Romanian Succession, Claimants, Titles and Restoration

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes, and Nicolae said in one of his interviews that when he talked with his grandfather that only time after the title had been taken away from him, king Mihai asked from Nicolae what projects he then had going on in Romania. So Nicolae understood that the king didn't know/understand that he wasn't a prince anymore.

That is Nicholas' version, of course.

Interesting is that the King apparently created Nicholas a prince "by bloodright" but did not apply the same right on any of his other grandchildren. Not even the one who shares Nicholas' very same DNA, his sister Karina.

This shows that King Michael's regulations were ill-thought and his actions towards his completely innocent American grandchildren (thrown out of the succession because their mother Princess Irina was allegedly involved in a misdemeanor) and towards his granddaughter Élisabeth (first undynastic and then made dynastic again) proves that an appeal on the state of mind is weak. The late King was ruthless and difficult to follow in his decisions.

Of course Nicholas or his supporters conveniently avoid this big pink elephant in the room: that the action by the King seamlessly fits with all his previous actions towards his offspring and their issue. Sound of mind, or not.

 

[maria-olivia]

Prince Lorenz of Belgium was Member of this Commitee . I asked Mrs Marlene Koening why he accepted this and she had no answer.

 

[wartenberg7]

That is Nicholas' version, of course.

And you have your own versions, too and are determined not to believe anything in this world that would speak FOR N. So in that regard any word to you, no matter how logic it may be, is actually lost!


Instead you stick to an obscure line of Hohenzollern succession which has no relevance to anyone in Romania, not even to the Pr. of Hohenzollern himself, as you yourself have admitted before.

 

[Stefan]

That is Nicholas' version, of course.

Interesting is that the King apparently created Nicholas a prince "by bloodright" but did not apply the same right on any of his other grandchildren. Not even the one who shares Nicholas' very same DNA, his sister Karina.

This shows that King Michael's regulations were ill-thought and his actions towards his completely innocent American grandchildren (thrown out of the succession because their mother Princess Irina was allegedly involved in a misdemeanor) and towards his granddaughter Élisabeth (first undynastic and then made dynastic again) proves that an appeal on the state of mind is weak. The late King was ruthless and difficult to follow in his decisions.

Of course Nicholas or his supporters conveniently avoid this big pink elephant in the room: that the action by the King seamlessly fits with all his previous actions towards his offspring and their issue. Sound of mind, or not.

Perhaps karina did not want to become a Pricness. Even now that she is they only of her generation still in the line of succession she seems to prefer her privacy and does no official Events.
What is also telling is that Nicholas aos only once allowed to see his grandfather after his Title was removed and he was thrown out of the succession.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And you have your own versions, too and are determined not to believe anything in this world that would speak FOR N. So in that regard any word to you, no matter how logic it may be, is actually lost!


Instead you stick to an obscure line of Hohenzollern succession which has no relevance to anyone in Romania, not even to the Pr. of Hohenzollern himself, as you yourself have admitted before.

I have nothing with the Hohenzollerns. They are no part of this discussion. Either you accept King Michael's right to arrange his succession as he sees fit. Or you do not accept it.

Then we comes to the point in my previous post you avoided: an appeal on the late King's state of mind is discutable because ALL his actions towards ALL his grandchildren seemed ill-thought and not consequent.

Claiming that Michael must have been influenced on his old day, okay... But the pattern he showed in the pretty short existence of his proposed Royal House and succession shows that it completely fits in the late King's behaviour to treat his own next of kin as pawns on a chess board.

The one claims Michael must have been weak and unconscious. The other claims Michael was lucid and sharp until the latest moment. We were not there. We will never know. To me the late King (an ascetic living, high-demanding and moralistic man) being desillusioned in his grandson seems plausible indeed. His ruthless action towards Nicholas fits in his discutable treatment of Irina, Sofía, and their issue.

 

[Lee-Z]

I was wondering what might have happened had the Romanian royal family still been reigning. In that case I would expect that rather early on (see Denmark for example) succession would have turned from salic to semi-salic meaning that the princesses would have been entered in the line of succession as well as their children.

Imo it iwould indeed have been different if the Romanian RF was still reigning, than K.Mihai might have still wanted to make his grandson the heir to the throne, but the constitution would have to be adjusted and politicians be involved.
As it was now, all this hasn't happened and the theoretical succession is in limbo imo.
Should Romania want to become a monarchy again the next question would be "okay, but who will be the monarch" and the matter would yet have to be discussed...
And who knows, maybe an entirely different royal monarch would be elected (i'm thinking of a similar situation to the bulgarian throne in the 19th century)

 

[maria-olivia]

Prince Radu wanted to be President without any succes !

 

[TRUENORTH]

What dynasty is the royal house of romania?

Since the severance of the ties of the Royal House of Romania with the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, there has not been a clear definition of what is the new dynasty , does the standard still show the quarters representing the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen linage? Also what is the new title and style of the new dynasty? Is the title of "Custodian of the Crown" an ancient title what is its origin, and what does it mean? Thank you.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Since the severance of the ties of the Royal House of Romania with the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, there has not been a clear definition of what is the new dynasty , does the standard still show the quarters representing the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen linage? Also what is the new title and style of the new dynasty? Is the title of "Custodian of the Crown" an ancient title what is its origin, and what does it mean? Thank you.

The dynasty was Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen but at 30 December 2007, with the publication of the Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania, former King Michael vested a new dynasty by ruling that certain members are Princes and Princesses of Romania.

The Custodian of the Romanian Crown is no invention by Margareta but stems from the first article in the Annex to these Fundamental Rules:

1. My eldest daughter, The Princess
Margareta, is to be my successor and
Head of the Royal House of Romania,
after my death. If the Romanian Nation
and Parliament were to decide to
reinstate the Monarchy as the form of
government, I ask the Parliament to cease
to implement the Salic-law as the form
of succession, which does not correspond
either to the elementary rights in Europe
today, or to the values of Romanian
society. Until these events should come
about, The Princess Margareta will
remain, after my death, Head of the Royal
House of Romania and Custodian of the
Romanian Crown.

That Princess Margareta is Her Majesty without being Queen is also not her invention but stems from Article 1, second part, of these Fundamental Rules:

2) 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
any time. 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.

Compare it with Belgium and the UK: from the House of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha it became the House of Belgium resp. the House of Winsdor.

The Royal Coat of Arms has no reference to the House of Hohenzollern anymore. The black-and-white heartshield for Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen has been removed:

Before:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...1013px-Kingdom_of_Romania_-_Small_CoA.svg.png

After:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ia.svg/1280px-Coat_of_arms_of_Romania.svg.png

 

[TRUENORTH]

Thank you for your reply, as always in these matters, your answer brings up useful information, and also brings up more questions.

The non ruling royal houses, that change their dynasty lineage, encounter many challenges. In the case of Romania, the monarchy, was short lived, if you compare it with other European dynasties. The first two kings,Carl I and Ferdinad I, were the German born sons of Karl Anton of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This lineage was fragile from the beginning since the WWI conflict since the kings, thereafter used the name "Of Romania" although they continued to be entitled to the titles and styles of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

In 1950, The furst of the house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen writes a letter to his cousin Carol, in exile in Portugal, asking him to call a family council to discuss the matters of Michael's ,abdication, and the need to choose an heir to the throne of Romania.. The furst, also mentions, that he as the head of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen House, has the authority to call such a council Carol dies in 1953.

So the question of the heir to the throne, remained , and only after the fall of the communist regime in Romania, and the restoration of a democratic state, the Republic, became a constitutional state.

Now the issue, is : when Michael, returned to Romania, he was not king, but he managed to be publicly recognized as a former head of state, and was granted some privileges accordingly, one, was to be recognized in his former dignity of "King".
Once in Romania, Michael, reorganized his House of Romania, his "Fundamental rules" as you mention. At the time, the lineage of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Romania, is still in force, and so all members have the use of title and style.

So comes , 2011, and Michael, breaks ties with the lineage of Carl Anton of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The problem here, is that those changes have to be consulted with the parliament, as was the case with the Windsors.

In the UK, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 was an act of Parliament that authorized the alteration of the British monarch's royal style and titles, The king was authorised to issue a royal proclamation within six months of the Act's passing, authorising him to alter the royal style and titles. Following the precedent set by similar legislation in the past, the Act did not itself set out the form of the new style and titles that were to be adopted.

Of course, the UK, is a monarchy, and Romania, is a republic, and it was not possible for Michael, to seek the approval from the National Assembly of Romania.

So the question remains, how does this new dynasty, legitimizes its claim to the throne of Romania ? One answer, would be by an act of parliament, recognizing Michael I as king, posthumously. But is such a thing possible, or even viable? Even this would be a complicated affair since when Michael abdicated, he was still under the rules of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Romania, and as such regained his former position as Prince Michael Hohenzollern. So, the Parliament, would have to "restore" him posthumously to the throne, then, declare his new "Dynasty" legal, and then name his heir .

So the question of what is the "Custodian of the Crown" , remains unanswered.

Thank you.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is true that the Fundamental Rules essentially are a completely unilateral and private document. The same ease with which the ties with the ancestral House were ended, was used to create the 5 daughters and their offspring successors (with one of the grandsons becoming a Prince of Romania). In fact a completely unilateral and a private decision.

And with the same ease the third daughter ánd her issue were removed. And with the same ease the grandson whom was made a Prince was removed too. Completely unilateral, a private decision and no appeal possible.

They have one great luck in Romania: the constititional successors to King Michael (the Fürst von Hohenzollern and his son the Erbprinz) have no any interest in Romania. The Fundamental Rules were not objected by them. So the establishment of a new Royal House of Romania went pretty smooth. No Bourbon, Braganza or Ronanov-like factional infighting. Plus the more than wellwilling attitude by the Romanians to integrate their historic royal family within today's democratic and republican structure.

We can say that de jure there is no legitimization for the position of Princess Margareta. But de facto, in all and everything, we see that the Fundamental Rules have been accepted. We see that the State of Romania simply accepts Princess Margareta as her father's successor: all arrangements they had with King Michael, for an example the use of Elisabeta Palace or an annual budget for the former Royal House, were continued in favour of the Princess.

 

[Mbruno]

Thank you for your reply, as always in these matters, your answer brings up useful information, and also brings up more questions.

The non ruling royal houses, that change their dynasty lineage, encounter many challenges. In the case of Romania, the monarchy, was short lived, if you compare it with other European dynasties. The first two kings,Carl I and Ferdinad I, were the German born sons of Karl Anton of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. This lineage was fragile from the beginning since the WWI conflict since the kings, thereafter used the name "Of Romania" although they continued to be entitled to the titles and styles of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.

In 1950, The furst of the house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen writes a letter to his cousin Carol, in exile in Portugal, asking him to call a family council to discuss the matters of Michael's ,abdication, and the need to choose an heir to the throne of Romania.. The furst, also mentions, that he as the head of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen House, has the authority to call such a council Carol dies in 1953.

So the question of the heir to the throne, remained , and only after the fall of the communist regime in Romania, and the restoration of a democratic state, the Republic, became a constitutional state.

Now the issue, is : when Michael, returned to Romania, he was not king, but he managed to be publicly recognized as a former head of state, and was granted some privileges accordingly, one, was to be recognized in his former dignity of "King".
Once in Romania, Michael, reorganized his House of Romania, his "Fundamental rules" as you mention. At the time, the lineage of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Romania, is still in force, and so all members have the use of title and style.

So comes , 2011, and Michael, breaks ties with the lineage of Carl Anton of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The problem here, is that those changes have to be consulted with the parliament, as was the case with the Windsors.

In the UK, the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 was an act of Parliament that authorized the alteration of the British monarch's royal style and titles, The king was authorised to issue a royal proclamation within six months of the Act's passing, authorising him to alter the royal style and titles. Following the precedent set by similar legislation in the past, the Act did not itself set out the form of the new style and titles that were to be adopted.

Of course, the UK, is a monarchy, and Romania, is a republic, and it was not possible for Michael, to seek the approval from the National Assembly of Romania.

So the question remains, how does this new dynasty, legitimizes its claim to the throne of Romania ? One answer, would be by an act of parliament, recognizing Michael I as king, posthumously. But is such a thing possible, or even viable? Even this would be a complicated affair since when Michael abdicated, he was still under the rules of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Romania, and as such regained his former position as Prince Michael Hohenzollern. So, the Parliament, would have to "restore" him posthumously to the throne, then, declare his new "Dynasty" legal, and then name his heir .

Thank you.

I believe the Fundamental Rules clearly address your questions. King Michael wrote down that, should the people and the parliament of Romania decide to restore the monarchy, he would ask parliament to repeal the Salic law rule and, by implication, vest the succession to the throne in her daughters and their lineal descendants.

What I infer from the text then is that the Fundamental Rules, before the monarchy is restored and they are sanctioned by the Romanian parliament, do not apply to the succession to the (defunct) throne of Romania (whose head of state is now a president), but rather to the succession to the position of head of the Royal House. As it has been discussed here in several forums related to non-reigning houses (Savoy, Bourbon Two Siciles, etc. ), those two things are not the same. The succession to the throne in an extant monarchy is regulated by law and/or the constitution, and can only be changed by an act of Parliament, The Royal House rules, however, which continue to apply to the House as a private corporation, are not part of the public law of the republic and King Michael claimed, as many other heads of deposed houses do, that the head of the House, which he undisputably was, has an absolute power to change them unilaterally at his own discretion. If you read the Fundamental Rules carefully, that is again explicitly mentioned in the document.

The dynasty was Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen but at 30 December 2007, with the publication of the Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania, former King Michael vested a new dynasty by ruling that certain members are Princes and Princesses of Romania.
[...]

Compare it with Belgium and the UK: from the House of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha it became the House of Belgium resp. the House of Winsdor.

The Royal Coat of Arms has no reference to the House of Hohenzollern anymore. The black-and-white heartshield for Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen has been removed:

Before:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...1013px-Kingdom_of_Romania_-_Small_CoA.svg.png

After:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ia.svg/1280px-Coat_of_arms_of_Romania.svg.png

The tradition in European heraldry is to have dynastic charges in the form of an inescutcheon superimposed to the arms of dominion. That is what you see e.g. in the coat of arms of the King of Spain, the King of Sweden, the Queen of Denmark and, since 2019, the King of the Belgians. King Albert I had removed the charges representing the House of Saxony (Wettin) from his royal coat of arms after World War I, when the Belgian Coburgs took the dynastic name House of Belgium, but King Philippe recently restored the inescutcheon, actually causing the King's coat of arms to be different from the national (or state) coat of arms in violation of traditional heraldic rules. It is unclear to me what implication that change has on the naming of the House of Belgium, if any.

As you also mentioned, the absence of dynastic charges is also conspicuous in the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom, but dynastic charges were not removed when George V changed the House name to Windsor but before that. Therre were already no dynastic charges on Queen Victoria's coat of arms and Edward VII, despite using the Saxony arms on his coat of arms as Prince of Wales, dropped then upon becoming King and adopted his mother's undifferenced arms.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

A link to the English version of the document (in pdf):

https://coronanachrichten.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/p0002_fundamentalrules.pdf

 

[Blog Real]

It is strange that the Romanian Royal House has not yet commented on who will succeed Princess Margareta as head of the Royal House.
Is there still the possibility that Nicholas will still be reintegrated into the royal house as heir?
The future of this royal house seems to be an unknown...

 

[Heavs]

It is strange that the Romanian Royal House has not yet commented on who will succeed Princess Margareta as head of the Royal House.
Is there still the possibility that Nicholas will still be reintegrated into the royal house as heir?
The future of this royal house seems to be an unknown...

Isn't it Nicholas's mother, Elena? Who comes after her would be the question as her daughter lives a private life in the UK and none of the other grandchildren of King Mihai seem interested (or present in Romania) either.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Isn't it Nicholas's mother, Elena? Who comes after her would be the question as her daughter lives a private life in the UK and none of the other grandchildren of King Mihai seem interested (or present in Romania) either.

The Fundamental Rules the Royal House of Romania stated this line of succession before King Michael removed his daughter Irina and his grandchildren Nicholas, Michael and Angelica.

1. HRH The Princess Margareta of Romania, Custodian of the Romanian Crown

2. HRH The Princess Elena of Romania

3. [-]Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills[/-]

4. Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth Mills

5. [-]HRH The Princess Irina of Romania[/-]

6. [-]Michael de Roumanie Kreuger[/-]

7. [-]Angelic de Roumanie Kreuger[/-]

8. HRH The Princess Sophie of Romania

9. Elisabeta Marie de Roumanie Biarneix

10. HRH The Princess Marie of Romania

The invisibility of the younger generation fits in a pattern. Also in Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece the younger generation seems to pursue another interests and another life destination than their former Royal Houses. See the recent "renunciation" of Paul of Serbia whom simply has no interest in being the future flag bearer of the Serbian monarchy. See Boris of Bulgaria whom lives in Spain and hardly speaks Bulgarian even. See Elisabeta Karina Medforth Mills who seems not to eager to show herself in Romania. Maybe it is because none of them make any illusion for a royal future.

 

[Mbruno]

The Fundamental Rules the Royal House of Romania stated this line of succession before King Michael removed his daughter Irina and his grandchildren Nicholas, Michael and Angelica.

1. HRH The Princess Margareta of Romania, Custodian of the Romanian Crown

2. HRH The Princess Elena of Romania

3. [-]Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills[/-]

4. Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth Mills

5. [-]HRH The Princess Irina of Romania[/-]

6. [-]Michael de Roumanie Kreuger[/-]

7. [-]Angelic de Roumanie Kreuger[/-]

8. HRH The Princess Sophie of Romania

9. Elisabeta Marie de Roumanie Biarneix

10. HRH The Princess Marie of Romania

The invisibility of the younger generation fits in a pattern. Also in Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece the younger generation seems to pursue another interests and another life destination than their former Royal Houses. See the recent "renunciation" of Paul of Serbia whom simply has no interest in being the future flag bearer of the Serbian monarchy. See Boris of Bulgaria whom lives in Spain and hardly speaks Bulgarian even. See Elisabeta Karina Medforth Mills who seems not to eager to show herself in Romania. Maybe it is because none of them make any illusion for a royal future.

I assume the young Greek princes correctly realize that the monarchy will never be restored in Greece. The republic is as much a done deal in Greece as it is in France, Italy, or Portugal. However, the situation in Romania is different. Even if the monarchy is not restored, the Royal Family can look forward to a semi-official role at least, as the Custodian of the Crown and her husband have been playing now for quite some time. So, I think the Medforth Mills kids should reconsider their apparent lack of interest in the succession.

 

[Heavs]

Nicholas clearly still has an interest in being royal, his problem is that his grandfather disinherited him and neither his aunt or mother seem inclined to reinclude him in the LOS. I think he's trying to regain being the heir by almost fait accompli as the only clear choice if they want to keep what they have.

There is something to be won/lost in Romania as they have a semi official role (even officially meeting ambassadors, government ministers and military brass) not to mention the property.

 

[Denville]

perhaps they dont want to. I dont think there is much hope of a restoration

 

[Blog Real]

The royal houses of Romania and Serbia still have semi-official roles in their countries.
Nicholas and Philip seem interested in continuing to represent their royal houses.

 

[Kinan]

The Fundamental Rules the Royal House of Romania stated this line of succession before King Michael removed his daughter Irina and his grandchildren Nicholas, Michael and Angelica.

1. HRH The Princess Margareta of Romania, Custodian of the Romanian Crown

2. HRH The Princess Elena of Romania

3. [-]Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills[/-]

4. Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth Mills

5. [-]HRH The Princess Irina of Romania[/-]

6. [-]Michael de Roumanie Kreuger[/-]

7. [-]Angelic de Roumanie Kreuger[/-]

8. HRH The Princess Sophie of Romania

9. Elisabeta Marie de Roumanie Biarneix

10. HRH The Princess Marie of Romania

The invisibility of the younger generation fits in a pattern. Also in Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece the younger generation seems to pursue another interests and another life destination than their former Royal Houses. See the recent "renunciation" of Paul of Serbia whom simply has no interest in being the future flag bearer of the Serbian monarchy. See Boris of Bulgaria whom lives in Spain and hardly speaks Bulgarian even. See Elisabeta Karina Medforth Mills who seems not to eager to show herself in Romania. Maybe it is because none of them make any illusion for a royal future.

Some corrections.
1. Boris of Bulgaria mainly lives in the UK, not Spain. He is an artist, focusing in sculptures. Yes he doesn't speak Bulgarian. His mother, Miriam confirmed it on a comment in Instagram. He doesn't seem to have any interests as royal heir. However, he attended some "royal" events like the wedding of George Romanov last year.
2. The Serbian prince who did the renunciation is Peter, not Paul.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Nicholas clearly still has an interest in being royal, his problem is that his grandfather disinherited him and neither his aunt or mother seem inclined to reinclude him in the LOS. I think he's trying to regain being the heir by almost fait accompli as the only clear choice if they want to keep what they have.

There is something to be won/lost in Romania as they have a semi official role (even officially meeting ambassadors, government ministers and military brass) not to mention the property.

Savarsin, Peles and Pelisor castles are owned by the family (the last two given in use to the State).

The State provides Elisabeta Palace as an official residence to the Custodian and also provides the former Royal Palace in Bucharest for representation. When the Romanians would end their interest in the monarchy, at least Savarsin, Peles and Pelisor are and remain at their disposal. That is more than most reigning royal families have as private property!

Savarsin is in use as private residence to the Custodian of the Crown.

Peles was in use as National Museum. When it was returned to the former royal family, they agreed the National Museum could continue to use the castle (which is clever because it brings funds for the costly upkeep). The castle is used by the royal family for ceremonies.

Pelisor was in use as State Guest House. When it was returned to the former royal family, they agreed the State could continue to use the castle (which is clever because it brings funds for the costly upkeep).

 

[Somebody]

I agree. It would be really hard to argue that Nicholas is not interested. His whole life seems dedicated to becoming the future head of the house - as he once was supposed to be.

And Philip's recent years already showed his interest while he alsonhas the complication of a family rift due to his stepmother.

In Greece, it is also the second son who shows far more interest in the case of their homeland than the eldest son.

 

[LauraS3514]

IF, and it is a big IF, the Romanian monarchy is ever restored, it will be the government of the day that decides the line of succession or even WHO the monarch will be. This is also the case for any other potential restorations in other countries. Hypothetically, in the unlikely event the Greek monarchy is restored, the government may choose gender-neutral succession from the previous monarch in compliance with modern principles of equal treatment of the sexes. This would mean that Princess Alexia would be the heir and not Crown Prince Pavlos.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Could Princess Margareta have Nicholas declared the heir without the involvement of Parliament?

 

[Mbruno]

Could Princess Margareta have Nicholas declared the heir without the involvement of Parliament?

In my opinion, right now, yes. Romania is a republic, so there is legally no line of succession to the (defunct) Romanian Crown. There is a line of succession to the position of Head of the Royal House of Romania, which is currently not a matter of public law, and therefore does not require an act of Parliament to be changed. It can be changed by the current Head of the House subject only to possible constraints in the House rules. In any case, it is strictly a private matter.

At least that is how I interpret it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've personally always interpreted the title Custodian of the Crown as an acknowledgement by King Michael that Princess Margarita can't be the head of the house according to the Romanian Order of Succession. As such she can be the keeper of the Romanian royal tradition, in spite of constitutional and Hohenzollern issues, until the matter is eventually resolved by the Romanian parliament.

But the house law enacted by King Michael, as originally enacted in 2007, explicitly acknowledged Margareta as number one in "The Line of Succession to the Throne and to the Headship of the Royal House of Romania":

ANNEX I

[...]

A. The Line of Succession to the Throne and to the Headship of the Royal House of Romania is hereby set out.

1. HRH Crown Princess Margarita of Romania, Custodian of the Crown of Romania

[...]

​

And according to the same house law, the Head automatically assumes the style ("title" is used in the original Romanian) of Queen or King (not Princess or Prince), whether or not they choose to use it.

2) 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 any time. 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.​

https://coronanachrichten.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/p0002_fundamentalrules.pdf

With thanks to Duc_et_Pair for posting the official English translation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Since the severance of the ties of the Royal House of Romania with the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, there has not been a clear definition of what is the new dynasty , does the standard still show the quarters representing the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen linage?

According to the official website of the Royal House, the coat of arms shown on their standards (including Prince Radu's standard) continues to have the inescutcheon for Hohenzollern:

https://casamajestatiisale.ro/familia-regala/pavilionul-regal/

I believe the Fundamental Rules clearly address your questions. King Michael wrote down that, should the people and the parliament of Romania decide to restore the monarchy, he would ask parliament to repeal the Salic law rule and, by implication, vest the succession to the throne in her daughters and their lineal descendants.

What I infer from the text then is that the Fundamental Rules, before the monarchy is restored and they are sanctioned by the Romanian parliament, do not apply to the succession to the (defunct) throne of Romania (whose head of state is now a president), but rather to the succession to the position of head of the Royal House. As it has been discussed here in several forums related to non-reigning houses (Savoy, Bourbon Two Siciles, etc. ), those two things are not the same. The succession to the throne in an extant monarchy is regulated by law and/or the constitution, and can only be changed by an act of Parliament, The Royal House rules, however, which continue to apply to the House as a private corporation, are not part of the public law of the republic and King Michael claimed, as many other heads of deposed houses do, that the head of the House, which he undisputably was, has an absolute power to change them unilaterally at his own discretion. If you read the Fundamental Rules carefully, that is again explicitly mentioned in the document.

The Fundamental Rules do use the phrases "line of succession to the Crown of Romania" (Article 10) and "The Line of Succession to the Throne and to the Headship of the Royal House of Romania" (Annex).

But some sections of King Michael's house law indeed recognized the legitimacy of the democratically elected republican parliament and the reality that he was no longer a sovereign, except (in theory) over his own family. However, that must not be wrongly understood as an acknowledgement that the Hohenzollern males remain the "real" successors. (This comment is not directed at you, Mbruno, but at the widespread argument about the Hohenzollerns.) Indeed, Article 1(10) of the Fundamental Rules explicitly rules out the Hohenzollern princes:

"10) No person principally born as a member of a foreign Princely or Royal House can enter the Line of Succession of the Royal House of Romania or enjoy any other Dynastic privileges, without exception."

 

[Mbruno]

According to the official website of the Royal House, the coat of arms shown on their standards (including Prince Radu's standard) continues to have the inescutcheon for Hohenzollern:

https://casamajestatiisale.ro/familia-regala/pavilionul-regal/




The Fundamental Rules do use the phrases "line of succession to the Crown of Romania" (Article 10) and "The Line of Succession to the Throne and to the Headship of the Royal House of Romania" (Annex).

But some sections of King Michael's house law indeed recognized the legitimacy of the democratically elected republican parliament and the reality that he was no longer a sovereign, except (in theory) over his own family. However, that must not be wrongly understood as an acknowledgement that the Hohenzollern males remain the "real" successors. (This comment is not directed at you, Mbruno, but at the widespread argument about the Hohenzollerns.) Indeed, Article 1(10) of the Fundamental Rules explicitly rules out the Hohenzollern princes:

"10) No person principally born as a member of a foreign Princely or Royal House can enter the Line of Succession of the Royal House of Romania or enjoy any other Dynastic privileges, without exception."

I understand that King Michael may have used terms such as "the Line of Succession to the Crown of Romania" or the "line of succession to the Throne",
but that doesn't mean that any of those have any legal meaning in the Romanian Republic.

In this discussion, I think it is important to understand what one means by "the Crown". English (and Commonwealth realm) law distinguishes for example the natural person of the monarch (i.e. the King or the Queen) from "the Crown", which is the monarch's corporation sole that, in theory, at least in British-like constitutions, runs the State (or from which the State powers proceed) and holds State property. Other more modern monarchical constitutions like in Sweden and Spain are different in that sense and, in those cases, some authors prefer to define the Crown as the "Office of the Monarch" (in practice the Office of the Head of State), which is now constitutionally separate from the government, but still has certain roles, immunities and obligations in public law.

I don't know the exact legal arrangements that the Royal House of Romania has with the Romanian Republic, but I would assume that:

1. The Office of the King or Queen of Romania has been abolished.
2. Whether the Head of the Royal House wants to constitute himself (or herself) as a corporation sole or not, that corporation has no role. prerogatives or obligations in public law, nor is regulated by it.

So, when the King speaks of a "line of succession to the Crown", he is either referring in my modest opinion to an office, entity or corporation that is no longer recognized in Romanian law or, at best, is irrelevant and has no role in the Romanian State. The Royal House, on the other hand, unless explicitly forbidden by some law of the republic, could be incorporated as an association, foundation or trust under private law, subject to its own statutes, i.e.the House rules (I don't know whether it is in Romania though, but I would assume it is possible). As the head of that private entity, the King could then change its statutes as he wished, provided that the House rules allow him to do so unilaterally.

In any case, distinguishing the Crown from the Royal House is important in my opinion because, whereas the former was a public corporation that was abolished by the Republic and no longer holds any State property, nor exercises any State power, the latter , as a private entity, may hold assets of intrinsic value that are disputed by rival claimants to the headship of the House as we have seen in many cases in Europe recently.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

With or without successor: sooner or later the inheritance of the domains and the castles will become an issue. Will it equally be distributed amongt all survivinh heirs of the late King Michael, meaning Medforth Mills, Kreuger and Biarneix? Or will there be a Family Foundation as a legal entity owning all assets and place it at the disposal of fhe furure head, whether that will be Elisabeta Karina or Nicholas? We will see...