Romanian choice for king

Philip of Flanders was the original choice of the Romanian political elite, but he turned down the offer. Karl of Hohenzollern was then suggested by Napoleon III. It's important to note that the country's politicians and statesmen of the era were almost universally heavily Francophile, so a suggestion from the French Emperor himself would easily become the no. 1 candidate. Karl's dynasty was also important, he was far enough removed from the protestant Hohezollerns, but sufficiently linked to them to provide the fledgling Romania with two strong backers if the Russians or the Ottomans decided to throw their weight around. The time was also rather limited since the Paris Convention did not provide any prescription for a personal or political union (Cuza was elected in both principalities through a technicality) and there was the rather high risk of the GPs deciding to end it all and return Romania to the status-quo of 1859 - two principalities, two assemblies, two princes.
 
Last edited:
Philip of Flanders was the original choice of the Romanian political elite, but he turned down the offer. Karl of Hohenzollern was then suggested by Napoleon III. It's important to note that the country's politician and statesmen of the era were almost universally heavily Francophile, so a suggestion from the French Emperor himself would easily become the no. 1 candidate. Karl's dynasty was also important, he was far enough removed from the protestant Hohezollerns, but sufficiently linked to them to provide the fledgling Romania with two strong backers if the Russians or the Ottomans decided to throw their weight around. The time was also rather limited since the Paris Convention did not provide any prescription for a personal or political union (Cuza was elected in both principalities through a technicality) and there was the rather high risk of the GPs deciding to end it all and return Romania to the status-quo of 1859 - two principalities, two assemblies, two princes.
I've always been confused as to why Napoleon III suggested Karl then lost his shit when Karl's brother Leopold was offered the Spanish throne. Did Napoleon have a special relationship with Karl specifically? Also, do you know why Philip refused? Or whether or not Philip was interested at all? Or did he just flat out refuse?
 
I've always been confused as to why Napoleon III suggested Karl then lost his shit when Karl's brother Leopold was offered the Spanish throne. Did Napoleon have a special relationship with Karl specifically? Also, do you know why Philip refused? Or whether or not Philip was interested at all? Or did he just flat out refuse?
Maybe Romania didn't bother hin to much. Not France's sphere of influence and interest ?Spain bordered the French Empire. He certainly didn't want to be squeezed by Hohenzollerns ( Prussia was a dominant power in the German Bund).
 
Maybe Romania didn't bother hin to much. Not France's sphere of influence and interest ?Spain bordered the French Empire. He certainly didn't want to be squeezed by Hohenzollerns ( Prussia was a dominant power in the German Bund).
Yeah that's what I figured. Romania was far away enough for Napoleon to not care.
 
I've always been confused as to why Napoleon III suggested Karl then lost his shit when Karl's brother Leopold was offered the Spanish throne. Did Napoleon have a special relationship with Karl specifically?

The difference was Spain was a former GP, a major European realm and a French neighbour, a Hohenzollern on her throne would mean France would be sandwiched between two Hohenzollern powers, not great for its European ambitions. Romania had none of these traits - it was a distant country, an Ottoman vassal and frankly, the French did not care as much about brotherly Latin affinities as the Romanians did. Karl was a distant relative of Napoleon, was a Catholic and at the moment it seemed a good choice for expanding French influence in Russia's backyard.

Also, do you know why Philip refused? Or whether or not Philip was interested at all? Or did he just flat out refuse?

Philip initially wanted to take the throne in Bucharest. His refusal came after discussing it with his brother, the King of Belgium and his family. Leopold II was aware of Belgium's own shaky standing (it was only created 35 years earlier) and he wanted his dynasty to cement itself and become as prestigious as the ones sitting on the major thrones of Europe. If Philip became the Romanian prince he would become an Ottoman vassal de jure (he'd have to go to Constantinople and kiss the Sultan's shoe, basically). This was not particularly great for the dynasty's prestige. Karl of Hohenzollern did not have this problem, or at least it wasn't as important since his name was far more prestigious and he was also from a cadet branch.
 
The difference was Spain was a former GP, a major European realm and a French neighbour, a Hohenzollern on her throne would mean France would be sandwiched between two Hohenzollern powers, not great for its European ambitions. Romania had none of these traits - it was a distant country, an Ottoman vassal and frankly, the French did not care as much about brotherly Latin affinities as the Romanians did. Karl was a distant relative of Napoleon, was a Catholic and at the moment it seemed a good choice for expanding French influence in Russia's backyard.



Philip initially wanted to take the throne in Bucharest. His refusal came after discussing it with his brother, the King of Belgium and his family. Leopold II was aware of Belgium's own shaky standing (it was only created 35 years earlier) and he wanted his dynasty to cement itself and become as prestigious as the ones sitting on the major thrones of Europe. If Philip became the Romanian prince he would become an Ottoman vassal de jure (he'd have to go to Constantinople and kiss the Sultan's shoe, basically). This was not particularly great for the dynasty's prestige. Karl of Hohenzollern did not have this problem, or at least it wasn't as important since his name was far more prestigious and he was also from a cadet branch.
Hmm, very interesting. Thanks. Also, since you seem knowledgable, do you have any idea who could've been Romanian king if Karl was unavailable for whatever reason? I've been thinking perhaps Amedeo of Aosta but I'm not sure if that's plausible.
 
Hmm, very interesting. Thanks. Also, since you seem knowledgable, do you have any idea who could've been Romanian king if Karl was unavailable for whatever reason? I've been thinking perhaps Amedeo of Aosta but I'm not sure if that's plausible.

Other possible choices would be Karl's siblings, Anton or Frederick. If they're also unavailable, then things become a bit shaky. Amadeo would probably work if he'd accept, but I'm not entirely sure he would. Other options could be any of the Wittelsbachs (Leopold or Arnulf), although they might be too close to Austria for the Romanian elite to accept them. A local noble is almost completely out of the question, though.
 
Other possible choices would be Karl's siblings, Anton or Frederick. If they're also unavailable, then things become a bit shaky. Amadeo would probably work if he'd accept, but I'm not entirely sure he would. Other options could be any of the Wittelsbachs (Leopold or Arnulf), although they might be too close to Austria for the Romanian elite to accept them. A local noble is almost completely out of the question, though.
So the Romanians were averse to Austria? Also, did the Romanians offer the crown to Leopold first, but then have it to Karl after Leopold refused?
 
So the Romanians were averse to Austria?

Austria ruled Transylvania, a province with an ethnic Romanian majority which Romania claimed. Austria was also the only GP who openly opposed the Union of the Principalities back during the Congress of Paris (even the Ottoman Empire was not entirely against it). It's safe to say the Romanian political establishment of the time did not really trust Austria.

Also, did the Romanians offer the crown to Leopold first, but then have it to Karl after Leopold refused?

No, Karl was directly offered the crown. Leopold came in contact with the Romanian throne later when it became clear the now-King Carol would not have any male issue to succeed him. Leopold and his first son, Wilhelm renounced their succession rights. Ferdinand, his second son succeeded Carol in 1914.
 
Austria ruled Transylvania, a province with an ethnic Romanian majority which Romania claimed. Austria was also the only GP who openly opposed the Union of the Principalities back during the Congress of Paris (even the Ottoman Empire was not entirely against it). It's safe to say the Romanian political establishment of the time did not really trust Austria.



No, Karl was directly offered the crown. Leopold came in contact with the Romanian throne later when it became clear the now-King Carol would not have any male issue to succeed him. Leopold and his first son, Wilhelm renounced their succession rights. Ferdinand, his second son succeeded Carol in 1914.
Do you know Leopold and Wilhelm didn't want the throne? Thanks again.
 
Do you know Leopold and Wilhelm didn't want the throne? Thanks again.

There's little information on why Leopold renounced, but it seems it was his age, disinterest or a combination of both. He was older than King Carol and even if he did outlive him (which he didn't) he'd be too old to assume the throne of such a complicated country. Wilhelm was the Crown Prince of Romania for around six years before he renounced and it seems his decision came after he became familiarized with the internal workings of the country and its politics.

You're welcome!
 
There's little information on why Leopold renounced, but it seems it was his age, disinterest or a combination of both. He was older than King Carol and even if he did outlive him (which he didn't) he'd be too old to assume the throne of such a complicated country. Wilhelm was the Crown Prince of Romania for around six years before he renounced and it seems his decision came after he became familiarized with the internal workings of the country and its politics.

You're welcome!
I also have another thread talking about the Greek referendum on 1862 where they chose their new king. I was wondering who else could've been the Greek king. Once again I suggested Amedeo since he received more votes than the eventual King George of Greece. If you don't know much about this then no worries.
 
I also have another thread talking about the Greek referendum on 1862 where they chose their new king. I was wondering who else could've been the Greek king. Once again I suggested Amedeo since he received more votes than the eventual King George of Greece. If you don't know much about this then no worries.

I believe the referendum was held on the idea of showing how much the Greeks supported Prince Alfred, I don't think the other votes mattered that much since even Giuseppe Garibaldi was one of the "candidates". There's not much to go on on Amadeo's interest in a Eastern European crown and if he did accept one I don't believe he'd spend that much time as a monarch, since his history of King of Spain shows that he was not fully equipped to deal with the instability and political-cutthroat nature of such societies. He might survive more as Prince/King of Romania though than as a monarch of Greece. Him being an Italian might make him more interesting in the eyes of his potential Romanian subjects.
 
I believe the referendum was held on the idea of showing how much the Greeks supported Prince Alfred, I don't think the other votes mattered that much since even Giuseppe Garibaldi was one of the "candidates". There's not much to go on on Amadeo's interest in a Eastern European crown and if he did accept one I don't believe he'd spend that much time as a monarch, since his history of King of Spain shows that he was not fully equipped to deal with the instability and political-cutthroat nature of such societies. He might survive more as Prince/King of Romania though than as a monarch of Greece. Him being an Italian might make him more interesting in the eyes of his potential Romanian subjects.
You think Greece would've been too volatile for Amedeo to handle and would have abdicated like he did in Spain?
 
Philip initially wanted to take the throne in Bucharest. His refusal came after discussing it with his brother, the King of Belgium and his family. Leopold II was aware of Belgium's own shaky standing (it was only created 35 years earlier) and he wanted his dynasty to cement itself and become as prestigious as the ones sitting on the major thrones of Europe. If Philip became the Romanian prince he would become an Ottoman vassal de jure (he'd have to go to Constantinople and kiss the Sultan's shoe, basically). This was not particularly great for the dynasty's prestige. Karl of Hohenzollern did not have this problem, or at least it wasn't as important since his name was far more prestigious and he was also from a cadet branch.

And here I thought it was a case of Philippe being as disinterested in Romania as he was when his aunt (the princesse de Joinville) put him forward as a candidate for the Princess Imperial of Brasil.

In all I've read on him, Philippe never struck me as the most ambitious of men. Bookish, yes. Not really the type of person who'd go round looking for a colony or the like as his brother did, had Philippe wound up as king of the Belgians.
 
You think Greece would've been too volatile for Amedeo to handle and would have abdicated like he did in Spain?

I believe there was a considerable chance it could happen. Greece wasn't as volatile as Spain, but it still wasn't the easy time Amadeo seemed he wanted to have. Then again, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he does well in Greece or in Romania (higher chance of him succeeding in the latter, in my opinion.

And here I thought it was a case of Philippe being as disinterested in Romania as he was when his aunt (the princesse de Joinville) put him forward as a candidate for the Princess Imperial of Brasil.

In all I've read on him, Philippe never struck me as the most ambitious of men. Bookish, yes. Not really the type of person who'd go round looking for a colony or the like as his brother did, had Philippe wound up as king of the Belgians.

In regards to Philip's lack of ambition and @Marse Lee's question, I believe he was also one of the men that was offered the Greek crown in 1862, which he also refused. Philip would probably be less interested in building a legacy if he were king, unlike his older brother, so yeah, probably no Belgian Congo in that scenario. As Prince/King of Romania, Philip would probably act more regal than Carol did and be more of a ceremonial monarch. There'd also be fewer succession problems.
 
I believe there was a considerable chance it could happen. Greece wasn't as volatile as Spain, but it still wasn't the easy time Amadeo seemed he wanted to have. Then again, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he does well in Greece or in Romania (higher chance of him succeeding in the latter, in my opinion.



In regards to Philip's lack of ambition and @Marse Lee's question, I believe he was also one of the men that was offered the Greek crown in 1862, which he also refused. Philip would probably be less interested in building a legacy if he were king, unlike his older brother, so yeah, probably no Belgian Congo in that scenario. As Prince/King of Romania, Philip would probably act more regal than Carol did and be more of a ceremonial monarch. There'd also be fewer succession problems.
Any ideas on what Philip's potential regnal name would be in Greece or Romania? Maybe he would simply be King Philip?
 
I believe there was a considerable chance it could happen. Greece wasn't as volatile as Spain, but it still wasn't the easy time Amadeo seemed he wanted to have. Then again, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he does well in Greece or in Romania (higher chance of him succeeding in the latter, in my opinion.



In regards to Philip's lack of ambition and @Marse Lee's question, I believe he was also one of the men that was offered the Greek crown in 1862, which he also refused. Philip would probably be less interested in building a legacy if he were king, unlike his older brother, so yeah, probably no Belgian Congo in that scenario. As Prince/King of Romania, Philip would probably act more regal than Carol did and be more of a ceremonial monarch. There'd also be fewer succession problems.
Any specific reason you think Amedeo would do better in Romania than Greece?
 
Top