Succession to the Romanian Throne, Part 1

[LadyRohan]

Romania does not have an heiress as they have an ex-royal family. It has been stated that when the ex-king served as one of country's prime ministers, the ex-royal family of Romania validated that Romania is now a republic. C'est la vie!

An enjoyable miss on your part, but here's a few more words on the subject. Imagine if your own country, USA, had been invaded and had its system of governance forcibly overthrown. Long live Communism, the republic is dead, and then 70 years later, communism would fall, but your republic was not restored. Instead, Congress was appointed by ruling factions around the nation, the Speaker was de facto head of state and the White House was turned into a museum.
Would you accept that, as you ask monarchists in forcibly overthrown monarchies to do, or would you demand a return to the system your country (for some unknown reason), prides itself on today?

In many former countries that used to be monarchies, there are former Royal Families still in existence, and in some of them, they serve functions and act as conduits for those who wish for the former system of governance to be restored, i.e Romania, Serbia, Montengro and others, including Bulgaria. These families carry their old titles, and often times grant new titles, that are respected, accepted and used, by media, officials and the general public. Inside of Romania, Crown Princess Margarita is seen as the heir to her father, the King, as is shown by most sources calling her 'principesa mostetinoare,', 'Crown Princess'.

Is it pretentious to carry and use a title that you no longer formally have? To some, sure. Just as pretentious as it is to call H.Clinton, 'the Secretary', because that's her former, most senior position, or Bill Clinton 'President Clinton', because he once was.

That's how titles work, they represent the most senior position once held, and in former monarchies, they are carried for life and used with respect, to the position, the history and for many, the hope that the system of government that was taken away against their will, will be restored some day.

PS. In a thread named 'succession to the Romanian throne', it would be odd not to talk about members of the Romanian Royal Family, and use their titles or functions, ie the word heiress. Inside of Romania, the RF is seen as the conduit for monarchical movements, and if the King, long may he live, were to pass away tomorrow, the history of the kingdom would be represented by Margareta, whether some like it or not.

 

[NotHRH]

The King of Romania was never Prime Minister. It was the King of the Bulgarians who served as Prime Minister of his country.

The King of Romania was deposed by a Communist coup d'état in 1947, and he never validated that Romania is now a Republic.

Like Cris M said, you're mixing up Romania and Bulgaria here..

My bad - I get them mixed up all the time sorry.

 

[maria-olivia]

Thanks Eya, tis article is to me interesting to know more about the Heiress of Romania.

 

[NotHRH]

An enjoyable miss on your part, but here's a few more words on the subject. Imagine if your own country, USA, had been invaded and had its system of governance forcibly overthrown. Long live Communism, the republic is dead, and then 70 years later, communism would fall, but your republic was not restored. Instead, Congress was appointed by ruling factions around the nation, the Speaker was de facto head of state and the White House was turned into a museum.
Would you accept that, as you ask monarchists in forcibly overthrown monarchies to do, or would you demand a return to the system your country (for some unknown reason), prides itself on today?

In many former countries that used to be monarchies, there are former Royal Families still in existence, and in some of them, they serve functions and act as conduits for those who wish for the former system of governance to be restored, i.e Romania, Serbia, Montengro and others, including Bulgaria. These families carry their old titles, and often times grant new titles, that are respected, accepted and used, by media, officials and the general public. Inside of Romania, Crown Princess Margarita is seen as the heir to her father, the King, as is shown by most sources calling her 'principesa mostetinoare,', 'Crown Princess'.

Is it pretentious to carry and use a title that you no longer formally have? To some, sure. Just as pretentious as it is to call H.Clinton, 'the Secretary', because that's her former, most senior position, or Bill Clinton 'President Clinton', because he once was.

That's how titles work, they represent the most senior position once held, and in former monarchies, they are carried for life and used with respect, to the position, the history and for many, the hope that the system of government that was taken away against their will, will be restored some day.

PS. In a thread named 'succession to the Romanian throne', it would be odd not to talk about members of the Romanian Royal Family, and use their titles or functions, ie the word heiress. Inside of Romania, the RF is seen as the conduit for monarchical movements, and if the King, long may he live, were to pass away tomorrow, the history of the kingdom would be represented by Margareta, whether some like it or not.

Yes it is pretentious to use you no longer formally have. It's arrogance at its utmost to use a royal title of country that no longer has royal titles and many countries with former monarchies, such as Austria and Hanover, have actually banned their former royal titles. I get it that these families were ousted of homeland and they want to live there and do good things for and in their homelands. But many of them are too pushy? And why is that REALLY? They seek publicity for their cause now, but if put back as THE royal family, they will constantly moan and complain about the press (and yes, the press are a brutal bunch) and maybe even ban the press from being anywhere near them. Royals and ex-royals alike are also a brutal bunch - most act like spoiled brats and demand their terms be met always. To me, the royal family of any country has no right to any privacy outside of their private residences, which was basically bought by royals through stealing and robbing their own people blind. This how they all have amassed great wealth over the centuries. So if they really wanted to good for their citizens, liquidate stolen assets accumulated throughout the centuries, put it into their home county's economy, go get a job on your own merit (no royal title, and have a first name and last name), yelping as they run with their "tails" behind them. Doing easy work whenever you feel like it and having your subjects support your lazy --- they are simply the products of an expensive welfare system. These ex-royals are just looking for expensive handouts to restore them to their former glory. They should have all started working and earning a living many years ago. I will not be a part of any pity party for any of these people. I really hope they get it sooner rather than later and their descendants 500 years from now will not still consider themselves King-Queen-Prnce-Princess, etc. That would be really a sad situation. We must all learn when to let go - it is emotionally painful, but it is the reality of the situation. If a country wants their ex-royals back, I'm sure their country will seek them out. These people really need to get a life. I do not feel sorry for any of them; their ancestor's corrupt and lavish ways lead to their own demise. They did it to themselves plain and simple - you always end up reaping what you sow.

 

[LadyRohan]

That is one way to put it, much in line with how some tabloid newspapers would describe it. Luckily, there are other ways, based on actual facts about how monarchies work, and how royalty functions, and the best example of the strength of monarchies, is that there are only around 40 monarchies in the world today of close to 200 countries, but 7 of 10 nations that are consistently ranked in the top 10 of democratic function, wealth, happiness etc, are kingdoms.
They must be doing something right That nations that had their government overthrown against the will of the people, have movements working to restore the legal form of government, is not a surprise, and that the former Royal Families of these lands support the cause, would be, for most, logical.

To claim that people are pretentious for using titles they are born with, or have gained, as royalty, but that republican people are allowed to use whatever title they once had, is a logical disconnect at best, or just an attempt at being difficult at worst.

'These people' have lives. I recommend visiting the website of the Royal Family for updates on their activities, and a scroll through the Romanian newspapers online, for articles displaying their recent outings. With regards to succession to the Romanian throne, if the monarchy is to be restored, as there is growing sentiments in Romania for, it is through the examples of the members of the Royal Family, their activities and connections made with Romanian society.

 

[NotHRH]

Your argument to me has no bases: I wrote yes it IS PRETENTIOUS for our ex-govt officials to use their former titles officially or otherwise, but it also pompous arrogance for ex-royalty to do likewise. You should have thoroughly read and comprehended what I posted before you decided to argue with me. Start over - your arguments are mute because I already addressed them in the post that YOU are trying to argue with me about. Wow, really???? Understand ex-royalty will never get a pity party from me. Life is full of gut-wrenching sadness, but you must keep moving forward and make peace with past because it cannot be changed and none of us knows what our futures hold. And that's all there is to. There is nothing to argue about because I will not state my position under this topic again.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is not pompous arrogance. Their titles have always been part of their name. Let us take an example and use a well-known noble family: in 1601 the family De Ligne was raised to princely rank. Their patrimonium was part of the Holy Roman Empire, then of the French Empire, then of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and finally now the kingdom of Belgium.

Imagine that tomorrow an egalitarian, republican Government in Brussels declares all titles null and void. The titles of the De Lignes (Prince de Ligne, d'Amblise et d'Épinoy) have been used for centuries and centuries and are still in countless of registers, acts, warrants, patents, letters, streetnames and name it all. It is not at all pretentious when titles remain used in social custom. To be pretentious is to make a claim or put on an act on. Their titulature however is real and it is their very own history.

 

[LadyRohan]

Your argument to me has no bases: I wrote yes it IS PRETENTIOUS for our ex-govt officials to use their former titles officially or otherwise, but it also pompous arrogance for ex-royalty to do likewise. You should have thoroughly read and comprehended what I posted before you decided to argue with me. Start over - your arguments are mute because I already addressed them in the post that YOU are trying to argue with me about. Wow, really???? Understand ex-royalty will never get a pity party from me. Life is full of gut-wrenching sadness, but you must keep moving forward and make peace with past because it cannot be changed and none of us knows what our futures hold. And that's all there is to. There is nothing to argue about because I will not state my position under this topic again.

The weakness with the arguments, and often times the 'American model', is that is disregards history and connections with the past. Monarchies are centuries-old, in many cases millennial institutions, that link our current nations to our past, they intertwine history with today and tomorrow, and allows people to both feel and experience a sense of purpose to their country, their state and their existence. This is often a hard thing to explain to people who are born in countries that are very young, and is often why there is a disconnect between the 'New World' and the 'Old World', when it comes to systems of governance.

With regards to titles, Duc explains it very well, and it is how we have internationally accepted their use. The highest one achieved in life, is the one used afterwards, in the appropriate settings. For a man raised as a Prince, later becoming King, then being forcibly removed, to use and be referred to as King later in life, is not arrogance. It is respectful, a matter of decorum and how all men and women of position is treated.

Humans are emotional beings. We connect with our royalty, those of us who have them, on levels that have nothing to do with democracy or equality. We don't mind families living in castles or wearing crowns, because they remind us of their parents, or grandparents, and the work they did for us and our country, in times of need, crisis and war. They remind us of our own families, and the people that went before us. Monarchies links past and present, while optimally safeguarding the political and diplomatic processes that take place in modern countries, and if done properly, monarchies can be restored in nations that lost or chose to leave the institution behind in earlier days and different circumstances.

That is what this thread is about. Who could, who should and who would succeed in assuming the Romanian throne, should it be restored.

 

[Cory]

Titles has nothing to do with the fact thatca country is a republic or a Monarchy.

 

[NotHRH]

The weakness with the arguments, and often times the 'American model', is that is disregards history and connections with the past. Monarchies are centuries-old, in many cases millennial institutions, that link our current nations to our past, they intertwine history with today and tomorrow, and allows people to both feel and experience a sense of purpose to their country, their state and their existence. This is often a hard thing to explain to people who are born in countries that are very young, and is often why there is a disconnect between the 'New World' and the 'Old World', when it comes to systems of governance.

With regards to titles, Duc explains it very well, and it is how we have internationally accepted their use. The highest one achieved in life, is the one used afterwards, in the appropriate settings. For a man raised as a Prince, later becoming King, then being forcibly removed, to use and be referred to as King later in life, is not arrogance. It is respectful, a matter of decorum and how all men and women of position is treated.

Humans are emotional beings. We connect with our royalty, those of us who have them, on levels that have nothing to do with democracy or equality. We don't mind families living in castles or wearing crowns, because they remind us of their parents, or grandparents, and the work they did for us and our country, in times of need, crisis and war. They remind us of our own families, and the people that went before us. Monarchies links past and present, while optimally safeguarding the political and diplomatic processes that take place in modern countries, and if done properly, monarchies can be restored in nations that lost or chose to leave the institution behind in earlier days and different circumstances.

That is what this thread is about. Who could, who should and who would succeed in assuming the Romanian throne, should it be restored.

My point (made in one of my earlier posts) is if Romania wants to restore their monarchy, the government of Romania will seek out their former royal family and restore them to the throne. It's really sad this family is still looking for a very expensive handout. They actually want Romanian citizens to support them again - wow! Unbelievable! It is so easy to spend money that you didn't earn yourself. This "royal" family should have been earning their own living for years now. You CANNOT change the past and no one knows what the future holds. Romania to their former royals: don't call us, we'll call you.

As far the US political system - it is NOT anywhere near perfect, it's not even in the same universe as "perfection." But granted, we have a system of checks and balances, not just amongst the 3 branches of govt - executive, judicial, legislative- but also between the 2 major political parties, and between the American people and the US federal government as a whole. We have a presidential election in November, and so far, Donald Trump is leading in all the polls and also in the primaries. The working class is tired of the govt doling out our hard-earned money (from taxes we pay based on our earnings) to lazy people that do nothing all day. In effort to make everybody happy, our govt is realizing that it is NOT possible for that to be. One group will always be unhappy. Anyway, royalty is just a type of welfare system - an extremely expensive one paid to a family that feels it is their right to take, and live lavishly while doing so. A royal family here would be taken out (sadly) in a similar way the Imperial Russian family was murdered, but it would probably be much more brutal and horrific. Our lives here would never allow one family throughout the centuries to become immensely wealthy from the sweat of our collective brow, especially when their role is ceremonial (=they did nothing to earn it). To me it's laughable that people who live in countries with a monarchy find that acceptable - I really do not understand that and NEVER will.

 

[JR76]

With opinions like that I'm a bit surprised you're here at all. While many of us disagree on a lot of things and the debates can get quite heated from time to time, we're united in our interest in both the historical and modern aspects of monarchy but you only seem to be here to one time after another criticise and bad mouth both the monarchical system and the people being part of it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[NotHRH]

If the US had a royal family, I probably would not be on this website. I do enjoy reading about all sorts of things, but especially people. But I cannot stand a whining (William) or a begging (ex-royals wanting 'their' throne back) royal. Switch places and then they can all take a breather. Does anybody else see the irony/contrast between these two situations?

 

[Cory]

My point (made in one of my earlier posts) is if Romania wants to restore their monarchy, the government of Romania will seek out their former royal family and restore them to the throne. It's really sad this family is still looking for a very expensive handout. They actually want Romanian citizens to support them again - wow! Unbelievable! It is so easy to spend money that you didn't earn yourself. This "royal" family should have been earning their own living for years now. You CANNOT change the past and no one knows what the future holds. Romania to their former royals: don't call us, we'll call you.

As far the US political system - it is NOT anywhere near perfect, it's not even in the same universe as "perfection." But granted, we have a system of checks and balances, not just amongst the 3 branches of govt - executive, judicial, legislative- but also between the 2 major political parties, and between the American people and the US federal government as a whole. We have a presidential election in November, and so far, Donald Trump is leading in all the polls and also in the primaries. The working class is tired of the govt doling out our hard-earned money (from taxes we pay based on our earnings) to lazy people that do nothing all day. In effort to make everybody happy, our govt is realizing that it is NOT possible for that to be. One group will always be unhappy. Anyway, royalty is just a type of welfare system - an extremely expensive one paid to a family that feels it is their right to take, and live lavishly while doing so. A royal family here would be taken out (sadly) in a similar way the Imperial Russian family was murdered, but it would probably be much more brutal and horrific. Our lives here would never allow one family throughout the centuries to become immensely wealthy from the sweat of our collective brow, especially when their role is ceremonial (=they did nothing to earn it). To me it's laughable that people who live in countries with a monarchy find that acceptable - I really do not understand that and NEVER will.

If the Monarchy will be restored in Romania the first option is to offen the Throne to the Hohenzollern who represent the Succession to the Throne according to the royalist constotutional tradition of Romania. If the Hohenzollerns refuse itvthan there is the possibiliy of another Royal Family.

 

[Cory]

Do you understand there are clear Succession rules (all the Romanisn royal Constitutions) which indicate he Hohenzollerns as Heirs if the King does not have sons or brothers? Those rules can be changed only by Parliament. So after King Michael his daughters and their descendants do not have dynastic rights.
It is rather weird that people that respect the rules of Succession for other non reigning Royal Houses ignore the rules of Succession of the Romanian Royal House .

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]
It is rather weird that people that respect the rules of Succession for other non reigning Royal Houses ignore the rules of Succession of the Romanian Royal House .

Amen to that!

 

[JR76]

Succession to the Romanian Throne

It is rather weird that people fail to grasp that, in most probabilities, if there is a restoration of the monarchy it won't be based on an old prewar constitution but on a completely new one. If the monarchy is restored it will be because the Romanian people feel that King Michael, or in reality Crown Princess Margaritha, are best suited to carry the office of Head of State and in such an eventuality it will be based on the affection people have for their family and their abilities. In such a case for the people to allow the crown to instead be transferred to a family that has no descent what so ever from the former ruling family is highly improbable and I must say pure fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Cory]

It is rather weird that people fail to grasp that, in most probabilities, if there is a restoration of the monarchy it won't be based on an old prewar constitution but on a completely new one. If the monarchy is restored it will be because the Romanian people feel that King Michael, or in reality Crown Princess Margaritha, are best suited to carry the office of Head of State and in such an eventuality it will be based on the affection people have for their family and their abilities. In such a case for the people to allow the crown to instead be transferred to a family that has no descent what so ever from the former ruling family is highly improbable and I must say pure fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

The Hohenzollerns are descendants in direct male line from the brothers of Carol I of Romania.
Who would support some English or French ladies only because their granfather was a King of Romania but they do not have any connection with the country and no dynastic rights?

 

[MAfan]

If things don't change and stay a they are, we have on a side the Princes of Hohenzollern who do not have any interest in Romania, on the other side there is a clear possible successor (Princess Margarita), who has some credit, lives in Romania, speaks Romanian, is involved in many activities in Romania, has an active role and possibly an interest in the restoration of the monarchy.
In a longer period, the Hohenzollern line of succession would remain clearer, but still unlikely; the "Michaelist" line of succession, instead, is somehow unclear and for that reason equally unlikely.

 

[Cory]

The Hohenzollerns have never formally given up their dynastic rights to the Throne. It was only HH Prince Karl who said he was not extremely interested few tears ago. He was speaking about himself not about all the Hohenzollerns.

HH Prince Karl can give up his dynastic rights in favour of other Prince of Hohenzollern. There are enough Princes in the Hoenzollern House.
I have to remind the constitutional Line of Succession eac time people speak about another "Line" that has nothing to do with the rotal Constitutions of the Kingdom of Romania.

 

[MAfan]

Yes, but as you constantly remind us he is the first in the "constitutional" line of succession and he is the heir presumptive after King Michael. Not all the other Hohenzollers. Even if all the other Hohenzollerns were interested in the Romanian succession, it would be Prince Karl the only one entitled to take decisions after King Michael's death about the Romanian succession.

 

[Cory]

If things don't change and stay a they are, we have on a side the Princes of Hohenzollern who do not have any interest in Romania, on the other side there is a clear possible successor (Princess Margarita), who has some credit, lives in Romania, speaks Romanian, is involved in many activities in Romania, has an active role and possibly an interest in the restoration of the monarchy.
In a longer period, the Hohenzollern line of succession would remain clearer, but still unlikely; the "Michaelist" line of succession, instead, is somehow unclear and for that reason equally unlikely.

Princess Margareta is just the eldest daughter of the King and she has no dynastic rights according to the Constitutions of the Kingdom of Romania. She and her sister Princess Mary live in Romania and do not have children. The others sisters and their descendance do not live in the country,are not envolved in the life of the Romanian society and do not speak Romanian.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

To me it's laughable that people who live in countries with a monarchy find that acceptable - I really do not understand that and NEVER will.

That's because you seem steadfastly determined not to look beyond the narrow and dismissive way you have misunderstood constitutional monarchy as a form of national government. You make sweeping generalisations about whinging and begging royals, without actually providing any evidence to support such accusations. King Michael, who first became king 89 years ago, is a living symbol of Romania's history. He has not begged for anything, and there is absolutely nothing pretentious or arrogant about this fine old gentleman who served the people of Romania as king. The only arrogance here has been the way you have totally refused to even consider that the Royal House of Romania has found a niche for itself within the Republic of Romania. As such, even as an historical institution, King Michael's successor as Head of the Royal House of Romania is a topic of interest to many people who join in this discussion.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

With opinions like that I'm a bit surprised you're here at all. While many of us disagree on a lot of things and the debates can get quite heated from time to time, we're united in our interest in both the historical and modern aspects of monarchy but you only seem to be here to one time after another criticise and bad mouth both the monarchical system and the people being part of it.

Interest is not synonymous with approval.

 

[Cory]

There is no poll regarding who the people consider as future Heir to the Throne.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that the merits or otherwise of having a monarchy/republic can be discussed in the following thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/monarchy-vs-republic-12736-17.html

 

[Cory]

Those that support a proposal of Line of Succession contrary to the Constitutions of the Kingdom of Romania forget there is no grandchild of nowadays Monarch who lives in the country.

 

[Benjamin]

Those that support a proposal of Line of Succession contrary to the Constitutions of the Kingdom of Romania forget there is no grandchild of nowadays Monarch who lives in the country.

No one has forgotten what happened to Prince Nicholas, who, by the way, did live in Bucharest for years as well as speak the language.

Many realize that the young man embodies the hope for a future of the royal family in Romania.

Some ardent royalists do not agree with the decision that was taken in August.

 

[Cory]

Mr Medforth Mills was supported by many royalists because he was the only descendant of the King who could bring continuity. Now that chapter is closed. The proposed Lone of the Ki g does not really have any future.

 

[LadyRohan]

That's because you seem steadfastly determined not to look beyond the narrow and dismissive way you have misunderstood constitutional monarchy as a form of national government. You make sweeping generalisations about whinging and begging royals, without actually providing any evidence to support such accusations. King Michael, who first became king 89 years ago, is a living symbol of Romania's history. He has not begged for anything, and there is absolutely nothing pretentious or arrogant about this fine old gentleman who served the people of Romania as king. The only arrogance here has been the way you have totally refused to even consider that the Royal House of Romania has found a niche for itself within the Republic of Romania. As such, even as an historical institution, King Michael's successor as Head of the Royal House of Romania is a topic of interest to many people who join in this discussion.

This is a very good way of summing up the status quo.
The greater cause is the debate of monarchy vs. republic, and it is natural to assume that most people on monarchical forums, with a few visible exceptions, are in favour of monarchical restorations wherever possible, and believe in the virtues of monarchies as a form of government.
If that basis is shared, the question becomes how one best drives the cause forward, and which person(s) can best promote the interest of monarchy in any given country.

I don't know who will be asked to assume the throne in Romania if it is restored, and neither does anyone else on these forums, but I do know this: If one thinks that the world will return to 70 years ago, and that a monarchy in Europe will be restored bypassing women because they're women, and an old line of succession said so in days long gone, they should have another think about it.

The facts are clear, most politicians say it straight out, that if they started from scratch and were choosing a government today, with little or no historical links to a certain family, they would not choose a monarchy as its basis. As a monarchist, I still understand that, because to many, it is both an illogical construct, and for politicians, it removes one of the ways they can achieve power, through a precidency.

However, when there are existing monarchies that function, or in countries where there are former royal families actively working, discreetly intermixing in the fabric of society, there is a chance of changing the system of government to what it once was, but that change is based on the people that advocate it, who represent it towards the public. In Romania, that is the Royal Family.

Yes, the King has 5 daughters and no sons. 70-80 years ago, that might have been an issue, and if the monarchy had not been abolished, maybe, just maybe they would had been sidelined and a male from the house of Hohenzollern would had been summoned after King Michael would pass away.

Does anyone genuinely believe that? If the Royal House was still ruling in Romania, in 2016, King Michael still being alive, Romania being a modern and Westernized country in the EU, would the politicians not have changed the constitution to allow for female succession, so that Margareta would have assumed the throne after her father?

This is the real world we live in. Restoring a monarchy is an uphill climb in todays world. It takes an incredible effort both on the part of the family, it takes political bravery and a PR-machine to sell it to the public, but most of all, it requires support by those who actually favour a monarchy.

That is where I get lost in this debate, where one bludgeons the other with facts about ancient lines of succession etc. Nobody doubts what the line of succession said in 1947, before the monarchy was abolished.

What I, and most others, ask on these forums, and in our discussions with Romanian friends and others, is what is realistic today. Do we try to restore the monarchy based on the people who represent the heritage, the family and the former King, or do we build a new monarchy, and find a Prince from the old house that provided the first King in the 19th century?

The old constitution is dead, as is the line of succession. There is no dome over the monarchy, as Duc wrote in an earlier post in this thread, because that is not how the world works. An institution, a construct of any kind that refuses to update, to adapt and to change when necessary, has no survivability in our world today, or in the rapidly changing world of tomorrow.

That is where it stands, and that forms the basis of what is possible to achieve. That is what King Michael tried to express when he wrote a document under his own seal, that he encouraged parliament to consider.

Many ask monarchists to be realistic. That is realism in action. The world has changed. The King knows that. People and politicians know that. We need to know that as well, if the goal of seeing the monarchy return to Romania, is to happen at all.

 

[Cory]

Obviously you do not know Romania too much if you suppose Romanian would ignore not only the Constitutions of the Kingdom but also long established traditions.
If you were also realistic you would notice no grandchild of the King lives in the country and so the King's descendants are not really linked with the country except the two daughters of the King that are childless.