User logged in as Charles
Again, to illustrate the lack of choice one really has: if he wanted a descendant to be his heir, he should have had sons.
: Michael was born during the monarchy and even
: was king himself (twice) so his title is
: clear and it's accepted by the Romanian
: state. The German state does not accept
: Why would the last king not have the right
: to express who he wants to leave his legacy
: to? Why would a constitution that no longer
: is valid be leading?
: --Previous Message--
: There is no monarchy in Romania so nobody
: succeed. So it's not about what a no longer
: existing constitution says but what the
: Romanian people will accept. Michael has
: made it clear he sees his legacy as the last
: king of the country go to his oldest
: daughter and than his grandson.
: It's not his to choose though and that was
: my only point. If it "helps" the
: Romanians choose, they are not choosing to
: continue the old dynasty, they are actually
: choosing a new one.
: IF the Romanians decide to become a monarchy
: again at some point it will be up to them to
: decide who will become their sovereign.
: I guess that Margarita's claim as her
: father's personally appointed heiress will
: be stronger than that of a German Herr
: [firstname] Fürst von
: Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen based on a
: constitution that was wiped away decades ago
: and has been replaced by several newer ones.
: The Romanians could of course also opt to
: select somebody else for the job if they
: wanted to.
: If you're going to call the Hohenzollerns
: that, we should also refer to Mr. Michael of
: Romania who can't make any decisions
: regarding a kingdom which does not exist.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index