General News & Information for Prince Albert and Charlene Wittstock

[Bones]

According to Telegraph: " Charlene Wittstock was shopping in Paris not running scared, father claims -- The Prince of Monaco's bride-to-be did not attempt to flee her marriage but went to Paris to shop for hats and shoes with her mother, her father said on Thursday."

Charlene Wittstock was shopping in Paris not running scared, father claims - Telegraph

Interesting. I notice too that Le Figaro still did not say when this incident, of which there is supposed to be proof, even happened, just that it was sometime "last Saturday at the latest".

Yeah, that's having your facts nailed down alright.

 

[Renata4711]

I wish everybody would forget the Daily Mail - or should that be "The Daily WAIL" ??

Nicole Coste is entitled to wander around Monaco. As far as I know, she lives in Villefranche-sur-Mer with young Eric - or Alexandre ?

 

[SandwichSheik]

Don't be ridiculous. No one said anything about a conspiracy. No one said anything about anyone being dragged kicking and screaming anywhere. Where I come from, yes, people have civil rights and airport security (not police) can only detain you if they have reason to believe you are a threat to the safety of the plane and passengers. Running away from your fiance would not make the list. Further, anytime security or police detain you for any reason they must give you tell you why.

And why the singular obsession with names?! Any sort of evidence that could be verified would work just as well. Why does everyone act as though this is some super-sensitive issue or that Albert did something so horrible if anyone in Paris or Monaco knew who was "telling all" they would be sent to the guillotine? If they are on staff at the palace they could lose their job. Big deal, if the Prince cannot trust them not to pull stunts like this, they should lose their job. "oh, but what if no one ever talked to the press again, what if no one ever came forward with the truth". Yeah, on a story about a bride with cold feet -yes, my God, how would the world survive if we never knew...

You're the one asking for names as well as bringing up the police state nonsense. A poster above you brought up the conspiracy theory. Have you ever flown abroad because something tells me you haven't.

You can be detained for a number of things not just safety related. I've missed connecting flights because like Charlene when you travel on a non EU passport you go through an extra grilling. What are you doing here, where are you going? What's your job, how much money do you have on you? Why do have that much money, where did you get that money?
Just a sampling of questions I've been asked.

You're making excuses and saying things like so what if people get fired, they deserve it, it's not really helping you look like an inteligent and objective poster. Albert and Charlene's soap opera is far less important than anybody losing their livelyhoods and ability to support their families.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

This may or may not have anything to do with tomorrow's wedding but one still has to wonder about the timing... Nicole Coste has been spotted walking in Monaco today. I wonder if she's invited...?

Look who's turned up: Mother of Prince Albert's illegitimate son spotted strolling through Monaco... a day before he gets married | Mail Online

Lovely. I am sure it's just a coincidence that this woman decides now is a nice time for a leisurely stroll throughout the streets of Monaco.

I will just hurry out now and stock up on frozen daiquiri mix in preparation for tomorrow's wedding ceremonies to begin...maybe I can get my MD to call in a tranquilizer for me as well.......

 

[Bones]

Oh, I don't look intelligent or objective! Whatever shall I do!?


Do you know what objective means? All I have said all along is that I'm not prepared to believe anything without seeing some facts to back up the rumors. Show me some facts and not someone passing along gossip from the safety of secrecy so we can never know how reliable the source is and then I will take it seriously. Those closest to Charlene have said this is not true, unnamed sources and unnamed police detectives say it is. Either way, you are choosing who you want to believe, not knowing any of the facts yourself.

 

[Zonk]

ENOUGH.

Let's focus on the subjects of this thread which are Albert and Charlene.

Any and all additioinal posts which have NOTHING to do with the topic will be deleted WITHOUT NOTICE.

Zonk
Monaco Forums Moderator

 

[SandwichSheik]

Oh, I don't look intelligent or objective! Whatever shall I do!?


Do you know what objective means? All I have said all along is that I'm not prepared to believe anything without seeing some facts to back up the rumors. Show me some facts and not someone passing along gossip from the safety of secrecy so we can never know how reliable the source is and then I will take it seriously. Those closest to Charlene have said this is not true, unnamed sources and unnamed police detectives say it is. Either way, you are choosing who you want to believe, not knowing any of the facts yourself.

The French press, well respected outlets not tabloids, claimed to have 3 sources to back up their claims. Your evidence to the contrary is sources close to Charlene and the palace. We know the palace lies, we've seen them do it in the past. As for Charlene's family, well she's clearly changed her mind and is back with Albert. What are they going to say, oh my daughter tried to leave the country but she changed her mind after groveling and money was exchanged? Of course they're going to toe the company line.

 

[Bones]

The French press, well respected outlets not tabloids, claimed to have 3 sources to back up their claims. Your evidence to the contrary is sources close to Charlene and the palace. We know the palace lies, we've seen them do it in the past. As for Charlene's family, well she's clearly changed her mind and is back with Albert. What are they going to say, oh my daughter tried to leave the country but she changed her mind after groveling and money was exchanged? Of course they're going to toe the company line.

The key words there are claimed to have sources to back up their claims. Her father, who supposedly sent her the ticket, said it did not happen. These respected outlets did not even say when it happened so we can verify Charlene was not somewhere else. Do you have evidence that there was any "groveling" or that "money was exchanged"? If so, let us see it, if not, you're spreading more malicious gossip. This is utterly ridiculous.

 

[angieuk]

video Monaco : «C'est une méchante rumeur» - loisirs et spectacles, monaco, politique internationale - videos Le Parisien

http://madame.lefigaro.fr/

 

[LadyMacAlpine]

I don't understand why people can't see this sounds like an intentional malicious act to cause exactly what I see happening right here trouble. To try and wreck havoc on a day that people have waited for years to see. I don't care of you don't like Charlene or Albert this is pure nastiness to spread such a thing before the wedding. The more we discuss this the more fuel to the fire and the press will stay on it and keep adding details as long as there are readers. Scandal sells better than the love story. Who ever posted this first on Eringers blog should be taken to the finger guillotine. Ignore them and enjoy the next few days the people of Monaco and the Grimaldis deserve some happiness.

 

[Bones]

Amen! Eringer's name being attached to it should be all anyone needs to know.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

You're the one asking for names as well as bringing up the police state nonsense. A poster above you brought up the conspiracy theory. Have you ever flown abroad because something tells me you haven't.

You can be detained for a number of things not just safety related. I've missed connecting flights because like Charlene when you travel on a non EU passport you go through an extra grilling. What are you doing here, where are you going? What's your job, how much money do you have on you? Why do have that much money, where did you get that money?
Just a sampling of questions I've been asked.

You're making excuses and saying things like so what if people get fired, they deserve it, it's not really helping you look like an inteligent and objective poster. Albert and Charlene's soap opera is far less important than anybody losing their livelyhoods and ability to support their families.

Do you actually think that the Nice airport security staff don't know who Charlene is? All this is just dog squeeze to spoil Albert's wedding.

I fly under a non-EU passport and I've never had a problem. I never take more money than is stated in the guidelines to avoid any problems and I have traveled well over a million miles.

I think we need a moritorium on this whole issue until after the wedding and after the 3rd child is born (if there is a child).

 

[Sancia]

I don't understand why people can't see this sounds like an intentional malicious act to cause exactly what I see happening right here trouble. To try and wreck havoc on a day that people have waited for years to see. I don't care of you don't like Charlene or Albert this is pure nastiness to spread such a thing before the wedding. The more we discuss this the more fuel to the fire and the press will stay on it and keep adding details as long as there are readers. Scandal sells better than the love story. Who ever posted this first on Eringers blog should be taken to the finger guillotine. Ignore them and enjoy the next few days the people of Monaco and the Grimaldis deserve some happiness.

Well, french people and those who knows L'Express, Le Monde and Le Figaro don't understand why strangers are trying to dismiss these papers by any means. So it is one point each. We will never understand ourselves because we have different approach of the problem. As for myself, I have made researches about the serious journalists who wrote the papers I posted. I wouldn't allow myself to dismiss a serious german or spanish newspapers just because I don't like what it is said if german or spanish co-posters could explain me that they can assure everybody it is a serious work. It would be a lack of respect for the ones who use to read these papers and know them well.

What I would just like people to understand is that is not a matter of liking or disliking Albert II and Charlene Wittstock but a matter of how we deal with a piece of news. If there were to be Monaco-bashing in the french press, that would not be in the serious papers involved.
I think I can understand how a fan can feel when he reads such a paper, having been a fan myself in different matter, but, having been a fan, I have learnt that being a fan often makes us renounce all critical mind.

However, I bet this won't be the end of the affair. I just hope Albert II and Charlene will find happiness, no matter the way they find it, because no one deserves to be unhappy. If they find happiness in this wedding, then my best wishes go to them.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I tried to send you a private message, but your inbox is full.

Do you work for one of these newspapers?

As far as I'm concerned, your newspapers are not part of this wedding and until the story is substantiated, I'm going to add you to my Ignore List so I can enjoy seeing Charlene and Albert get married.

 

[NGalitzine]

I dont doubt the seriousess of L'Express and the story may be true, maybe not,or maybe partial truth but I am wondering when she would have had time to attempt to bolt. As I understand it she was in Athens on the weekend for the Special Olympics and then in Paris on Monday with her mother and before and after she has been seen around Monaco so her schedule seems to have been quite busy.
The timing of the story was defnitely meant to inflict damage though. Reminded me of the story about King Albert II illegitimate daughter going to press at the time of Philippe's wedding. I would not be at all surprised if Erlanger was the source, but in the end I dont think it really matters once the wedding happens.

 

[Bones]

Well, french people and those who knows L'Express, Le Monde and Le Figaro don't understand why strangers are trying to dismiss these papers by any means.

Because they have provided no evidence to back up the claims they are making, because a story like this does not serve any vital interest and so to be released as it was, when it was does not come off at all like serious, brave "whistleblowing" journalism but simply as scandalmongering trying to ruin a special occasion only hours before the big day. I have not seen anyone trying to "dismiss these papers" but only dismiss this particular story which is not investigative journalism but reports of "he said - she said" with no evidence presented to determine who is correct. If anyone can tell me why this supposed event is important to the lives of ordinary people in France and around the world that it had to be put out immediately, without saying when it happened, why it happened or exactly who was involved -I would like to hear it.

No one would be saying anything about this or anything about the media outlets involved if they had not run the story. They are certainly not the victims here. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, if you make an accusation you have to be prepared to back it up with evidence. They have not done so.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Albert has set himself up for this type of report. Maybe he had a last fling before his wedding? Whatever the case, I hope his rambling days are over for the sake of the kingdom. Too much scandal among the royals in Monaco over the years and the way he has treated his own children leaves much to be desired. Am rather surprised he has a found a wife.

 

[lea]

Who ever posted this first on Eringers blog should be taken to the finger guillotine.

 

[LadyMacAlpine]

Well, french people and those who knows L'Express, Le Monde and Le Figaro don't understand why strangers are trying to dismiss these papers by any means. So it is one point each. We will never understand ourselves because we have different approach of the problem. As for myself, I have made researches about the serious journalists who wrote the papers I posted. I wouldn't allow myself to dismiss a serious german or spanish newspapers just because I don't like what it is said if german or spanish co-posters could explain me that they can assure everybody it is a serious work. It would be a lack of respect for the ones who use to read these papers and know them well.

What I would just like people to understand is that is not a matter of liking or disliking Albert II and Charlene Wittstock but a matter of how we deal with a piece of news. If there were to be Monaco-bashing in the french press, that would not be in the serious papers involved.
I think I can understand how a fan can feel when he reads such a paper, having been a fan myself in different matter, but, having been a fan, I have learnt that being a fan often makes us renounce all critical mind.

However, I bet this won't be the end of the affair. I just hope Albert II and Charlene will find happiness, no matter the way they find it, because no one deserves to be unhappy. If they find happiness in this wedding, then my best wishes go to them.

My post was directed at a group which includes some reporters about not liking them since a group not only monitor these sites but post to cause trouble and bash Charlene or the mothers and its been going on since 2005. One has gone so far as to post using fake IPs to make people think Charlene, and or the mothers are posting here and told me they thought posts with the bashing of Charlene was funny. Real nice reporters who spread rumors and work in reliable news medias post because they are bored. It has a way of making you see what they will do to bash Charlene after they say things like wait until the wedding the press will be saying all kinds of things to spoil the love story for the Sugar boards, that would be here. This is why I say ignore it and there is currently no proof to support their claims and until there is its a malicious rumors.

I'm in full agreement with Bones

Because they have provided no evidence to back up the claims they are making, because a story like this does not serve any vital interest and so to be released as it was, when it was does not come off at all like serious, brave "whistleblowing" journalism but simply as scandalmongering trying to ruin a special occasion only hours before the big day.

Who ever posted this first on Eringers blog should be taken to the finger guillotine.

You like that one.

 

[FanofMonaco]

Have the L'Express and Figaro articles been posted so that we all can read them?

In the US journalists are not required to reveal their sources.

 

[NotHRH]

The truthx

 

[Zonk]

Maybe its a cultural differences that is leading to the confusion of this story.

I am American, and I am not familiar with L'Express. So if you guys tell me its a serious newspaper and not the yellow press....I have two options 1) check the internet to see how the newspaper is viewed and/or 2) take your word for it.

I think the main issue for some (mainly Americans) is that no facts are being given. Just hints of a story:

1) The reports state that Charlene tried to flee Monaco prior to the wedding but the holes that we see in this story are 1) no specific date and/or time has been given...and as previously pointed out she has had a pretty full schedule. When is she supposed to have done this?

2) Its alleged that Albert has not been true to Charlene during their engagement. Again, no specifics are being given. Who is this person? When did they meet? In America (and the UK) there would be grainy pictures. Tacky but true.

3) A child has been born or will be born of this "relationship". Again no specific information.

Now I don't know if this is true or not because again I don't know any facts. But I do know that in an American newspaper, before this was printed....we would know that Charlene attempted to flee Monaco on 11/22 on a South African Airlines Flight 212 and was detained (and there would be some additional proof to support this allegation). We would know the name of this woman (and yes in the ensuing press her picture would be ALL over the newspapers), when she was due etc. People that this woman knows would be selling this woman out in a New York second for a quick 20K. That girl she went to summer camp with and shared a cabin...their picture is in the NY Post. The color of the dress she wore to her senior prom you would know that too.

Just look at the Arnold story in LA. Basic info was provided (okay he did give a statement) and than the press was all over it. And we knew more than we wanted to know.

Now Again, this may all be true and it may not be true but I think the point that some are trying to make is that WE (the general public) would have a little bit more information than L'Express (or the Washington Post, New York Times) said its true.

For the record, I do agree with those who think its pretty nasty for this to come out days before the wedding. Its like it was timed on purpose....if they (or whomever) had this information...why wait a couple of days before the wedding. Its tacky IMO. When I say this is like a soap opera it is. Its like when Cord was marrying Kate on One Life to Live (literally at the altar) and Tina walked in to say stop the wedding...this is your baby. Who does that in real life?

And you have Nicole walking around town....I mean this is just....... words can't express it.

I hope Albert and Charlene have a beautiful wedding despite the drama.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Charlene's assumption of title

When does Charlene actually become HSH Princess Charlene of Monaco? Is it after the civil or religious ceremony?

 

[Lady Felicity M]

royak guest list??

 

[Katrianna]

Hope this helps.


http://www.palais.mc/monaco/root/ba..._of_High_Dignitaries_FINAL_PROTOCOL_ORDER.pdf

 

[Zonk]

You might want to check out the wedding forum, which can be found here Wedding of Prince Albert II and Miss Charlene Wittstock 1-2 July 2011 - The Royal Forums

 

[LadyMacAlpine]

I don't want to do this but, I posted the first time I heard of Charlene trying to run away was on Eringers QandA then it showed up in the press. The reason for this so called running away attempt was because she found out he had a 3 month old son. He has posted on his blog a World Exclusive about the mother and child. This is about more than an unpaid bill.

 

[Madame Royale]

If there is credence to the speculated story, then I'd ultimately not be much surprised. Though naturally one would like to think Albert would not have acted in such a way.

Despite his exceptional wealth and status both domestically and abroad, he his a middle aged, portly and balding man who no doubt wants to feel desirable. Go figure.

Often, men (and women) who spend many years engaging in consentual one night stands often find it hard to become monogamous when they are involved in long term relationships, as the validation of one person isn't enough. It doesn't feed nor does it sustain their sexual appetite. And they often attempt to rationalise their behaviour by suggesting "it's purely physical". Well, *news flash*, its not. It's often representative of progressive self esteem issues which were never proactively addressed in years previous.

As far as I'm aware it's being denied vigorously (?), and I hope for Charlene, and Albert's sake that it isn't true because quite often than not a person who cheats once, will cheat twice.

So if the person doing the cheating is middle aged and who has for years, established themselves in a particular way of life, to break that cycle would be a very confronting reality check and would require the total and utter determination of that person.

And when you're a billionaire sovereign prince with a charming disposition, I imagine that willing participants wouldn't be so hard to come across...

 

[Sancia]

Now I don't know if this is true or not because again I don't know any facts. But I do know that in an American newspaper, before this was printed....we would know that Charlene attempted to flee Monaco on 11/22 on a South African Airlines Flight 212 and was detained (and there would be some additional proof to support this allegation). We would know the name of this woman (and yes in the ensuing press her picture would be ALL over the newspapers), when she was due etc. People that this woman knows would be selling this woman out in a New York second for a quick 20K. That girl she went to summer camp with and shared a cabin...their picture is in the NY Post. The color of the dress she wore to her senior prom you would know that too.

I fully understand your concern but the press acting like it in France is mostly trash press (and I checked my word). Serious papers have no custom to post pics of anybody involved in news items, even when there is a violent murder or something like this. This has a matter several times discussed in our papers and on our TV channels during the DSK affair, so, you are right, matter of culture: it is not the journalistic culture in France for serious press to display much details in this kind of case. An example: a 13 years old teenager was kicked dead at school by a former fellow class mate nearly two weeks ago. Le Figaro, Le Monde and L'Express released all the details given by the police but no pics, no exclusive interviews at first. This was done by other magazines with worst reputation (Le Parisien, for example). Another example: we had our lot (too much) of political scandals these last years. We don't know a source named for this: if the paper is serious and can prove he is saying the true, the minister won't wait to have all the sources names to be forces to resigned. The proofs have only to be proved true.
There was even discussions to know if the name of DSK's alleged victim should be released by french press. That shows the difference with american journalist.

But I would like everybody to remind the three serious only spoke about the attempted flight, not about the rest, which would have been only speculations for which they had no proof. The main question was: did Charlene tried to flee a week before her wedding? Were they serious breachs of laws by french police?

But don't worry, you will enjoy the wedding very much, all the journalists, including the serious, are working on the reversal of situation in the DSK affair so it will let you some days "scandal-free". And I am rather serious about it.

So, once more, a matter of journalism culture.

Let me add that I do agree about the yellow press, the very bad timing of Nicole Coste coming in Monaco. I wonder if Le Monde and L'Express would have talked about the alleged third out-of-wedlock child if there had not been the call from Nice airport saying "Charlene tried to flight a week before the wedding". I don't think so. They would have made a paper about the wedding after to report about it.

 

[Sancia]

I would add that publishing a full account of details is punishable in trial if some details appears to be wrong. A sentenced paper has to publish the sentence on first page. If they publish the name of the policeman who leaked the facts, they could be sentenced if they can't prove the policeman really called them. But they could be sentenced too if the Palace manages to prove that the source said wrong. That is why there are saying they have three different sources and I am sure these sources will be investigated in case of trial. Saying "I have sources but I won't reveal them" is at high level in France too. One generally does this when he knows his report will be fully accurate. If it appears to be wrong, Renaud Revel and Christophe Barbier can search a new job, unrelated to journalism.

Edit: I have forgotten a very important point. The respect of privacy is even more important in France than freedom of press. Theoretically, if the policeman who says Charlene has been stopped at Nice airport or the witnesses of the scene have their name printed against their will, they can go in trial and the papers will be sentenced for breach of privacy. One can be sentenced for this in France when the facts are true but belonging to people's private life.