User logged in as Charles
Because it was a constitution of the kingdom of which he was king. He wasn't king under any other rules. Being king isn't his "possession". He had no choice to come into it and he has no choice of who succeeds to it.
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: and has been replaced by several newer ones.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