Talk:Michael I of Romania

No mention of Margareta and the other daughters. --Wetman 06:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added this info - which you could have done yourself with ten minutes research. I have also (again) removed the claim that Michael now lives in Romania. He doesn't, he lives in Geneva, although he makes regular appearances in Romania. See the semi-official website. Adam 07:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

His Majesty Lives in Romania, at Palatul Elisabeta (Elisabeth Palace) in Bucharest, or at Sãvârsin Palace, in Arad.

No he doesn't. Adam 01:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Is he Romanian?

The article has quite a bit of info that makes me question how Romanian he is. (I mean in an ethnic and linguistic sense.) Is Romanian even his first language?

Just curious, so would love to see this info in the article.

King Michael's first language was Romanian, but his mother's preferred language was English, which is why His Majesty speaks fluent English as well. King Michael has always been very pro-British, even during World War II when Romania was being run into the ground by the self-declared 'Conducator', Ion Antonescu, whom King Michael had arrested in 1944. - (Aidan Work 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

That wasn't the question. The question was is he Romanian in an ethnic sense. The Hohenzollerns are of course German. I'm not sure if any of the Romanian Hohenzollers have married Romanians, but I don't think so (too snobbish). Adam 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

it wasn't snobbery. the romanian constitution forbade kings and heirs in direct line to the throne to marry romanians. the romanians in 1866, when they installed carol the first on the throne, were very keen on having a totally foreign ruler with absolutely no preference to any noble romanian family... total objectivity. the clause in the romanian constitution was the reason carol 2nd's marriage to zizi lambrino was not valid and was anulled. king michael spent his first twenty-six years of life in romania. he was educated mainly by romanian people and grew around romanians (although not only). i think we can safely assume he is romanian. ilya 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I retract the imputation of snobbery. Whatever the reason, the Romanian Hohenzollerns never married into Romanian society and are thus not, in a genealogical sense, Romanian. Whether this matters or not is a matter of opinion. Maybe it doesn't matter in Romania. It certainly mattered in Greece, where the Glucksbergs were always seen as foreigners imposed on the country by the Great Powers. Adam 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Hohenzollerns were not seen as foreigners and did not even acted like foreginers. In order to gain Transylvania, they fought against their mother country, Germany, in World War I at a time when many Romanian politicians (the "germanophile" faction) were against that. Also, during WWII, after the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum, the king wanted to fight the Soviets and not surrender the territory, but the Romanian politicians cowardly refused to do that (in the end, Romania lost much more lives and territory than expected...) bogdan 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

when king ferdinand declared that his country was joining the antante, the german emperror declared that he was a traitor and that he had no rights as a hohenzollern anymore. the house's name was changed from the house of hohenzollern-sigmaringen, to the house of romania. even today, we talk of michael and anne of romania, not of hohenzollern. there were some protests at the beginning, when carol 1st was first installed on the romanian throne, but carol was a good king and organized the country so well that they diminshed quite fast. ferdinand's move against his own country was pretty much the ultimate proof. even ferdinand himself replied to pp carp who had argumented that he was a german king, and said 'no, i am romanian'. the royal house behaved admirably in the first world war and i sincerely doubt there were many romanians to think of them as foreign anymore. sure, there were republicans, but the republicans didn't oppose they house's origins, but the institution of monarchy. i think we can safely say that after carol 1 (who as much as he did for the country, stayed a german, and it was showed in the last year of his life) the house was romanian. ilya 12:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with ilya: there was no law or ordinance passed by the Parliament, Government, or the former Romanian Royal House to change the name of the Dynasty from Hohenzollern to of Romania. Moreover, King Carol II and his last wife used the name of Hohenzollern while in exile. A solid proof to the lack of any official pre-1947 name change is the fact that the rights to bear the name of Hohenzollern (without any princely title, though) and to inherit Carol II's personal goods was won by Carol Mircea Lambrino, Carol II's first born, in two trials, the first in Portugal, the second in France. The fact is that the decision regarding the Dynasty name, taken by the German Hohenzollerns during World War I, had no binding consequences, no legal power whatsoever in another country, namely Romania. Thus, the official name of the Romanian Royal Dynasty remained that of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen until the end of the monarchy.

It is true, however, that once in exile, King Michael changed his name from Hohenzollern to of Romania, perhaps in an attempt to give himself more legitimacy, constantly undermined by two facts. Firstly, Michael's second reign (1940-1947) had been unconstitutional: Michael had not been sworn in by the Parliament, as required by the last legitimate royal Constitution of 1923, as the Parliament was suspended upon his accession to the Throne. The Parliament resumed its activity only in 1946, a year before Michael's abdication, and never during its activity sanctioned Michael's unconstitutional accession to the Throne of six years before. Without the Parliament's sanction, Michael remained an unconstitutional monarch. Secondly, while in exile, Michael had always been in a sort of silent competition for legitimacy with his father, Carol II, whom he refused to meet at all after abdicating and whose funeral he did not even attend. His father, unlike Michael, had never signed an act of abdication. Carol II had only "empowered" prime minister Ion Antonescu with all the royal prerogatives before fleeing Romania in September 1940, yet he did not sign a proper abdication act, thus allowing for the theoretical possibility of returning to topple his son a second time. The Germans had even used this lack of a proper, legal abdication to explore Carol II's willingness while in exile to return to Romania to take the Throne back from Michael with Nazi help after Michael's coup of August 23 1944.

The controversy surrounding King Michael's (and, thus, the Dynasty's) legal name remains even to this day, as illustrated by the fact that the surname space in his Romanian passport, issued by the (Nota Bene!) pro-monarchical government coallition in power in 1997, fails to mention any surname whatsoever. For a photocopy of King Michael's Romanian pasport, please, see http://foto.rompres.ro/index.php?i=1573&p=9 . In order for the Romanian Government to recognize Michael's new surname of Romania adopted in exile, Michael would have had to register it with the proper Romanian authorities when he returned to Romania, something which he has failed to do to this date. As the Romanian authorities do not want to commit an illegal act by changing one's surname without due process, while at the same trying not to offend Michael's sensibilities, the surname section of his passport remains blank. Stefanp 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Succession

It appears that the nearest male heirs to Michael would be the descendants of the older and younger brothers of King Ferdinand I. Since the older brother, William, rejected the throne, does that elminate his heirs? If so, then the succession should fall to the family of the younger brother, Charles Anthony, who had a son, Albrecht. But I don't know if Albrecht's children were male or female.

If none of these apply, then it would appear that the heir would fall back to some other Hohenzollern branch. I have posted this question at alt.royalty. Zoe 02:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Michael has issued a statement making his daughter his heir, something he would have had no power to do under the monarchist constitition. Since the Romanian monarchy is extinct, however, this is a matter of antiquarian interest only. Adam 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's of interest to monarchists.  :) It would also be interesting to see, if the monarchy were reinstalled, if any Romanian parliament would recognize Michael's unilateral actions. And the monarchy is only in abeyance, not extinct. Check out what's happening in Bulgaria. Zoe 03:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I think the Prince of Hohenzollern (the heir of Ferdinand's elder brother) is generally considered to be the proper heir. But I'm not sure. john k 03:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Romania has been a republic for 60 years, which seems a reasonable definition of an extinct monarchy. There is a certain amount of nostalgia in Romania for the monarchy but no political support for the idea of restoring it. Adam 04:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands (allow eldest child regardless of gender to succeed). Spain, UK, Luxembourg and Lietchenstein, eldest son succeeds, if no son then eldest daugther. In todays European monarchies (21st century), it can be assumed that if Romania were to become a Monarchy again (restore Michael as King), then it would probably change the line-of-succession to include females, thus Michael eldest daugther would be heiress-apparent. Mightberight/wrong 21:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

That may be so, but if Michael is claiming to be King of Romania now, it can only be under the prewar constitution, and his daughters cannot be heirs under that constitution. Adam 22:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam, King Michael is right to have issued a proclamation declaring his eldest daughter as his heir. The Kings of Romania were, in theory, absolute monarchs. Therefore, H.M. King Michael is entitled to do what he likes as far as the succession goes. - (Aidan Work 03:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

That is not correct. Prewar Romania had a constitution. Adam 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

King Michael's title.

King Michael's title remains that of 'King'.He cannot be titled as 'Prince'. I regard downgrading his title as wrong. - (Aidan Work 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

• He is still known as King Michael is some circles, but he goes by Prince Michael as to not inflame some republicans. Prsgoddess187 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No he does not! There are several Prince Michaels, or Prince Michels around, but King Michael is not one of them. He has always gone by the name King Michael of Romania. Marina Cummings 21 March 2006

A king is a person who is head of state of a monarchy. Romania is a republic. Therefore Michael is not a king. Adam 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam, a king does not have to be a head of state to be a monarch. There are native monarchies even within some republics. South Africa is an example of a republic within the British Commonwealth that has a lot of monarchies.The most famous one is King Goodwill Zwelethini of KwaZulu-Natal.So,King Michael is a king, which blows your republican-based theory right out of the water. - (Aidan Work 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Where or what is he king of? The answer cannot be Romania, because Romania is a republic. Adam 09:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include Michael's regnal number? Seems very odd when he is likely to remain for all time time the only Michael to reign over Roumania.

this is a very often-encountered discussion on not just michael's page, but many other royalty pages. apparently that's the standard. ilya 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Leopold III was still called "King Leopold III" after his abdication. Just because you are no longer the king of a country doesn't mean you don't retain the personal style of "king." john k 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

King Michael's 'instrument of abdication' is not valid.

As a Royalist, I believe very strongly that King Michael's 'instrument of abdication' is not valid, as King Michael was forced to sign it under duress, as his Commie Prime Minister held a gun to the Queen Mother's head. Had a referendum been held, there would be a majority in favour of King Michael being restored to the throne. - (Aidan Work 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

i sincerely doubt this. the communists did a great job at erasing any tracks of the royalist period in the romanian minds. in school, still, romanians are taught only the basic facts and in a manner that does not make the royal romanian family very popular. sure, there are many royalist romanians, and those are mostly either people who were alive in the royalist period, or people who were educated at home with a sort of a royal spirit (children of intelectuals and of communist active opposants). but the majority of romanians don't care about the romanian family. i am talking about the 51% of romanians, who still live in rural areas, who have no knowledge of politics and who always vote for the socialists (the reason the communist structures are still maintained in romania). those people would vote no and would stop the return of the king. ilya 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aidan's contributions might carry more weight if they didn't always begin "as a Royalist." The fact is that Romania has been a republic for 60 years. It is true that the monarchy was abolished by force by the Communists, but Romania has been a democracy for 15 years now and there is no sign that a significant number of Romanians want the monarchy back. I might say that although I am a republican I have a lot more respect for Michael than I have some other ex-kings (such as Constantine of Greece). But neither my views nor Aidan's about that are to the point. The points is that since Romania is now a republic, Michael cannot be described as a king. Adam 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam, despite what King Michael has said, there is an active Royalist political party in Romania, like in most of the other Balkan states. There is even a very active Royalist political party in Serbia. - (Aidan Work 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

And how many votes did this royalist party poll at the last Romanian elections? It is true that royalism is a significant force in Serbia (and I believe in Montenegro as well). It is not a force in Romania. Adam 06:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

i have never heard about this royalist party... the peasant party once declared that they wish to restore the king but then they came to power in 1996 and did nothing about it. i don't believe there's a single politician in the romanian parliament that wishes to restore the monarchy. even more, i don't believe michael himself wants to be king anymore and that anyone is capable of being king in his place. his daughter, margareta, the only one who is active as a romanian royal family member, has no children. i doubt any of her sisters' children wish to be involved in this. i am afraid the monarchy has long been dead and it will be buried with king michael. ilya 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Also could we please try to find a PD photo of him as an adult? Why don't one of you royalists write to him and get a copy of his official photo? Adam 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! There are some nice photos on: http://foto.rompres.ro/index.php?p=2&q=regele%20mihai&d=-1

Marina Cummings

Are they in the public domain? Or are they copyright? Wikipedia cannot use them unless they are public domain. Adam 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess they must be copyright as when you enlarge them "Rompress" appears on the photo. I will try and find out from them.

You will need to get a statement that they release the photo you want to use into the public domain - not just that they will allow it to appear at Wikipedia but retain copyright. Adam 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Marina (5 March 2006)

Here are two public photos of King Michael as adult: one with his wife, Princess Anne, and one alone, both from his semi-official web site. Stefanp 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are two photos of King Michael giving and, respectively, receiving the Nazi salute at one of the pro-Nazi Iron Guard mass meetings in Iasi, on November 8, 1940. The Queen-Mother Helen is delighted by the display of affection of the adoring Iron Guard masses. King Michael has all the reasons to be grateful to the Iron Guard, as its Government led by PM Antonescu had recently repatriated Helen (see documentary movie) from a long and painful exile imposed on her by her former husband, King Carol II. Stefanp 12:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of those photos? (I think, by the way, it is debatable whether he is giving a Nazi salute in the first photo - his arm is not in the "rigid" Nazi salute position. It looks more like a Mussolini-style fascist salute, or even just a general salute of greeting.) Adam 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Those photos are in the public domain: there is no known author and they have been circulating free of copyright rights for over six decades. The salute seems more like the Roman salute, which was adopted by all fascist movements. Stefanp 12:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Roman salute is what I called the fascist salute - arm extended and raised high, palm facing outwards. It was significantly different to the Hitlergruss (Nazi salute) - arm extended rigidly, usually not raised so high, palm facing downwards. Adam 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say all fascist salutes (Nazi, Mussolini's, Romanian, etc.) were variations on the same theme - the Roman salute. Different nuances, but the same essence. Stefanp 13:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you'd be wrong. Adam 13:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Then it means Wikipedia is also wrong, for this is what it says about the Nazi salute: "The Hitler salute (Hitlergruß), also known in German during World War II as the Deutscher Gruß ("German Greeting"), and in English as the Nazi salute, is a variant of the Roman salute adopted by the Nazi party as a sign of loyalty to its leader Adolf Hitler." Stefanp 13:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

that wouldn't be the first time wikipedia would be wrong. remember, you don't have to have any degree to edit - anyone can do so. does the one who wrote that name any sources for his statements? ilya 18:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the following special report on the history of an idea - the European union - of the very reputable magazine The Economist, the Nazi and fascist salutes were the Roman salute: "Hitler's loyalists gave the Roman salute and their cry “Heil Hitler!” was modelled on “Hail Caesar!”. (...) Of course, the Romans have inspired not only despots but also democrats, among them the architects of the Capitol in Washington, DC. And the Romans and Charlemagne also inspired the fathers of the EU, whose objectives were the exact opposite of war." Thus, I can confidently say that King Michael gave and received the Nazi salute to and from the adoring masses of the pro-Nazi Iron Guard party that had swept him into power and had repatriated his mother from a long and painful exile. Stefanp 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Death

I think when his death was reported on 29 January 2006 people were confusing him with his half brother Carol Lambrino, who died in London on 27 January 2006 aged 86. --82.4.86.73 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Abdication controversies

King Michael contradicts the British Foreign Office reports surrounding the alleged offer of asylum made to him by PM Winston Churchill in November 1947, on the occasion of Michael's trip to the wedding of the future Queen Elizabeth II:

"Another memorable visit to London was in 1947, at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth. (...) I decided to reject any offers of asylum and returned to my country, to be with my people for as long as possible." (King Michael, London, March 26, 1997)

"London, Dee. 30 (U.P.). -- Handsome King Mihai returned to his tottering throne in Romania last month at the express advice of Winston Churchill, diplomatic circles said today." (Washington Post, December 31, 1947)

This is but another controversy surrounding Michael's trip to London in November 1947, when he reportedly took out of Romania 42 invaluable State (Crown) paintings, Stalin's "thank-you" note for the cease-fire order King Michael had given to the Romanian Army on August 23, 1944 without having signed any armistice whatsoever (signed much later, on September 12, 1944), order which had immediately rendered the Soviets masters of Romania. A solid proof for these accusations comes from King Michael's ex-son-in-law, John Kreuger, Princess Irene's ex-husband:

"Madonna with the Child" painted by Francesco Raibolini, was donated on Wednesday to the Romanian National Art Museum. The painting was bought in 1983 by Diana Kreuger, from the former Romanian royal family and exhibited between 1983 and 1998 at Malvande Chambesy Castle in Geneva. The painting was inherited by John Kreuger, who had the generosity to donate it." (Daily News, November 25, 2004)

"One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Royal Crown which was supposed to have been taken out of the country by King Michael in 1947, returned to the national patrimony early this year. The painting was donated to the National Museum of Art by John Kreuger, former son-in-law of Romania's sovereign." (Evenimentul Zilei, March 24, 2005)

As about the half million Swiss francs, paid to the King before his departure into exile in January 1948, with which Stalin bought Michael's acceptance of a smooth abdication and his silence in exile, on top of the 42 invaluable public-owned paintings given to him in November 1947, recently declassified Soviet and British archives leave no room for speculation:

"Confidential Foreign Office documents reveal that the exiled monarch was experiencing "serious financial difficulties". It says: "When he left Rumania (sic) his only asset was 500,000 Swiss francs. A large part of this has been spent and his income is now down to £1,200 a year." (BBC, January 2, 2005)

(Translation of recently declassified transcripts of talks between Stalin and the Romanian Communist P.M. Petru Groza, held in Moscow on February 3, 1948): "Petru Groza said that the State had purchased from the King only 360 tons of wine, at a price of 1 million Swiss Francs, of which the King was paid only half, with the remainder to be paid only if "he behaves well." "We didn't pay him too little, to feel slighted/as if injustice was done to him, nor too much, to feel independent," Groza stated. Stalin remarked, in this context, that the Romanian sovereign is an "original" one, and, having been reminded that Michael had been decorated with the highest Soviet order, "Victory", the dictator asked if the former sovereign of Romania took it along in exile." (ROMPRES news agency, quoted by Adevarul de Cluj, April 13, 2005)

handing the country to the soviets

i don't think it's a correct statement. king michael and most of the people who supported him in his coup d'etat (with the obvious exception of the communists) did so wanting to ally themselves with the allies. that the only allies that ever got to enter the country were the soviets was an unfortunate happening, but not king michael's wish. the statement you make implies that when he made the coup d'etat he did it with the specific desire to hand the country over to the communists, which is most definitely not true. if you want to point out the unfortunate consequences of the move you can mention that his act led to the country being invaded by communists, because the allies had made an agreement with the soviets which involved letting romania mostly under their influence (i believe the proportion they agreed upon was 70% soviets, 30% others - not that it actually was that way). ilya 16:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you ilya: King Michael did certainly not want to hand Romania over to the Soviets/Communists for good, for ever and ever. What Michael surely wanted, though, is to preserve his Throne (who wouldn't?!) and, especially, his life, in hope that after a temporary surrender to the Soviets, the Western Allies were to also land in the Balkans, not just Normandy. He did hope that eventually Romania was to be occupied by the Westerners and, thus, delivered from a temporary Soviet occupation.

As with all Nazi allies, King Michael - who, unlike other monarchs under Nazi occupation, did meet Hitler more than once and congratulated him a few times in official letters written after Hitler's military victories - had very, very good reasons to fear for his life (not just Throne). Once the Nazis' defeat was in sight after the turning point of World War II - the battle of Stalingrad - Michael had every reason to earn the Soviets' goodwill, as it became quite clear the Soviets were to rout the Nazis out and occupy Romania. Michael did win Stalin's goodwill through the cease-fire order of August 23 1944, given before any armistice was signed (signed much later, on September 12 1944), an order which equivalated to a "capitulation", an "unconditional surrender".

King Michael, unlike another Nazi ally of royal blood - Prince Kyril of Bulgaria -, did preserve his life as result of his capitulation. Prince Kyril, Regent of Bulgaria, was executed by the Soviets in 1945; King Michael, not. Stalin was extremely happy with King Michael's handing Romania over to him, as Michael's surrender earned Stalin not only Romania, but pretty much all of South-Eastern Europe. As result, Michael kept not only his life, but was rewarded by Stalin very generously upon his negotiated abdication: hundreds of thousands of US dollars worth of public-owned paintings (42 total), plus 500,000 Swiss francs. No other monarch ousted by the Communists from South-Eastern Europe enjoyed such generosity. None.

Unfortunately for Romania, King Michael's (and the Romanian political elites') wishes for another Western landing in the Balkans to deliver Romania from the Soviets' occupation, never materialized. Stefanp 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-posted your comments bellow, Morgandy Aithne, because you edited my comments above, interspersing them with yours. It is inappropriate to edit another user's talk on Wikipedia and it can be considered vandalism. Stefanp 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ilya - all I have learned and read about King Michael contradicts this idea of handing over the country to the Soviets, and we should not forget the infernal pressures, dangers and violence of those days. He resisted alot of pressures and Romania was already "sold" to the USSR by the Allies, so the king was completely alone. Whatever he tried to do for his country was doomed. So it is an ex-post facto rationalization to say that he "handed" Romania over. There was nothing he could do anyway. Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Morgandy Ainthe, 25 March 2006Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are these letters of congratulations? If they were indeed written they were probably pro forma, formal letters. Heads of State in constitutional monarchies are obliged to do what their governments want them to do - Queen ElisabethII makes speeches on the opening of Parliament which are written by the Government (for example) and she was also obliged to receive Ceausescu when he visited the UK. Not her personal choice. Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Morgandy Ainthe, 25 March 2006Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for this? If he got so much money, why was he so poor? Doesn't make sense. And these paintings - they were Crown owned paintings, why should the Communist govt. hand them over to King Michael? Wierd idea! Better to have gold lingots, diamonds, jewels-or something you can exchange. Giving someone their own paintings is strange, and paintings are bulky and delicate to keep. Doesn't make sense at all.21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Morgandy Ainthe,25 March 200521:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My answers to your questions and claims, Morgandy Aithne:

1. King Michael's letters of congratulation sent to Hitler can be consulted in the national archives in Bucharest. "The ex-king, still alive and living in Switzerland, actively collaborated with Hitler and wrote him congratulatory notes on his military victories." The excerpt is from an article signed by a former US Ambassador, Voice of America director, and member of the U.S. delegation to the annual US-USSR Information Talks in Moscow and Washington, D.C., thus, somebody extremely well-informed about the ex-communist countries, Mr. Richard Carlson.

Your comparison of King Michael's situation to that of Queen Elizabeth II is totally inappropriate, because during the war, Romania was not a constitutional monarchy. The last democratic Constitution of 1923 and the last democratically elected Parliament had both been suspended during the reign of Carol II and remained so until very late during Michael's reign. King Michael was, thus, an unconstitutional monarch, not sworn in by any Parliament, for the entire duration of his second reign (1940-1947). Therefore, outside of normal constitutional arrangements, the King could not be forced into doing anything by his Prime Minister. Under the military dictatorship in place upon his accession to the Throne, the King remained the Head of the Army and as such he could choose to change the Prime Minister, something which he actually did in August 1944.

Moreover, unlike other monarchs under Nazi occupation, such as King Christian X of Denmark, who defied Hitler, King Michael tried very hard to please the Nazi occupiers. Nobody forced King Michael to invite the Nazi field marshal Wilhelm Keitel, a war criminal hanged by the Nurnberg war tribunal, to Michael's own private castle. Furthermore, nobody forced Michael to try to make himself pleasant to Keitel, as the Nazi criminal's memoirs prove it: "I stayed as the young king's guest at the royal castle, where, together with Antonescu, I had an audience with the king and the queen mother (the wife of the exiled king, who had long found a suitable replacement for her in his mistress, Mme. Lupescu). At twenty-one, the king was a tall, slim and goodlooking youth, still rather awkward in his manner but ***not unlikeable***." ("The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel" by Walter Gorlitz, p. 204) To avoid such a compromising situation, Michael could have pretended to be sick and let the Prime Minister alone handle the Nazi opressor. Moreover, nobody forced Michael to personally decorate the same opressor: "In Keitel's original manuscript there follows a description of the conferring of the Order of King Michael on him, and details of various society functions during his visit; these have been omitted by the editor." ("The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel" by Walter Gorlitz, p. 205)

(The extent to which King Christian "defied Hitler" has been greatly exaggerated. Like everyone in the occupied countries, the Danes compromised with the Germans to the extent they thought necessary for their own safety. So no doubt did Michael and the Romanians. Adam 12:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

Just to note, Romania was not an occupied country - it was a Germany ally, so comparisons with Christian X are not apt. The appropriate comparisons would be to Victor Emmanuel III, Boris III, and Admiral Horthy, I think. But it should also be noted that Michael was not really his own master. Power in Romania up until the coup was really in Antonescu's hands. john k 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

2. The evidence regarding both the paintings and the large sum of money given to the King by the Communists can be found above, in the "Abdication controversies" section. As about your claim that Michael was poor, it is inconsistent with the large amount of Communists' endowment of 500,000 Swiss francs. That Michael ran out of this money and had to find a job, which prompted his plea to the British Government which is noted in the BBC piece of news above quoted, is entirely his own fault, not anybody's.

Please, note that the paintings in question were not King Michael's own private property, nor his family's, but the State's. If you are from the US, you will understand that the White House residence is the property of the US Presidency, that is the American State, not G.W. Bush's nor any particular president's. Similarly, those paintings were the property of the Romanian equivalent of the US Presidency - the Romanian Crown. Thus, being public goods, the paintings could not be appropriated by any particular individual, king or commoner.

PS: If you answer, please, have the courtesy of posting your answers after mine, not insert them within mine, for it is inappropriate and it can be considered vandalism. Thank you. Stefanp 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

just because the formalities of being sworn in by his parliament didn't take place, doesn't mean king michael didn't act like a constitutional monarch. he tried to create a democratic government, but the soviet occupation (ie armies) on his territory kind of twisted his hand and he had to include communists in it, more and more with each government created. i'm sure he was aware that at the time there was no communist monarchy and that it was very little probability of ever existing one because the concepts are totally opposing each other. so i can't possibly believe he simply allowed the communists to take over, knowing that. also, you must realize that ion antonescu had total control during the period of time 1940-1945... king michael had no power absolutely, he heard about romania joining germany in war on the radio, for god's sake! whatever those letters you have they were letters of protocol and should not be in any way considered as representative for his opinion. ilya 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree absolutely with ilyawh. And I do beg your pardon stefanp if I wrote in the wrong place, thankyou for repositioning my answer - I am not as familiar as you are with the methods of using this site and anyone can make a mistake and not be considered a vandal.

About these paintings - I think it is a non issue. Pretty silly stuff. The comparison with the US situation is spurious - Romania was a monarchy and the paintings and palaces were bought with the cash of Carol 1st - not gifts. If the artwork belonged to the Crown, King Michael represented the Crown, and if on top of that the communists who had taken over the country and confiscated all property (his and others), actually gave Michael something as a "sop", what is the problem with him accepting his own property? All this just goes around and around in boring circles. It really is so unimportant when you think about all the thousands of properties and millions of artworks that the communist regimes confiscated from thousands upon thousands of people. And if you think of all the millions of broken lives... this stuff about king Michael's artwork is really irrelevant. ~Morgandy Aithne, 26 March 2006~

You are completely wrong about the paintings, Morgandy Aithne:

1. They were not bought with Carol I's private money, but public money, as you can see from the following article: "Two of the three paintings "Saint Sebastian" and "The portrait of Giacomo Bosio" are works of the famous El Greco. The first one is part of a private collection in France while the second can be admired at Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, US. The third painting named "Concerto" whose author was Tintoretto, is presently part of the Labadini Collection in Milan. A letter sent by a painting dealer to the managing board of the Art Museum in Forth Worth (USA) proves without a doubt that the El Greco painting was bought from King Michael. The Romanian Royal House Collection was bought with public money by Bratianu government at the end of the 19th century. This was a fact well-known by the first Romanian king, Charles I, who mentioned in his will that the great values in this art collection belong to the Romanian people and will never be sold."

2. Since the paintings are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are not at all irellevant, as you claim. Such Communist generosity towards any monarch - a traditional class enemy of the Communist regimes everywhere - is unheard of, even astounding when compared to the fate the Communists reserved to another monarchical figure and former Nazi ally, just like King Michael - Prince Kyril, Regent of Bulgaria, executed by the Soviets in 1945.

3. The misappropriation of these invaluable public goods by King Michael was an illegal act, as no public goods can become private, without due process (such as Governmental privatization, an act of the Parliament, etc.). King Michael has no ownership act on these paintings to this very day, as proven in the U.S. Courts of Justice: "So mad about horse-racing was the art dealer Daniel Wildenstein that he once remarked that it was a surprise he and his family were not born with hoofs instead of feet." This chicken hawk was not only born with hoofs but also with horns! Yes! In the eighties,I sued him in Fed. court NY over an El Greco and Botticelli which he had sold me for 4.5 million US dollars. The El Greco turned out to be "stolen" by former Romanian King Michael from his country and the Botticelli had a similar problem! Sandro Boticelli's, "La Bella Simonetta" and El Greco's, "San Sebastian", two "belle" lemons." (Michel van Rijn) Here are van Rijn's two other testimonies on this issue: 1 and 2. For more on Michel van Rijn's credentials, please, see links 1 and 2. Stefanp 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

@ John Kenney: I disagree with your statement "Power in Romania up until the coup was really in Antonescu's hands." The King was the Head of the Army even under the military dictatorship laws and as such he was Marshal Antonescu's boss. The King had both the right and the power to change the Prime Minister, as proven by the fact that the Army rallied behind his coup. Stefanp 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Stefan you really undermine your credibility when you make silly comments like that. Antonescu was a dictator who ran the country with the backing of the army, and Michael was a figurehead who had no power to defy him. What changed in 1944 was that it became apparent that the war was lost and Michael was able to find allies in the army and political class for a coup against Antonescu. On your argument, Victor Emmanuel was the real ruler of Italy and George VI the real ruler of Britain. Adam 07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Adam. You make the same mistake as Morgandy when comparing apples with oranges: Romania, unlike Italy or England, was not a constitutional monarchy, but a military dictatorship. The Constitution and Parliament being both suspended, the power resided with the Army - this is what a military dictatorship is after all. Thus, whoever had the confidence and affection of the Army enjoyed real power in the country. Both the King and Marshal Antonescu enjoyed the Army's trust and affection, so both had actual power. The King had, besides real power, moral power as well, as he embodied the Nation and was, under the laws of the time, supreme Head of the Army and, thus, Antonescu's boss. The King simply chose not to use his real and moral power over the Army and, thus over Romania, as it provided him with a carefree life of automobile driving, airplane piloting, and hunting pursuits. He chose not to use his actual and moral power over the Army and, thus, Nation until his Throne and life started being at stake: after Stalingrad, when it became clear the Soviets were to rout the Nazis out and occupy Romania. Stefanp 07:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. As you say, in a military dictatorship the real ruler is the commander of the army - in this case Antonescu. It is not possible for two people to hold power in a dictatorship. As you also say, the constitution was suspended. Therefore, Romania was not a constitutional monarchy and Michael was not Antonescu's boss: this is a constitutional fiction even in normal times, in wartime it is a ridiculous assertion. He was a figurehead monarch, like Victor Emmanuel (and since when was Mussolini's regime a constitutional monarchy?). He had no power at all to challenge Antonescu until other powerful people decided that regime change was necessary. The analogy with Victor Emmanuel is exact, because he was able to depose Mussolini in 1943, despite his previous powerlessness, for precisely the same reason. Adam 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful when using terms such as "nonsense": somebody else might perceive them as insults and complain officially about such language. I won't. As about your assertions, they are utterly wrong. Firstly, Antonescu was a Marshal of the Army, whose Head was the King, as confirmed by the royal decree of September 6 1940. Thus, the King - also a Marshal - was Marshal Antonescu's boss. Secondly, there were no "other powerful people" who decided to challenge Antonescu's authority. The King was the sole really powerful person who decided to do so, who only sought the democratic parties leaders' advice, but decided to go ahead without them when they couldn't be found and consulted at their residences in Bucharest on the fateful day of August 23 1944. The coup was largely a personal act of the King, not of "other powerful people", carried out with the support of the Communists, to whose armed gang Antonescu was handed over. Thirdly, Michael was not "a figurehead monarch", for his very own son-in-law Radu Duda claims otherwise in a public interview: "Monarchy is the crown, as well as political power. This is the way monarchy in Romania was until 1947. If this is the monarchy you have in mind, this model is no longer possible. No E.U. institution will accept the idea that a person should receive as much power as King Michael had on 29 December 1947. In the EU model, the monarch does not have this sort of political power, so returning to such a model is no longer possible." You should read up more on Romanian history before making any such false claims. They make you lose your credibility as historian. Stefanp 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From reading all this, it is obvious that you have an agenda, stefanp, and that is not so appropriate for writing in an encyclopedia, where facts should be listed dispassionately . You may use (barely) polite language, but your bias is no better than using terms such as "nonsense" which is a good english word, not an insult. >Arcadiam , 27 march '06>

I deny your slanderous accusation of being almost impolite. However, such accusation does not surprise me in least, as it is obvious that you do have a pro-Romanian royals agenda - agenda for whose furthering you have recently joined Wikipedia. Here are your contributions to Wikipedia so far: they are limited only to positions in favor of the Romanian royals. Stefanp 13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

if you wanna check out adam's bias you don't have to look further than this page on the 'king michael's instrument of abdication is not valid' section. there you will see someone who is clearly objective about the royalist situation in romania. you, on the other hand, are not. i, in many many years of studying history have never heard anything of the sort you're saying than from two kinds of historians: the communists who were trying to discredit the monarchy (for obvious reasons) and "prince" paul, who is interfearing with a very well written article (before you showed up anyway) and filling it with biased affirmations that no-one else believes but yourself. there's a saying in romania: 'when three people tell you you're drunk go to sleep'. the whole world is telling you you're wrong. get the message. ilya 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilya is so totally right . Stefanp, I would be careful when using such terms as "slanderous" which are offensive. All that you write, and the way that you write it are only parroting the lies that the communists told for years and are now continued by the extremist Greater Romania Party, made up of old communists, and , as Ilya says, "prince Paul" who is desperately trying to discredit the King and his family. He is also close to the Greater Romanian Party and to it's leader Vadim Tudor. Get the message indeed. User:Arkadiam 23:31, March 28 2006