no, actually, i don't agree with that. king carol 1st was a good king, and he helped a lot with the development of romania. king ferdinand was weak but his reign was pretty successfull, i think. king carol 2nd is the one who pretty much ruined the prestige of the hohenzollerns in romania. and king michael did not have any time to re-establish it.
but it's not what i was saying, really. what i'm saying is that for 50 years only people who were actually studied history (as in higher education - they took history courses at university) were taught anything about the monarchy period in romania. the lesson about the independance of romania did not even include king carol 1st's name, when people were taught about the very important acts of unity with bucovina, basarabia and transylvania in 1918 they were taught that it was the will of the people, but no-one actually talked about governments, kings or anything. the prestige (or lack of it) of the romanian monarchy is something that had an effect over the ones who actually lived in those times. whoever was born and (most important) educated after the 2nd world war, had very few ways of finding out that romania actually had kings and what those kings did for romania. and even if many would have probably been interested, i'm pretty sure most of them didn't know what to ask...
basically by 1989, when communism fell, you had way too many generations of people who didn't even know that romania used to be a monarchy. how could you expect them to care about king michael?
