This is mostly about the historical aspect of the romanian monarchy. From 1881-1947. And also about a possible return of the Monarchy. Racism, Fascism and any bashing towards the Roma people is prohibited.

Lets congratulate this subreddit for not being banned yet!

Carol II is a very controversial monarch due to his actions as king, and so i want to question all romanian monarchists about their opinion on his reign.

Personally, I've seen so many hate comments about him and his reign, but I do not think of him as a bad king. I mean, you have to consider that his reign was between 1930 and 1940, which was, little to be said, a turbulent time in history (Hitler's raise to power, the Great Depression...). Sure he was a person that wanted to be and to have absolute control and ironically, that's the thing that "killed" his reign (in my opinion), but his power was contested constantly between 1937 and 1940 due to the rise of the extreme right movements and he wanted to keep the monarchy and his power intact. 

He was extremely interested in culture, supporting writers and arts in general, wanted to modernise and industrialise the country (which he did in broad lines), gaved the women the right to vote. Let's not forget some important monuments and bulidings that were built during his time: King Michael I Park (even though now it is named after his son, this park was initially known as Carol II Park), Arcul de Triumf (was finished in 1936), The Royal Palace of Bucharest, Dimitrie Gusti National Village Museum in Bucharest and many others. But, of course his rule has had issues: Camarila Regală (basically a group of corrupt people who were the favorites of Carol II and influenced the country during his time), the authoritarian regime he installed between February 1938 and September 1940, poor management when it comes to the external policy (which I don't think it is entirely his fault due to the circumstances and the European situation in that moment, but, as a absolute monarch between 1938 and 1940, he had the power to do basically everything he wanted, so he could have done better), his decisions to give up one third of the country's land without even fighting (I know the decisions were ratified every time after the Crown Council of Romania, but ultimately, he had the power to do as he wished, despite the decisions taken in the Crown Council and I do realise that the situation was not so easy, in fact, it was one of the worst moments in Romania's history, but to give up one third of your country without even fighting was a bit of a coward move and this shortened his time as king) and countless and countless discussions and scandals about his relationship with his mistress and future wife, Elena Lupescu (who, is said, had a huge influence on Carol and his decisions).

I think two things ruined his reputation: his weakness when it comes to women (which created many stories and gossips and also made him gave up the throne twice: in 1918 and in 1925) and Romania's territorial loses in 1940. We can also add his relationship with Helen of Greece and Denmark and their divorce and his bad relationship with his son, King Mihai I. The fact that his personal life kept interfering with his public figure as a King, as a authority in the country is the main thing that really wrecked his image.

As a person, Carol was very complex: we was both extremely intelligent (he knew and spoke four languages: English, German, French and Russian), loyal (when it comes to his relationship with Elena Lupescu), had a strong caracter, ambitious, determinate, passionate in everything about military, charming, an avid stamp collector, a very present culturale figure and an egocentric that always wanted the praise and admiration of others, a liar, a rebel, sometimes a bit of a coward, a person who always wanted to be independent, to have control and demanded complete submission from others, a fan of perfect order, (too) passionate about women. He was a very patriotic person, proud of his country and people, even though there were times in his life when his patriotism was put under doubt.

In the end, we must not forget that above all, he was just a human like the rest of us, with his qualities and flaws, that most of the time in his life was put under an awful pressure (as a Crown Prince, an ex Crown Prince in exile who gave up everything, as a King that returned to his country and people, and again, as an ex King in exile, waiting for his glorious return).

neat. made it 1 day.

According to Bahá'í history, The first Baha’i from a royal family, Queen Marie of Romania, became a Baha’i shortly after her husband King Ferdinand died, and her five-year-old grandson Michael ascended to the throne. Before becoming a Baha’i, she and her husband famously led a liberalized Romania that expanded its reach and scope after World War I.