Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

I thought they were divorced in 2002? I think I read somewhere on these forums that she got reinstated after that?

Yes, now I see in some source that Alain divorced indeed. Their child seem creatively called Elisabeth-Maria Biarneix de Laufenborg according the one and Elisabeth-Maria de Laufenborg Biarneix according the other.

The royal website however keeps it simple:

1. ASR Principesa Mostenitoare Margareta a Romaniei, Custode al Coroanei Romaniei;

2. ASR Principesa Elena a Romaniei;

3. Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie;

4. ASR Principesa Sofia a Romaniei;

5. Elisabeta Maria Biarneix;

6. ASR Principesa Maria a Romaniei.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Yep, they scored higher than P.Beatrix of the Netherlands and her sisters, of those 4 only 2 divorced (while we're comparing royal families ), one of those divorces was with a full blood Prince, so equal marriage doesn't prevent it...

In my humble personal opinion it is kind strange that you are interested in royalty and aristocracy, and I may assume because of that, also in traditions, history and genealogy.

When a royal family simply wishes to live according the traditions of their House then they are suddenly ridiculed? When Crown Princess Victoria had married a Lensgreve Wedell-Wedellsborg or something, was she then also become a laughing stock for you, simply for living to certain standards?

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Yes, now I see in some source that Alain divorced indeed. Their child seem creatively called Elisabeth-Maria Biarneix de Laufenborg according the one and Elisabeth-Maria de Laufenborg Biarneix according the other.

The royal website however keeps it simple:

1. ASR Principesa Mostenitoare Margareta a Romaniei, Custode al Coroanei Romaniei;

2. ASR Principesa Elena a Romaniei;

3. Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie;

4. ASR Principesa Sofia a Romaniei;

5. Elisabeta Maria Biarneix;

6. ASR Principesa Maria a Romaniei.

Ok, I hope for the romanian monarchists that this will remain the line of succession for a while so they can regain their confidence in the family, would be a shame if it is all lost with this action...

[Duc_et_Pair]

On the European Royals Message Board a certain poster named raalcom, whom seems quite well-informed, more or less pointed to Queen Anne of Romania as the one whom initiated the change in the succession. I quote from his post:

The new succession line is, I'm afraid, a sad joke, the shadow of a shadow that lost all traces of credibility. How many times can succession pass on female line ? Margarita "Custodian of the Crown" (always a strange and never convincing formula), Elena ("2nd Custodian" ?) and Karina ("3rd Custodian" ?) ?

In 1997, Romanian monarchists asked King Michael to designate an Heir from the German Catholic line of the Hohenzollerns. He initially agreed, but then, under pressure from Queen Anna, he changed his mind, accepting the idea of Nicolae as successor and heir. Romanian monarchists (some of them knowing the Family in close quarters) split, back then, in two parties: those who were against this unconstitutional decision, and those who accepted it together with the idea that the "monarchy" should adopt modern norms. We know what happened.

Normally, the legal and legitimate Heir is one of the German Catholic Hohenzollerns, namely Fuerst Karl-Friedrich. However, he publicly stated in 2009 he is not interested in claiming such a right (and he repeats it in private even now). We are therefore left with his son, Alexander (b. 1987), more attracted to politics than his father is [...]

[Rudolph]

The succession is for the head of the family correct? If there is a restoration Romania will choose its own formal line of succession to the throne.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The succession is for the head of the family correct? If there is a restoration Romania will choose its own formal line of succession to the throne.

Eh... the purists say: no, not the head of the family but the Constitution and the Fundamental Laws of the House.

It is difficult to see the whole circus going upside down again and the Hohenzollerns coming back into picture. That would really make the whole succession into a vaudeville. Or maybe it already is...

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The succession is for the head of the family correct? If there is a restoration Romania will choose its own formal line of succession to the throne.

I can't imagine there will ever be a restoration.
It seems unlikely in these times.

[crm2317]

King Michael's nephew Paul Philip must be rubbing his hands together!

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

On the European Royals Message Board a certain poster named raalcom, whom seems quite well-informed, more or less pointed to Queen Anne of Romania as the one whom initiated the change in the succession. I quote from his post:

The new succession line is, I'm afraid, a sad joke, the shadow of a shadow that lost all traces of credibility. How many times can succession pass on female line ? Margarita "Custodian of the Crown" (always a strange and never convincing formula), Elena ("2nd Custodian" ?) and Karina ("3rd Custodian" ?) ?

In 1997, Romanian monarchists asked King Michael to designate an Heir from the German Catholic line of the Hohenzollerns. He initially agreed, but then, under pressure from Queen Anna, he changed his mind, accepting the idea of Nicolae as successor and heir. Romanian monarchists (some of them knowing the Family in close quarters) split, back then, in two parties: those who were against this unconstitutional decision, and those who accepted it together with the idea that the "monarchy" should adopt modern norms. We know what happened.

Normally, the legal and legitimate Heir is one of the German Catholic Hohenzollerns, namely Fuerst Karl-Friedrich. However, he publicly stated in 2009 he is not interested in claiming such a right (and he repeats it in private even now). We are therefore left with his son, Alexander (b. 1987), more attracted to politics than his father is [...]

All female succession line is ridiculous. Given the situation, the custodians of the Crown should just take advantage of perquisites they have got from the Romanian government.

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by eya

And this is the only solution?

No if Romania was to return the monarchy they could pass laws and pick whoever they want. They could pick an actual Romanian prince like a Caradja, Ghika, Cantacuzino, Sturdza or Bibescu, etc. Or they could pick Nicholas. They can pick whoever they want.

But it is unlikely without a movement and legitimacy behind it.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

All female succession line is ridiculous. Given the situation, the custodians of the Crown should just take advantage of perquisites they have got from the Romanian government.

Why is an all female line ridiculous? Are women somehow less capable of being a monarch - not even, given as Romania is a republic - than men?

The UK and Denmark seem to be doing fine with female monarchs. The Netherlands had 3 straight Queen Regents and has a female heir right now. The heir and her heir in Sweden are both female. Belgium has a female heir, as does Spain and Norway.

[Cory]

The only two young ladies in that Line of Succession are not living in Romanian and do not speak the language.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Ish

Why is an all female line ridiculous? Are women somehow less capable of being a monarch - not even, given as Romania is a republic - than men?
The UK and Denmark seem to be doing fine with female monarchs. The Netherlands had 3 straight Queen Regents and has a female heir right now. The heir and her heir in Sweden are both female. Belgium has a female heir, as does Spain and Norway.

The European bloodline are majorly downgraded. There is not much to be discussed.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

The European bloodline are majorly downgraded. There is not much to be discussed.

I'm not sure your point here. What does an all female succession have to do with that?

[Cory]

The Romanians have never had a woman as Head of State. I know now is so usual to have that but...

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Ish

I'm not sure your point here. What does an all female succession have to do with that?

It is just my personal opinion. It would be unwise to present arguments against the all female succession line. I am not fond of endless arguments and explanations that will result in nothing.

I am not sure how successful future Queens of Norway, Belgium, and Spain will be. PR campaigns aside, it is impossible for me to measure Queen Elizabeth's and Queen Margrethe's success.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

It is just my personal opinion. It would be unwise to present arguments against the all female succession line. I am not fond of endless arguments and explanations that will result in nothing.

I am not sure how successful future Queens of Norway, Belgium, and Spain will be. PR campaigns aside, it is impossible for me to measure Queen Elizabeth's and Queen Margrethe's success.

How do you define a monarch being succesful or not succesful? All monarchs in Western Europe and in Japan lack any executive powers and are nothing more than ceremonial heads of state. No one of these monarchs, whether it is Don Felipe (a man) or Queen Elizabeth II (a woman) can do anything without the backing of the Government. All these monarchs are tied to the Constitution and subject to the rule of law. In theory these monarchs could refuse their signature under a Law, in practice even that veto does not exist.

So what is "succesful"? When the Scots would have voted Yes! in the referendum, than they would have left the Union. The Scots have voted No! in the referendum and they stay in the Union. What the monarch in question, Queen Elizabeth II, thinks or wants, is of no importance in this matter. And rightly so. It is not possible, anno 2015, that a person who is head of state by hereditary right blocks a decision which was made by the democratically elected Parliament or even directly by the people (referendum).

[CSENYC]

It shouldn't be the Royal Family's decision about who the successors to the throne should be (unless a specific person decides to withdraw from the succession); it should be the decision of the people of Romania.

If the people of Romania want a monarchy, then let them pick who they want as king or queen, and how the succession should work. That's how plenty of other monarchies work; even though the King in most monarchies that I'm familiar with isn't elected by popular vote, the people adopt a Constitution or other laws that specify how the King is picked, and so even a monarchy is thus democratic.

I would happily pick King Michael as head of state. The rest of the family? Some of them seem like fine people (e.g., Princess Margarita), but some of them don't.

Further, weren't German/Nordic kings picked for Romania, Bulgaria and Greece because they were viewed as highly capable rulers? Would the Royal Family of Romania (other than King Michael) be viewed as such? If not, why not just start with a new Royal Family--a family whose members have distinguished themselves in business and otherwise improving the world, for example.

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Hohenzollerns from Sigmaringen succesfully run various business activities, together worth around 400 million Euro. So it is not needed to look far. Just return to the original line of succession...

[CSENYC]

Duc et Pair, that makes sense. Or even pick a member of the British Royal Family- at least they're wealthy and well-connected celebrities. Princess Margarita seems like a very fine (and attractive person), but apart from her and King Michael, the rest of this royal family seems to be like the Clintons but without the business and political success. (That's not a compliment.)