Jazmin Rotolo (Grimaldi) Part 1


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Do you believe Albert is the father of Jazmin?

  • Albert is the father of Jazmin

    Votes: 29 33.0%
  • Albert is not the father of Jazmin

    Votes: 31 35.2%
  • Don't know/undecided

    Votes: 28 31.8%

  • Total voters
    88
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
CasiraghiTrio said:
Jazmin has the surname Grimaldi because that is what Tamara chose to put on the birth certificate. I don't know about in europe, but in the US, a mother can have any name for her child on the birth certificate, and whatever is there, is legal. She could have named Jazmin after Elvis Presley and that would have been perfectly legal. That's the only reason Jazmin has that name. It has nothing to do with marriage or anything Albert wanted or granted. Tamara just wanted to rub it in the world's noses that she (supposedly) was the mother of Grace Kelly's granddaughter. Of course, I don't believe it, as I've said already too many times, but that was Tamara's unmistakeable message in naming her daughter Jazmin Grace Grimaldi.

In Canada it is also the same. You can name your children whatever you want. By giving Jazmin the Grimaldi name I think Tamara wanted Albert & Rainier to know that this child exists & will not be dissmised forever. It can be put off for years but eventually Jazmin will want to know and may force Albert legaly to deal with it, regardless of the outcome.
 
Yes it is true in the US a mother can choose any name for her child. I have a friend who was born out of wed lock and his mother put his biological fathers name on his birth certificate in the same way. It's more than a jab at the Grimaldi name. It will serve, in later years, as futher proof of paternity. I know we could go around and around but I think Dreed really did hit in on the head. PA has not taken a DNA test because there is chance he's the father. Tamara seems to think so. These two facts alone are a pretty good case. I felt the egg implant in my uterus both times I got pregnant. I knew right away and I think most women do. However, in PA defense. DNA test have been faulsified. I would be super careful about offering up any DNA to any lab. I personnaly would never give a DNA test unless ordered to by a court.
 
The Nicole issue was and will always be a heated topic. Albert's choice in words of 'the kid' again could be he isn't aware of peoples feelings on his use of the expression or perhaps it was the translation from French to English to cause it. It also comes across in my opinion as being picky to see it as terrible but then again that is my opinion since I call my own daughter kid. No matter what the man says or how he says it he is not going to please everyone. This is his private life after all he doesn't need to answer anyone's questions regarding it but the point I am trying to make he has. He has denied for years he wasn't gay but that wasn't believed either. Why? He even questioned it wondering what he did to make people think he was.

It's documented Albert has said it he is a private person. I give him credit for speaking at all on this subject since it is sensitive for him and uncomfortable which is obvious to me just in his mannerisms when he speaks. I feel for him in his attempt to try to set the record straight. I created this thread for a purpose. To try and help bring peoples opinions of Albert around to seeing another view. Opinions about him were set in the minds of many by what they had read in tabloids, gossip rags, and books that has undoubtedly harmed his reputation. There is also other message boards where anything goes and the mud slinging is well I wonder how they can stay online how they not only trash Albert but all Royals.

The reality of the situation is Albert has no reason at all to not acknowledge Jazmin Grace Grimaldi as his daughter if in fact she was. If he doubted paternity when Tamara contacted his attorney after the story of Alexandre came out there was again no reason for him to not agree to the DNA testing and results known by now. Just because he didn't publicize it was done doesn't mean he didn't do it or back years ago when blood samples were supplied. He did say there was other claims and that they would be answered when the time came. That makes me wonder if something was done privately. Do people honestly think if it did even recently and the test was negative Tamara would want it known? Not in my opinion.

Again all that has ever been said is Tamara claims he is Jazmin's father and the DNA testing was never done. How does she know they never ran it after she supplied the samples? Let me ask this just to have you think about it I'm not looking for a direct answer just consider this. Tamara made a spectacle of herself in public to get Albert to acknowledge her child, conceived while she was married to another man. Separated or not she was legally married to a man that DNA testing he and she says ruled him out. Again someone's word besides Albert's making a claim where no documented proof on their side has ever been given. Why has she supposedly hidden from everyone trying to speak to her? Why has she never given documented proof by an ultra sound report that her child was in fact born premature and conceived while in Monaco? Why has no one ever seen documented proof of medical records to show the child was not fully developed at birth? I believe I can answer those but won't.

Why has no one asked Tamara to give proof? Her words been accepted his isn't. There is a child in need of knowing the truth as to who her father is. Had I been the writer of those books and the web sites you can google before I ever stuck my neck out there I would have asked for her proof to support her claim. I am asking for proof and no one can tell me Tamara doesn't know about this site.

If a DNA test was conducted publicly it came back negative as I said before she would claim he fixed it. Her supporters would still be going strong. Just like postings I have found since the Alexandre story came out to say it was a front he really is gay. Part of being a good defense Attorney is to place doubt in the minds of the jury by blowing holes in the prosecutions case to make the verdict come back as not guilty.

Think about the fact if she never has to produce the documentation and he continues in the eyes of the world to appear to refuse DNA testing she is his victim and wouldn't she look like a true nut case and in much needed help of mental health treatment? She is safe until the day it is proven one way or the other or is she? I'm here and I support Albert I take what he said as a denial of paternity regarding that child. "
I don't know of any others that could be true," he said.

I could be wrong in all this however I have to present my case for the underdog I like long shots the pay off is higher at the race track.
 
Last edited:
Once again, very good points. I guess when I really think about it, it's nobody's business what he calls Alexandre, how often he sees him, and how his relationship with Nicole stands. The translation possiblity makes sense, also why has Tamara NOT shown any proof that Jazmin was premature is a very good question as well. If she really wanted to prove her case she could have done that easily. It all makes for a lot of conjecture, doesn't it?! I guess even though I know it's none of my business anyway, it's the old "enquiring minds want to know" Mrs. Kravitz thing! :)
 
dreed777 said:
Once again, very good points. I guess when I really think about it, it's nobody's business what he calls Alexandre, how often he sees him, and how his relationship with Nicole stands. The translation possiblity makes sense, also why has Tamara NOT shown any proof that Jazmin was premature is a very good question as well. If she really wanted to prove her case she could have done that easily. It all makes for a lot of conjecture, doesn't it?! I guess even though I know it's none of my business anyway, it's the old "enquiring minds want to know" Mrs. Kravitz thing! :)
She has never been challenged to prove her case before.
 
LadyMacAlpine said:
Again all that has ever been said is Tamara claims he is Jazmin's father and the DNA testing was never done. How does she know they never ran it after she supplied the samples? .... If a DNA test was conducted publicly it came back negative as I said before she would claim he fixed it. Her supporters would still be going strong...

LadyMac...The part I don't understand is this: "IF" a DNA test was done after Tamara supplied the samples, why wouldn't PA's lawyer/advisors go on and publicly admit that a DNA test had, in fact, been done years ago with a negative result? I would think they would want to plaster that fact all over the place, and use that as number one evidence that PA was not Jazmin's father. And if Tamara came back and claims the results were fixed and her supporters still kept it up...My feeling then would be, "so what"? She wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But at least in PA's defense, he could truthfully say the test WAS done, and the results were negative. I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and publicize the negative results, if he truthfully knows that Jazmin is not his. Maybe I'm just missing something...
 
mw7060a said:
LadyMac...The part I don't understand is this: "IF" a DNA test was done after Tamara supplied the samples, why wouldn't PA's lawyer/advisors go on and publicly admit that a DNA test had, in fact, been done years ago with a negative result? I would think they would want to plaster that fact all over the place, and use that as number one evidence that PA was not Jazmin's father. And if Tamara came back and claims the results were fixed and her supporters still kept it up...My feeling then would be, "so what"? She wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But at least in PA's defense, he could truthfully say the test WAS done, and the results were negative. I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and publicize the negative results, if he truthfully knows that Jazmin is not his. Maybe I'm just missing something...
No, you aren't I was making a statement for thought of a possibility. I don't know if a test was done. I know if I was Rainier I would want to know if the child was Albert's partly due to the fact how he or Albert look later if in fact the child was his if they had denied her all those years? Also think about the fact of what Rainier's own mother went through being rejected by her grandfather. I heard the stories about Rainier being somewhat harsh. But I don't think he was totally heartless. If he was he wouldn't have had 3 children who through everything do in fact have good hearts and seem to give more freely in ways then some other Royals. Their denial wouldn't have been for the reason Tarama is quoted as saying. Honestly there was no reason at all as now for the family Albert to have ever feared Jazmin being acknowledged as Albert's daughter or for that matter any child out there.
 
leahteresa said:
I know we could go around and around but I think Dreed really did hit in on the head. PA has not taken a DNA test because there is chance he's the father. Tamara seems to think so. These two facts alone are a pretty good case.

This is a great point. I must have missed it somehow when Dreed pointed this out. But........ right after you said, Lady Mac made an equally fine point, albeit one which raised a serious question in my mind. She pointed out that PA may have done a DNA test but kept it private. If he did this, then the test must have been positive and he is the father because why else would Tamara continue to say he is? If a test had been done and it was negative, she'd have to say she had been wrong, or she'd be lying. So either someone is lying, and it might actually be Albert who is lying, or there was never a DNA test, private or otherwise. Lying about it doesn't seem consistent with Albert's publicly-known character, but there may be other factors, unknown to us, which would induce him to lie.
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
I don't know about in europe, but in the US, a mother can have any name for her child on the birth certificate, and whatever is there, is legal.



I wasn't aware of this information.:eek: Thanks for answering the question, though.
 
Last edited:
sommone said:
I wasn't aware of this information.:eek: Thanks for answering the question, though.
They are correct about the last name what you aren't allowed to do is put a father's name on the certificate if not married unless he signs a paper giving permission or a court authorizes it.
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
This is a great point. I must have missed it somehow when Dreed pointed this out. But........ right after you said, Lady Mac made an equally fine point, albeit one which raised a serious question in my mind. She pointed out that PA may have done a DNA test but kept it private. If he did this, then the test must have been positive and he is the father because why else would Tamara continue to say he is? If a test had been done and it was negative, she'd have to say she had been wrong, or she'd be lying. So either someone is lying, and it might actually be Albert who is lying, or there was never a DNA test, private or otherwise. Lying about it doesn't seem consistent with Albert's publicly-known character, but there may be other factors, unknown to us, which would induce him to lie.

If PA had done a test, and it turned out negative, we would all know about it. Just like the Bea case. He is most certainly the father of Jazmin and I do not think he would have claimed Alexandre had NC had not done what she did or if he was not backed into a legal corner by the fact that she, unlike TR, is a french citizen. And she is protected by French law. The same law under which PA lives.

In additon both of these women were married when he had relationships with him and all equally responsible. It's no less wrong for a single person to engage with a married person than vice versa. This being so, he cannot claim any moral authority.

Gosh, I cannot imagine if the father of my child denied paternity, it's like calling a woman a whore. Like saying she doesnt know who the father is. After this happens, any woman is going to keep the heat on. And who can blame her? It's what, 13 years later, she hasn't let up, and he cannot definatively say. " I am not the father. And here's the test to prove it." He said
"I don't know of any others that could be true,"


This is a far cry from denial and is a statement that includes dubious and vague language. I really want to like PA. And on some levels I really do. He has, though not particularly attractive, a great smile. He really does. I also very much like his voice. What a great voice. But stuff like this just turns me off and leaves me perplexed.
 
I feel sorry for Jazmin. She's a preteen now and knows what is going on around her. I hope it is not screwing her up emotionally.
 
Wow, I want to like Albert to. And I do like him. And he does have a great smile. But I guess he is a victim of his inherited wealth and power, as much as any heir is. He has had rather too much of a great thing, too much money, too much power, and has never known anything different. I wrote a research paper about the "culture of inherited wealth" for my writing and research class last year, and I explored this very problem. It seems to me that Albert is like the victims that I studied in this paper. He does not have to suffer real consequences because he has enough power and money to cover his tracks and make him look good. He also has a good smile to accompany his "shrug it off" attitude. When you are born into those kinds of circumstances, it's very hard not to be selfish or self-centered. In a way, Albert does come across very childish. I don't think Rainier would be very proud of the Albert we saw in that interview. Rainier was a great man, a great prince, a great businessman. He would never have made the co-dependent statements that Albert made in that NY Times interview. Albert, I like you very much; that's why I come to this forum to talk about you and that's why I hope you learn to be strong in the way you were shown by your great father.
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
Wow, I want to like Albert to. And I do like him. And he does have a great smile. But I guess he is a victim of his inherited wealth and power, as much as any heir is. He has had rather too much of a great thing, too much money, too much power, and has never known anything different. I wrote a research paper about the "culture of inherited wealth" for my writing and research class last year, and I explored this very problem. It seems to me that Albert is like the victims that I studied in this paper. He does not have to suffer real consequences because he has enough power and money to cover his tracks and make him look good. He also has a good smile to accompany his "shrug it off" attitude. When you are born into those kinds of circumstances, it's very hard not to be selfish or self-centered. In a way, Albert does come across very childish. I don't think Rainier would be very proud of the Albert we saw in that interview. Rainier was a great man, a great prince, a great businessman. He would never have made the co-dependent statements that Albert made in that NY Times interview. Albert, I like you very much; that's why I come to this forum to talk about you and that's why I hope you learn to be strong in the way you were shown by your great father.

What you said makes sense. I'm not saying that Albert is spoiled, self-centered or selfish. I like him and the rest of the family a lot. I just recalled that Princess Grace tried very hard not to spoil Albert and Caroline (It was different with Stephanie, being a miracle baby, as her parents declared that she can have anything and everything she wants) because, as children born royal, they will always have this sense of entitlement and that she didn't want Albert and Caroline to think they can have anything they desire or do anything they want.
 
Last edited:
CasiraghiTrio said:
Wow, I want to like Albert to. And I do like him. And he does have a great smile. But I guess he is a victim of his inherited wealth and power, as much as any heir is. He has had rather too much of a great thing, too much money, too much power, and has never known anything different. I wrote a research paper about the "culture of inherited wealth" for my writing and research class last year, and I explored this very problem. It seems to me that Albert is like the victims that I studied in this paper. He does not have to suffer real consequences because he has enough power and money to cover his tracks and make him look good. He also has a good smile to accompany his "shrug it off" attitude. When you are born into those kinds of circumstances, it's very hard not to be selfish or self-centered. In a way, Albert does come across very childish. I don't think Rainier would be very proud of the Albert we saw in that interview. Rainier was a great man, a great prince, a great businessman. He would never have made the co-dependent statements that Albert made in that NY Times interview. Albert, I like you very much; that's why I come to this forum to talk about you and that's why I hope you learn to be strong in the way you were shown by your great father.

Your post I feel is completly true. This time all of the money and power couldn't protect him from Nicole's paternity suit and eventually it won't if Jazmin requests DNA. From what I can see this is the first time that Albert has had to accept responsibility for his actions and has done so extremely poorly. If Jazmin is his daughter then Tamara and Jazmin have suffered immensly for the last 13 years. I do think that the easiest way for the Grimaldi's to dispute the DNA claim was to avoid it by having it thrown out of court & so that's what they did, something that thier educated & high paid lawyers found easy enough to do. What was Tamara, a mere waitress and no competition for the Grimaldi's to do? All she could do, wait! I am only hoping that Albert has learned from his mistakes paternity wise with Nicole. Not all women will tolerate this behaviour.
 
leahteresa said:
If PA had done a test, and it turned out negative, we would all know about it. Just like the Bea case. He is most certainly the father of Jazmin and I do not think he would have claimed Alexandre had NC had not done what she did or if he was not backed into a legal corner by the fact that she, unlike TR, is a french citizen. And she is protected by French law. The same law under which PA lives.

In additon both of these women were married when he had relationships with him and all equally responsible. It's no less wrong for a single person to engage with a married person than vice versa. This being so, he cannot claim any moral authority.

Gosh, I cannot imagine if the father of my child denied paternity, it's like calling a woman a whore. Like saying she doesnt know who the father is. After this happens, any woman is going to keep the heat on. And who can blame her? It's what, 13 years later, she hasn't let up, and he cannot definatively say. " I am not the father. And here's the test to prove it." He said
"I don't know of any others that could be true,"


This is a far cry from denial and is a statement that includes dubious and vague language. I really want to like PA. And on some levels I really do. He has, though not particularly attractive, a great smile. He really does. I also very much like his voice. What a great voice. But stuff like this just turns me off and leaves me perplexed.
I will disagree with you in that Albert had already signed papers acknowledging paternity within a few weeks of birth. The request and Nicole agreed to it was they would not be filed until after his fathers death and the end of the mourning period. He had every intending of acknowledging Alexandre at the end of that period. Once the documents were signed it became a legally binding agreement which Nicole breached with her Paris March interview demanding what she had agreed to. Cut and dried he had acknowledged his son privately Nicole wanted the public to know due to Tamara's old claim and the press causing such a stink over it. I will say more later I have to run some errands not sure when I will get back to it.
 
In my opinion the idea that Prince Albert should submit himself to a DNA test every time a woman he had casual sex with claims she had his baby is ridiculous. The idea that he would have to make the test results public is even more ridiculous.
 
Princess BellyFlop said:
In my opinion the idea that Prince Albert should submit himself to a DNA test every time a woman he had casual sex with claims she had his baby is ridiculous. The idea that he would have to make the test results public is even more ridiculous.
I wasn't signed off yet and had to respond to your post. I adore your opinion and what I said a long time ago. If he did give up a sample each time he might as well stay in the lab chair and connected to an IV.

Attention KMart shoppers blue light special Albert II of Monaco DNA samples in isle 5. All wanting a chunk of the billion be orderly and form a single line.
 
Princess BellyFlop said:
In my opinion the idea that Prince Albert should submit himself to a DNA test every time a woman he had casual sex with claims she had his baby is ridiculous. The idea that he would have to make the test results public is even more ridiculous.

You are right there, but unfortunately sometimes for public figures the situation quickly becomes uncontrolled and then the cookie just crumbles that way.
 
Good one, Lady M! The more I think about the whole thing the more I decide that I am definitely undecided. :) Actually, the more I think about it, I realize it is just simply none of the public's business at all. I guess everything about being rich and famous is not so wonderful. (Meaning for example that energizer bunny that just isn't going away.)
 
I think it would be Monaco's/France's buisness if he had children inside or outside of marraige. I think if the people of Monaco accept & support thier reiging prince and if Albert wants thier support an explanation of some sort should be considered for the Monaco's public. The people look to Albert as an example.
 
I also think it's France's & Monaco's business if he has children outside of marriage because of all the legal problems it can cause for the family -- the issue of money and inheritance and who has access to it and who controls all of those assets. That is a huge issue -- maybe if Albert really is Jazmine's father (just speculation only) and the law in Monaco was only changed a few years ago to prevent illigitimate children from getting everything, wouldn't it then be possible that the girl would stand to gain a great deal more than mere acknowledgement and a nice stipend for life? She's a teen and when she was born, Monaco had different rules in place, and that was the case for most of her life, right?

I know they can change the law or find a loophole to do whatever they want, but for normal people, as far as I know, if the girl is his daughter (again, for speculation sake) and precedent apply, then it would be a giant issue. One that could in fact, at least for some people, be easier solved by denying it, not co-operating, using legal roadblocks, and so on. Certainly a huge mess could be averted with that type of strategy -- morality or not has nothing to do with it -- they have to protect the family fortune, and if TR needs to stay on the outside of the circle for them to do that, then that's what they will do -- sounds callous, but when lots of money is involved, sometimes it's like that.


Even though the issue of 'who will be the reigning prince' seems to be resolved with Alexandre -- one never can predict the future and sometimes what you do not plan for will occur -- life is strange likethat sometimes.
 
LadyMacAlpine said:
I will disagree with you in that Albert had already signed papers acknowledging paternity within a few weeks of birth. The request and Nicole agreed to it was they would not be filed until after his fathers death and the end of the mourning period. He had every intending of acknowledging Alexandre at the end of that period. Once the documents were signed it became a legally binding agreement which Nicole breached with her Paris March interview demanding what she had agreed to. Cut and dried he had acknowledged his son privately Nicole wanted the public to know due to Tamara's old claim and the press causing such a stink over it. I will say more later I have to run some errands not sure when I will get back to it.

True, very true, he did acknowledge Alex from the first, albeit privately. It's so sad, though, that he kept Alex a secret from his father! As much as his father loved grandchildren, I would think that Rainier would have embraced Alex with open arms, especially as Alex was born after the constitution was already amended and there was no danger of Alex having a claim to the throne. This is correct, I think.
:confused: The constitution was altered in 2002, and Alex was born in ?August 2003. Yes, I am sure Rainier would have loved meeting Alex because he loved all of his grandchildren immensely. Maybe Rainier didn't approve of Nicole though, and Albert kept it secret because he was ashamed. Or it could be that he didn't want to upset his father, who was in and out of the hospital in the last years. Whatever the case may be, it is sad that Rainier never met Alex.
 
CasiraghiTrio said:
True, very true, he did acknowledge Alex from the first, albeit privately. It's so sad, though, that he kept Alex a secret from his father! As much as his father loved grandchildren, I would think that Rainier would have embraced Alex with open arms, especially as Alex was born after the constitution was already amended and there was no danger of Alex having a claim to the throne. This is correct, I think.
:confused: The constitution was altered in 2002, and Alex was born in ?August 2003. Yes, I am sure Rainier would have loved meeting Alex because he loved all of his grandchildren immensely. Maybe Rainier didn't approve of Nicole though, and Albert kept it secret because he was ashamed. Or it could be that he didn't want to upset his father, who was in and out of the hospital in the last years. Whatever the case may be, it is sad that Rainier never met Alex.
Before the Constitution was changed in 2002 which had a lot to do with the 6 years in which Rainier was working to become a member of the Counsel of Europe to meet their requirements up to and including woman's rights by Monaco's laws that was posted in one of mine many months ago. NO child born outside of wedlock to ANY MEMEBER of the Grimaldi family past present of future had claims to the Throne of Monaco. I will repeat again and not meaning to sound rude or anything it just doesn't seem some are understanding the law and how it works. In order for any child born out of wedlock to become the Reigning Prince or Princess whatever the case might be the child had to be adopted by the Reigning Prince as was in the case of Prince Louis adopting his own biological daughter Charlotte who was Rainier's mother. Also when the parents of said illegitimate child or children marry as in the case of Princess Stephanie marrying Daniel their status changes to legitimate. Not until marriage takes place between the parents of said child or adoption was any child placed in line to inherit the Throne of Monaco. A good example again is Princess Stephanie who is a legitimate heir as her two oldest children her youngest is not since she did not marry the father. Adoption was not removed from the Constitution until 2002 at which time only direct and legitimate heirs can inherit it.

Before 2002 and now Jazmin Grace Grimaldi were she Albert's biological child only had a right to inherit half of his money nothing at all to do with the Principality is she or was she entitled to. If I recall correctly while Albert lives in the Palace I believe it is in actually the property of the Principality of Monaco. No spouse is entitled to the residence or its continence unless it is personal property brought into it after marriage. I believe that would also include any furnishings they purchased while in set residence provided they were not included in the prenuptial agreement to stay the property of the Palace.

The wife of Louis II tried to get something after his death related to the Palace I don't recall off hand what it was however she wasn't entitled to it even though it was in his will. Perhaps you could say when the President of the United States is in office for his term the White House is his residence however once its up he not longer has a right to its use or its furnishing outside of what he and his family brought into it they are the property of the Government.

What people in a way I don't think realize is when Princess Grace signed her prenuptial with Rainier she agreed if the marriage ended in divorce any and all children born to them would remain with Rainier as property of the people and government of Monaco. Made me think while we care for our children they aren't the property of a government unless you are the government. Sort of puts a new twist make the child legitimate so they can inherit the Throne of Monaco which my child is entitled to. You want them legitimate all right then the child comes to live in the Palace with me where they are entitled to live as my heir. Oh but sorry Mom you aren't entitled to live here with our child and I won't have you under the same roof I sleep so go find your own home. You can see the child on visitation days when I see fit. Cop and attitude with me and you will be thrown out of Monaco and not allowed back in. That's being a hard nosed jerk but one Albert could pull if he saw fit to do so once the child became legitimate and entitled to more then the half or his cash value. That isn't my opinion that how the law is.
 
Last edited:
I think he should adopt that stance with certain women anyway (my own opinion). Have someone pick up the child for regular visits, get a nanny to assist if he needs it, leave the stalker mother as far away from everything as possible (again, my opinion).:p

But it's a difficult position to be in, I don't envy him or them on it at all. And in the end, they will all survive quite well (some more than so than the others materially) and everyone will be fine.:) :) :D
 
Last edited:
Lillia said:
I think he should adopt that stance with certain women anyway (my own opinion). Have someone pick up the child for regular visits, get a nanny to assist if he needs it, leave the stalker mother as far away from everything as possible (again, my opinion).:p

But it's a difficult position to be in, I don't envy him or them on it at all. And in the end, they will all survive quite well (some more than so than the others materially) and everyone will be fine.:) :) :D
I am sure you are correct that all will survive.
 
LadyMacAlpine said:
I will disagree with you in that Albert had already signed papers acknowledging paternity within a few weeks of birth. The request and Nicole agreed to it was they would not be filed until after his fathers death and the end of the mourning period. He had every intending of acknowledging Alexandre at the end of that period. Once the documents were signed it became a legally binding agreement which Nicole breached with her Paris March interview demanding what she had agreed to. Cut and dried he had acknowledged his son privately Nicole wanted the public to know due to Tamara's old claim and the press causing such a stink over it. I will say more later I have to run some errands not sure when I will get back to it.

This is all true, I agree, but I do not think he ackowleged Alex because it was his "moral responsibility". He sleeps with married women. I think he acknowledged Alex because the French Law caught up with him. See, he can avoid the American court system but it's a bit harder to run when the woman calling you Daddy is governed by the same legal system. That's what I'm saying.

The title of the article is "....Confronts his Past" The name of this thread is "Albert denies fathering Jazmin" or something close. He did not confront anything. He said on TV, others "could" have similar claims, and in this article , I don't know of others that "could" be true. It's no where near a denial. It's a big lawyer could be or maybe could not be. I think he understands how bad it would be for him to start pulling up children out of wed lock. Talk about a image hit.

If he was not the father of Jazmin, he would do a DNA test and print a souvenier T-shirt with the results on it, maybe even hats, or coffee mugs. But he is, so he will not submit to anything. All in my opinion. :cool: Mahalo
 
leahteresa said:
This is all true, I agree, but I do not think he ackowleged Alex because it was his "moral responsibility". He sleeps with married women. I think he acknowledged Alex because the French Law caught up with him. See, he can avoid the American court system but it's a bit harder to run when the woman calling you Daddy is governed by the same legal system. That's what I'm saying.

The title of the article is "....Confronts his Past" The name of this thread is "Albert denies fathering Jazmin" or something close. He did not confront anything. He said on TV, others "could" have similar claims, and in this article , I don't know of others that "could" be true. It's no where near a denial. It's a big lawyer could be or maybe could not be. I think he understands how bad it would be for him to start pulling up children out of wed lock. Talk about a image hit.

If he was not the father of Jazmin, he would do a DNA test and print a souvenier T-shirt with the results on it, maybe even hats, or coffee mugs. But he is, so he will not submit to anything. All in my opinion. :cool: Mahalo
I don't believe Albert is the father and take his word of no other claims could be true. Tamara contacted his attorney again and he admitted it. If he in fact knew or had doubts do you honestly think at this point he wouldn't check it out? Or tell us? He is true to his word. Wants his Reign to be built on honesty and cleaning up Monaco's reputation for money laundering. His image is included in that and he is now talking about things he wouldn't before while his father was alive. Perhaps its because I can stand in his shoes so to speak to view his position and how difficult it was to have a father as he did. Not saying anything bad about his father. He didn't approve of Nicole she said that. Albert came back and told her they should just be friends apparently his attraction for her was stronger then his father saying break it off. That would make me tend to believe he might have taken the relationship to another level had it gone on with his fathers permission.
 
I think that's a much more appropiate stand to take. It's fine for you to take him at his word and I suspect some will. In my mind, his "word" is too ambigiuos. He chooses his word way too carefully. He did not deny Jazmin and will not come out and say it because he cannot afford to get caught lying. IMO
 
I am perfectly clear on the fact that Alex does not have a claim to the throne, but this fact is because of the 2002 constitutional changes. Prior to that, he would have had a claim, would he not? The only thing is, he was not born before then, so it's a non-issue, not even worth mentioning again. ;)
It is because of 2002's changes that Alex is not, and will never be, an heir to the throne of Monaco, as Albert so plainly stated in that NY Times interview.
What I did not know, however, is that if Nicole married albert, Alex would become legitimate. I forgot that Steph's two eldest were born before she married Daniel and didn't know that they were legitimized only when she married him. Wasn't Daniel her bodyguard when they fell in love? lol, I know that's way off topic. sorry!
Thank you, as always for the education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom