Universitatea Româno-Americană, Bd. Expoziţiei 1B, Bucureşti
e-mail: rotaru_marina@yahoo.com

Abstract

After 45 years of communist terror, the Romanians’ identity seems to be at a loss. Has it ever had a European dimension or not? After 1866 and culminating with 1881 when the Romanian Principalities under the rule of King Charles I became a kingdom, Romanians, politically and culturally managed to add a new, more vigorous and thorough European dimension to their national identity. We were back then a constitutional monarchy, finding our place into the European political configuration of the age.

Keywords: king, constitutional monarchy

After the Second World War, even after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Europe has continued to produce new profiles of great men: Pope John Paul II, the first Pope to start a dialogue between Christianity and other religions at a world scale; Olof Palme, the leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden and the Prime Minister of Sweden and Anna Lindh, the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose murders had an impact across Scandinavia; King Juan Carlos of Spain, who peacefully led the transition from a dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy and a democratic regime in Spain.

These people can be considered great men because the public eye identifies a strong relationship between them and a historical mission. They seem to embody a value around which the public can gather around and identify with. According to the XVIIIth century spirit to which it belongs, “le grand home” is a philosophical concept with political and social implications for a nation. A public figure once considered a great man has to assume or is perceived to have assumed certain functions. He has to transgress his own individuality and leave the comfort and the anonymity of his collectivity to become the spokesperson of this collectivity and the defender of their values. “Le grand home” is an ideal based on reason, atheist, incarnated by a public figure that makes history without considering any kind of determinism. It is, originally, a philosophical attitude turned against the rules imposed by the French absolutist monarchy and aimed to overthrow the king and the system he represented. Paradoxically, this anti-monarchic concept can, in the XXth century, be embodied by a constitutional king in a given historical circumstance.

From 1948 to 1989, Romania found itself out of the Western European civilization to which it once proudly belonged. Since 1990, the Romanians have been in search of their European roots. During such an identity crisis as we are experiencing today, it is only natural to look around for leading figures, beholders of not only a national but also a European identity. I believe King Michael of Romania stands the test. In this paper I discuss three historical moments that made King Michael one of the greatest heads of state since WWII and for his people, a great man: August 23rd 1944 or the reversal of military alliances, the Royal Strike (or the King’s refusal to co-operate with the Soviets) and The King’s tour for Romania’s integration into the structures of NATO.

When he became king for the second time in his life, in September 1940, King Michael was just 18 years old, still too young and inexperienced for such a position in the state and in such troubled times. His father, King Charles II had left the country and abandoned the throne to him. So when King Michael acceded to the throne, he was in fact a king with a carton crown. The real ruler of the country was General Antonescu, who undertook the task of leading the country through the troubled years of the Second World War. Many contemporaries considered that there was little the young King could do except watch the events unfold.

August 23rd 1944 or the Reversal of Military Alliances

After he got rid of “The Iron Guard”, an extreme-right movement in 1941, Antonescu established a military dictatorship and engaged the country into an Alliance with the Nazi Germany and against communist Russia. The reason for Romania’s joining the German war effort was to get back Basarabia and Bucovina, the territories we lost after the Wien Diktat. But after the fall of Stalingrad, it became clear that Germany was about to lose the war and that Romania had to abandon Hitler and ask for an armistice.

King Michael started to prepare the operation of ending the war on Germany’s side at the end of 1942. But he literally took action in 1944. He sent the Allies two emissaries: Constantin Vişoianu, former Romanian ambassador to the Hague and member of the Romanian delegation to the United Nations and Prince Barbu Ştirbey, a close friend of the Romanian Royal Family. They were the sovereign’s personal representatives and acted in his name. Their secret mission was to suggest a separate peace between Romania and the Allied Forces. The two went to Cairo and started serious negotiations with a view to put an end to the alliance with Germany. The talks took a long time but did not have the result the King and his collaborators expected. Months of extreme suspense were coming and going but no clear action was taken to help us. This is how The King describes those months: “We even sent the Allies an official statement according to which we would have told them the exact areas where the Germans were less numerous if the Allies had parachuted massive troops to liberate the country. No answer! Only later did we understand that we had already been handed over to Stalin…It was dreadful! We were listening to the BBC, who were urging us to break the alliance with Germany and I was sending back secret messages: There is nothing else we are waiting for! But we cannot do it alone!”[4, pag.88].

In the end The King was left with no other alternative but to try and end the alliance with Hitler alone. Although The King was young, he proved he had come of age and he could rely on the support of all the political parties in opposition that he kept contact with since 1942-1943. The D-Day was August 23th 1944. The King himself wrote a telegram to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Italy informing him on his decision to overthrow Antonescu. Antonescu was summoned to the Royal Palace where he arrived late afternoon. The King and the general talked for about an hour and when The King told and asked Antonescu to sign the armistice without delay, Antonescu refused, rhetorically asking:

‘Do you think I will leave the country in the hands of a child?’[3, pag.105]. Soon afterwards he was arrested. The King then ordered the Romanian army to stop any conflict with the Russians. He also ordered the Germans to leave the country. The Germans refused so Romania started a new military conflict with their former allies. On September 12th 1944 Romania signed the armistice treaty with Russia, US and the UK. “Thus we became allies of the West and of the Russians without being acknowledged as cobelligerent, a status which might have granted us certain rights during the peace negotiations process”[7, pag.252]. Thus, Romania found itself occupied by the “allied” Soviet army whose behaviour was one of a conqueror and not of an ally. A new bitter age started for us: because we had lost the war in front of the Soviets we were now forced – in spite of the allies’ promises that they would protect us – to adopt Moscow’s political regime.

The historian John Erickson, one of the leading specialists on the Eastern Front, considers that “August 23rd 1944 proved to be one of the most decisive days of the whole war”[8, pag. 441], because Germany’s combat dispositions in South-East Europe collapsed. According to other specialists, August 23rd 1944 hastened the fall of the Reich by about six months. Florin Constantiniu, a Romanian historian, mentions that “Hitler himself, in a conversation with Croatia’s nationalist leader, Ante Pavelić, considered the crisis brought about by Romania’s changing its front similar to the Allies’ landing in Normandy”[8, pag.442].

August 23rd 1944 represented a turning point in our history. Romania broke the alliance with Germany. And this military move was done by a handful of people: The King, a few representatives of the political opposition and a few army officers. King Michael could rely on the Romanian army who supported and respected the sovereign. Although The King was young, he was about 23 years old, he proved he could assume the responsibilities of a head of state, he proved he could take decisions. He was not a puppet monarch, he had critical awareness. Back then, King Michael of Romania was the only head of state in this part of Europe who managed to throw the Germans out of the country, avoided the capitulation of his army and made his armed forces practically and legally become the Allies’ cobelligerents.

In February 1945, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met in Yalta to sign an agreement according to which the countries liberated from German occupation should organize free elections. For only a short while, the Romanians thought they could return to a normal parliamentary life as they were used to. But nobody could have imagined the appalling, brutal way in which the Russians understood these free elections. They continuously and purposefully exercised all kinds of pressure on The King to name a communist as his Prime-Minister, but The King constantly refused. As a result, the communists, who were present in all the political and administrative even the military echelons, began a massive undermining action. The country was under terror, even the political parties, which kept silent. The King was now alone to face the Russians. And yet, he did not give up and refused to appoint a communist as his prime-minister! The King was trying to buy some time until the Russians sent Vâshinski, their Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs to Bucharest to force The King’s hand. He made sure that Russian tanks occupied the streets of Bucharest and threatened The King that, unless he appointed a communist as Prime-Minister, they would produce serious unrest in the capital. Fearing for a bloodshed, The King appointed Petru Groza as the new Prime-Minister.

The Royal Strike

Since Petru Groza’s administration proved to be an undemocratic one, The King asked for his resignation on August 21st 1945. Groza’s refusal to resign marked the moment when The King started a passive resistance on his own, a unique act ever to be made by a constitutional monarch: The Royal Strike. He immediately left Bucharest and went to Sinaia refusing to countersign any act issued by Groza’s communist government. But soon the King realized that there was nothing else he could literally do and put an end to his protest. King Michael’s decision of going on strike against the communist government in Bucharest was unprecedented. He was the only head of state to publicly face the communists in this way while aware of the risks. Although, politically speaking, his gesture was unsuccessful symbolically speaking, The King’s opposition and refusal to co-operate with an undemocratic government represented the country’s refusal to accept such a government. The King’s position mirrored the country’s position, which was clearly illustrated by the general elections of November 1946, which were nothing bur a big fraud. More than 80% of the votes were anti-communist. But having the political power in their hands, the communists managed to manipulate the results over night and to declare that in fact, 80% of the votes were in theirs. Faking respect for the Potsdam declaration regarding the necessity of free elections in the countries liberated from German occupation, a tripartite delegation was summoned to find a convenient solution to the Romanian crisis. The Delegation was formed by the American and the British ambassadors to Moscow and Vâshinski. Their only solution was to reform the communist government by appointing to anti-communist ministers but without ministry or portfolio! In other words, two puppets. The King knew there was nothing to expect from the allies. Their only help was, in The King’s words “to send two dummy ministers with no legal responsibilities to acknowledge a communist government legitimized by general elections grossly falsified”[4, pag.110]. One year later The King was forced to abdicate, leave his country and go on a 45-year exile.

The early 1990s were years of great hope for Romania. There was a great psychological support for democracy, for a renewal of the political life. Public opinion was already fed up with those politicians who quickly seized power after the fall of the communist regime and who pretended to be democrats when they were, in fact, crypto-communists. The general public wanted new figures in the public arena to refresh and strengthen the political life of the country and the newly born democracy. King Michael was one of them. When he came to Romania in April 1992, the American television channel CNN, estimated a presence of one million people in Bucharest, gathering to welcome The King. Many Romanians who were not monarchy supporters or sympathizers were admirers of King Michael. Many of them asked themselves: Why does not The King come to Romania and try to restore the monarchy? Why can’t Romania follow the example of Spain? Why can’t King Michael be like King Juan Carlos? These questions also reached The King’s ears. But The King proved to be wise and politically mature. There is a great difference between King Juan Carlos’s Spain and King Michael’s Romania. From General Franco, King Juan Carlos inherited a country that had avoided the communist invasion, a country that for almost 40 years lived in peace which allowed it to build a strong, stable and prosperous middle class as the backbone of Spain. On his return to Romania, the King found a country economically bankrupt whose so-called middle class was just a shadow of what it used to be, a country spiritually and morally devastated by 45 years of communism, a country for which ‘continuity’ was an empty word. The King assessed the situation very well. He knew he had to ignore his natural urge to come back and get involved in his country’s reconstruction. He had to think and behave like a constitutional king, trying to help and at the same time trying to do as little harm as possible to the stability and the democratization of his country. The words of King Juan Carlos best describe what might have happened to a King claiming back his throne in a country ruled by communists for half a century, a country unaware of his real past, a country in economic collapse: “In a country economically and morally exhausted, nobody, not even a King, could do great things in a short period of time. Unable to put an end to the economic misery, that King would be quickly repudiated as enthusiastically as he as welcome. Worse than that, he would be held responsible even for the problems that had occurred while he was in exile!”[11, pag.211]. The unsuccessful example of King Simeon of Bulgaria, who became Bulgaria’s prime minister only to leave after a couple of years with an unfulfilled mission clearly illustrates the Spanish sovereign’s point of view.

The King’s Tour of Europe for NATO Integration

In 1997, president Constantinescu invited The King to help Romania integrate into the European and NATO structures. His qualities and his relations together with the fact that The King was one of the greatest European personalities since the end of WWII, weighed heavily in Constantinescu’s eyes. The Romanian president correctly inferred that such a public figure like King Michael could more easily and smoothly open doors for Romania, facilitate contacts, make the country better known and understood. The King accepted to help his country and in the spring and summer of 1997 The King toured Europe for his country. His mission was to plead for Romania’s integration in the NATO structures as part of the first group of selected countries. So the King visited 7 important members of NATO: Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Great Britain. Unfortunately, Romania missed to be invited to join NATO in 1997. But The King and the country continued their efforts and in the summer of 2002 The King lobbied again for Romania’s integration into the North-Atlantic structures. In March 2004 Romania became a member of NATO. Symbolically speaking, the kind of help The King offered his country while lobbying for Romania’s integration in the European military structure and Romania’s joining this structure was the kind of help The King was expecting from the Allies against the Russian occupation of his country, the kind of help the King was fighting for 45 years ago.

For many members of the general public, King Michael is a controversial figure. And his presence in Romania after 1990 has produced intense public debates. Why this attitude? Because in 45 years of communism, King Michael, a Romanian like us was transformed into “the other”. Forced to abdicate at gun point and leave his country, he went on a 44-year exile. Systematically, Romania’s monarchic past was erased from our collective memory as if it never existed. The same happened to the Romanian royal dynasty and King Michael. In her autobiographical book “I Live Again” Princess Ileana, aunt of King Michael, makes reference to a dialogue that she once had with a leading member of the Romanian Communist Party, Ana Pauker. The Princess asked Pauker to explain some of the communist principles and methods; why, for example, they used so much violence, when violence never convinced anyone. Ana Pauker calmly replied that it was not intended to convince, but to frighten. When one replanted, one first destroyed everything that had grown, root and branch. Then one leveled the earth. It was only afterwards that one could plant successfully. And yet, news about the King’s existence managed to get through the Iron Curtain. Many of us may still remember our parents and grandparents taking their radios and hiding in the most remote room of the house, with the windows and doors safely locked and listening to the King broadcasting his Christmas or New Year’s Speech to all Romanians on two well-known radio posts: Voice of America and Free Europe. So the image of the King was still present but became part of a sort of “underground” personal memory, one of the best kept and well-hidden secrets of a Romanian living under a communist regime. By “underground” I mean secret, something that you admit only in the most remote corner of your mind and something that you would never admit to others, sometimes not even to your closest relatives.

When King Michael first attempted to visit Romania after the fall of the communist regime, on December 24th 1990, he had to face a very difficult situation: there were many Romanians who welcomed him and who considered him the savior of the country. But for the majority of the Romanians, he was a grey spot on the map, neither white nor black, somebody they regarded with restraint. And for those who quickly seized power after 1989, he was a threat to the stability of the new democratic republic. So, there were two antithetical myths trying to take over the King’s identity: for the anti-communists and the supporters of democracy, he was the Savior, the only one capable of bringing order, prosperity and a truly democratic political life to the country. Or he was the Usurper, a foreigner who lived lavishly in the West while the Romanians were suffering behind the Iron Curtain, an opportunist surrounded by other opportunists (landlords and industrialists-representatives of the old bourgeois regime) who wanted to take the land off the Romanians’ hand. The image of The King as usurper was quickly embraced by those sharing the communist nostalgia after 1990 (former members of the Communist Party Apparatus, officers and employees of the Securitate – the Romanian Intelligence Agency which became a tool of the communist repression, and many other individuals who in one way or another benefited from the communist regime) as well as by quite a large part of the general public who had no anchorage in the country’s democratic past. The King as usurper is part of an anti-monarchic discourse that has been promoted since 1990 and which was still very virulent in the early 1990s dividing the Romanian society.

A king’s destiny is indissolubly linked to the destiny of his country. Many want their king to become a hero, their national hero, a beholder of their values, a guardian of their ideals and aspirations, a leader to follow and serve. And these are not words from a fairy tale, but words that became reality in days not too far from today. King Juan Carlos of Spain prevented his country from falling again into a dictatorship in 1981, King Baudouin of Belgium acceded to the throne when the country was on the brink of division and managed to become the symbol of the unity of the country. During the Second World War, in Denmark, a country occupied by German troops, King Christian X decided to wear the Jewish yellow star himself in answer to the anti-semite measures taken by Nazi Germany. “Such a gesture was meant to define the Danish people and save them even only from the danger of losing themselves”[12, p.28]. At about the same time, but in another part of Europe, in Romania, King Michael was doing something similar ruling by the power of his own example. According to B. Renouvin, a sovereign is “the bearer of a certain affirmative ethics, never coercive, which reveals itself and becomes an example when everything seems lost”[12, pag.28]. Almost 50 years later, the attitude of The King was once again exemplary during the general elections of November-December 2000. Ion Iliescu, one of the candidates, got 37% of the votes, Vadim Tudor, the nationalist leader got 21% of the votes while President Constantinescu decided to quit the presidential race, being replaced by Mugur Isărescu, former governor of the National Bank of Romania, who had been appointed Prime-Minister on December 16th 1999. There was a real opportunity for Vadim Tudor to defeat Ion Iliescu during the second ballot, a very bleak scenario. The country would have lost all it had achieved until then. On December 10th 2000, The King issued a public statement warning the Romanians to choose moderation when voting: “If you choose to give your votes to politicians who encourage ethnic and racial hatred, who speak the language of violence, you will vote for Romania to remain out of Europe for decades”[3, pag. 266]. The King proved his honest character and, in helping his country, he also supported the man who literally chased him out of the country in the early 1990s. This was a fine example of King Michael’s skills as a constitutional monarch, even without a crown on his head. By birth, education and experience, he has proved to be an inter-culturally competent figure, able to capture and understand, in interaction with people from foreign countries, their specific concepts and requirements related to Romania’s political, military and strategic needs. His tour of Europe, lobbying for his country’s integration into NATO is a standing proof.

References:

1.Cannuyer, Christian, The Royal and Sovereign Houses of Europe, Bucharest, Gavrilă Publishing House, 1996.
2.Scurtu, Ioan, Michael I, Bucharest, The Encyclopaedic Publishing House, 2001.
3.Porter, Ivor, Michael I of Romania – The King and The Country, Bucharest, Allfa Publishing House, 2007.
4.Desplaces, Philippe Viguié, His Majesty King Michael I of Romania – A Broken Reign: Conversations with Philippe Viguié Desplaces, Bucharest, Libra Publishing House, 1995.
5.Ciobanu, Mircea, Dialogues with Michael I of Romania, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 1997.
6.Lee, Arthur Gould, Crown Against Sickle, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 1998.
7.Djuvara, Neagu, Short Romanian History Told to the Young Ones, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005.
8.Constantiniu, Florin, An Honest History of the Romanian People, Bucharest, Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 1997.
9.Boia, Lucian, Two Centuries of National Mythology, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005.
10.Boia, Lucian, History and Myth in the Romanian Conscience, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 2006.
11.Vilallonga, José Luis de, The King – Dialogues with Don Juan Carlos I of Spain, Bucharest, Pacifica Publishing House, 1996.
12.Renouvin, B., La République au Roi Dormant, Paris, 1985.

Regele Mihai I al României – Un rege pentru toate anotimpurile

Rezumat

După 45 de ani de comunism, românii par a-şi fi pierdut identitatea. Identitatea lor a avut oare, vreodată, o dimensiune europeană sau nu? După 1866 şi culminând cu anul 1881, când Principatele Române sub domnia Regelui Carol I au devenit regat, românii au reuşit şi din punct de vedere politic şi din punct de vedere cultural să adauge identităţii lor o nouă şi mai viguroasă dimensiune europeană. Deveniserăm, pe atunci, o monarhie constituţională, găsindu-ne locul în configuraţia politică europeană a epocii.

Am primit astazi personalitati din Lupeni, din Orastie si din Savarsin. Maine vor veni de la Jimbolia, Bucuresti si Cluj, poimaine de la Arad, Timisoara si asa mai departe. Este uimitor cat de diversa este aria preocuparilor lor: de la actiuni ale administratiei locale de imbunatatire a serviciilor, infrastructurii, economiei locale, pana la tineri care se ocupa de soarta cladirilor de patrimoniu, de viitorul scolilor lor sau la edilii care se gandesc cum sa puna in circuitul turistic, cultural, economic, vestigiile pe care le au pe teritoriul urbei lor.

In localitati rurale de pana la 3.400 de locuitori, exista o mica elita intelectuala care doreste festivaluri de poezie, expozitii de pictura, librarii in satul lor sau chioscuri de ziare.

Este adevarat, aceeasi localitate poate avea si o ramanere in urma a mentalitatii care poate exaspera. Totodata, multi dintre noi nu mai avem instinctul binelui, nici dorinta de a-l regasi. Dar, oare, nu acelasi lucru, chiar intr-o masura mai mare, este valabil in marile orase? De exemplu, in Bucuresti?

Daca te uiti la fiecare administratie locala in parte, la fiecare comunitate, de la cateva sute la cateva sute de mii de suflete, fiecare are cate ceva de dorit, de visat, de construit, de regasit. Are insa cineva timp pentru acest fel de leadership? Se gandeste cineva, cu adevarat, cu curaj, cu responsabilitate, la acest fel de dezvoltare? Una rabdatoare, fara zgomot, altruista, incapatanata, de zi cu zi, pentru incurajarea, sprijinirea, conectarea, ghidarea cu bun-simt a acestor oameni?

De aceea complementaritatea institutiilor centrale este necesara. De aceea si dezvoltarea comunitatilor locale este necesara. Aceste doua actiuni de nivel national, care vor cere ani, poate decenii, sunt singura forma in care Romania poate deveni europeana, ramanand o tara, in adevaratul inteles al termenului.

Al 44-lea preşedinte american a vorbit la Berlin

Cine l-a văzut pe Barack Obama la Coloana Victoriei din Berlin ştie: el va fi al 44-lea preşedinte al SUA. Pentru că se comportă exact ca un lider mondial.

În numai 30 de minute a reuşit să vorbească despre familie, despre blocada sovietică asupra Berlinului şi despre al Doilea Război Mondial, despre terorişti, despre armele nucleare, despre greşelile Americii, despre Iran, Irak Afganistan sau libertate. Concluziile?

Barack Obama face politică din pasiune, cu o seriozitate şi cu o aplecare spre utopia unei lumi mai bune. Este un orator extraordinar, care ştie să atragă publicul în lumea ideilor lui.

Unii vor zice că este un american tipic: un idealist născut din istoria plină de succes a Statelor Unite. Barack Obama are însă ceva care este numai al lui.

Chiar utopic fiind şi vorbind de o lume mai bună, o face într-un limbaj înţeles de toţi. Aminteşte de liderii puternici, dinamici, care pot mişca totul în jur. Datorită acestei atitudini a învins-o pe Hillary Clinton şi va triumfa şi în faţa lui John McCain pe 4 noiembrie.

Cine l-a văzut mergând de la Coloana Victoriei până la locul în care şi-a susţinut discursul, cu greu îşi poate imagina că în faţa acestui bărbat cu alura unui jucător de baschet, tânăr, hotărât şi serios, veteranul din Vietnam John McCain mai are vreo şansă.

În aceste zile, Europa face cunoştinţă cu cel de-al 44-lea preşedinte al SUA. Şi germanii, şi britanicii, şi francezii trebuie să ştie că Obama le va cere în continuare ajutorul în Irak şi Afganistan. George W. Bush este deja trecutul, varianta texană a puterii mondiale arogante. Obama este prezentul, în care toţi oamenii vor să fie fraţi.

Noi, cei care ba preţuim democraţia pragmatică, ba o blamăm, trebuie să înţelegem că Barack Obama este noul purtător de cuvânt al democraţiei patetice, care iubeşte cuvintele frumoase şi mari, care ne încălzeşte inimile şi face apel la raţiunea noastră. Haideţi să ne lăsăm copleşiţi de cel care a vorbit în faţa Coloanei Victoriei. Şi pe urmă să privim mai departe, spre viitor.

Gerhard Spörl
jurnalist

Articol preluat din “Der Spiegel”, 24 iulie 2008

Viata romaneasca merge natural, organic inainte, in segmentele ei fundamentale: politica, economia, administratia, cultura si artele, societatea civila si presa.

Si totusi, exista o stare de disconfort, datorata faptului ca institutiile si chiar organizatiile, desi structurate si conduse dupa principii europene, sunt in continuare la cheremul omului, in loc sa fie servite de oamenii care le populeaza. Nu este, desigur, vorba doar de institutiile publice ci, din pacate, si despre organizatii sau companii care functioneaza in viata publica in domenii precum cultura sau mass-media.

Mentalitatea ca, pentru a supravietui si a performa, trebuie sa spui una si sa faci alta este adanc inradacinata, chiar si in persoane cu o gandire stralucita. Lipsa de respect fata de institutii, fata de reguli, fata de principii, este ajunsa, probabil, la cel mai inalt nivel atins din 1989 incoace.

Se apropie clipa in care societatea romaneasca va avea nevoie sa se decida daca doreste sau nu sa se intoarca la valori, la respect, la demnitate si la interesul national in detrimentul celui personal. Este evident ca nu poti fi in avantaj, ca individ, daca mediul din jurul tau este mocirlos. Amestecul de puteri inform, de neinteles fiindca raspunde unor comandamente de neinteles public, nu are cum sa dureze. Suntem aproape de intoarcerea la valori si la respectul pentru institutii nu din cauza clarviziunii sau patriotismului celor ce performeaza public, ci din nevoie, din pericol de macinare.

Lumea ideală şi monarhia constituţională

Puţine teme politice au fost mai aprins şi mai denaturat tratate în România post-decembristă, decît cea a rolului pe care monarhia l-ar putea avea în reconstrucţia instituţională şi socială a României, ca stat european. Cu excepţia “Punctului 8″ al Declaraţiei de la Timişoara, nici un alt subiect nu a polarizat mai violent spectrul politic şi opinia publică. Atît susţinătorii ideii monarhice, cît şi opozanţii ei, s-au baricadat, din prima clipă, în redutele argumentelor proprii, mulţumindu-se să arunce, de acolo, săgeţi otrăvite spre liniile adverse. Aşa ar fi rămas şi astăzi, dacă nu s-ar fi întîmplat cîteva schimbări, în cea mai mare parte trecute cu vederea de cercurile politice şi cele ale mediilor de informare.

Primul a fost implicarea Casei Regale în efortul de promovare şi susţinere politică de care România a avut nevoie pentru a realiza cele două obiective strategice ale noii sale istorii: integrarea în NATO şi UE. Acest fapt a fost posibil datorită unei schimbări radicale de abordare, faţă de Casa Regală, operată începînd cu mandatul “Constantinescu” şi continuată, spre surpriza multora, de mandatul “Iliescu II” şi guvernarea “Năstase”. Este momentul cînd politicienii noii Românii înţeleg şi acceptă să folosească toate resursele de credibilitate disponibile, pentru a convinge lumea occidentală că opţiunea pentru revenirea noastră în familia europeană nu este doar un joc de imagine, nu este expresia unui interes politicianist oarecare, ci o opţiune fundamentală, trans-partinică şi chiar trans-politică, ce exprimă cel mai bine esenţa Interesului Naţional. Autoritatea reprezentanţilor Casei Regale, de-a vorbi în numele României, era pentru prima dată recunoscută simultan, atît în interior, cît şi în afara ţării. Tocmai acest fapt a dat o greutate dificil de exprimat cantitativ, dar evidentă prin efect, argumentelor prezentate de Regele Mihai în faţa şefilor de state şi de guverne din ţările membre NATO, pentru a cimenta vocaţia României de membru al organizaţiilor ce formează structura Europei.

Al doilea fapt semnificativ a fost revenirea oficială şi stabilirea unei rezidenţe a Casei Regale, în România. Palatul Elisabeta a devenit un punct vizibil pe harta evenimentelor care dau contur unei Românii foarte diferite, din acest punct de vedere, faţă de cea care lua în piept povîrnişurile istoriei, la sfîrşitul lui Decembrie 1989. Chiar dacă, cu titlu personal, recîştigarea drepturilor asupra simbolurilor constitutive de identitate ale Casei Regale - Săvîrşin, Peleş, Elisabeta - a fost nu doar semnul unei normalizări, într-o societate în care prea puţine lucruri sunt aproape de normalitate, ci şi o repoziţionare, în raport cu societatea românească. Tabloul a fost completat de deciziile interne ale Casei Regale, care au clarificat şi simplificat tema succesiunii, ca şi de cele externe, care au menţinut statutul oficial de implicare a Casei Regale în promovarea Interesului Naţional, cu sprijinul şi sub egida Guvernului.

Toate aceste elemente alcătuiesc un tablou pe care puţini l-ar fi anticipat, acum două decenii. Prezenţa Casei Regale în societatea românească este o permanenţă acceptată şi apreciată, atît de responsabilii politici ai guvernării - fie că au reprezentat CDR, PSD, sau Alianţa D.A., de autorităţile locale, cît şi de oameni cu cele mai diferite profesii, convingeri politice, credinţe religioase, ori apartenenţă comunitară.

Desigur, societatea şi politica românească sunt, încă, departe de fi ajuns la un punct de vedere comun cu privire la locul şi rolul acestei instituţii în reconstrucţia instituţională şi socială a României. Relansarea dezbaterii publice asupra unui nou proiect constituţional, radical diferit de cel actual, mult prea tarat de compromisuri politice şi de circumstanţieri istorice, mult prea departe de echilibrele fine, dar exacte care se cer unei construcţii funcţionale şi creatoare de normalitate, capabilă să scoată societatea şi politica românească din fundătură în care se găsesc, este însă un prilej care nu poate fi ratat. Pentru prima dată, după Decembrie 1989, rolul şi locul instituţiei Casei Regale ar putea să fie abordat dintr-o perspectivă lucidă, sine ira et studio, dincolo de persoane şi circumstanţe istorice, cu privirea şi speranţele spre viitor, iar nu întunecate de trecut.

Tocmai pentru că nu trăim în cea mai bună dintre lumi trebuie să luăm în calcul toate posibilităţile şi întregul potenţial de schimbare pe care integrarea acestei instituţii în spaţiul construcţiei instituţionale a României îl poate produce.

He’s been called a naive idealist. But in terms of foreign policy, he’s the true realist in the race.

Newsweek, From the magazine issue dated Jul 28, 2008

The rap on Barack Obama, at least in the realm of foreign policy, has been that he is a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America’s enemies. John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world’s dangers. Even President Bush stepped into the fray earlier this year to condemn the Illinois senator’s willingness to meet with tyrants as naive. Some commentators have acted as if Obama, touring the Middle East and Europe this week on his first trip abroad since effectively wrapping up the nomination, is in for a rude awakening.

These critiques, however, are off the mark. Over the course of the campaign against Hillary Clinton and now McCain, Obama has elaborated more and more the ideas that would undergird his foreign policy as president. What emerges is a world view that is far from that of a typical liberal, much closer to that of a traditional realist. It is interesting to note that, at least in terms of the historical schools of foreign policy, Obama seems to be the cool conservative and McCain the exuberant idealist.

No candidate for the presidency ever claims to have a doctrinal world view. Richard Nixon never said he loved realpolitik. Jimmy Carter never claimed to be a Wilsonian. There’s no advantage to getting pigeonholed, and most politicians and even policy folk are clever enough to argue that they want to combine the best of all traditions. So John McCain says he’s a “realistic idealist.” Former national-security adviser Anthony Lake, who now counsels Obama, calls himself a “pragmatic neo-Wilsonian.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice describes herself as an “American realist.”

Against that backdrop, Obama has been strikingly honest about his inclinations and inspirations. True, he begins by praising Harry Truman’s administration, which in the foreign-policy world is a little like saying you admire George Washington. (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain have all cited Truman as a model.) But then Obama takes an unusual step, for a Democrat, and praises the administration of George H.W. Bush, one that is often seen as the most hardheaded or coldblooded (depending on your point of view) in recent memory. Obama has done this more than once, most recently in a conversation with me last week on CNN. And he is explicit about what he means. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush,” he told The New York Times’s David Brooks in May.

Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn’t divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush’s freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people’s economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—”dignity.” He rejects Bush’s obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people’s aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. “Once these aspirations are met,” he told The New York Times’s James Traub, “it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want.” This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.

Obama talks admiringly of men like Dean Acheson, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whom were imbued with a sense of the limits of idealism and American power to transform the world. “In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative,” wrote Larissa MacFarquhar in her profile of him for The New Yorker. “There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It’s not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good.”
As important as what Obama says is what he passes up—a series of obvious cheap shots against Bush. He could bash him for coddling China’s dictatorship, urge him to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics or criticize his inaction in Darfur. In fact, Obama has been circumspect on all these issues, neither grandstanding nor overpromising. (This is, alas, not true on trade policy, where he has done both.)

Perhaps the most telling area where Obama has stuck to a focused conception of U.S. national interests is Iraq. Despite the progress in Iraq, despite the possibility of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Obama’s position is steely—Iraq is a distraction, and the sooner America can reduce its exposure there, the better. I actually wish he were somewhat more sympathetic to the notion that a democratic Iraq would play a positive role in the struggle against Islamic extremism. But his view is certainly focused on America’s core security interests and is recognizably realist. Walter Lippmann and George Kennan made similar arguments about Vietnam from the mid-1960s onward.

Ironically, the Republicans now seem to be the foreign-policy idealists, labeling countries as either good or evil, refusing to deal with nasty regimes, fixating on spreading democracy throughout the world and refusing to think in more historical and complex ways. “I don’t do nuance,” George W. Bush told many visitors to the White House in the years after 9/11. John McCain has had his differences with Bush, but not on this broad thrust of policy. Indeed it is McCain, the Republican, who has put forward some fanciful plans, arguing that America should establish a “League of Democracies,” expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and exclude China from both groups as well.

Obama’s response to McCain’s proposals on Russia and China could have been drafted by Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft. We need to cooperate with both countries in order to solve significant global problems, he told me last week, citing nuclear-proliferation issues with Russia and economic ones with China. The distinction between Obama and McCain on this point is important. The single largest strategic challenge facing the United States in the decades ahead is to draw in the world’s new rising powers and make them stakeholders in the global economic and political order. Russia and China will be the hardest because they are large and have different political systems and ideological approaches to the world. Yet the benefits of having them inside the tent are obvious. Without some degree of great-power cooperation, global peace and stability becomes a far more fragile prospect.

Obama and McCain are obviously mixtures of both realism and idealism. American statesmen have always sought to combine the two in some fashion, and they are right to do so. A foreign policy that is impractical will fail and one that lacks ideals is unworthy of the United States. But the balance that each leader establishes is always different, and my main point is that Obama seems—unusually for a modern-day Democrat—highly respectful of the realist tradition. And McCain, to an extent unusual for a traditional Republican, sees the world in moralistic terms.

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology—temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America’s job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world’s major powers to solve the world’s major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don’t call him naive.

L-am vazut, cred, pentru prima oara, prin anul 1982, la o gala de la Viena transmisa, nu mai stiu prin ce minune, de Televiziunea Romana. Atragea atentia prin rafinamentul lui, prin vocea de o vibratie unica dar, mai ales, prin faptul ca, desi imbracat in frac, avea un picior in ghips. Mai tarziu aveam sa citesc in cartea lui autobiografica explicatia acestei aparitii: se accidentase la un meci de fotbal si nu putea anula contractul din capitala austriaca.

Apoi, cu toata precaritatea mijloacelor noastre de informatie culturala a anilor optzeci, am reusit sa pun mana pe cateva inregistrari pe benzi de casetofon, cu arii de ici si de colo, cantate de el. Am inteles repede ca e vorba de un artist care are ceva unic de spus, in lumea muzicii contemporane. N-avea nevoie sa fie vazut pentru a juca un personaj. Vocea era de ajuns ca sa te aduca nu in universul sunetelor frumoase, ci intr-o lume teatrala, unde personajele au identitate, se misca intr-un spatiu si intr-un timp anume.

Cand a primit vestea bolii sale, leucemie acuta, in 1987, Jose Carreras avea 40 de ani si se afla in timpul turnarii filmului „Boema“ a lui Luigi Comencini, film pe care nu l-a mai terminat niciodata.

L-am vazut evoluand pe Jose Carreras in anul 1993, la Covent Garden, in opera „Stifellio“. In preajma Craciunului din 1996, l-am vazut inca o data, la Royal Albert Hall de la Londra, intr-un concert de colinde.

Aseara, l-am admirat din nou pe Jose Carreras, alaturi de Inalt Preasfintia Sa Mitropolitul Nicolae, in mijlocul unei audiente de aproape sapte mii de oameni, la Timisoara. Ajuns in mod aproape miraculos la varsta de 61 de ani, Jose Carreras este unul dintre cei mai mari artisti pe care i-am cunoscut vreodata. Asa cum spunea dupa concert Mitropolitul Nicolae, dl Carreras a onorat orasul de pe Bega, venind sa cante in mijlocul banatenilor.

Alteţa Voastră Regală,

20 iulie este una din acele zile pe care eu le consider sfinte pentru neamul românesc. Acum optzeci şi unu de ani, acela care cu toate calităţile unui SFÂNT a împlinit visul milenar al poporului nostru avea să ne părăsească.
„Voi fi un bun Român şi Rege”. Sunt cuvintele cu care Regele Ferdinand şi-a început domnia dar şi promisiunea pe care a respectat-o. În 1916, în Consiliul de Coroană a tras sabia împotriva patriei Sale natale, lăsând în urmă toate amintirile legate de familia Sa, de camarazii Săi, întreaga lui copilărie petrecută la Sigmaringen în Germania, întrucât aşa cum Regele a spus mai târziu, la Sigmaringen „nu era decât un copilandru”.
A suferit în taină, nu a spus nimănui problemele personale, şi în toată domnia   nu s-a gândit o clipă la fericirea lui, ci doar a poporului nostru român. Între El şi popor a fost un sentiment reciproc de iubire şi admiraţie.
Atunci când politicienii români fugeau de vâltoarea războiului, ascunzându-se pe unde apucau, El a stat în mijlocul oştirii, luptând cot la cot cu soldatul român, mâncând aceeaşi mâncare şi având aceeaşi situaţie ca a tuturor. A stat în bătaia puştii şi nu s-a temut pentru viaţa Lui, căci în acele momente grele, cel mai important a fost idealul naţiunii, sângele românesc care se zbătea dincolo de Carpaţi, Unirea cea Mare.
Conştiinţa neamului românesc este confuză. Îi ţine minte pe cei care nu merită, uitându-i pe înnobilaţii istoriei. Sunt pomeniţi conducătorii unor triburi medievale şi antice, sinodul bisericesc îi canonizează şi este dat uitării tocmai Ferdinand I cel care cu adevărat a fondat România Mare.
Sunt mulţi sfinţi în calendarul ortodox-român, sfinţi mai mult sau mai puţin sfinţi. Nu am văzut să fie Sfântul Ferdinand. Probabil membrii sinodului şi patriarhul au uitat că Palatul Patriarhiei a fost construit în timpul Regelui Ferdinand, au uitat că El a avut cea mai mare contribuţie la ridicarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române la rangul de patriarhie.
Uităm prea uşor că planul de sistematizare al Bucureştiului a fost început în timpul lui iar Cercul Militar Naţional, clădirea nouă a Universităţii Bucureşti, Palatul Patriarhiei, Catedrala Reîntregirii, Institutul Superior de Arhitectură sunt doar câteva din clădirile care au fost ridicate în timpul domniei Lui. Se cuvine să ne amintim că în 1923 a fost votat un proiect de constituţie care a rămas de atunci şi până astăzi călăuza statului român.
Alteţa Voastră Regală, vă fac o mărturisire. Am fost de curând la Curtea de Argeş, la necropola Familiei Regale, însă am rămas şocat văzând că la căpătâiul Regelui Ferdinand, nu era nici măcar un muc de lumânare. Spre perete era o coroană din cetină de brad, adusă probabil de veteranii de război. Am curăţat pânzele de păianjen de pe sfeşnic, am aprins o lumânare şi am îngenuncheat, zicând o rugăciune pentru sufletul Lui. Apoi i-am sărutat lespedea, stârnind râsul unor turişti, ignoranţi de secol XXI. Atunci am plâns din cauza ironiei sorţii. Te naşti în Germania, vii în România şi te dezrădăcinezi de familie, de camarazi, de locul unde ai făcut primii paşi şi ai crescut, devii acelaşi cu poporul român, sfârşeşti răpus de o boală cumplită, iar la optzeci de ani de la moarte totuşi mai suferi.
Închei Alteţa Voastră Regală cu câteva citate care descriu cel mai bine pierderea suferită de România şi de Europa prin moartea Regelui Ferdinand I.

„Plâng ostaşii faptelor cruciuliţei albastre; plâng cei 260 de copii ai Măriei Tale. În sufletul lor dimineaţa de Sfântul Ilie a înmuiat oţelul faptelor şi, pe obrajii sărutaţi de Măria Ta au început să se furişeze lacrimi. … Au trecut treisprezece ani de veghe, de muncă fără răgaz, de sacrificii. Lasă grijile, lasă truda – eşti obosit – dormi Măria Ta. Căci de n-ai fi fost Rege, Măria Ta, te făcea fapta Rege.”
Maior Gheorghe Băgulescu

„După suferinţele războiului, România avea nevoie urgentă de linişte, unire în pace şi la muncă. Regele Ferdinand era cel mai nimerit spre a prezida această unire … Nimeni nu se va mira că posteritatea îi păstrează numele pe care i-l decernă toţi românii: FERDINAND CEL MARE.”
General Henri Berthelot

„În episodul întunecat al războiului, care nu i-a acoperit de glorie pe Aliaţi, şi în care statul român abandonat şi trădat era să piară, Ferdinand I nu şi-a schimbat nici tabăra de luptă, nici ideile, nici speranţa. Evenimentul final i-a dat dreptate. În 1918, România s-a regăsit în frontierele sale. Şi Ferdinand I, înfrângând toate sentimentele intime, îşi îndeplinise misiunea.”
L’Action francaise

„România pierde un conducător de neînlocuit, Franţa pierde un aliat credincios şi lumea civilizată pierde unul din oamenii care vor face în viitor cinste acestei epoci.”
Le Temps

Fie-Ţi lespedea uşoară,
REGE Întregitor de ţară!

Cu lealitate,
Adrian Halga

Am mers la sediul clujean al televiziunii regionale One TV. Este instalata de curand la Cluj si-a castigat o audienta importanta. Cei care m-au primit in vizita sunt tineri si profesionisti. I-am cunoscut si la Alba-Iulia, ca si la Deva. Am participat la un dialog de substanta, in care am vorbit despre dezvoltarea Romaniei, impletind democratia si libertatile oferite de cadrul UE cu valorile durabile ale generozitatii si responsabilitatii, cu institutii puternice si constiente de sine, cu comunitati locale vii si increzatoare in propriul lor destin.

Conferinta Institutului Aspen, dedicata multiculturalismului, s-a desfasurat pe intreaga durata a zilei de vineri. Au venit personalitati interesante, precum dna Beate Winkler, consilier la Comisia Europeana, dl Istvan Gyarmati, diplomat maghiar si director al Centrului International pentru o Tranzitie Democratica. Am admiratie pentru munca dnei Liz Galvez si a colegilor ei si consider Institutul Aspen Romania drept o binefacere pentru lumea romaneasca de astazi. Cat despre dl Mircea Geoana, presedintele Aspen Romania, munca la un astfel de institut il prezinta in alt fel decat este stiut in mediul politic romanesc, in chip complementar si direct legat de societatea civila.

Am zarit in sala pe Sandra Pralong, Anca Harasim, Marian Stas, Mioara Lujanschi, precum si tineri cursanti de la Aspen, cu care mi-a facut placere sa schimb cateva cuvinte.

In prima parte a dupa-amiezii de vineri am mers la Nicula, unde m-am intalnit cu IPS mitropolitul Bartolomeu. Manastirea Nicula este locul unde Regele Mihai a ales sa petreaca, impreuna cu noi, noaptea de anul nou 2007. A fost incheierea unui periplu prin satele bistritene, pentru a sarbatori, in mijlocul traditiilor romanesti simple, nealterate, intrarea in Uniunea Europeana.

In continuare, am mers la TVR Cluj, unde am participat la un dialog pe teme de cultura, identitate, leadership regal. A fost o surpriza placuta. Tinerii realizatori care m-au intampinat au pregatit inspirat emisiunea. Nu stiu cat de multa importanta sau relevanta are fenomenul observat de mine in ultimul an, dar comportamentul respectuos si plin de speranta al tinerilor ziaristi fata de membrii Casei Regale creste vizibil, de la o luna la alta.

In incheierea zilei de vineri m-am intalnit cu dl Emil Boc, in biroul sau de la Primaria municipiului. Am discutat despre un proiect de anvergura pentru Cluj, in conexiune cu o tara din spatiul euro-atlantic, un parteneriat care ar putea aduce un exemplu de cooperare economica.

Sambata dimineata m-am intalnit cu un om de televiziune britanic, dl Rick Spurway, care doreste sa realizeze un proiect de televiziune dedicat culturii, naturii si istoriei Romaniei. De asemenea, am avut o intalnire cu un tanar jurnalist clujean, dl Mihai Gadalean, pentru un dialog in ziarul sau, Foaia Transilvana.

Plec din Cluj cu un singur regret. Din cauza foarte aglomeratului trafic din Cluj, dar si a unei proaste proiectari a vizitei din partea colaboratorilor mei, am fost nevoit sa aman vizita de cateva ore programata pentru vineri, in municipiul Dej. Imi pare nespus de rau ca am facut sa astepte atat primarul si consilierii locali, cat si oamenii de afaceri si ziaristii. Am reprogramat imediat vizita, la o data convenabila. Este pentru prima oara in sapte ani de angajamente oficiale in care se intampla un astfel de lucru.

Tot ultimii ani au adus în discutia publica notiuni importante, precum “viziune”, “identitate”, “continuitate”. Este bine ca ele patrund în vocabularul puterii politice si mediatice. Dar aceste virtuti au nevoie sa fie tratate corect. Viziunea se face cu generozitate si cu responsabilitate. Identitatea se repara cu loialitate. Continuitatea se înnoada prin cunoastere si respect.

Asadar, Romania are 142 de ani de cand s-a fondat ca stat modern, condusa de un sef de stat dintr-o dinastie europeana. Aceste adevaruri au importanta astazi, cand Romania face primii pasi pe drumul institutional-european. Si aceste adevaruri au nevoie sa fie cunoscute, întelese, asumate, pentru ca înstrainarea de sine, provocata de cele patru decenii de dictatura, sa-si încheie consecintele morale si institutionale.

Din multe puncte de vedere, acesti 142 de ani s-au reflectat în destinul Casei Regale a Romaniei. Unul dintre momentele cruciale ale destinului romanesc in Europa a fost leadership-ul reginei Maria a Romaniei.

Alteta sa regala principesa Maria s-a nascut la 29 octombrie 1875, la Eastwell Park în Anglia. În anul 1957, tot în ziua de 29 octombrie s-a nascut la Atena principesa Sofia, fiica regelui Mihai. Principesa Maria a fost fiica principelui Alfred al Marii Britanii si Irlandei, principe de Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, duce de Edinburg (1844-1900) si a marii ducese Maria Alexandrovna a Rusiei (1853-1902). Astfel, principesa Maria era nepoata a reginei Victoria a Marii Britanii si a tarului Alexandru al II-lea. Regina a murit la 18 iulie 1938, adica exact acum saptezeci de ani.

Regina Maria vine în tara ei de adoptie în 1893, ca sotie a principelui mostenitor Ferdinand. Calitatile ei remarcabile o transforma repede într-o figura publica de prima marime. Inteligenta, de o frumusete exceptionala, plina de curaj si de determinare, viitoarea regina participa de la început la viata culturala romaneasca si îsi leaga numele de numeroase acte de binefacere.

Maria devine regina în 1914.  Primul razboi mondial o transforma într-o eroina nationala.  Participa activ pe front, încurajeaza ranitii si soldatii din cele mai fierbinti puncte de lupta si sfarseste prin a fi supranumita “Mama Regina”.

Dupa razboi efectueaza vizite în Franta si în Marea Britanie care, desi neoficiale, aduc multa simpatie cauzei romanesti.  La Paris, la 8 martie 1919, dupa dejunul cu Raymond Poincaré, presedintele Frantei, este invitata sa treaca în revista garda de onoare de la palatul Elysée, o onoare ce nu se mai facuse niciodata pana atunci unei regine, mai ales al uneia care nu domnea, in mod direct. În aceeasi zi este primita oficial ca membru corespondent al Academiei de Belle-Arte, singura femeie printre barbatii acestei institutii.

Farmecul si distinctia înnascute o transforma într-o stea mondiala.  Prin celebritatea ei, regina Maria face cunoscuta Romania în întreaga lume.  Vizita în Statele Unite ale Americii din octombrie-decembrie 1926, în compania copiilor ei Ileana si Nicolae, este apogeul popularitatii sale.

Dupa moartea lui Ferdinand I în 1927, Maria a Romaniei îsi consacra toata energia bunului mers al tarii sub domnia nepotului sau, regele copil Mihai.  Alaturi de principesa-mama Elena, ea însoteste pe noul rege în toate împrejurarile, ocrotind copilaria celui chemat prea devreme sa ia locul bunicului. Este profund ranita de atitudinea fiului sau cel mare, Carol, care prin excesele din viata personala pune în pericol dinastia si tara.

Regina Maria fost mama a sase copii:  principele Carol, principesele Elisabeta si Marioara, principele Nicolae, principesa Ileana si principele Mircea.

Regina a fost foarte legata sufleteste de doua locuri:  castelul Bran si casa de la Balcic, de pe malul Marii Negre.  Pe amandoua le-a înfrumusetat dupa gustul ei si le-a dat ceva din personalitatea ei.  Aceasta amprenta dainuieste în timp.  De asemenea, palatul Cotroceni de la Bucuresti, destinat de Carol I ca resedinta principilor mostenitori, a fost transformat în timp într-o resedinta spatioasa si fermecatoare de catre tanarul cuplu Ferdinand si Maria.

Maria a Romaniei a fost în multe privinte un model.  Prin frumusetea si eleganta ei, prin inteligenta si eruditie, prin extraordinarul ei farmec si forta prezentei sale, prin devotamentul fata de tara si fata de familie, ea a fost subiectul a sute, chiar mii de pagini scrise în literatura romana si mondiala.  A fost autoarea multor carti, unele de literatura pentru copii, altele cu caracter autobiografic.

Regina era cunoscuta pentru atitudinea sa deschisa, fara menajamente. Íi-a scris memoriile si nu a ezitat sa caracterizeze cu mult curaj chiar pe membrii familiei ei.  A scris despre regele Carol I ca era extrem de autoritar, dar ca în cele din urma s-au înteles bine si au devenit buni prieteni.  Nu s-a sfiit sa scrie despre calitatile si defectele regelui Carol, ca si despre maniile lui.  Dar marturiseste ca “regele Carol I a fost un foarte mare rege”.  Despre matusa ei, regina Elisabeta, spune ca era o persoana minunata, dar prea poetica. În ce priveste pe cei doi fii ai sai, sunt de notorietate publica scrisorile reginei Maria în care le arata cu iubire si obiectivitate punctele lor slabe, care i-au provocat atata amaraciune.

Vizita sa în 1919 la primul ministru francez Clemenceau a devenit legendara.  Într-o epoca în care nu era pusa la mare pret implicarea femeilor în politica sau societate, regina Maria a cutezat sa-i ceara omului de stat francez ajutorul pentru revenirea la Romania, dupa primul razboi mondial, a Transilvaniei pana la Tisa si a Banatului.  Este evocat un schimb de replici pe care nimeni nu-l poate - totusi - confirma: Clemenceau, supranumit “tigrul” i-ar fi spus:  “Madame, ceea ce cereti este partea leului”!  Regina Maria ar fi raspuns fara ezitare:  “Este ceea ce leoaica cere tigrului”!

Regina Maria s-a îmbolnavit în 1936.  Nu se cunosc cu exactitate detaliile bolii, dar se vorbeste de violente hemoragii interne. A plecat la tratament în strainatate prea tarziu.  În iulie 1938 era înca la sanatoriul de la Weisser Hirsch, aproape de Dresda.  Pleaca spre tara la 14 iulie. A murit la Sinaia la 18 iulie 1938, la varsta de saizeci si doi de ani, dupa o suferinta teribila, accentuata de izolarea la care a obligat-o fiul ei Carol al II-lea si de indiferenta acestuia fata de degradarea ei fizica.  Este ultimul membru al familiei regale înmormantat, pana în acest moment, la Curtea de Arges.

La începutul cartii autobiografice “Povestea vietii mele”, Regina a ales ca motto o propozitie de Nietzsche: “Caracterul este destin”.