General News & Information for Prince Albert and Charlene Wittstock

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Catharina

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]

Originally Posted by Bones

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]

Originally Posted by Catharina

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by SandwichSheik

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]

Originally Posted by SandwichSheik

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

[QUOTE=LadyMacAlpine;1276035] Who ever posted this first on Eringers blog should be taken to the finger guillotine.

[LadyMacAlpine]

Originally Posted by Sancia

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.

[QUOTE=lea;1276133]

Originally Posted by LadyMacAlpine

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.