Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Succession to the Romanian Throne

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.
 
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.
 
Succession to the Romanian Throne

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
At this moment any restoration of Monarchy is hardly possible. If the Romanian royalists want to remain loyal to the Constitution of 1923 they have to support the Hohenzollerns even if the Hohenzollerns are rather silent on their future involvement in Romania. If some of royalists want to support the proposal of 2007 they can't just take who they like from that proposed Line.
The Succession to the Royal dynastic rights of Romania is more complicated than ever.
 
You’re missing my point. Where is your evidence that Romanian royalists do want to remain loyal to the 1923 documents? Where’s any poll or organisation that clearly states that’s the general opinion of those who support the restoration of the monarchy in Romania? And you’re not answering the questions put to you, you’re simply repeating the same statements without offering anything to substantiate them.

How is what you’re suggesting: a) popular and desired, b) practical, c) a priority or d) achievable?
 
The word "if" help a lot sometimes. Only if we notice it.
There is I suppose a lot of confusion among many royalists about the Succession. Hardly to know how many know the Constituion of 1923 or how many understand the King could not changed by Himself the rules of Succession. The republican parliament won't certainly help the royalists to solve their doubts creating a sort of new institution or ngo and deciding the persons that would lead that institution. The competence of the republican parliament to decide dynastic rights is zero.
Let's hope after the funeral there will be a dialogue between the members of the King's Family and all the royalists Associations to see how they can work together for the country.
The Succession of the dynastic rights will remain a matter of debate for a long time probably.
 
With respect, I’ll have to bow out of the debate there. You can’t simply repeat claims again and again and insist that they’re correct without offering responses to questions other people ask or provide sources to back up the statements you make.
 
I suppose everybody has the right to have an opinion.Nobody has polls about the different royalists Associations in Romania even if we read The statements of the leaders of those associations. The constitution (republican or royalist) is not an opinion though.
What is achievable now?Certainly not the restoration.
The Succession?Depends how we see the document of 2007.
 
Last edited:
maria-olivia said:
Cory, you are back again. Where are your proofs?
Click to expand...

Where they have always been. Nowhere.

It would be nice if this thread could, again, return to and focus on the issue at hand; 'succession to the Romanian throne'. We really should not have to re-visit every issue and opinion voiced 17 times before in the thread, that has been both debunked and questioned, without ever receiving an answer, other than by opinions pretending to be facts.

There is a Romanian Royal Family. Government recognizes it, media recognizes it, the Church recognizes it and most people do know who the King was, who Crown Princess Margareta and Prince Radu are, and have heard of the unfortunate events surrounding Nicholas. Like them or not, they're it, and the more those pretending to support the cause they're working for is trying to harm them, the less is achieved.

To repeatedly whinge about the House of Hohenzollern who once were in the succession to the Romanian throne, 85 years ago, and who have several times made it clear, both directly through a statement of Fürst Karl in 2008, and by their silence since, that their house is not a part of the future of the monarchy in Romania, and that Romania has a Royal Family representing the country, is pointless and arbitrary in a way that serves no purpose whatsoever.

To elevate some disgruntled bloggers or a monarchical advocates wish to return to a constitution long since abolished to avoid accepting the clear decision of Romanian official life, that the Royal Family is there to stay, even beyond the King, and with a clearly more visible presence, is folly and a waste of time.

Duc's point is well made: Even if you don't like the decisions made up until now and that are about to be made through law in Romania regarding the future of the dynasty, they are the facts. The Royal Family is the future, and they are the only place one can go with ones aspirations of a return to monarchy in Romania. Politicians have de facto acknowledged the succession wanted by the late King, by elevating CP Margareta and respecting her role as Custodian of the Crown.

If one doesn't believe in the return of the monarchy in Romania or in any positive developments that points to its future, I fail to see any reason to spam this thread dedicated to the issue of succession to its throne.
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
Listen, for me the Fürst and the Erbprinz von Hohenzollern are the rightful heirs. With the death of King Michael, Prince Karl Friedrich is his successor.

But my eyes do not lie. I see no Prince Karl Friedrich adressing the nation, I see no Prince Karl Friedrich in the Romanian Parliament. So we may say that the State of Romania has legitimized Princess Margareta, not only by all the formal proceedings but also when the proposed Bill is approved.

Then we can play the drum of "Karl Friedrich and Alexander should be there, not Margareta and Radu" but it is what it is. The public actions by Parliament have given the pretenders Margareta & Radu an advantage other pretenders miss.

Imagine that the President, the Government and the Parliament of Italy would act like this towards Aimone di Savoia-Aosta. We can say: "Ho, a moment: not Aimone but Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia is the heir!" but public acts and official symbolism can upset all and everything.
Click to expand...

The attitude of the nowadays authorities is very clear on this issue.
 
There seems now to be a real possibility of a referendum on the monarchy.

I am convinced that the monarchist associations, with their vociferous campaign against the Royal House, have already given opponents all the ammunition they need to portray the family as divided and unfit to reign.
They have as good as ensured that this unique opportunity will be missed.

If Nicholas and the Royal House can reconcile to present a united front and this united front is supported unconditionally by all self-proclaimed supporters of a constitutional monarchy, a very slight glimmer of hope remains.
 
The monarchists were certainly not against the King's Family but about the project of some members of the Family to accept a compromise in favour of the republic.
If the attitutude of the same members of the Family towards Nicholas de Roumanie won't change the cause of Monarchy will suffer greatly.
 
If a referendum happens, there’s no doubt that it’ll be Margareta who is the focus. I doubt the referendum will see the monarchy restored but if it does, there’s no logical reason as to why anyone else would ever be considered now. At most, Margareta may reverse the 2015 decision taken by her father but if she doesn’t, who can blame her?

Quite honestly I think this is based in post-funeral emotion rather than any serious proposal. I can’t see that it’ll actually get through the Romanian Parliament let alone to the ballot box.
 
Cory said:
To win a referendum you need popular Princes in the Line of Succession.
Click to expand...

If the referendum is being held as an X Factor style contest between individuals then they shouldn't bother holding it. Monarchy isn't about individuals. It's about the institution, what it represents, what benefits it can bring to Romania. Leaving Nicholas aside for this discussion (because I know nothing can dampen your devotion there), let's look at the actual process involved.

The Romanian Parliament will need to introduce a bill to hold the referendum. It'll need the backing of the Romanian government. If it gets through this stage (and I can't see it will given that it's currently an opposition-led proposal) then it will need to be scheduled and a ballot form agreed. I know that some would prefer to see:

Who would you like to be King?

X Margareta
X Nicholas

But that isn't going to happen. The question put to Romanians will be, "Do you want a monarchy or a republic?". There's absolutely no wiggle room for pathetic disputes and personal agendas. If monarchist groups really are monarchists, they'll accept that this (if it ever happens) will be their one chance to get what they want and if they lose it over some silly squabble then they can't have been all that committed to the principles of monarchy in the first place.

It's time to get off the dreamboat. Margareta is recognised by the Romanian Government (and soon to be parliament too) as the Head of the Royal House. If the Romanian Government agree with the Opposition and allow a referendum, it'll be between the current President and all that he represents in the Romanian Republic vs Margareta and all that she represents for a new chapter of Romanian monarchy. There's no room for anything - or anyone -else. Naturally of course, this will be overlooked as St Nicholas can do no wrong and is the saviour of all but pride has been known to come before a fall. If monarchists care more about one individual than they do about an institution that could benefit millions of ordinary Romanians, it's probably best if the Romanian monarchy isn't restored.
 
Cory said:
To win a referendum you need popular Princes in the Line of Succession.

Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills could be supported by many Romanians as a future King:

https://psnews.ro/romania-monarhie-pieleanu-a-pronuntat-numele-favoritilor-la-tron-exclusiv-199774/
Click to expand...

This is completely contradicting any monarchical logic.

What is a monarchy? That is a system in which the head of state is "delivered" by hereditary succession.

When you accept the authority of the late King Michael to arrange his succession, then his hereditary successors are:
1 - his eldest child, Princess Margareta
2 - his second eldest child, Princess Elena
3 - his eldest granddaughter, Elizabeth Medforth-Mills
With the same authority of the late King Michael to arrange his succession, he has thrown out his grandson Nicholas (and his daughter Irina, and his granddaughter Angelica, and his grandson Michael, must have been the late King's hobby: throwing relatives out).

Now you are advocating a monarchy, but wait a moment.... not the eldest child of the late King please. And wait another moment.... not the second eldest child of the late King please. And wait another moment again.... get that dude, Nicholas, back in the line of succession!

This has nothing to do with a monarchy. This is just: dial a number and vote for your favourite candidate at X-Factor Royal Romania ("and win an arrangement for two in a luxury resort in South Africa!").
 
Last edited:
Gaudete said:
If the referendum is being held as an X Factor style contest between individuals then they shouldn't bother holding it. Monarchy isn't about individuals. It's about the institution, what it represents, what benefits it can bring to Romania. Leaving Nicholas aside for this discussion (because I know nothing can dampen your devotion there), let's look at the actual process involved.

The Romanian Parliament will need to introduce a bill to hold the referendum. It'll need the backing of the Romanian government. If it gets through this stage (and I can't see it will given that it's currently an opposition-led proposal) then it will need to be scheduled and a ballot form agreed. I know that some would prefer to see:

Who would you like to be King?

X Margareta
X Nicholas

But that isn't going to happen. The question put to Romanians will be, "Do you want a monarchy or a republic?". There's absolutely no wiggle room for pathetic disputes and personal agendas. If monarchist groups really are monarchists, they'll accept that this (if it ever happens) will be their one chance to get what they want and if they lose it over some silly squabble then they can't have been all that committed to the principles of monarchy in the first place.

It's time to get off the dreamboat. Margareta is recognised by the Romanian Government (and soon to be parliament too) as the Head of the Royal House. If the Romanian Government agree with the Opposition and allow a referendum, it'll be between the current President and all that he represents in the Romanian Republic vs Margareta and all that she represents for a new chapter of Romanian monarchy. There's no room for anything - or anyone -else. Naturally of course, this will be overlooked as St Nicholas can do no wrong and is the saviour of all but pride has been known to come before a fall. If monarchists care more about one individual than they do about an institution that could benefit millions of ordinary Romanians, it's probably best if the Romanian monarchy isn't restored.
Click to expand...

In 1866 there was a referendum asking about the Monarchy under Prince Karl von Hohenzollern Siegmaringen. Now there could be something similar asking the Romanians if they want the Monarchy with the grandson of the King as future King. The other option would be a Monarchy under the Hohenzollerns.
In 1975 Monarchy was not restored with the Count of Barcelona who was the Head of the Royal Family but with his son Juan Carlos who was in the end accepted by the majority.
 
Last edited:
You can’t seriously compare 1866 and 2017.
 
Gaudete said:
You can’t seriously compare 1866 and 2017.
Click to expand...

There are certainly many differences but you can't ask the Romanians to vote for Monarchy if they don't know who will be King.
 
The choice given will be prescribed by the Romanian Parliament. And there’s no reason why at this stage, that choice wouldn’t be Margareta. Anything else is fantasy.
 
Cory said:
[...]
In 1975 Monarchy was not restored with the Count of Barcelona who was the Head of the Royal Family but with his son Juan Carlos who was in the end accepted by the majority.
Click to expand...

In 1975 the monarchy was not restored. There was a "sede vacante" under General Franco, who acted as Jefe del Estado during that period. In 1975 there was no Republic of Spain turning into a kingdom. It was "just" Don Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón who took the empty throne, ending the "sede vacante". The state structure did not change.
 
Gaudete said:
The choice given will be prescribed by the Romanian Parliament. And there’s no reason why at this stage, that choice wouldn’t be Margareta. Anything else is fantasy.
Click to expand...

If you want to restore Monarchy you present or somebody who is the rightful Heir according to the last royalist Constitution- that would be HSH Prince Karl of Hohenzollern- or somebody that would be accepted by many Romanians -like Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills. You would never present a person contested by the monarchists themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Toledo
Prince Paul Phillippe of Romania, just arrested in Malta
Replies
5
Views
2K
Marengo
Marengo
Blog Real
Curtea de Argeș Cathedral (burial place of the Romanian Royal Family)
Replies
2
Views
1K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Ista
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Assigned Moderators--The Royal Family of Romania
Replies
0
Views
1K
Ista
Ista
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
2 3
Replies
69
Views
10K
Tatiana Maria
T
Toledo
Empire and Kingdom of Haiti
Replies
1
Views
1K
Toledo
Toledo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom