Because it is effectively dictatorship. By the personal will and pleasure of a former King in exile people are added and thrown out of the monarchy. Successors on base of legislation of the kingdom of Romania are removed and a new line of succession is proposed, and in the short existence we already have seen four successors removed: one for something banal as cockfighting, two who have done nothing at all but happened to be children from the one with the cockfighting and finally the fourth because he would lack moral values. Wham! You are in! And wham! You are out!
All this is acceptable? Yes Michael, Amen Michael, Sure Michael ? Fellow posters who have a more legalistic view are shoven aside as oldfashioned, conservative, stuck in time, whatever. But when this is all completely acceptable, then any non-reigning House has free play. It is then solely up to the personal whim of the day of the person pretending to be the head of the dynasty to arrange anything he/she likes.
All the actions King Michael permitted, are unthinkable in a democracy. I understand that King Michael would like to change things, but he is no King, there is no throne but when you aim for a restoration you want to go back to a situation which was unlawfully ended. But what Michael does makes this impossible. He can not go back to the old situation because the successors according that systematic have removed by his "logic". He can not go back to the once reigning Royal House because there is a newly created Royal House and -with the same ease- alrwady four people were removed from that young, new Royal House. With one scratch from his pen, in Aubonne, Switzerland: "Out!". It is really not that strange that there are fellow posters on this forum with other opinions on all what happened in the former Royal House of Romania.