Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #1 
I am still trying to find out why King Mihai/Michael of Romania dramatically disinherited his own designated heir, his popular grandson Nicholas Medforth-Mills, who was known as Prince Nicolae before he was stripped of his title, his place in the royal line, and his membership of the Romanian royal family.

By doing so, King Mihai has effectively sealed the fate of the Romanian monarchy which might have been restored under Prince Nicolae who was deeply popular in Romania. While Nicholas' sister now takes over as heir- she is not even living in Romania- and is not likely to be accepted as Queen of Romania anytime soon. The monarchy had a serious chance of being restored under Nicholae, but has no chance of being restored under any of the other descendants of Mihai who are all controversial for one reason or another.

The official reasons for this action given by both King Mihai and Nicholas seems to have been stage written for the press- and will do little to silence public discontent with the king's decision. Even the leader of the Social Democratic party wrote a polite letter of protest to the king.

Does anyone have any credible info (not gossip) on why the king of Romania decided to disinherit his only viable heir?



Image result for nicholas medforth-mills

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #2 
Presumably King Michael knows why, and perhaps some of those closest to him, but they're not saying (Daily Beast article on the mystery). I disagree that the former King had power to alter the succession in the first place to bring his grandson in, but this expulsion, complete with gratuitous slurs on what seems a perfectly decent young man's character from his own grandfather, was about the most damaging step imaginable, and has as you say torpedoed any chance of the monarchy ever being restored.
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 834
Reply with quote  #3 
Would it be possible for one of king Michael's daughters to put the young man back into the line of succession in case of the unfortunate event that the King would die? 
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 358
Reply with quote  #4 
Thanks for the above information.

I think that it was reasonable for King Mihai to formulate his Fundamental Laws of the Rumanian Royal Family in 2007, so that, before he passes on, there could be some basis by which his daughters could perpetuate a claim to the throne, even though his Fundamental Laws have no legal basis at all in current Rumanian law. They seem to be somewhat similar to the now old-fashioned House Laws that many of the German royal, princely, and noble families maintained, to designate who could maintain a place in the succession. I believe that Mihai was separating himself and his descendants from the German House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, where they originated, and erecting a brand new House of De Roumanie, through which his descendants can continue to put forward a claim to the vacant Rumanian throne. Mihai is about 94 years old now, and it's understandable that he wanted to establish some structural foundation to continue his daughters' claim, before he passes on.

I think this was actually a practical thing to do. Mihai has only daughters, and so the agnatic line of the Rumanian royal family will come to an end with him (excepting his Hohenzollern-Lambrino relatives, who are rather thin on the ground). Back in the early Twentieth Century, it would have been feasible to envision placing a German relative from the ancestral House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen on the Rumanian throne (that was how Mihai's grandfather Ferdinand actually acquired it in 1914), but it's difficult to contemplate that happening now, considering these nationalistic times that we live in. The Rumanian people in all likelihood would appreciate a monarch descending from the three previous kings, maintaining a royal line going back to the 1800s, and providing some sense of familial historical continuity, and the fact that it would pass through the female line likely wouldn't present a problem to them.

However, having provided a basis for his daughters to maintain a claim, it would now be best for the old king to refrain from attempting to micro-manage the succession, which can only inevitably lead to trouble. In the rather unlikely chance that the Rumanian throne will be restored, it will surely be done through a conventional process of choosing which heir is most appropriate and acceptable to the government and populace. It won't make any difference what sort of family line of successsion is being maintained. Mihai carried out Nicholas' removal in an abrupt and uncalled for way. It was evidently done for some private reasons that haven't been made public. Nicholas has been living in Rumania for about 5 years now, carrying out some duties in a responsible manner, and his public behavior has been respectable, certainly no worse than Prince Harry's, and better, if anything. He's still young, and may be more informal, relaxed, and casual in his behavior than his grandfather would like. His lifestyle may not entirely conform to his grandfather's ideas of propriety. But no good purpose seems to have been served in publicly demeaning him and removing him from the theoretical line of succession.

Nor did the old king accomplish anything constructive in removing his daughter Irina, her children and grandchildren, from the succession, in spite of their cockfighting escapades at their home in Oregon a few years ago. Mihai's family isn't so numerous that he can afford to be disinheriting them as freely as this, and Irina's line was the most prolific of all his daughters. She hadn't put forth any public claim to the throne to begin with, and the act of removing her from the succession was unnecessary. Mihai, having established a way for his daughters to carry on his claim, would be well-advised to let the succession alone for the time being, and instead to encourage his children and grandchildren to carry on in an honorable & decent way, so that they will be available in the future if Rumania calls upon them. They will rise or fall on their own merits, and any intervention isn't necessary. Nicholas did seem to have been fulfilling his role by living in Rumania, carrying out some duties, learning the language, and had earned a measure of respect from the public, so it's unfortunate that this has happened.

The Fundamental Laws created Mihai's eldest daughter, Margareta, as Crown Princess and Custodian of the Throne. Mihai seems to be leaving it to her to designate her successor. The second daughter, Elena, is the mother of Nicholas and Elisabeta. The third daughter, the notorious Irina, appears to be out of the picture now, if she was even in it to begin with. The fourth daughter, Sophie, has one child, a daughter Elisabeth. The fifth daughter Maria, is unmarried. It seems perfectly feasible that when Mihai passes on, depending upon circumstances, Nicholas could be restored to the line of succession, although I imagine he will probably have looked elsewhere for a career by that time. Whatever will be, will be.



__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #5 
It was not in 1881 (the year in which his uncle and predecessor Carol I became King rather than Prince) that King Michael's grandfather Ferdinand I obtained the Romanian crown, but rather 1914, on Carol I's death shortly after the outbreak of war. He had been his childless uncle's nominated heir since 1886, and the constitution enacted during his reign and in force at the monarchy's fall made provision for the further succession. This was confined to the male line of the Hohenzollern dynasty, with females excluded 'for ever'. In the event of there being no Hohenzollern heir, or none willing to serve, the King had power to nominate a successor from another Western European dynasty, though his choice was subject to confirmation by the legislature.

Your arguments on practical grounds are reasonable, but still what King Michael did was clean contrary to and a direct flouting of the law which made him King in the first place. I think he was wrong to do it. What has happened since has gravely compounded the error, and there I agree with more or less all that you say.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 358
Reply with quote  #6 
Thanks for that correction on the succession dates of King Carol I and his nephew King Ferdinand. I'll revise my previous post.
__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere
Thanks for the above information.

I think that it was reasonable for King Mihai to formulate his Fundamental Laws of the Rumanian Royal Family in 2007, so that, before he passes on, there could be some basis by which his daughters could perpetuate a claim to the throne, even though his Fundamental Laws have no legal basis at all in current Rumanian law. They seem to be somewhat similar to the now old-fashioned House Laws that many of the German royal, princely, and noble families maintained, to designate who could maintain a place in the succession. I believe that Mihai was separating himself and his descendants from the German House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, where they originated, and erecting a brand new House of De Roumanie, through which his descendants can continue to put forward a claim to the vacant Rumanian throne. Mihai is about 94 years old now, and it's understandable that he wanted to establish some structural foundation to continue his daughters' claim, before he passes on.

I think this was actually a practical thing to do. Mihai has only daughters, and so the agnatic line of the Rumanian royal family will come to an end with him (excepting his Hohenzollern-Lambrino relatives, who are rather thin on the ground). Back in the early Twentieth Century, it would have been feasible to envision placing a German relative from the ancestral House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen on the Rumanian throne (that was how Mihai's grandfather Ferdinand actually acquired it in 1914), but it's difficult to contemplate that happening now, considering these nationalistic times that we live in. The Rumanian people in all likelihood would appreciate a monarch descending from the three previous kings, maintaining a royal line going back to the 1800s, and providing some sense of familial historical continuity, and the fact that it would pass through the female line likely wouldn't present a problem to them.

However, having provided a basis for his daughters to maintain a claim, it would now be best for the old king to refrain from attempting to micro-manage the succession, which can only inevitably lead to trouble. In the rather unlikely chance that the Rumanian throne will be restored, it will surely be done through a conventional process of choosing which heir is most appropriate and acceptable to the government and populace. It won't make any difference what sort of family line of successsion is being maintained. Mihai carried out Nicholas' removal in an abrupt and uncalled for way. It was evidently done for some private reasons that haven't been made public. Nicholas has been living in Rumania for about 5 years now, carrying out some duties in a responsible manner, and his public behavior has been respectable, certainly no worse than Prince Harry's, and better, if anything. He's still young, and may be more informal, relaxed, and casual in his behavior than his grandfather would like. His lifestyle may not entirely conform to his grandfather's ideas of propriety. But no good purpose seems to have been served in publicly demeaning him and removing him from the theoretical line of succession.

Nor did the old king accomplish anything constructive in removing his daughter Irina, her children and grandchildren, from the succession, in spite of their cockfighting escapades at their home in Oregon a few years ago. Mihai's family isn't so numerous that he can afford to be disinheriting them as freely as this, and Irina's line was the most prolific of all his daughters. She hadn't put forth any public claim to the throne to begin with, and the act of removing her from the succession was unnecessary. Mihai, having established a way for his daughters to carry on his claim, would be well-advised to let the succession alone for the time being, and instead to encourage his children and grandchildren to carry on in an honorable & decent way, so that they will be available in the future if Rumania calls upon them. They will rise or fall on their own merits, and any intervention isn't necessary. Nicholas did seem to have been fulfilling his role by living in Rumania, carrying out some duties, learning the language, and had earned a measure of respect from the public, so it's unfortunate that this has happened.

The Fundamental Laws created Mihai's eldest daughter, Margareta, as Crown Princess and Custodian of the Throne. Mihai seems to be leaving it to her to designate her successor. The second daughter, Elena, is the mother of Nicholas and Elisabeta. The third daughter, the notorious Irina, appears to be out of the picture now, if she was even in it to begin with. The fourth daughter, Sophie, has one child, a daughter Elisabeth. The fifth daughter Maria, is unmarried. It seems perfectly feasible that when Mihai passes on, depending upon circumstances, Nicholas could be restored to the line of succession, although I imagine he will probably have looked elsewhere for a career by that time. Whatever will be, will be.


Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #8 
You raise some interesting points. I agree that in this nationalistic era, it is unlikely that Romanians will accept some distant Hohenzollern prince who cannot claim descent from any of the kings of united Romania. The big weakness of most of the East European royal families is that they are  German. With the exception of the Serbian, Montenegro and Albanian royal families, the Balkan states which   were newly liberated from centuries of Ottoman rule were encouraged by the "great powers" to choose a royal house from one of the royal/princely houses from the German empire, or one of the other monarchies of western Europe. In the "great age of monarchy", it was considered essential to be part of "the club", if a nation wanted to able to negotiate on equal terms with the other European monarchies.  Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and Greece all ended up with royal families of German heritage. While this heritage was considered an asset  in the 19th century, this heritage has become a real negative in the nationalistic era of the 21st century. In fact I believe that the foreign German factor has been a stumbling block delaying the restoration of the royal families of Eastern and Balkan Europe  in the post  Communist era. In fact in the case of Greece, the Socialists never stop pointing out that the "Greek" royal family is actually a branch of the Danish royal family the House of Oldenburg- which is actually German originally. Another branch of the Oldenburgs also reigned in Russia until the Revolution. On the other hand, the Serbian, Albanian, and Montenegro royal families are deeply popular and have the strongest chance of being restored in the 21st century. A majority of Serbs want to re-establish the Kingdom of Serbia, while the former Albanian prime minister, Sali Berisha has admitted publically that the monarchy referendum of 1997 was actually won by Leka Zogu, while the Montenegro parliament has recently created a formal role for their former royal family.

In the case of Romania, King Michael long ago recognized this nationalistic trend- which is why he separated his family from their German Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen relatives with his "Fundamental Laws" in 2007. His nomination of his grandson Nicholas Medforth-Mills was a really good move on the part of the wartime monarch. Nicolae- as he is known in Romania- was a hit from day one. Handsome, humble, likeable, and committed to various charitable and economic projects, he was very much liked by ordinary Romanians and the political class alike. I don't know why the old king disinherited his most promising heir, by this act seems to be part of a broader and disturbing trend of alienating all of the most promising heirs of his family- which suggests that he may be becoming senile!

When the king passes away, his daughter Margareta can restore Nicholas's place in the succession, but I don't think that Nicholas will be willing to go back to Romania. Besides the huge public humiliation he must have experienced when his grandfather made this very public act of disinheritance, adjusting to social and political life in Romania was quite difficult for this gentle Englishman and his Linked-In page suggests he is quite relieved to be out of it all.

Ironically, these developments have strengthened the cause of Paul Lambrino. Paul Lambrino-Hohenzollern descends from a morganatic marriage between King Carol II and Zizi Lambrino, his  Romanian commoner lover around 1920. This marriage was conducted in an Eastern Orthodox religious ceremony in Odessa, but was annulled by the Romanian parliament because it violated the Constitution of the Kingdom of Romania. Prince Carol -as he was then- later entered into a dynastic marriage with Princess Helena of Greece and fathered King Michael with her. Paul Lambrino however, has thrown a spanner in the works by claiming that the marriage of his grandfather King Carol II and Zizi Lambrino was never annulled by the Orthodox Church. If his claim is true, then the Orthodox marriage of King Carol and Princess Helena was bigamous -in the eyes of the Orthodox Church- and King Michael was born illegitimate and therefore has no right to the Romanian Throne along with his descendants. Of course King Carol's second marriage would have been binding under the royal constitution, but still bigamous in the eyes of the Church. A few years ago the row over Paul Lambrino's claims led to a major High Court battle between himself and King Michael in Romania over rights to property and ultimately the Throne itself which was won by Paul Lambrino. Immediately after the High Court ruling, King Michael suddenly extended a hand of friendship and reconciliation to Paul and they had a meeting. What the contents of that meeting was will never be made public, but King Michael might have privately agreed to accept Paul as his heir. Was this the root of his recent action against Nicholas? Who knows? Paul Lambrino looks more like a Romanian than his half-uncle, so might be more acceptable to Romania's political class. The fact that Michael refused to even attend his late father's re-interment suggests that he may know more than he is willing to tell in public- perhaps Paul's claims are true?

But Paul Lambrino's life is also highly controversial. The son of Carol Mircea Lambrino, the child of King Carol II and Zizi Lambrino born after the parliamentary annulment, he is married to a woman with a scandalous reputation. Lia Georgia Triff was the former wife of a high profile American lawyer who divorced her on the grounds of multiple infidelities. She married Paul not long after the death of her former husband when she was al least 48 years old. After numerous attempts to have a child for him, she miraculously gave birth to a healthy baby son at the age of 60!. The couple admitted that medical technology was used (post-menopausal IVF)- and she claims that her own frozen eggs were used- but is she telling the truth? If someone else's eggs were used, then questions can then can be be raised about the legitimacy of the child named Carol Ferdinand. Under the circumstances, the Romanian people are unlikely to accept young Carol Ferdinand as a viable heir to their monarchy. So it does not look like the Romanian monarchy has any future at all.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domhangairt
In the "great age of monarchy", it was considered essential to be part of "the club", if a nation wanted to able to negotiate on equal terms with the other European monarchies.  Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and Greece all ended up with royal families of German heritage. While this heritage was considered an asset  in the 19th century, this heritage has become a real negative in the nationalistic era of the 21st century.

The House of Habsburg, becoming Habsburg-Lorraine, acquired the Hungarian, Bohemian and Croatian thrones through marriage inheritance and election in the 16th century. The Holstein-Gottorp dynasty acquired the Russian throne through marriage inheritance and appointment in the 18th century. The Albertine House of Wettin acquired the Polish/Lithuanian throne through election in the 17th century. Only Romania, Bulgaria and Greece found themselves with sovereigns of German stock through the process you describe.

That aside, the points you make regarding the purported alteration to the Romanian succession are perfectly sensible, albeit since I treasure the rule of law above all else I still think King Michael's action was invalid and wrong whatever its justification. I also disagree over King Michael's possible illegitimacy. If you are pleading the authority of the Church for it, the marriage of King Michael's parents was conducted in the Greek Orthodox Church. That august body naturally made no suggestion at the time of its invalidity. Nor did the Romanian Orthodox Church, and I would suggest that neither it nor its Greek cousin could credibly do so now.

Since the marriage was as you observe valid according to Romanian civil law, King Michael's legitimacy is to me unimpugnable. And I very much doubt that King Michael has any plan to alter his version of the succession yet again in favour of his half-brother's line. In passing, there was more than enough bad blood between King Michael and his father to explain and justify the former's refusal to attend the latter's reinterment, without any need for further theorising.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domhangairt
In the "great age of monarchy", it was considered essential to be part of "the club", if a nation wanted to able to negotiate on equal terms with the other European monarchies.  Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and Greece all ended up with royal families of German heritage. While this heritage was considered an asset  in the 19th century, this heritage has become a real negative in the nationalistic era of the 21st century.

The House of Habsburg, becoming Habsburg-Lorraine, acquired the Hungarian, Bohemian and Croatian thrones through marriage inheritance and election in the 16th century. The Holstein-Gottorp dynasty acquired the Russian throne through marriage inheritance and appointment in the 18th century. The Albertine House of Wettin acquired the Polish/Lithuanian throne through election in the 17th century. Only Romania, Bulgaria and Greece found themselves with sovereigns of German stock through the process you describe.

That aside, the points you make regarding the purported alteration to the Romanian succession are perfectly sensible, albeit since I treasure the rule of law above all else I still think King Michael's action was invalid and wrong whatever its justification. I also disagree over King Michael's possible illegitimacy. If you are pleading the authority of the Church for it, the marriage of King Michael's parents was conducted in the Greek Orthodox Church. That august body naturally made no suggestion at the time of its invalidity. Nor did the Romanian Orthodox Church, and I would suggest that neither it nor its Greek cousin could credibly do so now.

Since the marriage was as you observe valid according to Romanian civil law, King Michael's legitimacy is to me unimpugnable. And I very much doubt that King Michael has any plan to alter his version of the succession yet again in favour of his half-brother's line. In passing, there was more than enough bad blood between King Michael and his father to explain and justify the former's refusal to attend the latter's reinterment, without any need for further theorising.


Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #11 
You are quite right about the Habsburg and Wettin successions, I was merely trying to point out that most of these royal houses have very no native heritage at all- and this is being used by republicans to prevent or stall any viable restoration attempt. I always laugh when I read about the mooted enthronement of "Grand Duke George of Russia" He looks like a Georgian thug (his grandmother's heritage) and he does not have a drop of Russian blood in his veins, while his father is a member of the same German imperial house whose troops killed millions of Russian troops in World War I. In the unlikely event of a Russian restoration, Russians will be more inclined to enthrone Vladimir Putin than Maria Vladimirovna's son. The very use of the Romanoff name must be an insult to Russian nationalists. That august dynasty become extinct in the male line in 1730.

The same controversy affects the Romanian, Greek, and Bulgarian royal families. In the event of a monarchy restoration in Romania, the Romanians are not likely to restore either the 1881 or 1923 laws of succession, they are much more likely to enshrine Michaels "fundamental laws". Any successful candidate will have to prove his descent from King Ferdinand to inspire support among Romanians. Sadly King Michael has destroyed any hope of a restoration of his own family by his humiliating estrangement of his own appointed line heir- the only promising member of his family with a future. The tone of Nicholas's career search on his Linked-In page suggests he has already turned his back on his Romanian adventure and put it firmly behind him. Good for him. King Michael is very old and showing signs of senility- he should have passed over the baton to his daughter Margareta  a long time ago. These eccentric European monarchs are more often than not  the architects of their own downfall.

As for Paul Lambrino- though he represents the only surviving male line of King Ferdinand's family, I doubt whether Romanians will take him or his outrageous wife seriously enough to elevate them to the position of King and Queen of Romania. He even lost a presidential bid in the early 2000s. As for their artificially manufactured son, he would be wise to focus his energies on investing the proceeds of the sale of any properties his father won title to in his lengthy court battle with King Michael.

The best chance the Romanian royals had of a restoration was when King Michael and Queen Anne first arrived In Romania in the early 1990s. More than a million Romanians came out onto the streets to greet them. There was no scandal at this stage.  Unfortunately, Romania's corrupt political establishment saw the wartime king as a threat rather than as an asset. Now I fear it is all too late.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #12 
Actually, Grand Duke George has Russian as well as Georgian blood through his maternal grandmother. His forefather Peter III, the first Emperor of the Holstein-Gottorp dynasty, became so due to his mother Anna, sister of Empress Elizabeth and daughter of Peter I by Catherine I, so the attaching of the Romanoff name was perfectly reasonable and justified. Hohenzollern-Romanoff is I admit a bit more of a stretch, but still not too far of a one. The Netherlands ruling house is the House of Orange-Nassau, but King Willem-Alexander is paternally a Van Amsberg, while his mother former Queen Beatrix is paternally a Lippe-Biesterfeld, and his grandmother Queen Juliana was a Mecklenburg-Schwerin agnate. You have to go back to his great-grandmother Queen Wilhelmina to find an Orange-Nassau dynast of the original line, yet no one questions what the House chooses to call itself.

I agree that should the Romanian monarchy be restored it is unlikely in the extreme to be in the person who is heir under the 1923 rules (unless the restoration took place during King Michael's lifetime). And whoever was chosen in that happy event would be the perfectly valid King or Queen of the Romanians. My point is only that in the meantime the original rules still apply and no one apart from the Romanian people through constitutional processes has the right or power to abrogate them. And the same applies for Russia, in both respects.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Actually, Grand Duke George has Russian as well as Georgian blood through his maternal grandmother. His forefather Peter III, the first Emperor of the Holstein-Gottorp dynasty, became so due to his mother Anna, sister of Empress Elizabeth and daughter of Peter I by Catherine I, so the attaching of the Romanoff name was perfectly reasonable and justified. Hohenzollern-Romanoff is I admit a bit more of a stretch, but still not too far of a one. The Netherlands ruling house is the House of Orange-Nassau, but King Willem-Alexander is paternally a Van Amsberg, while his mother former Queen Beatrix is paternally a Lippe-Biesterfeld, and his grandmother Queen Juliana was a Mecklenburg-Schwerin agnate. You have to go back to his great-grandmother Queen Wilhelmina to find an Orange-Nassau dynast of the original line, yet no one questions what the House chooses to call itself.

I agree that should the Romanian monarchy be restored it is unlikely in the extreme to be in the person who is heir under the 1923 rules (unless the restoration took place during King Michael's lifetime). And whoever was chosen in that happy event would be the perfectly valid King or Queen of the Romanians. My point is only that in the meantime the original rules still apply and no one apart from the Romanian people through constitutional processes has the right or power to abrogate them. And the same applies for Russia, in both respects.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 168
Reply with quote  #14 
Both Peter III and his wife Catherine II were descended through the female line from the medieval Russian Grand Princes. Furthermore Peter was as you rightly point out the maternal grandson of the Romanoff Czar Peter the Great. That doesnot make their descendants Russian. I am descended through several female lines from the Russian Grand Princes. That does not make me Russian. Nor does this ancestry give me the right to use the name Rurikovitch as my surname, or part of it. All of Peter and Catherine's descendants married German spouses with the exception of Alexander III who married a Danish princess whose family are originally German anyway. Peter III lived more than 240 years ago. Some ten generations have passed since he was assassinated in 1762. None of these married anyone of Russian heritage. This is why the modern native Russian Monarchist movement does not support the cause of Maria Vladimirovna, but favours instead the election of a new Russian Czar and imperial family in the same manner which elevated the Romanoff dynasty in 1613. She is only supported by the aristocratic Russian expatriate community, not within Russia itself. Personally I would like to see the election of a member of the  Lobanov-Rostoffsky family, or alternatively the Gagarin family to the Imperial Throne. These families have been identified by DNA tests as male-line descendants of the Russian Grand Princes, and they have also married Russian spouses on a regular basis over the centuries with the exception of the latest members who were born in exile and obliged to choose non-Russian spouses in some cases. For any Russian monarchy to succeed in the 21st century it must be seen in the eyes of Russians as a Russian family. Modern Russians look upon Maria Vladimirovna and her son as foreigners both by birth and by heritage.

As for Queen Beatrix, the announcement of her marriage to German nobleman Claus von Amsberg was greeted with outrage in the Netherlands- especially among those Dutch who remembered the German occupation. Dutch politicians protested and on the day of her wedding, Dutchmen threw petrol bombs at the royal carriage and shouted for the abolition of the monarchy. I have seen photographs of this tumultuous occasion. It was only his benign and gentle character which gradually won over the hearts of the Dutch over many years. Her grandmother Queen Wilhelmina who's mother was German, and who was married to a German Grand Duke,  was strongly disliked in the era following World War I especially in the cities and towns of  the Netherlands. It was only her courageous resistance and broadcasts during the Nazi wartime era which redeemed her reputation among the Dutch population.

The point I am trying to make is that in the current nationalist era, royal descent is no longer enough to secure the restoration of monarchies. People need to feel that they can identify with their royal family - they need to feel shared heritage. This is why the royal families of Serbia and Montenegro are widely popular while ordinary people in Bulgaria, Greece, and Romania are largely indifferent  to their royal families.

As for Romania,  the 1923 law of Succession was invalidated by the referendum which established the modern Romanian Republic- neither the succession laws of the 1923 constitution, nor King Michael's "fundamental laws" have any validity at this time whatsoever. A future royalist constitution would establish an entirely new law of succession which would have no connections with either the 1881 constitution, nor the 1923 constitution but might incorporate some of King Michael's ideas.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,742
Reply with quote  #15 
Peter III was the Romanoff heir, which surely entitled him to use the Romanoff name. Historically, few monarchs have been wholly or largely of the blood of the people they ruled. Some have not even been partially so, and many have had only the remotest trace of the native blood of their realm. That did not stop them being lawful monarchs, or loved by their people, or natives in spirit even if not by blood. Queen Wilhelmina's father Willem III married a German as you say, a Princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont. And his father Willem II married a Russian Grand Duchess, ethnically German (apart from her great-great-grandfather Peter I who was Russian and her great-great-grandmother Catherine I who was, we're not sure really, but maybe Latvian). His father Willem I married a Princess of Prussia, as did his father Willem V of Orange. His father Willem IV married a British princess, ethnically German, and his father Jan Willem Friso, first of that direct line to rule in the Netherlands, married a Landgravine of Hesse-Cassell.

So why there should have been shock and horror when Queen Wilhelmina married a Mecklenburg Duke (not Grand Duke) is beyond me. I don't think there was, actually, and I believe that she had the admiration and respect of the bulk of her people through most of her long reign. While she did have periods of unpopularity I doubt this was due to either her or her husband's (very similar) ethnicity. While he was never loved this was because he never did much to merit it, and I think people realised that Queen Wilhelmina had rather more of a voice in government than she was constitutionally supposed to. Which was fine when things went well, but, justly enough, meant she got blamed when they didn't.

You don't mention Prince Bernhard, just as German, perhaps because, at least until his misdeeds were exposed, he was extremely popular. The Duke of Edinburgh is also well-liked by the British public, despite (or even a little because of) his tendency to open his mouth and put his foot straight in it. The Swedish people though don't seem especially thrilled to have a Swedish consort for their future Queen, nor were the Norwegians over-ecstatic when the then Crown Prince Harald married a Norwegian. I really don't think any sweeping case can be made for modern monarchs having to be of the same ethnicity as their subjects. Which, as I started out by saying, in the past they almost never were.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.