill that affects the monarchy in Romania because it’s somehow illegitimate or has no right to do so. But it would be that same republican parliament that would have to pass legislation to restore the monarchy and set Nicholas on a restored throne. That comes before any 1923 related nonsense.

Using your own logic, you’re expecting the constitution to be scrapped, the sovereign parliament of Romania to be abolished, the restoration of the monarchy, the election of a new parliament, the introduction and passage of a bill upholding the 1923 rules or endorsing the 2007 changes and all this will be decided by a numberless movement with unclear motives and no visible support in Romania.

I can’t see that happening.

[Cory]

The Parliament can decide certainly on the Succession rules but only if first restores the Monarchy. This is certainly not the case.
All the Parliament of the Monarchies in Europe can decide rules of Succession and Lines of Succession. That is certainly not the case for the Parliament of the republics that do not have such competence. Officially Romania is not a Monarchy but a republic.

[Gaudete]

What makes the parliament of Romania less sovereign according to the present constitution which would make it more sovereign in the future?

Let me explain it another way. The timeline of what you’re proposing would have to be as follows:

1. A referendum on the restoration of the monarchy and the approval of a new constitution

2. A bill passed in parliament before the restoration to affect the restoration.

3. The abolition of both the parliament and constitution of Romania and the immediate enactment of a new constitution which makes Margareta or Nicholas an absolute monarch for a finite time

4. A general election to replace the entire Romanian Parliament

5. The passage of a new bill which defines succession laws, if this was not already part of the newly approved constitution

6. That Romanian monarchist groups be allowed to direct the new parliament as an advisory committee

7. That the 1923 rules be revived by the new Romanian Parliament and approved by the Sovereign

8. That those rules be abolished and replaced by a bill which makes legal the changes which King Michael wanted in 2007

9. That the new constitution be amended to reflect that but only after parliament has given up any rights to determine succession because the 2007 rules place that right with the Crown

10. That Nicholas be installed as King at some point in this timeline.

It’s not very likely is it?