Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[wartenberg7]

There are plenty of heirs on itself:

According the line of succession changed by former King Michael
Princess Margareta of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern
Princess Elena of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern
Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth-Mills
Princess Sophie of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern
Elisabeta Maria de Roumanie Biarneix
Princess Maria of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern

According the line of succession based on the last royal Constitution:

Prince Karl Friedrich, Fürst von Hohenzollern
(son of Friedrich Wilhelm and of Margarita Prinzessin von und zu Leiningen)

Prince Alexander, Erbprinz von Hohenzollern
(son of Karl Friedrich and of Alexandra Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg)

Prince Albrecht von Hohenzollern
(son of Friedrich Wilhelm and of Margarita Prinzessin von und zu Leiningen)

Prince Ferdinand von Hohenzollern
(son of Friedrich Wilhelm and of Margarita Prinzessin von und zu Leiningen)

Prince Aloys von Hohenzollern
Prince Fidelis von Hohenzollern
Prince Carl Christian von Hohenzollern
Prince Nicolas von Hohenzollern
Prince Hubertus von Hohenzollern
Prince Ferfried von Hohenzollern

Please, not again, Duc! Have mercy...!

 

[JR76]

There are plenty of heirs on itself:

According the line of succession changed by former King Michael
Princess Margareta of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern
Princess Elena of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern
Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth-Mills
Princess Sophie of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern
Elisabeta Maria de Roumanie Biarneix
Princess Maria of Romania born Princess von Hohenzollern

According the line of succession based on the last royal Constitution:

Prince Karl Friedrich, Fürst von Hohenzollern
(son of Friedrich Wilhelm and of Margarita Prinzessin von und zu Leiningen)

Prince Alexander, Erbprinz von Hohenzollern
(son of Karl Friedrich and of Alexandra Schenk Gräfin von Stauffenberg)

Prince Albrecht von Hohenzollern
(son of Friedrich Wilhelm and of Margarita Prinzessin von und zu Leiningen)

Prince Ferdinand von Hohenzollern
(son of Friedrich Wilhelm and of Margarita Prinzessin von und zu Leiningen)

Prince Aloys von Hohenzollern
Prince Fidelis von Hohenzollern
Prince Carl Christian von Hohenzollern
Prince Nicolas von Hohenzollern
Prince Hubertus von Hohenzollern
Prince Ferfried von Hohenzollern

I seriously doubt a Hohenzollern being picked to lead the monarchial movement after the daughters of King Michael are gone. As goes for the two Elisabeths they'd be an obvious choice but one wonders why they're not being trained and sold to the Romanian public if them taking over is the case.
( And yes, lets not go down this path again ?)

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I am not going to do the discussion of who-is-the-heir again, let us agree that there are (plenty of) heirs indeed for the defunct throne of Romania, in response to "there are no heirs".

 

[vkrish]

Please, not again, Duc! Have mercy...!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The thrones of France, of Brazil, of Spain, of Two Sicilies, of Russia, of Parma, etc. have different lines of successions, all with their own theories so that Romania can possibly have four contenders is on itself no news: the michaelist one, the constitutional one, the Lambrino one and the Medforth Mills one. It is just waiting for the moment Nicholas declaring himself the successor.

 

[IRIS1983]

.According to the rule of succession of Romania Royal House ONLY there is ONE line, IT IS King Michael, Lambrino is not one line of sucesion, because the rules established that to be a successor had that: to contract religious marriage and the authorization of the head of the royal house, The head of the Royal House of Romania, he was the grandfather of King Michael, publicly opposed the marriage and it was not religious.Lambrino is no line of succession. King Michael is the only legitimate , he is the person who says who is the successor and who is at line....he has determined that Nicholas is not at sucesion line. He published it and Nicholas accepted the decission of his grandfather.

 

[Enmebaragesi]

Question regarding the line of succession?

According to the line of succession provided most recently by the former Royal Family of Romania, Elizabeth-Karina and Elizabeth-Marie are both in the line, however, I was under the impression (from reading somewhere) that Elizabeth-Karina had renounced her right to succession? Mostly I'm just curious, contemporary royalty is a tad outside my area of interest. I do wonder if Elizabeth-Marie has said anything about these developments?

 

[Dman]

The Romanian Royal Court now officially address the late King’s Eldest daughter, Margareta, as ‘Her Majesty’-

https://twitter.com/x/status/940329259306029057

https://twitter.com/x/status/940316752969371650

 

[Andy T]

The Romanian Royal Court now officially address the late King’s Eldest daughter, Margareta, as ‘Her Majesty’-

https://twitter.com/x/status/940329259306029057

https://twitter.com/x/status/940316752969371650

In his eulogy to King Michael, at the Parliament today, the Patriarch also addressed Margareta as "Your Majesty". The President used "Your Royal Highness".

 

[French Toast]

The Romanian Royal Court now officially address the late King’s Eldest daughter, Margareta, as ‘Her Majesty’-

https://twitter.com/x/status/940329259306029057

https://twitter.com/x/status/940316752969371650

That is odd isn't it?

 

[Somebody]

So 'Her mMjesty' but not Queen, instead she wants to be addressed as HM the Custodian of the Romanian Crown?!

Very odd indeed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is in Article 2 of the House Rules:

The Head of the Royal House of Romania, by all common practice and convention, is de jure or de facto Sovereign in terms of their authority over the Royal House of Romania, at anytime.
Immediately upon the death of the Head of the Royal House of Romania, without further proclamation, the Heir Apparent or Heir Presumptive, whichever shall be living and
first in the line to the succession at that moment in time, shall from that moment assume the rank or style King or Queen, regardless of the Family's position as a reigning or non-reigning Dynasty and regardless of the fact that they may or may not later choose against the use of such style or designation.

 

[carina_a]

I wonder if anyone else except their own court people will acknowledge this 'HM' title...

This does not sound like a wise move. If you are not a queen, you are not a majesty.

 

[Gaudete]

Succession to the Romanian Throne

It could be that they are waiting until after the funeral for Margareta to use the title of Queen. That’s a guess of course but the changes King Michael made nearly a decade ago would allow for Margareta to do so and I can’t see that she would use the style of Her Majesty without the title of Queen.

 

[rominet09]

I think it is just a dead end street as she won't have any heir !

 

[Gaudete]

There’ll always be a head of the Royal House though and one imagines they’ll do the same as Margareta. It’s a very different way of doing things but if it’s what King Michael wanted then it’s slightly unusual yes, but I can’t see it causing too much controversy.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think it is just a dead end street as she won't have any heir !

Princess Margareta has 5 heirs at the moment, according the newly drafted succession and many more when the Constitution of the Kingdom of Romania is followed.

Michael's drafted succession:
- Princess Elena
- Elizabeth Medforth-Mills
- Princess Sofia
- Élisabeth Biarneix
- Princess Maria

 

[Gaudete]

The sticking point will remain Nicholas Medforth-Mills for the foreseeable future. It seems he still has a lot of support in Romania and with no clear explanation as to why he was so unceremoniously ostracised, I think that if the Romanian Royal Family want to build something constructive and useful, they've got to sort out their internal squabbles first. I very much doubt that Elena could, realistically, take the headship of the family and keep her son at arms length. Whatever she may say now, it'll not only be a strain on her as a mother but to everyone else it'll just look petty and slightly ridiculous.

The question isn't who succeeds Margareta, it's who succeeds Elena.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I see no problem. When a totally unknown Argentine or a totally unknown Australian can be introduced and in no time become the most popular members of their Royal House, I fail to see why Princess Margareta and Princess Elena can not introduce Elizabeth. It is no reigning Royal House.

Just a start to accompany her aunt Princess Margareta so now and then is enough. It is not that she has to convince or to win votes or something. She is what she is, like Erbprinz Alexander von Hohenzollern is what he is: heirs to a defunct throne.

Note that also the Swiss-born British citizen Nicholas was introduced once. They just have to start somewhere when Elizabeth (28 years old) is ready and willing. Note that even William and Harry waited until their 30's before starting a more royal role.

 

[Gaudete]

I see no problem. When a totally unknown Argentine or a totally unknown Australian can be introduced and in no time become the most popular members of their Royal House, I fail to see why Princess Margarita and Princess Elena can not introduce Elizabeth. It is no reigning Royal House. Just starting to accompany her aunt Princess Margarita so now and then is enough. It is not that she has to convince or to win votes or something. She is what she is, like Erbprinz Alexander von Hohenzollern is what he is: both sucessors to a defunct throne.

Queen Maxima and Crown Princess Mary were not joining institutions that are actively seeking to rebuild a constitutional role. Neither the Queen of the Netherlands nor the Crown Princess of Denmark had to worry about the stability of the institutions they were becoming a part of, they only had to concern themselves with the role they would play as individuals in keeping those institutions stable and popular.

The situation is completely different in Romania. In many ways, she does have to win votes. They all do. If the ultimate aim of the Romanian Royal Family and the Romanian monarchist movement is to see a restoration, they'll be disappointed. But they have managed to win record support and they've managed to get their role defined in the Romanian constitution. To keep that in place, they're going to rely on popularity with the Romanian electorate in a way reigning monarchies do not. Bear in mind that this issue does form part of the political debate in Romanian elections, albeit a small part.

The Romanian Royal House needs to stay popular and relevant in the same way other monarchies do. The difference is that if you're asking people to look to a future where restoration could be given serious thought and maybe even potentially be offered as a referendum, you're going to need to be blemish free and accessible. That can't happen for as long as Nicholas remains a taboo subject. Whether his sister is introduced to the Romanian people formally or not, the question "Whatever happened to Prince Nicholas?" will continued to be asked and will eventually need an answer if they want to protect a smooth transition linked to political reform.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When the Bill for a Statute for the former Royal House is sanctioned by Parliament, then any movement to a restoration of the monarchy is de facto ended.

By making arrangements with the Government of the Republic of Romania, the former Royal House recognizes them as an official representative and authority of the State, which is a successor to the former State (the Socialist Republic) and the state before that (the Kingdom).

A restoration is out of sight. To restore means: going back to a former situation. But they do not want to go back. They do not want the constitutional heir on the throne. They want the number one of a newly drafted royal succession to be an eventual King or Queen. That simply means: a new monarchy, with a new royal family and a new succession.

 

[Gaudete]

When the Bill for a Statute for the former Royal House is sanctioned by Parliament, then any movement to a restoration of the monarchy is de facto ended.

By making arrangements with the Government of the Republic of Romania, the former Royal House recognizes them as an official representative and authority of the State, which is a successor to the former State (the Socialist Republic) and the state before that (the Kingdom).

A restoration is out of sight. To restore means: going back to a former situation. But they do not want to go back. They do not want the constitutional heir on the throne. They want the number one of a newly drafted royal succession to be an eventual King or Queen. That simply means: a new monarchy, with a new royal family and a new succession.

Monarchist movements in Romania won't simply draw a veil over their support for a restoration because of a pat on the head from the Romanian Parliament. Indeed, many seem to dislike the move because they feel it does bring an end to the debate which they aren't content with at all. Interestingly, those movements have all spoken of Nicholas as giving some hope that more could be achieved.

A restoration is unlikely, I agree. But your definition is a little closed minded. To restore an institution doesn't mean it returns in exactly the same way it once existed. Restoration means that you return to an arrangement but the institution itself may well have changed dramatically in order to affect that restoration. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "a new monarchy with a new royal family". The Crown of Romania is invested in the heirs of King Michael. There's nothing new in that. The personages involved will change over time but the institution remains very much defined by the role it seeks to play in modern Romania. That won't be decided by one parliament or one election, that will change over time.

Margareta might be content with the arrangements currently in place. Any of her heirs might feel they wish to do things differently. The next Romanian parliament could decide it wants to do things differently. That doesn't mean restoration is any more likely but it does mean that the Royal House's role may change again and again. If that change is something the Royal House wishes to welcome in the future, it has to get itself in order first. How long do they think they can last hoping that the Nicholas scandal will simply go away? Especially when Elena becomes the head of the family? I can't see that there would be much sympathy for installing Elisabeth in Nicholas' place without some kind of explanation. Especially as it's Elisabeth who will be scrutinised as part of any further adaptation of the role the Royal House might be allowed to play.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the end it will be like all those former German royal families which made arrangements with the new states after 1918. For an example: the state of Bavaria still pays millions to the former royal family (Bayerischer Ausgleich), the current Duke of Bavaria still has appartments in Schloss Nymphenburg.

That will be a future for Romania: annual payments and an arrangement about Elisabeta, Peles, Pelisor, Sinaeia and Savarsin estates. No one is interested in the headship of the House of Bavaria. The same evolution will happen to the House of Romania, is my expectation.

 

[Somebody]

Note that also the Swiss-born British citizen Nicholas was introduced once. They just have to start somewhere when Elizabeth (28 years old) is ready and willing. Note that even William and Harry waited until their 30's before starting a more royal role.

Do we know for sure that Elizabeth is willing? If so, why hasn't she been more visible? Does she really support her mother and not her brother in these issues?

 

[Jacknch]

Do we know for sure that Elizabeth is willing? If so, why hasn't she been more visible? Does she really support her mother and not her brother in these issues?

An interesting question and one I don't think we can know for sure.

When Nicholas was in line, I think I am I correct in thinking that Elizabeth wasn't in the succession and so one can only imagine how delicate the situation could be.

Further, what I find interesting is that the youngest daughter, Princess Maria, has a far greater visibility in Romania than all the heirs above her put together.

Princess Sophie obviously has her photographic career and attends only major events and Princess Elena has only a few engagements (if that) each year.

So inspite of the current line of succession, the family dynamic (both public and private) is not straightforward.

 

[Andy T]

An interesting question and one I don't think we can know for sure.

When Nicholas was in line, I think I am I correct in thinking that Elizabeth wasn't in the succession and so one can only imagine how delicate the situation could be.

Further, what I find interesting is that the youngest daughter, Princess Maria, has a far greater visibility in Romania than all the heirs above her put together.

Princess Sophie obviously has her photographic career and attends only major events and Princess Elena has only a few engagements (if that) each year.

So inspite of the current line of succession, the family dynamic (both public and private) is not straightforward.

Elizabeth Karina was absent from her grandmother's funeral. Whether or not she was the family member who stayed with the King at that time, I don't know. It will be interesting to see whether Elena, now hereditary princess, adopts a more prominent role, although it does seem that she and Sofia, are not as involved on the ground in Romania, perhaps because they are mothers with children elsewhere - and in Elena's case, have a husband to take into account.

Clearly the arrangement between the Royal House and the Romanian state has alienated some monarchists from the idea of Margareta as heir. I am inclined to think that the unpopularity of her husband and his perceived influence is a bigger source of discontent. Nicholas is the obvious alternative focus for the malcontents, particularly now that tensions exist within the family due to his alleged misdemeanours.

However, to equate the arrangement with a dignified surrender is misguided in my view. One could argue that it is a way to maintain and protect the profile of the Royal House in the longer term, build support, and reconquer the hearts and minds of Romanians today by demonstrating over time the value of a royal family at the heart of public life. It's impossible to do that if you are in competition, let alone conflict, with the institutions of the state, with all their resources, influence and exposure. The Royal House is certainly not acquiescing to the republic; it is maintaining its dignity, its ceremony and very much behaving as constitutional monarchs do, more so than any other former ruling house, in fact.

The days when European monarchies are restored after revolutions and/or popular uprisings are gone, I think, and standing proudly aloof à la Henri V leads nowhere. The Duke of Bragança, and Leka II, Nikola II, and Alexander II in Albania, Serbia & Montenegro are all on good terms - be they formal or not - with the republican governments in their respective countries. We shall see where this approach leads in time. Juan Carlos was able to assume the throne as King not because Franco said so but because he was prepared and could carry the support of the people. Of course, if a violent collapse of state institutions were to happen, the royal families would still be there - and probably in an even stronger position than if they were unknown or still in exile.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The case of Don Juan Carlos is hard to compare because in essence there was a Kingdom with a "sede vacante" under Franco. During this period General Franco acted as Jefe del Estado. After Franco's death, the monarchy was not restored. It simply was already there. The "sede vacante" finally ended when Don Juan Carlos de Borbón became King of Spain.

 

[Cory]

The problem of the Succession is now opened. For those still loyal to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Romania of 1923 the Princes of Hohenzollern inherit now the dynastic rights.
The Romanian republican establishment will certainly ignore the Constitution of 1923 and eventually try to do everything to strenghten the republic with a Line recognized by the republic itself.
Many royalists won't probably support the House of Hohenzollern because they believe Nicholas de Roumanie-Medforth Mills is popular and could be the symbol of a future restoration.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well, when the Bill giving an official status to the former Royal House is approved and not the Fürst von Hohenzollern but Princess Margareta is given an annual budget, 20 staff, Elisabeta Palace and facilitary assistance by the state, then de facto Romania follows Michael's drafted Royal House and proposed succession. The House of Romania then becomes the third separate Royal House in the dynasty, next to Prussia and Hohenzollern.

It has the same mechanism as the Dutch limitation of successors to those related to the King, no furtherer than three degrees of consanguity. With that Reuss, Sachsen-Weimar und Eisenach, Preussen, etc. ceased to be in line of the Dutch throne.

The same happened in Spain: by limiting the succession to the descendants of Don Juan Carlos de Borbón all other Royal Houses (Bourbon Two-Sicilies, Bourbon-Parma, etc.) de facto ceased to be in line to the Spanish throne.

The difference with the Netherlands and Spain is that Parliament approved the Constitution with these changes. In Romania it was an unilateral action by a private citizen in Switzerland (the late King) to change it. Of course the situation is incomparable without a Parliament. For myself, I found it more chique when the Constitution was followed unless a new Parliament -ever- votes over proposed changes. So I am more for a moratorium on changes because the same Michael was very much King on base of the same rules he shoved aside. Until 2007 he simply followed the systematic vested by the same Constitution he once solemnly pledged to maintain and to defend.

In short: there is no role anymore for the Hohenzollerns unless Elizabeth Medforth-Mills (2 in the michaelist succession) marries Erbprinz Alexander von Hohenzollern (2 in the constitutional succession). Their issue will again unite both branches of the dynasty. Henri IV once said: "Paris vaut bien une Messe". You can not exclude anything.

 

[Cory]

The decision of the republican authorities concerning a sort of ngo leaded by descendants of the late King will never be accepted by the royalists and will certainly have no consequence for the Succession of the dynastic rights.