Talk:Line of succession to the Romanian throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fantasyland

"Because of the Romanian succession law incorporated in the kingdom's last democratic Constitution of 1923, upon the death of King Michael (assuming he dies without any male children, as is likely now), in absence of its necessary change along with the Constitution, which would first require the restoration of the monarchy…" What is this intended to mean? The way it reads tends to suggest that the constitution of 1923 is somehow still in effect, and could somehow now be amended. This seems beyond even the realm of conjecture, into sheer fantasyland. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound better? :
"According to the Romanian succession law incorporated into the kingdom's last democratic Constitution, that of 1923, agnatic primogeniture determines who inherits the throne. If Michael dies without any male children, as is likely now, and if a new royalist constitution were to restore the monarchy without changes to the 1923 succession law, then the succession would devolve..." Biruitorul 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
How about "According to the Romanian succession law incorporated into the kingdom's last democratic Constitution, that of 1923, agnatic primogeniture determines who inherits the throne. After two intervening changes of regime, that constitution no longer carries legal weight, but it retains the weight of tradition. If Michael dies without any male children, as is likely now, then the succession under the 1923 succession law would devolve..." I suppose that the sentence in the middle is slightly subjective; I'm open to still other approaches. - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this too could work. I don't think many people (other than myself and Radu Duda) would argue that the 1923 Constitution still has effect. Biruitorul 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You're not in the best of company there, but better Radu than Paul. - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Logic in this fantasyland is however an interesting thing to ponder. In the case of William of Hohenzollern's branch being not eligible to succession on basis of his renunciation, and Charles Anthony of Hohenzollern's remaining male-line branch due to morganaticity, then there probably are no Hohenzollern dynasts in succession. (I think rights were never stretched further than to brothers of Carol I, and that already was some sort of sui generis decision of Carol I, accepted by Romanian constitutional organs- the texts of earlier laws suggest that only Carol I's brothers were thought of.) Besides, a constitutional requirement is being of Eastern Orthodox faith - and this requirement stalls all German Hohenzollerns. There certainly are no other Orthodox agnates than king Michael. Which all means king Michael is the last agnate. Which, on one hand on basis of HRE customary laws (which may be argued to be inherent part of the dynasty, as Romania chose its dynasty from among HRE sovereign houses), enables him to designate further heirs. And on the other hand, as being without requisite agnates to succeed, may invoke a sui generis right (similar with that used by Carol I in designating his brothers) to ensure his and his predecessors' heritage will not extinguish, not at least upon his own demise. Henq (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Ps. However imperfect be, constitutionally, king Michael's legislative powers, the fact is that under monarchical constitution, he has had a part in legislating. If other organs designated to make the legislation perfect, do not at all decide anything upon it, the "imperfect" legislative enactment by king Michael may come to enjoy the status of law. European history is full of examples where the previous legislative or contstitutional process has not validly produced the next fundamental law or constitution, and nevertheless the latter has come to be enforceable. Besides, under the stipulations of 1923 constitution, if the line of succession goes extinct, the last king has the right to designate heirs from among "Western dynasties". Henq (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect: only the descendants of the King are required to be raised in the Eastern Orthodox faith, cf. article 77 of the 1923 Constitution (source in Romanian), the only law regulating the eligibility of foreign dynasts to the throne. There is no other mention of any Orthodox faith requirements in the Constitution. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think so. But check yourself, as you presumably read Romanian. I know for a fact that legislation was enacted to allow the option of prior renunciation to those heirs, brothers and nephews etc of Carol I, who desired not to succeed to Romanian throne. That is not written in the constitution text you referred, isn't it? And, still, it was enacted. It leads to the conclusion that in sense of what constitution said, fraternal kinship from Carol I were "his descendants". Otherwise they would not even have succeeded in the limits of the constitution. This is an old definition struggle between genealogical purists and practice terms: there is a funny concept, of "collateral descendants". Besides, this really should be discussed under that heafing "Orthodoxy requirement". Henq (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Read my message in the next section, please. It is very clear what the Orthodoxy requirements are. As to the renounciation, it is a separate issue from the faith requirements. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems to me that the Orthodoxy requirement is at least interpretable, perhaps even contentious. In my reading, it means that everyone who is going to succeed by hereditary right since 1923, must be raised in Orthodoxy. Henq (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodoxy requirement

The first king, Carol I, got sorta constitutional personal dispensation (did he ultimately even need it..), but all his successors were required to be of Eastern Orthodox faith. The first succession law stipulated that agnates in descent of Carol I will succeed, and must be Orthodox. When it became clear that Carol I will have no sons, his brothers were allowed into. And renunciation was made explicitly possible. Which led to eldest brother's second son, Ferdinand, to become heir presumptive, after his elder brother renounced. Ferdinand seems to have been Orthodox. And thus, also precedent is established.

Besides, a German non-Orthodox would have serious credibility difficulties, to become an accepted pretender. Henq (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect: Ferdinand I, Carol I's successor, was not Orthodox. Again, if you read my above message, only the descendants of the King are required to be raised in the Orthodox faith. This requirement was included in the Constitution after Ferdinand's designation as Carol's heir. Hence, the Constitution allows for the election of a new King from a foreign non-Orthodox dynasty, since only his descendants are mandated to be raised Orthodox. Even for a non-Romanian as yourself, this is easy to be checked: one can search for "ortodox" (Romanian spelling of "Orthodox") in the body of the 1923 Constitution (see the link above): there is no other mentioning of the faith except in article 77, where it is only mandated for the descendants to be raised, not for those to be elected. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think so. But check yourself, as you presumably read Romanian. I know for a fact that legislation was enacted to allow the option of prior renunciation to those heirs, brothers and nephews etc of Carol I, who desired not to succeed to Romanian throne. That is not written in the constitution text you referred, isn't it? And, still, it was enacted. It leads to the conclusion that in sense of what constitution said, fraternal kinship from Carol I were "his descendants". Otherwise they would not even have succeeded in the limits of the constitution. This is an old definition struggle between genealogical purists and practice terms: there is a funny concept, of "collateral descendants". Henq (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This renounciation has nothing to do with the 1923 Constitution requirements of faith, which, even for a non-Romanian as yourself, are easy to be checked (see my above message as to how). Again, there is no other law besides this Constitution regulating succession of foreign dynasts. Whatever private arrangements may have existed at Carol I's time, they were simply arrangements, not law. But this is another completely different issue from the Orthodox faith, the topic of this thread... Lil' mouse (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The renunciation option, which became enacted as law, shows that it lacks from the constitution, and must be in another law. And the definition how brothers' sons became Carol I's descendants, is lacking from the constitution, whereby it must be elsewhere. But the constitution in 1923 required that Ferdinand was Carol I's descendant, otherwise the constitution is saying that Ferdinand was not king at that time. And as Ferdinand was Carol I's descendant, he should have been Orthodox. But possibly some other law gave him a dispensation, if he really was not. Corollary: in order to be eligible to succeed, the Hohenzollern from Germany must be Carol I's descendants in the sense the constitution means by its that word. I.e, collateral descendant. And all descendants, in order to be eligible to succeed, must be Orthodox. Henq (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your speculation is not valid: Ferdinand I could not anylonger "be raised" in the Orthodox faith cf. the 1923 Constitution. He was already a grown-up man in 1923, so this constitutional requirement could not be applicable to him. "To be raised" implicity renders those descendants children, not adults... Lil' mouse (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The option of Carol I's brothers to renounce the Throne is allowed in article 78 of the 1923 Constitution and also in the prior ones (e.g. article 83 of the 1866 Constitution) which the 1923 one copied with regards to succession rights. Coupled with the principle of law discussed elsewhere, this provision implies that none of Prince Frederick Wilhelm's descendants are allowed to succeed. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the point that he was no longer in possibility to be raised to Orthodoxy, was reason why he got dispensation through something. Some earlier enactment... It is however no proof that any hereditary successor later would be entitled to same dispensation. Gosh, they have had century to raise their generations into Orthodoxy. Any Hohenzollern not designated by king Michael, is trying to succeed to "the throne" as descendant. A descendant must be Orthodox. That's so simple. Are you claiming that designation by Michael and approval in parliament are not constitutional requirements for a Western dynast to succeed? Henq (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, there was no need of any dispensation, because Ferdinand or his brothers were not targeted by the earlier Constitutions re: their upbringing in Orthodoxy. At those earlier times, their uncle, King Carol I, was still expecting to father a child. When such a procreation was no longer possible for him and Queen Elizabeth, Ferdinand had already become a grown-up man and that provision of the Constitution no longer targeted him by virtue of his age: he was past the age of upbringing. So based on these two logical reasonings, the constitutional provision on upbringing never applied to Ferdinand at any point in time, so there was never any need of any dispensation from the Orthodoxy requirement. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, there was no need for any German Hohenzollerns, past or present, to be raised Orthodox, as they were never "coboratorii Majestatii Sale" ("the descendants of His Majesty" the King). They were never "descendants" after the Monarchy got abolished, since the land was now a Republic with no King ("His Majesty"), while beforehand there was always a "direct descendant" (a male heir to the throne), i.e. Carol II to Ferdinand I, then Michael I to Carol II. "Descendant" here is understood in the context of its earlier mentioning in the same article 77 - i.e. "direct descendant." Again, just as with the King's right to nominate a "succesor" (male noun), the term "descendant" has to be read in the context of the particular article: "direct descendant." One must assume that the constitution never contradicts itself and that each part is consistent with the rest of the document, otherwise the constitution is faulty and useless: so there is no inconsistency as you tried to suggest. It's always talked about "direct descendants", even when it only mentioned "descendants" later in the same article. In conclusion, the Germans were never direct descendants, until today, when Michael I no longer has male heirs. Prince Carlos Patrick is His direct descendant and so he can become the next King, if committing to raise his boys Orthodox and, of course, if the Parliament approves him. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hohenzollern renunciation

When and how was it determined here that the Hohenzollern heir after Michael of Romania is Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern? Friedrich Wilhelm's grandfather, Wilhem, Prince of Hohenzollern (1864-1927), was heir presumptive to his uncle, Carol I, Prince of Romania until 1886, when he stepped aside in favor of his younger brother, Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern, as allowed under Romania's monarchist constitution. But neither the constitution nor the Romanian legislature provided for Hohenzollern dynasts to defer rather than renounce the succession (as was explicitly done, for instance, when young Prince Vilhelm of Denmark became King George I of Greece, but reserved his succession rights to Denmark so that his issue would follow that of his younger brother there. The same was done by Edward VII of the United Kingdom with respect to his descendants' claim to the duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha: they followed the issue of the Dukes of Edinburgh, Connaught, and Albany in the Coburg line of succession by express declaration of deferral. But in 1886, Wilhelm of Hohenzollern had not yet married and had no sons. Usually when a dynast renounces a throne prior to having offspring, the offspring are considered excluded too -- otherwise, you end up with a branch of non-dynasts who are senior by agnatic primogeniture to the reigning branch, but who never renounced their claim in favor of the junior dynasts. From this point of view, Wilhelm of Hohenzollern and his future descendants have been considered altogether excluded from the Romanian succession since 1886. Instead, the issue of Ferdinand of Romania's youngest brother, Prince Karl Anton of Hohenzollern (1868-1919), who never renounced his Romanian rights, is considered the rightful heir-presumptive after King Michael. Karl Anton married a Belgian princess and has agnatic male descendants living. His heir male (but morganatic with respect to the Hohenzollern dynasty), is Carlos Patrick von Hohenzollern, born 1978. He is therefore a rival to the Prince of Hohenzollern. This point has been debated among royal genealogists before and I'm surprised that it is not addressed here in the talk space, although I know of no published source that would support the article's inclusion of it. Lethiere 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that, in reasonable terms, while the branch descending from the elder brother of Ferdinand I could never have claimed the succession against the junior line on grounds of agnatic seniority, the renunciation need no longer be taken into account when the junior line becomes extinct, as it will, there being no more rights to imperil.
86.142.160.153 10:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Are not there any documentary proof about this "renunciation"? --Motsu (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, at least, are there any Websites(by notable people) putting this opinion on? --Motsu (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would add to Lethiere's view the point that Romania did not regulate eligibility of marriages in the other branches of the House of Hohenzollern than the Romanian branch. Being morganatic in Germany does thus not automatically mean non-dynasticity in Romania. Henq (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Henq added it on this article. However no sources provided from him, Lethiere and others. So I think that we should remove Karl Anton and his descendant from this article because of WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Xantios (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Xantios, I note that this was your 3rd edit in the entire Wikipedia career. Congratulations for having contributed as many as three edits to Wikipedia. :)


(Do you happen to have as experienced brethren, to come keep company to you in these talks...)
I happened to see a discourse about this issue in that royalty forum. Knowing those as genealogists and writers of royalty books, I would say already that shows that prominent genealogists are aware of the potential rights of the Hohenzollern cadet branch (= currently Carlos Patrick) and take them in account when writing about the subject. Henq (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Xantios is perfectly entitled to edit and is allowed to note the lack of sources. At least one of the scholars you have indirectly pointed to disagrees with your unsourced edits. Charles 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Charles, for eagerly coming to "help" one of your brethren, user talk:Xantios. By the way, I note that Xantios has to this date produced yet no more than those three edits. But the number of edits made by the user account Charles is of course higher (although possibly of no better quality).
Interestingly enough, as a careful reader understands, I pointed out that the Hohenzollern succession rights are a disputed issue and that scholars are aware of various contingencies of those rights and lineages. Which of course means disagreement between scholars. Charles was good enough to point out that "at least one of scholars disagrees...". I regard that as further proof of (a) the Hohenzollern rights are a disputed issue, (b) scholars are aware of those Hohenzollerns and their putative rights.
Charles however appears to be unable to specify who is the "one" scholar he meant and what precisely was the disagreement. Writing such specifics would of course help, but we of course cannot expect anything specific nor anything helpful from individuals who say to "generally" be positive. Henq (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Henq.
You may not know it, but Wikipedia has many languages versions, and those rules are considerably common :)
Charles didn't specify that who is the one scholar. But it is your duty to specify who claims that Carlos Patrick is heir presumptive to the Romanian throne. We don't see it here. And it is nonsense that see all the articles of that forum.
Who insists on it? Where can we see it? The timid remark isn't necessary. Please gather it up. Xantios (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the principles of law is that a child cannot inherit rights a parent does not possess. The same principle of law was invoked in King Michael's abdication act, where He gave up His rights to the Throne for Him and His descendants (a null and void act in itself, regardless of this principle, since Michael, as an unconstitutional King of divine right, did not fall under the jurisdiction of the 1923 Constitution and could not give up God-given rights; however, it is the principle of law, not the abdication act itself that I am discussing here). Since Prince Frederick Wilhelm renounced his rights to the Romanian Throne, his children had, therefore, none to inherit. It follows then that the only ones allowed to inherit the Romanian Throne according to 1923 Constitution are the male descendants of Prince Karl Anton of Hohenzollern (1868-1919). With the extinction of his line in sight, the Romanian Throne becomes vacant according to the last sentence of article 78 of the Constitution, the right to nominate a foreign prince going both to King Michael (Who has forgone this right, as He nominated a princess) and to the Parliament. It is, therefore, solely the latter the one which will have to choose a new King in the future, should it consider restoring the Monarchy. At that time, since there will be no German Hohenzollerns eligible left, as it is again very likely with the extinction of the line of Prince Karl Anton of Hohenzollern now in sight, any prince from a "sovereign house of Europe" (article 78) (i.e. a ruling Royal or Princely House) committed to raise his children Orthodox (cf. article 77) will be eligible. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed, fairly precisely, the position of some monarchists, as well as reasoning of some jurists and scholars, to this matter. Which then means that it would be POV to erase Carlos Patrick from the article, as there are at least as good reasons for his legitimacy as heir as to those of the other Hohenzollern line. Henq (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:POV? This talk doesn't yet get worse to there.
See WP:V. "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.".
I understood your reason. But you were not able to provide any sources.
Again, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
"please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:" "Discussion forums." "they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article"
We don't need "My theory" (you used this word below). We need only reliable source. It's not a source if we must see the whole of forum.
See WP:PROVEIT. Jimmy Wales says "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.".
Are there people who still looks for the source? (Because there is one blocked person, I wait for a long time to some extent.) Xantios (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Because nest was deepened, I return it to the left edge. Xantios (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil mouse, I will say to you once again. I don't say that it is impossible. I said that you and Henq provided no source.

See WP:NPOV. "without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)".

So, if there is not the reliable source, it is nothing to do with NPOV.

You and Henq violated NPOV because you added Carlos Patrick with no source provided.

I read your opinion again on writing this. Do you think it to be clear by the law?

It is insufficient.

Heir is HSH The Prince of Hohenzollern --- Established Expert says "It is clear by the law". So it is (potential) reliable source.

Heir is Carlos Patrick --- You and Henq says "It is clear by the law". So it is original research.

Do you understand it? There is a source on one, and there is not a source on another.

Again, see WP:NPOV. "without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)".

So you should provide source. Don't you have any sources? Xantios (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no source for Carlos Patrick of Hohenzollern as being first in line and there is none for Prince Frederick William either. Since the latter is mentioned as first in line without a source, so must then the former, too, to be fair (i.e. NPOV). Nota bene: the Le Figaro article quoted speaks only of private "support" for Frederick William from Carol II, but not of who has legally the right to inherit the throne. If there is such a source that certifies Frederick William has the right to be the first in line, I would like to see it quoted here, because it's not mentioned in the article. Without such a source, neither of the two lines deserves more than the other to be listed in the article and so if you are going to delete the cadet line, you must do the same with the senior line. But that would mean throwing out half of the article. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will add and, thus, contradict my earlier opinion, though, that on a closer read of the 1923 Constitution, it does not say whether the renunciation of a Hohenzollern prince affects the rights of his male descendants. Here is a translation of the pertinent article 78: "In the absence of male line descendants of His Majesty King Carol I of Hohenzollern Sigmaringen, the succession to the Throne goes to the eldest of his brothers or to their descendants, under the rules established in the preceding article [my note: male-only primogeniture, i.e. Salic law]. If none of their brothers or descendants were alive or if they were to declare beforehand that they do not accept the Throne, then the King will be able to indicate his successor from a sovereign dynasty of Europe with the Reception of the national Representation, under the form prescribed by article 79. If neither of these two takes place, the Throne is vacant." A close read of the highlighted sentence, the only one in the entire Constitution dealing with the renunciation to the throne, points out that the renunciation is valid only if done under two conditions: 1. by either the brothers of Carol I or their male descendants, and 2. "beforehand," that is at some concrete point in time before the King and the Parliament go on with the designation of and, respectively, vote on a successor from another reigning European dynasty. According to the principle of law that says that if something is not forbidden by the law, then it is allowed, it follows that because the Constitution does not explicitly forbid the descendants of a prince who had renounced the Throne from succeeding, then those descendants do preserve their succession rights given to them by article 77. The renunciation has to be made in person by each dynast at some concrete point in time (i.e. "beforehand"); it is not automatic by birth. Therefore, on a closer read of the 1923 Constitution, in light of the wording of the article 78 on renunciation, it would appear that Prince Frederick Wilhelm's descendants have preserved their succession rights given to them by the article 77. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The same sort of renunciation as that of King Michael in his December 30, 1947 abdication was enacted by Crown Prince Carol (future King Carol II) "for me and my heirs as well" on August 1, 1919 (source). In constitutional monarchies it appears then that once a prince renounced his Constitution-given rights to the throne, his descendants had none to inherit. However, in absolute monarchies of divine right, like the French one pre-1789, such abdications and renunciations were impossible, as the rights to reign and succeed to the throne were God-, not Constitution-given, and such divine rights could not be renounced. As the Romanian monarchy under the Hohenzollerns was a constitutional one, the former rather than the latter implications of a renunciation appear to be in effect. However, because King Michael reigned the second time (and continues to reign, in my opinion) as an absolute king of divine right and since He, in fact, has decided to go against the 1923 Constitution with His 2007 Statute, it seems that an argument can be made for succession according to the absolutist model of divine right, i.e. Prince Wilhelm's descendants have preserved their God-given rights to succeed, despite Wilhelm's constitutional renunciation, and, thus, Prince Frederick Wilhelm is currently first in line. This mixed model, however, seems very forced, because no Romanian king ever claimed to rule by divine right and also because such a model for succession is no longer allowed by the post-Christian European Union, of which Romania is part; no German Hohenzollern would, thus, ever dare to claim succession rights by divine right, unless, of course, the European Union and the powers that be were to collapse first. So for the time being, succession by divine right is out of the question. It follows then that only constitutional succession is allowed, which most likely deprives Prince Wilhelm's descendants of any rights to the throne. Unless, of course, the considerations of my prior message above this one are true. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the principle invoked in my second to last message on this matter, that if something is not explicitly forbidden by the law, then it's allowed, seems weaker than that of the children not being able to inherit rights no longer held by their parents. The former principle, usually applicable in Anglo-Saxon law, is not always true -- there are countries where only what is explicitly allowed by the law is permitted. However, the latter principle is always true in common law (not by divine right). Therefore, I do not believe anylonger that Prince Wilhelm's male descendants could inherit any succession rights after his renunciation in a constitutional monarchy (unlike the absolutist divine right one). Therefore, in a constitutional Romanian monarchy, Prince Carlos Patrick would be the first in line, whereas in an absolutist one, Prince Frederick Wilhelm would still be the first. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Lambrino

This article fully assumes the POV of the former king Michael, and presents Paul Lambrino as devoid of any rigts. I think there's more to discuss there, e.g. the legality of the Romanian rulings that excluded Paul from inheritance and declared the marriage of Carol void.Dpotop 09:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue, as I understand it, isn't whether the marriage was void. As I understand it, several courts, including at least one Romanian court, have ruled that the marriage was not void. That raises problems about the legitimacy of Carol's marriage to Helen, since without a valid annulment he was not really free to marry again, which may cast doubt on Michael's royal status (and even his legitimacy). Still, as the descendant of the son of a morganatic marriage, Paul Lambrino may have perfectly good claims to an inheritance, but not to a royal title. Or am I missing something here? - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Paul Lambrino's webpage claims that there is no record of morganatic marriages being lawful in Romania. A Portugese court ruled in 1955 that Carol Lambrino was the legitimate son of Carol II, and had right of succession. It became law in France as well. A French court ruled that Michael I's appeal was invalid. In 1995, a Romanian court recognized the Portuguese decision. Michael appealed to the Court of Appeals in Bucharest. He lost his appeal. Someone in the Romanian government annulled the decision. In 2002, a Romanian court again ruled in Carol Lambrino's favor. The appeal was once again denied. It has been put up to the Romanian Supreme Court, who has still not made a decision.
All of this is in [1].
The way I see it, Lambrino has the rule of law on his side. Every court case agrees that Carol Lambrino is the rightful heir to Carol II. Zhinz 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Romanian cases address the question of morganatic marriage? I realize that they address the question of the Lambrino line's legitimacy, and right to material inheritance, but the question of royal inheritance is a different matter. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a Portuguese court cannot rule meaningfully on the succession to the Romanian throne. - Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practical consequences of 30 Dec 2007 enactments

My assessment is that the male-preference primogeniture Royal Family (and line of succession) of king Michael, will in good likelihood establish a similar pretension case and line as is the current Duke Duarte of Braganza family and line in Portuguese succession, provided other monarchies and monarchical families around the globe and particularly in Europe, give similar sort of acceptance as they have given to that Braganza line.

You know, the Miguelist line to Portuguese throne rests on shaky grounds. Constitutionally they were excluded, and so forth. And lived in Austria, trying to hoccuspoccus their births onto so-called Portuguese soil. It's just that all other willing lines died out, or are somehow even more unacceptable. And that the Miguelist line has had family relations with other monarchies. People have come to think them as rightful ones.

In the Romanian case, German Hohenzollerns will be dubbed as German enemies and non-Orthodox, and Lambrino branch would not gain support. If the young of the Michael family happen to establish good and "collegial" relations with other royal families, their line would get best-tolerated position.

Quite much will get done through who will be holder of Romanian royal castles, now in Michael's possession. There seems to be no doubt to whom he will leave those. Henq (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, incorrect regarding the Orthodoxy issue (or rather a non-issue). Please, see my above messages on the issue. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The orthodoxy interpretation of your is yours, not mine. I think you are incorrect as to that. However, you then agree with all the other reasons, presumably. Henq (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not my interpretation, it is the 1923 Constitution which you, as a non-Romanian, cannot read, but still can check regarding any mentioning of the "ortodox" faith (see my above message as to how). Lil' mouse (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Monarchist-minded Romanians would tend to require Orthodoxy. Take a look: this thread is about practical things, not about literal interpretations of any constitution. There is another thread where you can offer your -imo incorrectly-weighed- opinions about constitutional requirement of Orthodoxy. In this thread, let's keep that "requirement" on practical level. Henq (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
As one of these monarchist Romanians, I fully agree with your first sentence only: King Michael is fully aware of our much-needed support and so He quotes the Orthodox faith as "a guiding principle in all future decisions" in the Preamble to the new Statute. Too bad for Him and His family that Michael failed to abide by its teachings in one essential aspect, the one that women cannot rule over men politically (1 Timothy 2:12), when He altered the succession rules. As God's anointed and "Crowned King of Romania" as He Himself declares in the Preamble, crowned only by the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, not by the Parliament, which never voted Him in office in His second reign, Michael should have known better, since His legitimacy is derived solely from God through His Church, not from the Parliament ("by the Grace of God" alone, not by the will of People, cf. the Preamble). Lil' mouse (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
May I ask which claimant do you support, or prefer as future king, or head of house? (this query is out of pure curiosity, nothing to do how I am going to treat various candidates in editing.) Henq (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be agreeable to any eligible prince, preferably European, be that a German Hohenzollern or not, committing to raise his children in the Orthodox faith. I abide by the 1923 Constitution provisions as this Constitution did confer the King robust powers, which is what I liked about the Romanian Monarchy under the Hohenzollerns. For instance, the King had the right to dissolve the Parliament, call early elections, and handpick an interim Prime Minister of His choice, who would then invariably go on to win the early elections... Lil' mouse (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My quoted edit reference states the following in support of my edit in Romanian: "Anunţul fostului rege Mihai I are eminamente o însemnǎtate simbolicǎ din mai multe puncte de vedere. In primul rând, România nu mai este o monarhie din 30 decembrie 1947, printr-un act semnat „de bunǎvoie“ de însuşi fostul rege. In al doilea rând, niciodatǎ în istoria României regii nu şi-au fǎcut singuri normele de succesiune, aceasta fiind totdeauna în atribuţia Parlamentului. In al treilea rând, constituţiile României regale excludeau de la succesiune moştenitorii de sex feminin, prin aşa-numita „lege salicǎ“. Oricum, Margareta nuîndeplineşte condiţiile de succesiune deoarece nu s-a cǎsǎtorit cu un prinţ dintr-o casǎ regalǎ europeanǎ, ci cu un fost actor de provincie, cu „titluri dinastice“împrumutate ori cumpǎrate." Translation: "The announcement of the former king Michael has eminently a symbolic importance for several reasons. Firstly, Romania is no longer a monarchy since December 30 1947, through an act signed "willingly" by the former king himself. Secondly, in Romania's history the kings have never set their own succession rules, these being always attributes of the Parliament. Thirdly, Romania's constitutions excluded from succession female heirs, through the so-called "salic law." Anyways, Margarita does not meet succession conditions as she did not marry a prince from a European royal house, but a former provincial actor, with "dynastic titles" either borrowed or purchased." Lil' mouse (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Direct descendant vs descendant

The, ahm, interesting and nice Romanian-language text of the constitution appears to be: "Art. 77. Puterile constitu�ionale ale regelui sunt ereditare �n linie cobor�toare direct� �i legitim� a Maiest��ii Sale regelui Carol I de Hohenzollern Sigmaringen, din b�rbat �n b�rbat prin ordinul primogenitur� �i cu exclusiunea perpetu� a femeilor �i cobor�torilor lor.

Cobor�torii Maiest��ii Sale vor fi crescu�i �n religiunea ortodox� a R�s�ritului. [�]

Art. 79. La caz de vacan�� a tronului, ambele Adun�ri se �ntrunesc de �ndat� �ntr-o singur� Adunare, chiar f�r� convocare, �i cel mai t�rziu p�n� la 8 zile de la �ntrunirea lor aleg un rege dintr-o dinastie suveran� din Europa occidental�." - and then come some stipulations about reaching majority and so forth.

I do not understand Romanian perfectly. I know some other romance languages. It seems to me that the second paragraph of the article 77 (which mandates the requirement of Orthodoxy) speaks of "descendants of His Majesty the King", not about "direct descendants".

What is genealogically much much more interesting, is that in 1923, in the reign of king Ferdinand I, nephew of Carol I, the constitution then enacted, stipulated that the kingship is hereditary in direct descent from the late king Carol I. Henq (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct: the text says "descendants of His Majesty the King", not "direct descendants." It does not say that "the King must be Orthodox." So the Constitution allows for 1. the election of a non-Orthodox King whose descendants then must be raised Orthodox, and 2. an already raised Orthodox descendant who ascends to the Throne and then changes his faith... Lil' mouse (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the following: (1) a non-Orthodox king can be elected. Which then means that a non-Orthodox cannot any longer succeed on basis of hereditary right. He can succeed on basis of election, but only on basis of election. This means nasty things to German Hohenzollerns. Henq (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The point that a descendant who is raised as Orthodox, after succeeding to "the throne", is not constitutionally forbidden to convert, to whatever, is really not so important. Or at least I think so. A king, or a pretender, wishing to remain credible, does not do such a thing. However, that option is irrelevant for the "Line of Succession", because in line there are no one who already has succeeded. Henq (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If the 1923 constitution is to be taken seriously, the Romanian term "linie coboratoare directi" must include also collateral descendants. Because after Carol I's death, there existed no children of his, nor any issue from his already deceased child(ren).

  • I am extremely intrigued to have found this obvious example of "collateral descendants", a term which is naturally abhorred by genealogical purists. In practice, such thing however exists - perhaps purists can be satisfied by translating the thing as "collateral successors" or "collateral heirs" instead of "... descendants".
  • In 1923 and ever afterwards, the term "coroboratorii" must incude such heirs too, i.e "collateral successors". Henq (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lambrino legitimacy vs king Michael

King Michael was born of marriage which was at the time valid in Romania. I am not aware of any judicial verdict where his legitimacy is explicitly denied, or even questioned. It happens often that at some later stage, a marriage becomes annulled, but its children remain legitimate. This is not a symmetric case, but in my opinion, this case is even clearer in the side of legimacy remains to the issue of marriage between Carol II and Elena of Greece. Their marriage was valid in its time in Romania, and ended in divorce. Michael and Elena were innocent of Carol's possible bigamy. Henq (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution vs new Rules

One editor appears to believe that provisions in this New Statute always override anything in constitution. However, it is a common understanding that generally, provisions of constitution remain in power. Thus, an assertion that this Family Rule has forever made it impossible for any foreigner to be designated as king, cannot be NPOV, because the constitution speficically provides such a possibility. Henq (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How can the constitution have force if the practice has been to disregard the consitution? If the constitution has force, it prevents Margarita or her sisters or her nephew from succeeding as it is. Currently, the little snippet you keep adding back in is not needed and does not make any logical sense whatsoever. How am I misunderstanding something and you apparently know something to be right? The Family Rule apparently replaced the constitutional rules applicable to the royal family. If that is indeed true (arguably it is not, because the royal family is based in the constitution and not the other way around), the constitution is null and void on that matter and cannot be referred back to. Charles 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The constitution specifically provides that in case of no eligible dynasts left, the king is entitled to designate successors. King Michael has now designated Margaret and the rest. It is not inevitable that the decision contravenes the constitution. Henq (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, parts of a constitution can be abolished or amended, and still, remaining parts remain in force. That's one scenario. Henq (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It's either all or nothing: one cannot just cherry pick and choose by which part of the 1923 Constitution to abide, by which to not abide. HM the King has decided to go against the 1923 Constitution with His new succession rules and also demanded the revision of the Constitution so as to make these new rules law. Hence, He or His followers can no longer claim any constitutional basis for any of His succession decisions henceforth, including the one for the monarch's right to designate a foreign prince as successor. Please, note that the Romanian language is not gender-blind unlike the English language and that the 1923 Constitution uses the male gender noun "succesor" as opposed to its female counterpart "succesoare" when speaking of the monarch's right to pick a foreign prince in article 78 (see the 1923 Constitution full text here). Therefore, one cannot argue (like I have seen some doing on the European Royals Message Board), that the 1923 Constitution allowed the King to choose a foreign successor of any gender in case the Royal House was to become extinct: he had the right to choose only a prince, again subject to the approval of the Parliament, as with any of his succession decisions. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think if a linguistical male gender is used, it means by default all genders. Only if the linguistical feminine form is used, it would signify that it intends only one gender. How about in other cases: does Romanian laws say "voter" or "citizen" in linguistical male, when however meaning all voters, or all citizens? Henq (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While your consideration is valid in a general text of law, in a particular text of law such as this article, it is not so, for several reasons. 1. The particular sentence where this royal prerogative is mentioned starts out by saying that only if any of Carol I's brothers or their (male noun) descendants are no longer alive or have given up their rights to the Throne, only then the King can nominate a (male noun) "successor." 2. The particular sentence ends like this: "under the form prescribed by article 79." We, then, must read article 79 also to see what is the form required for such a succession. Article 79 reads in Romanian as follows: "ambele Adunari (...) aleg un Rege dintr'o dinastie suverana din Europa occidentala." Translation: "Both Houses (...) choose a King from a sovereign dynasty of Western Europe." Hence, the election of a princess by the last reigning King of Romania to be then voted in office as King by the Parliament is not possible, unless, of course, gender reassignment by surgery or otherwise is allowed... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Did Michael abolish the constitution? Did he invalidate it? Did he allow for some clauses to remain in effect? What does the family statute say about all of this? Charles 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It says what it says. Uhm. Lots of things. Not however directly being against constitution. It says that king Michael decrees it. It refers to constitutionality, but also to other sources of applicable law. And discusses rather perfunctorily about the question, upon what powers it was enacted. Henq (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Under the 1923 Constitution which Michael has always supported, the King had the right to choose a successor from a foreign royal house if the Royal House were about to die out without male descendants, but his choice, as any other act of any Romanian monarch, was subject to the approval of the Parliament/Government. The Romanian Monarchy under the Hohenzollerns was a constitutional, not absolute one, and Michael has always professed his support for the constitutional one, despite the absolute outlook of his second reign. Lil' mouse (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's remember that king Michael at the same document invoked the parliament to confirm it in case the monarchy gets restored. He has made precisely what the old constitution instructs to do with the matter, in other words, he designated, and left it to the parliament.
My theory from the beginning has been that until the restoration, the new line of succession is intended to govern the entailed property Michael is leaving. However, nicely, it will provide these heirs practically similar position as the Miguelist Braganzas are enjoying. Henq (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Nicholas's and Elisabeta's surname in the PDF about a new rule

PDF says Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills - We have been shown his surname was hyphenated(Medforth-Mills). Was it a mistake? This is related to article about him and others.

PDF says Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie - I ask for the other reliable source of this information(Henq says that her surname is de Roumanie).

To tell the truth, I thought that there was a misprint in PDF. --Motsu (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Romanian version in article 2.7, page 7 the name is hyphenated. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And I'm sorry, I was not careful. Both(English and Romanian) versions are hypenated(Medforth-Mills) in article 2.7) - page 7 and not hypenated(Medforth Mills) in Annex 1 - page14. Is hypenated correct, after all? --Motsu (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the hyphenated one comes from England. Is correct in that jurisdiction. But I know that Romanians have a habit of leaving hyphens away from two (or more) part surnames. Henq (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the Romanian version which uses the hyphenated form in article 2.7, page 7. Also, all other prior documents coming from the Royal House have used the hyphenated form, as far as I know. Lil' mouse (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Henq, or anybody, do you have any sources else? If there aren't any sources, I revert his surname to hyphenated. --Motsu (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Next. Henq says "her surname no longer has that "Medforth-Mills"; her mother had it changed during her minority" in edit summary. So her surname is de Roumanie. Nobody, including him, says anything about this detail. Is there a person who can talk about it? --Motsu (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Online Gotha provides another source. IIRC, grandchilds of King Michael were not listed there until recently.(Is it my misrecollection?) How do you think about this source? --Motsu (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Carlos Patrick

Is he "Prince Carlos Patrick of Hohenzollern"? Or, is he "Carlos Patrick von Hohenzollern"? I know that he is a morganatic issue of Princely House of Hohenzollern. But he is accorded with princely title many times. --Motsu (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is so accorded many times. I have some theories about the phenomenon. However, I would not want to introduce original research into this. Henq (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surname

Carol Lambrino's surname was not "of Romania" in English for the same reason we don't have "Vincent of Gogh", "Charles of Gaulle", "Robert of Niro" or "Claus of Bülow". Carol wasn't "of" anything. The fact that he was given the surname "al României" on his birth certificate means just that. It is a surname. The argument it should be translated on the same basis that "von Hohenzollern" becomes "of Hohenzollern" for the Romanian royals is ridiculous. The Romanian royals belong to the House of Hohenzollern and are princes and princesses of Hohenzollern. Lil' Mouse, please stop your campaign of POV-pushing original research. Charles 14:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See my answers here. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Your answers do not suffice. What does Carol Lambrino's new birth certificate say: "al României" or "of Romania"? "Al României" means of Romania but it does not make his surname of Romania. Charles 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Carol's surname is "al Romaniei" (literally translated "of Romania" in English). Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
His surname then is not "of Romania", thank you. I know plenty of people with the surname Le Blanc, but they are not surnamed "White". Charles 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And I know people who translate not just their surnames, but also their first names into English! See Princess Margareta/Margarita. Bottom line: there is no hard and fast rule as to what sort of name is or is not translatable into English. It's up to the individual. If there is, however, such a name translation rule, I would like to see a reference for it (nota bene: not your POV), please. Thank you in advance! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The full text of the Washington Times article does not support the surname "of Romania", nor does the literal, messy machine translation of a Romanian newspaper directly into English. Charles 16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
See the replies here. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who says "The Orthodox Faith . . . bans females from reigning as monarchs"?

The statement to this effect in the article is ridiculous. There was at least one Eastern Roman Empress regnant (Irene) and a Russian Empress regnant (Catherine the Great).

The external reference cited for this statement is highly contentious, being a publication of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, a quasi-schismatic body of strongly Tsarist orientation which arbitrarily identifies Russian dynastic law with Orthodox Church tradition. Why, this source actually advances the ludicrous argument that any form of government that differs from the absolute monarchy of pre-revolutionary Russia, including and especially any democratic government, is anti-Christian. There are very few Orthodox who would agree with that position; indeed, the vast majority of contemporary Orthodox are citizens of democratic republics, and their liturgies contain prayers on behalf of their elected leaders.

It cannot be established at all that the Orthodox church bans females from reigning as monarchs, any more than it can be established that the Orthodox faith bans democracy. No source making either of those crazy claims can be trusted. Tom129.93.17.213 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your POV that the reference is "highly contentious" is unsubstantiated by any source. Also, your POV that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) is "quasi-schismatic" is also not just unsubstantiated, but outright false. ROCOR was, in fact, recognized as legitimate by a number of national Orthodox churches with which it was in communion (i.e. recognized as legitimate) and has also recently become reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church, without changing one iota of its theology. In fact, the Orthodox theology on statehood (e.g. on monarchy, State-Church relationship, etc.) that ROCOR embraces is the same theology for all the national Orthodox churches, because they are all members of the one and only Orthodox Church. Their individual leadership may be different, but their theology is one and the same: "All 15 of these national churches are united in the same faith and tradition of worship. They share common principles of church policy and organization and have a common liturgical tradition. Only the languages used in worship and minor aspects of customs differ from country to country." ("Orthodox Church - IV. Church Structure and Organization", MSN Encarta Encyclopedia). As to the statement with which you take issue, here is the pertinent quote from the reference which proves its validity: "(...) A female might now sit upon the Russian throne. In fact, the 18 th century was dominated by the two Catherines, Anne and Elizabeth, the opposition of the Church notwithstanding." The underlined, bolded part clearly points out that the Church is opposed to females sitting on the throne.
However, the same Orthodox theology, which bans female rulers/monarchs, at the same time does not advocate armed rebellion/revolt against State authority, the only revolt permitted being that in word, when the State infringes upon the practice of the Faith by its citizens. In fact, the Orthodox theology, indeed, as you say, demands prayers for any State authority, be that Christian or anti-Christian, since all political authority, good or bad, is derived from God and cannot exist without His approval. The former theological concept on female rulers and the latter one on the acceptance of State authority (so long as it does not infringe upon the Faith and even then the revolt of the faithful can only be spoken, not armed) are not at all incompatible in Orthodoxy as you wrongly seem to believe. The former represents the ideal dream-State for the Church (an Orthodox monarchy), while the latter represents the acceptance of God's decision for His people (a less than ideal situation, under a non-/anti-Christian system/ruler). For more on the Orthodox theology of the State-Church relationship, please, see this official statement of the united Russian Orthodox Church (y compris ROCOR). Have a good day! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that the polity of a national Orthdox church has evolved a hostility toward either female rulers or democracy cannot be a source of Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition. The fact that the several autocephalous Orthodox churches are united in dogmatic matters does not mean that the political positions held by the leaders of ROCOR or of any other branch of the Orthodox church must be the same, because such purely political views are not regarded by most Orthodox theologians as matters of faith. I repeat, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians live in democratic republics; I should have added that this vast majority does not in the least perceive anything "anti-Christian" about either democracy or female monarchs, constitutional or otherwise.

Yes, there has been a partial reconciliation between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, but for most of its history the former was regarded as schismatic by the latter, which placed it under the interdict. Tom129.93.17.174 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you cannot make the claim that "this vast majority does not in the least perceive anything 'anti-Christian' about either democracy or female monarchs" because you have not polled the Orthodox faithful on this issue. And even if the Orthodox answered such an opinion poll in a manner consistent with your claim, one has no way of being 100% certain that this is the actual belief held by the Orthodox flock. As you may know, people don't awalys answer truthfully on opinion polls, especially on sensitive matters like these. Also, what you call "political position" with regards to the Orthodox Church's position on the monarchy, I call theology. I guess we'll have to agree to diasgree. Have a good day! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is theology, it's theologoumena rather than dogma. I will concede that my evidence is anecdotal. But I'm quite sure that if you get to know Orthodox Christians you won't attribute such weird views to them. Several contemporary Orthodox theologians, including Kallistos Ware, Alexander Schmeman, Thomas Hopko, Jean Meyendorff, and others, have discussed the the question of the proper relationship of Church to the secular State, and much the prevailing view is that the faith does not demand any particular form of State. A common formula is "theocracy [the polity of the Church] carries out the will of God; democracy carries out the will of the people." If contemporary Orthodox theologians saw anything anti-Christian about this, they would say so. The views of ROCOR cannot be taken as representative because ROCOR is notorious for equating Russian imperial practice with Orthodox tradition, which is silly. Tom129.93.17.174 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The theologians you quoted belong to the Anglo-Saxon world and are not necessarily representative of the vast majority of the Orthodox world, which is not Anglo-Saxon. However, you are right to say that the Faith does not demand any particular form of State; It would prefer, though, an Orthodox head of state (i.e. an Orthodox monarch). Regardless, It accepts any forms of State, as they all are God-given and because armed revolt is forbidden and punished by God. The only exception to this acceptance is, as I have already mentioned, the infringement by the State of the right to practice the Faith, when revolt is possible only in word, non-violently. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What does ROCOR or any other Orthodox Church outside Romania have to do with the succesion to the Romanian throne? --Alex:Dan (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you read this thread? If yes, what did you conclude and why? Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about a proposition in the article. I'll reformulate: what does the Russian concept of Orthodox christian monarchy has to do with the views of the Romanian Orthodox Church regarding the same problem? To put an unsourced equal sign between the former and the latter means original research. --Alex:Dan (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The author speaks of the "opposition of the Church", that is the Orthodox Church, not the opposition of the Russian Church. The whole article speaks of the Orthodox concept of a sacred monarchy, not just the Russian Orthodox concept: the article deals with all the various Orthodox monarchies, monarchs, not just the Russian ones, and speaks of the "Orthodox Christian", not of the Russian Orthodox Christian. The terms "Russian Church" or "Russian Orthodox" are not mentioned not even once. So it is clear that the article speaks of the universal Orthodox Church and Her position on monarchy. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's possible that the author was merely imprecise.

I repeat: the views of ROCOR, to the effect that the only desirable (or the most desirable) polity for Orthodox is an absolute monarchy, are not the views of most Orthodox. The problem is that ROCOR contentiously equates the Russian absolutist-monarchist tradition with Orthodox church tradition, which has to do with the fact that ROCOR was founded by anti-Soviet and pro-White elements in the Church.

There is not much support for re-establishment of the Romanian, Bulgarian or Greek monarchies, but even the monarchists in those countries are not arguing their case by claiming that the Orthodox faith calls for an Orthodox monarchy, much less an absolutist Orthodox monarchy. In none of those countries is monarchism associated especially with the Church. Indeed, Orthodoxy remains the established religion of the Greek Republic.

It is significant that the argument to the contrary in this discussion is backed up by a ROCOR source, because there IS no other contemporary Orthodox jurisdiction that maintains such a position. Tom129.93.17.106 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Imprecise?! Not to mention the Russian Orthodox Church or the Russian Orthodox Christian not even once?! I don't think so. The article speaks of all sorts of Orthodox monarchs and monarchies, from Byzantine to Romanian to Russian etc., not just Russian ones, so it is pretty clear that the view the author presents is more than simply Russian Orthodox about just the Russian monarchy. It is the Orthodox view about monarchy in general.
Again, it is not significant at all that the argument is backed by a source belonging to the Russian, Antiochian, Romanian, Bulgarian, or any other national churches, since the Orthodox theology is the same for all regardless of which local church. In any case, even though there may be dissenting voices on other topics like the Anglo-Saxon theologians you mentioned, they represent the view of a small minority, given that the vast majority of the Orthodox are not Anglo-Saxon. So far I have not seen a dissenting opinion on this specific issue (i.e. female monarchs). Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kallistos Ware is "Anglo-Saxon" (British) by origin, but he's a bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thomas Hopko is of Russian extraction. John Meyendorf and Alexander Schmeman are of German extraction. Anglo-Saxon? Nope. It's ROCOR that constitutes the exception. ROCOR is an extremely politicized, ideologically Tsarist, body. Its position on this as on other issues is eccentric in the extreme. Tom129.93.17.220 (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Extraction"? They are born and raised in Anglo-Saxon countries, in an Anglo-Saxon culture. They themselves do not claim to represent their ancestors' countries of origin. Also, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, by virtue of its charter, operates mainly in non-Orthodox nations, of which a sizeable part is the Anglo-Saxon world. So all your theologians are not representative of the vast majority of the Orthodox world, which is not Anglo-Saxon. But this whole discussion is beside the point: there is no dissenting opinion on female monarchs from any other theologian, be him Anglo-Saxon or not. Also, the author of the article, Fr. Michael Azkoul, is not part of ROCOR, but of OCA (Orthodox Church of America). Have a good day! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Fr. Michael Azkoul, who was originally a member of the American archdiocese of the Antiochene Orthodox Church, became a member of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America (ROGCCA), which in 1970 became the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). However, in the 1980's he joined the Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA), a group which broke off from ROCA and which is regarded by almost all other Orthodox as both schismatic and heretical. Both ROCA and OCA, to say nothing of the Moscow Patriarchate (from which both ROCA and OCA derive their succession) are highly critical of Fr. Azkoul's positions on many issues, although the article in question is largely in agreement with the views of ROCA. Tom129.93.16.77 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)