Of course... I completely agree, and like I said, I'm not here to tackle that issue. :)
However, I am interested in your thoughts on how easily a patriarchate can be moved...it's something I've been asking myself and haven't answered to my own satisfaction. Almost no reason why New York should not be a quasi-patriarchate at this point (although these things work differently in the Latin church). But then again, why is Baltimore the Primatial see of America? And why Canterbury and not London?
History is inextricably woven in to the rights and status of a patriarchate...I suppose there's no *theological* reason why one can't be moved, but maybe geographical tradition is at least as worth defending (where it can be anyway) as other aspects of tradition.
I would say unless the Turks physically destroy the Patriarchate and expel the Ecumenical Patriarch, it won't and can't happen. Under such circumstances, a pan-Orthodox Synod (council of all Orthodox Patriarchs would have to meet and decide, and in this case the decision would be a one of sympathy — for all the Orthodox would for that moment be Greeks.
I would say, the Patriarchate would be built on the Greco-Turkish border, as close to Istanbul as possible and they would probably build the biggest Orthodox church in the world, and would remain there until the Turks, by the grace of God become Orthodox one day.
If for some reason the issue of moving the Ecumenical Patriarchate were to come up for a different reason (although I can't imagine what), the most logical place would be Moscow. Russian Patriarch represents over 80% of the world Orthodox, and the Patriarchate would be in the heart of the Orthodox world, not on its fingers as it is today.
But in either case, the decision would have to be made by a pan-Orthodox Synod and then approved by the laity and lower clergy, always keeping in mind that love does not impose.