Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Royalist Restoration in Romania?

There is an increasing reason to hope that the cause of monarchy may be making a comeback in Eastern Europe/the Balkans. Montenegro (which we recently discussed) has restored its monarchy in all but name, just requiring one more step really to make it official; in Serbia the Crown Prince enjoys widespread support, has the backing of the Church and has established connections with many influential figures; in Bulgaria, despite some setbacks in the past, politicians supporting a restoration have made gains recently; in Albania the heir to the throne is working with the government; in Hungary, although still a republic, the official designation of the country has dropped the word “republic” in favor of “The State of Hungary” of simply “Hungary” and the new constitution at least makes reference to the Holy Crown (of St Stephen) as part of the national coat-of-arms. And, finally, there is Romania where support for the former monarchy seems to be growing. Certainly it would be great to see the monarchy restored in the lifetime of King Michael, a fitting tribute to him personally and the correction of a gross historical injustice.

As more politicians are running for office who have voiced support for restoring the monarchy, more people in the halls of power in Bucharest or those hoping to be, have started to shift in a more monarchist direction. In the current presidential race going on, several of the top contenders have said they would like to see the monarchy restored while others have obviously concluded that monarchist support is considerable enough in Romania not to be discounted. Because of this, politicians who have a history of republicanism and who have not endorsed the idea of a royal restoration have, at least, tried to assure the people that they admire the Royal Family and have the utmost respect for the King. Opinion polls are still not quite where we would want them to be, however, from listening to Romanian politicians one cannot help but wonder if they know something we do not. Even those who have been adamant about being republicans have begun to say that, while they favor keeping the republic, would be supportive of having a referendum on the subject so that the public can vote on whether to restore the monarchy or not. The staunchly republican head of state, President Traian Basescu (a former communist) has said that he has no objection to a referendum and that the former monarchy will be an issue that the government will have to somehow deal with.

More and more Romanian leaders are saying that they either support the restoration of the monarchy or that, at least, they would not oppose putting the issue to a vote in a public referendum. This is, of course, positive news and would seem to indicate that there could be a groundswell of monarchist support in Romania. I would say there is every reason to be cautiously optimistic but keeping in mind that royalists have always had to fight against the odds. Once politicians have power and, aside from power, the most prestigious position in the country (head of state) they have never wanted to give that up. A public referendum that votes in favor of restoring the Romanian monarchy and a government that carries out this wish would be truly groundbreaking. Monarchies being restored is rare enough to be considered a positive phenomenon on its own and it is almost as rare to have a republic willingly give its people the chance to choose on whether to restore a monarchy that has fallen. When we look at modern examples of monarchies being restored, they have not looked like this. In Cambodia there were extraordinary circumstances. The Vietnamese had overthrown the previous regime, the United Nations was brought in and in that case the monarchy was restored without disturbing the existing rulers who had been put in place by Vietnam (and who have remained ever since). In Spain, Generalissimo Franco restored the monarchy in name fairly early on and then, rather than have a vote, designated Prince Juan Carlos to take power upon his death, after which the Spanish government made it clear that King Juan Carlos attained his throne based on hereditary right rather than the wishes of Franco.

That is an important point because, if the ruling elite in Romania were honest and honorable people (I know, it sounds absurd to even say) they would restore the monarchy immediately and then, if King Michael was agreeable and the political parties insistent, give the people a referendum on keeping it. That is because the current Romanian regime is completely illegitimate. King Michael lost his crown by the extortion of Soviet Russia and every government since his overthrow has been illegal. As soon as the communist bloc crumbled, the King should have been restored to his rightful place immediately after which a legitimate government could have decided where to take the country from there. If there is a referendum and if it ends in the way we would all hope, calling for the restoration of the monarchy, it would simply be recognizing what should already, justly, be the case -that Michael I is the King of Romania and always has been, by hereditary right and the long-established laws of the country.

I would, of course, be in favor of the government declaring the restoration of the monarchy tomorrow (if not today) on that basis alone, that King Michael is the legitimate monarch and has been since his accession (whichever of the two you may prefer). The fact that so many seem to be at least somewhat supportive of a restoration without doing this tends to make me rather skeptical and the conspiratorial part of my damaged mind starts to run wild. As stated above, the public opinion polls about a restoration are still not where most monarchists would like them to (like, 100% in favor) and so I cannot help but wonder why there is this sudden burst of support for the monarchy or, at the very least, a fall-off in those who are adamantly opposed to it. Politicians seeking election are the most untrustworthy of creatures and I fear that there one or two reasons behind this depending on the individual politician. On the one hand, I fear this is nothing more than political pandering; politicians trying to gain the support of the monarchist minority by pretending to be on our side only to then forget their promises as soon as they gain power. I fear this is like Hitler sending Goering to Doorn to pay court to the Kaiser. They don’t mean it, they have no intention of following through on it but they are just trying to say sweet things to the monarchists to get their votes.

On the other hand, I fear this sudden shift by such prominent republicans towards a referendum on the monarchy (rather than an immediate restoration on legal grounds) is a case of the ruling elite trying to head the monarchists off at the pass (if I can use a little western jargon). In other words, if they think that there are enough Romanian royalists to make a referendum happen, to make them have to deal with the monarchy as an issue, they may be trying to do it now at a time when most polls show that there is not yet majority support for a restoration. They may want to have the referendum sooner rather than later because, as things stand now, they are confident that they (the republicans) will win and then they can dismiss the issue as having already been dealt with, ‘the public has spoken, the cause is finished’. We know from other examples that this is how republicans tend to operate. When a referendum goes their way, the issue is settled but when it does not, that simply means there have to be more referendums until the public ‘gets it right’.

Again, everything that has happened has been very positive. It is good news and obviously preferable to the alternative. That being said, we have no reason to be too trusting when it comes to politicians and I will not desist in being critical until the monarchy is actually restored. I hope there will be a referendum, I would be glad to see one at a time when the public has been properly informed on the subject but just the promise of a referendum is not enough for me, nor would the referendum itself because this shouldn’t be about public opinion but rather about doing the right thing and restoring the last legal, valid, legitimate form of government Romania had before the period of communist enslavement. I would say to the loyal Romanians, support those candidates who support the monarchy but take nothing for granted and if they win, hold their feet to the fire to make good on their promises. Make it clear that your support is not unconditional and that the restoration of the monarchy is a non-negotiable issue. There is reason for hope here but no cause to be overly optimistic.


  1. Call me a pessimist, but I think Russia will do everything it can to prevent a monarchical restoration in the former eastern bloc; just like what the Clinton administration did in the 90's.

    1. If memory serves in a pers conference a reporter openly asked his foreign minister-M. albright whether US endorses the restoration of monarchy in the Balkan (I forget which state) or not. Albright unequivocally stated that US cannot endorse a system that is not democratically elected by the people of that country.

    2. That was in regards to Yugoslavia, and the reporter asked the question as at that point it was clear only Crown Prince Alexander was capable of uniting the country with the fall of Milosovic. According to Albright- "We don't do kings".

      So much for America, they did exactly the same thing in not allowing Zahir Shah to re-establish the monarchy in Afghanistan in 2001. Now that chance is long passed, and they reap the seeds they sow.

    3. Okay, you're right on Albright but not on Afghanistan. You can read the post here on the end of the monarchy in Afghanistan if you like, I know it gets repeated a lot, as if everything was all set for a restoration and America thwarted it, but Zahir Shah stated up front that he didn't want to be restored as King. Not every US administration has a knee-jerk reaction against monarchies, some are hostile to the idea, others don't care and one or two have even been positive towards a few.

    4. Tanaka 8120 there is an "Imperial Russian Movement" wich is a Monarchist and Christian movement,te restore the Monarchy.
      There is of course the problem of EU but fortunately,in Germany,the EuroSkeptics (both in Union and Coin) are at very big procentage,the French too,the Greece is almost certain it will leave EuroZone and all this will very soon (hopefully Tomorow) to the topple of EU.While the (at least former president) politicians in Poland (i was star struck to listen to it) would accept a Federal EU (a.k.a. United States of Europe) most of the other won't.

      We (Romanians) gain the independence and escaped from the (minimal "domanation") tribute we had to pay to Ottomans (it was like an annual fee for militar help.We were never conquered like Bulgaria or hunGAYry) in 1878 and lost millions of people in the 2 balkan wars,the 2 world wars (In WW1,6% of the losses were Romanian alone) etc,to be federalised now.We were always a united country (countries before) and are against the federal-like system the imbecile corrupt officials would like to impose in the country (to make it a easier place to federalize).

      Also,there are big problems with the extemely iredentist hunGAYri and i'll not abolish the border (schengen area) so they have free pass here.NO THANK YOU.

      The EU is topping over,the Serbian and Russian monarchies (i think Russians will do it faster as they're boldier and more IN YOUR FACE) gain a very big part of support.
      Also,in Germany,there are 20% for restoring the Monarchy TOMMOROW while MORE THAN HALF are interested in other countries Monarchies.

      I agree with MadMonarchist here,that is HAS TO be done by the politicians due to birth right or Like Spanish did here 23 february 1981.The only thing is they tried there to topple the Monarchy (for no reason,and the millitary supported the king).Here they should do it to regive it's rights (as the today just like all gouvernments IS ILLEGAL,JUST LIKE THE REPUBLIC) but i'm affraid there aren't general or colonels (like Colonel Trajero in the vide) so pattriotic or uncorrupt to do it.

      So there remains only a Judge of the Supreme Court (or whatever) to do it with 50-100 soldiers/gendarms and ARREST EVERYONE FOR TREASON,Undermining the state,the economy,murder (direct and indirect),false and use of false,corruption etc.

  2. Positive news, though I don't like referendums much. The thought of a referendum on monarchy makes me feel uncomfortable.

    Referendums offer a lot of advantage to the side opposing change, which would make it a struggle for monarchists in Romania.

  3. A referendum is the only realistic way for legitimate monarchies to come back in contemporary European ociety. The good people of England called their merry monarch Charles II from across the sea after sickening of Cromwell's yoke. That restoration was glorious, magnificent, and beautiful. I believe that the Monarchy of Great Britain is around today because it was and is supported by its subjects. This post is like good news from a distant land.

    Only a people who WANT a monarch deserve such a blessing anyway, right?

    1. One must accept realities as they exist. My only issue is with the idea of a popular vote determining legitimacy. Let there be a referendum and, God willing, let it end with the restoration of the monarchy but I would hope that, when that happens, it is made clear that the crown returns to King Michael I by hereditary right (along the lines as was done in Spain). I say that mostly because I do not like the idea of the momentary urges of 51% of the public being able to toss aside the accumulated wisdom of centuries.

  4. As much as I support the restoration of monarchy, the more important element is the general social and economic environment.

    To understand that you must look back to what enabled the republican liberal and then democratic/communist (same thing really-> democracy = soft Bolshevism) take overs of Europe.Nobody bothers with that like it was some kind of act of God (if so it was Satan). In truth the causes of the collapse were threefold:
    1)The rise of absolutist monarchy replacing the feudal type. Where previously the state and provinces were run by people with a stake in maintaining the system- like counts and such they were sidelined, put on pensions and gathered at court and the state became monolithic with a single point of failure (take over Versailles and thats it no other regional courts to contend with) and given over to people supposedly more competent but with dubious loyalties. You could certainly see the consequences.
    2)Stupid enlightenment ideas: allowing idiots to incite rebellion either go completely unpunished or else just exiled. This is the equivalent of allowing someone to repeatedly shoot a malfunctioning gun at you until he finally manages to get it to fire- pure madness.
    3)The final and most important was the industrial revolution. Just as Karl Marx foresaw all those peasants gathered in cities and subjected to a hard life right next to the wealthy classes was a guaranteed recipe for disaster once the economy had a protracted downturn (people on farms had reserves and fields to sustain them- workers did not)

    So basically what caused monarchy to collapse was its own inability to comprehend the challenge it faced with the new proletariat class. And it was unable to do so because it had long since abdicated its oversight role to the bourgeoisie that had no direct skin in the political game- they supported free speech because it benefited them and free enterprise without a social net for the same reason while imagining everybody should be fine with it.

    All that lead to hard core commie governments in the east completely uncompetitive economically and unable to compete for resources and manufactured goods with the west while in the west soft commie governments (democracies) were the only game in town and able to have access to raw materials without competition and the same was true when they sold manufactured goods- all that even though they were still hugely inefficient with their huge state expenditures and involvements.

    Which finally brings me to the conclusion: they are now competing with significant economies in the former communist east and the despotic middle east that are not so beholden to popular wishes, have significantly lower wages and lower tax burdens while having comparative rule of law. This will inevitably lead to the grinding down into the dust of democracies and their economies: same process in reverse that previously lead to the triumph of Marx and his ideals. So the existing governments really will have no choice in the matter- they'll either have to reform by closing down their governments to popular participation (monarchy fits in well here) or see their countries descent into chaos and collapse entirely as the public refuses the solution of less taxes on the rich and business and demands instead the opposite.

    Which is not to say the Marxists in the US especially are taking it lying down: they're desperately trying to foment trouble in all the eastern countries that keep the people from demanding more taxes: Russia, China (Hong Kong) and Thailand have all been on the agenda recently to stir up the mobs.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...