Well i havent heard anything bad about him and he did nothing wrong as far as i know(might be wrong)
Yes, R.I.P Regele Mihai
I still dream about how Romania would have looked if it was a monarchy.
Was he a vampire?
Ma asteptam sa tina o pisica in brate, nu stiu de ce.
Well
Before the revolution he was seen as a traitor , the man who sold his country , and a lot of other shit that the communists said about him
He was even kicked out of the country ( twice i believe )
But after the revolution i tend to think that people loved him because when he passed away a lot of people mourned his death .
I confirm he is seen in a very good light. You can estimate that based on the magnitude of his funerals and the number of people that participated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfOZqccp7Wg
The vast majority are indifferent and don’t know about him much.
Generally if I ever heard someone talk about him or the monarchy in general, it’s in a positive light. Probably because of how bad the communist regime was so they romanticize what could have been.
He is seen in a good light. Even the communists didn’t have a lot to complain about him, other than him being a monarch (which was a big enough complaint for them). I suspect that he simply wasn’t in power for very long, and while he was in power his decisions happened/were forced to be on the right side of history, and then he was promptly removed from power. So, a little like a JFK figure?
Yes , yes, yes ,YES
in fact he is a bit underground
Traiasca regele…
A bit of information for those not into history: he was the last king of Romania, he couped Ion Antonescu’s pro-axis government in ’44 and ruled until ’47 when he was forced to abdicate.
King michael was seen in good lights and that is simply because before him queen Maria and king Carol did an amazing job. And because of that people saw Michael with a potential as great as Carol, or Maria. Michael didn’t really have time to show his power, because after the WW2 happened, the USSR took Bessarabia from Romania (today being rep of Moldova) and along with that they brought their communist regime over us.
Poor michael he didn’t get to do much and during communism the other leaders made sure to make people even forget who he was. After some time they forced him to get out of the country.
Somewhere after 1989 he came back, but people weren’t as respectful towards him as expected :/
It’s a sad story. Communism really fucked Romania up and the sad part is that after the revolution in 1989 the “democracy” which ruled over us was a party formed from people which worked under Ceaușescu’s hand :/
A small minority of older people cared, all the others don’t know much about him and are indifferent, communists tought history a certain way in schools.
I cried when he died, out of nowhere.
Now the people are seeing him as what he really was but there are still some people who lived in the communist regime that are considering him as a traitor still.
Most people see him in a good light, some still remember the communist propaganda and say he left the country with a lot of wealth, but most of us know he didn’t, and we also know he was a great leader.
When he died tens of thousands came to pay their respects, but with him also died the last hope of restoring the monarchy. He gave a speech in Parliament a few years before he died, everyone was impressed as he was far more articulate than our entire political class combined.
He is seen in a good light by the vast majority.
But…
There are stupid people that think he was a soviet agent who sold our country to the soviet union and he was paid by Stalin
He had to take very difficult decisions for his age, he was a good leader
Yes. He would’ve made a fine king! Decent and respectable.
yes, but almost no Romaniam could give you logical reason why. That proves how much history the young generation knows.
I do think that if Romania would’ve returned to monarchy after 1998 it would’ve been better. Mihai was a very decent man, with strong education, and his life has not been easy, so he had seen the other side of the coin as well. Anyway, would’ve been much better then those that are rulling Romania now …
When they announced his death I was in Physical Education class. Our teacher was sort of a douche and we still took a moment of silence. It was nice
More like a tragic hero ,who lived to see his throne usurped and his country trown behind the iron courtain.
the only monarch seen in a bad light is Carol II,the rest are generally liked by people ,or atlest seen in a neutral light
It depends a lot on who is speaking. Most people raised in communism say he is a traitor for the country which left with a train full of gold, because the Communists said so. I imagine the train full of gold was what made him a mechanic in Switzerland later on after he was expelled from the country.
Some people which know what the monarchy has done for the country (forged ties with other states, in the case of Queen Maria even helped with the union of Romanian people, etc) have a more favourable view of the child which became a king around the WWII era and who did his best to maintain the state while under a military dictatorship (which was made by Antonescu who gave his word to the Nazis that he would help as long as Romania wouldn’t get cut up more)
The matter is not black and white, but I would say he is seen in an “ok light”.
I don’t like him because he killed a man, with his car, when he was 16, and he suffered no consequences. It is not a well known story because it was concealed by the authorities of that time. His victim was a cyclist.
No
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” My honest belief on subjects regarding Monarchy and monarchs. We are not an ant colony ffs. We don’t need laying egg queens.
Only to smart, educated people
I think the monarchy in general is seen in a good light compared to the shit this country had to deal with during and after WW2. He sadly didn’t have much time or authority to do anything remarkable, however his father (although he made some controversial decisions) always had the country’s fate above anything else. Hell, the guy hated living in Romania at the beginning, in the end he couldn’t imagine not being Romanian so, yes. The monarchy played a big part in strengthening the country’s stance on the world stage and bringing in some significant reforms in order to modernise the country.
Yes, absolutely. Compared to the political class that followed him from then to present he was light years ahead in the way he behaved and acted in the best interest of its citizens.
Hard to have any opinion on the guy given that he was in a position he couldn’t do anything for the majority of his time (to which I could add that he pretty much wasn’t fit to rule precisely because of the extraordinarily bad position the country was in at the time). So to me, in his place we could have had a plant and history wouldn’t have been changed by a lot. The only good thing he could (and did) do was the coup, for which I am thankful. Otherwise, that’s it.
He was just a kid with a gun to his head. No one should have anything bad to say about him as a ruller because he didn’t do much of that.
Kinda, but the younger generation kids don’t know much about him.
Some people argue that King Michael I was a good leader due to several factors:
– His role in World War II: In August 1944, King Michael I led a coup against the pro-Nazi government of Marshal Ion Antonescu, switching Romania’s allegiance to the Allies. This move is often credited with shortening the war and saving many lives.
– Moral integrity: King Michael I was seen by many as a symbol of moral integrity and resistance against totalitarian regimes. He lived a modest life in exile after being forced to abdicate in 1947 by the Soviet-backed communist government.
– Advocacy for democracy: In his later years, King Michael I was an advocate for democracy and human rights in Romania. He returned to the country after the fall of communism in 1989 and spoke out against corruption and political abuses.
However, others argue that King Michael I was not an objectively good leader, pointing to the following factors:
– Limited influence: King Michael I’s reign was marked by political instability and a lack of real power. He was often overshadowed by the influence of stronger political figures, such as Marshal Ion Antonescu and the communist leaders.
– Young age and inexperience: When he first took the throne at the age of six, King Michael I was too young and inexperienced to govern effectively. His second reign began when he was just 19 years old, and he had limited time to assert himself before being forced to abdicate.
– Forced abdication and exile: King Michael I was objectively unable to prevent the rise of communism in Romania, and his forced abdication in 1947 marked the end of the monarchy. He lived in exile for several decades, which further limited his influence and ability to shape Romania’s political landscape.
People usually see him in a good light. I personally think of him in a neutral to negative manner
39 comments
He had very german (germanic?) looking face.
Well i havent heard anything bad about him and he did nothing wrong as far as i know(might be wrong)
Yes, R.I.P Regele Mihai
I still dream about how Romania would have looked if it was a monarchy.
Was he a vampire?
Ma asteptam sa tina o pisica in brate, nu stiu de ce.
Well
Before the revolution he was seen as a traitor , the man who sold his country , and a lot of other shit that the communists said about him
He was even kicked out of the country ( twice i believe )
But after the revolution i tend to think that people loved him because when he passed away a lot of people mourned his death .
I confirm he is seen in a very good light. You can estimate that based on the magnitude of his funerals and the number of people that participated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfOZqccp7Wg
The vast majority are indifferent and don’t know about him much.
Generally if I ever heard someone talk about him or the monarchy in general, it’s in a positive light. Probably because of how bad the communist regime was so they romanticize what could have been.
He is seen in a good light. Even the communists didn’t have a lot to complain about him, other than him being a monarch (which was a big enough complaint for them). I suspect that he simply wasn’t in power for very long, and while he was in power his decisions happened/were forced to be on the right side of history, and then he was promptly removed from power. So, a little like a JFK figure?
Yes , yes, yes ,YES
in fact he is a bit underground
Traiasca regele…
A bit of information for those not into history: he was the last king of Romania, he couped Ion Antonescu’s pro-axis government in ’44 and ruled until ’47 when he was forced to abdicate.
King michael was seen in good lights and that is simply because before him queen Maria and king Carol did an amazing job. And because of that people saw Michael with a potential as great as Carol, or Maria. Michael didn’t really have time to show his power, because after the WW2 happened, the USSR took Bessarabia from Romania (today being rep of Moldova) and along with that they brought their communist regime over us.
Poor michael he didn’t get to do much and during communism the other leaders made sure to make people even forget who he was. After some time they forced him to get out of the country.
Somewhere after 1989 he came back, but people weren’t as respectful towards him as expected :/
It’s a sad story. Communism really fucked Romania up and the sad part is that after the revolution in 1989 the “democracy” which ruled over us was a party formed from people which worked under Ceaușescu’s hand :/
A small minority of older people cared, all the others don’t know much about him and are indifferent, communists tought history a certain way in schools.
I cried when he died, out of nowhere.
Now the people are seeing him as what he really was but there are still some people who lived in the communist regime that are considering him as a traitor still.
Most people see him in a good light, some still remember the communist propaganda and say he left the country with a lot of wealth, but most of us know he didn’t, and we also know he was a great leader.
When he died tens of thousands came to pay their respects, but with him also died the last hope of restoring the monarchy. He gave a speech in Parliament a few years before he died, everyone was impressed as he was far more articulate than our entire political class combined.
He is seen in a good light by the vast majority.
But…
There are stupid people that think he was a soviet agent who sold our country to the soviet union and he was paid by Stalin
He had to take very difficult decisions for his age, he was a good leader
Yes. He would’ve made a fine king! Decent and respectable.
yes, but almost no Romaniam could give you logical reason why. That proves how much history the young generation knows.
I do think that if Romania would’ve returned to monarchy after 1998 it would’ve been better. Mihai was a very decent man, with strong education, and his life has not been easy, so he had seen the other side of the coin as well. Anyway, would’ve been much better then those that are rulling Romania now …
When they announced his death I was in Physical Education class. Our teacher was sort of a douche and we still took a moment of silence. It was nice
More like a tragic hero ,who lived to see his throne usurped and his country trown behind the iron courtain.
the only monarch seen in a bad light is Carol II,the rest are generally liked by people ,or atlest seen in a neutral light
It depends a lot on who is speaking. Most people raised in communism say he is a traitor for the country which left with a train full of gold, because the Communists said so. I imagine the train full of gold was what made him a mechanic in Switzerland later on after he was expelled from the country.
Some people which know what the monarchy has done for the country (forged ties with other states, in the case of Queen Maria even helped with the union of Romanian people, etc) have a more favourable view of the child which became a king around the WWII era and who did his best to maintain the state while under a military dictatorship (which was made by Antonescu who gave his word to the Nazis that he would help as long as Romania wouldn’t get cut up more)
The matter is not black and white, but I would say he is seen in an “ok light”.
I don’t like him because he killed a man, with his car, when he was 16, and he suffered no consequences. It is not a well known story because it was concealed by the authorities of that time. His victim was a cyclist.
No
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” My honest belief on subjects regarding Monarchy and monarchs. We are not an ant colony ffs. We don’t need laying egg queens.
Only to smart, educated people
I think the monarchy in general is seen in a good light compared to the shit this country had to deal with during and after WW2. He sadly didn’t have much time or authority to do anything remarkable, however his father (although he made some controversial decisions) always had the country’s fate above anything else. Hell, the guy hated living in Romania at the beginning, in the end he couldn’t imagine not being Romanian so, yes. The monarchy played a big part in strengthening the country’s stance on the world stage and bringing in some significant reforms in order to modernise the country.
Yes, absolutely. Compared to the political class that followed him from then to present he was light years ahead in the way he behaved and acted in the best interest of its citizens.
Hard to have any opinion on the guy given that he was in a position he couldn’t do anything for the majority of his time (to which I could add that he pretty much wasn’t fit to rule precisely because of the extraordinarily bad position the country was in at the time). So to me, in his place we could have had a plant and history wouldn’t have been changed by a lot. The only good thing he could (and did) do was the coup, for which I am thankful. Otherwise, that’s it.
He was just a kid with a gun to his head. No one should have anything bad to say about him as a ruller because he didn’t do much of that.
Kinda, but the younger generation kids don’t know much about him.
Some people argue that King Michael I was a good leader due to several factors:
– His role in World War II: In August 1944, King Michael I led a coup against the pro-Nazi government of Marshal Ion Antonescu, switching Romania’s allegiance to the Allies. This move is often credited with shortening the war and saving many lives.
– Moral integrity: King Michael I was seen by many as a symbol of moral integrity and resistance against totalitarian regimes. He lived a modest life in exile after being forced to abdicate in 1947 by the Soviet-backed communist government.
– Advocacy for democracy: In his later years, King Michael I was an advocate for democracy and human rights in Romania. He returned to the country after the fall of communism in 1989 and spoke out against corruption and political abuses.
However, others argue that King Michael I was not an objectively good leader, pointing to the following factors:
– Limited influence: King Michael I’s reign was marked by political instability and a lack of real power. He was often overshadowed by the influence of stronger political figures, such as Marshal Ion Antonescu and the communist leaders.
– Young age and inexperience: When he first took the throne at the age of six, King Michael I was too young and inexperienced to govern effectively. His second reign began when he was just 19 years old, and he had limited time to assert himself before being forced to abdicate.
– Forced abdication and exile: King Michael I was objectively unable to prevent the rise of communism in Romania, and his forced abdication in 1947 marked the end of the monarchy. He lived in exile for several decades, which further limited his influence and ability to shape Romania’s political landscape.
People usually see him in a good light. I personally think of him in a neutral to negative manner