King Carol II (1893-1953), Queen Mother Helen (1896-1982), Wives and Descendants

[Benjamin]

The verdict is ridiculous.

Eurohistory: Trouble in House Romania!

Royal Musings: Official Statement from King Michael

 

[Cory]

The verdict has nothing to do with the membership of the Royal House.
This trial is a part of the antiroyalist campaign of the republicans.

 

[Warren]

The response by the Romanian Royal Family in full
Familia Regala - Comunicate si mesaje

Elisabeta Palace, 14 February 2012

With regard to the decision pronounced on 14th February 2012 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice - civil section, concerning the request addressed to the court for recognition of the Lisbon ruling on the descendance of Mircea Grigore Lambrino from King Carol II, The Romanian Royal House declares that:

This decision doesn’t create any dynastic rights, nor do they establish the belonging of the above-named person, currently deceased, to the Royal Family. This applies also to his descendants, whomever they may be.

In his position as Head of the Romanian Royal Family, His Majesty King Michael I is the only one who can pronounce himself on dynastic issues.

Furthermore, according to the provisions of the Fundamental Rules of the Romanian Royal Family, the members of the Royal Family are:

- His Majesty King Michael of Romania
- Her Majesty Queen Anne of Romania
- HRH The Crown Princess Margarita of Romania
- HRH Prince Radu of Romania
- HRH Princess Helen of Romania
- HRH Princess Irina of Romania
- HRH Princess Sophie of Romania
- HRH Princess Marie of Romania
- HRH Prince Nicholas of Romania

Neither His Majesty King Michael I, nor the former Heads of the Romanian Royal Family, King Ferdinand I and King Carol II, have ever recognised or granted any title to Mircea Grigore Lambrino or to his descendants.

The use in any context, whether public or private, of the title of Prince of Romania, or the style of Royal Highness remains the exclusive prerogative/privilege of the above mentioned members of the Royal Family.

Official statement, free of copyright

 

[Cory]

Paul Lambrino will surely ask now for the goods of Carol II.But he never speaks about his brother, Ion George Nicholas Alexander.

 

[MAfan]

And what are these goods? If I don't mistake, his father in the 1950s had already received his shares of the inheritance of King Carol; what else goods could he claim?

 

[Lenora]

Paul Lambrino will surely ask now for the goods of Carol II.But he never speaks about his brother, Ion George Nicholas Alexander.

Why? Do they have different mothers, being only half-brothers?
What was the nationality of Paul's mother?

 

[Cory]

There are different goods in Romania includind Scrovistea Castle.
Paul was the son of Grigore mircea Lambrino and Helene Negavitzine while Ion George Nicholas Alexander was the son of Grigore Mircea Lambrino and Thelma Jeanne Williams.

Scrovistea Castle belong to the state. The inheritance must take into account also Ion George Nicholas alexander Hohenzollern, Paul Lambrino's brother.

Alexander Hohenzollern has the same rights to the inheritance as Paul Lambrino.

Alexander Hohenzollern did not say anything about this trial or about the inheritance.

 

[Grandduchess24]

Were HM king Michael I and his late brother carol lambrino on good terms despite the throne between them? And is there a story of how carol II's wife felt on her husband having a lover and how did Queen Marie feel?zizi lambrino isn't it?

 

[MAfan]

There are different goods in Romania includind Scrovistea Castle.

And who owns now Scrovistea? The Romanian State, or is it one of the properties returned to King Michael?

 

[Benjamin]

Paul Lambrino has specifically stated that he wants Peles Castle. Which is too bad for him, because Peles never belonged to Carol II. It was willed directly to King Michael by King Ferdinand.

Royal Musings: Restitution of Peles will be difficult

Royal Musings: Romanian op-ed: Why Paul Lambrino will never lead the Royal House of Romania and is not even a prince

Royal Musings: Best line ever about Lia Triff Lambrino

Per Adrian Vasiliu, lawyer for the Royal House, the only properties that Lambrino may be able to claim as an heir to the estate of King Carol II are Lăpuşna Castle, a few buildings, and some land in Ilfov County.
.

King Michael would also technically be entitled to 50% of the above, but Mr Vasiliu states that His Majesty has no intention of seeking restitution.

Prin

 

[Warren]

.
Lăpuşna Castle
(actually a hunting lodge)

Image courtesy of Wikipedia reproduced under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

 

[MAfan]

And also of King Michael, of the descendants of Carol II's widow and of Mircea's widow. I suppose that this means that, if he is successful in claiming the properties back and taking into account also all the other possible inheritors, Paul would get only a small share of the asset (14% of the asset, if my calculations are correct).

 

[Benjamin]

The late Antonia Hohenzollern, widow of Mircea, had an only daughter, Emma Louise Ropner, from her first marriage. It is not clear whether Ms Ropner is interested in any of this...very likely she is not.

Elena Lupescu had no children, and, when she died in Portugal, she left everything to Monique Urdărianu (who was an employee, I believe). I have no idea if Urdărianu is even alive still, and she has not been mentioned at all in any of this.

As to Alexander Hohenzollern, from what I have read, he and Paul do not have a close relationship. Alexander lives in the United States, and I believe the only time the half-brothers met was at their father's funeral in 2006.

 

[MAfan]

His right to the inheritance is undisputed; the point is, is he interested in inheriting?

 

[Artemisia]

Gift from Romanian king was locked away for 35 years because jewels were not to owner's taste

This pair of pearl earrings were considered too garish for their owner so she locked them in a drawer and they sat there for 35 years. But now the true story behind the pearl earrings has been revealed and they are now set to sell at auction for more than £500,000.
The jewels had been a gift from an exiled Romanian King to his mistress, who left them to a British woman friend in Wiltshire upon her death in 1977.
The earrings measure about half-an-inch in length and the marble-sized pearls dangle from a row of diamonds. King Carol II of Romania, the great-grandson of Queen Victoria, bought them for his mistress Elena Lupescu during one of their trips around Europe.
The playboy King ascended to the throne in 1930 but abdicated 10 years later after forming a relationship with Miss Lupescu and moving to Portugal where they married.

Not sure how this breathtaking earrings could ever be considered "garish": they are very subtle and elegant, and the pearls are just magnificent!

 

[TomBert]

What sort of profile does Mr Paul Hohenzollern have in Romania? Does anyone take him seriously? I'm afraid he has always struck me as a bit of a joke. But I would hate to see him causing trouble for Princess Margarita when she eventually succeeds her father.

 

[GrandmasterSWKM]

Prince Paul has done a lot more than you may think in Romania; not just music, but many other functions. He has helped the Roma and Sirti at the EC commission on Human Rights, and now a regulation from the EC is in place for all Roma and Sirti in Europe, not just Romania. Maybe he is too quiet about his functions, but it is certainly evident to Vivian Reding [EC-Justice] in Brussels.

 

[TomBert]

I'm pleased to hear that he has supported some good causes. But he is not a prince.

 

[NGalitzine]

But he is not a prince.

Nor is he a member of the Roumanian Royal Family.

 

[TomBert]

Yes, can you imagine the expression on King Michael's face if his half-nephew turned up at Elisabeta Palace for a family gathering? Though, I must admit I do find Mrs Hohenzollern fascinating in a freakish sort of way (where did she get that baby from?) I know I would never let him through the gates, after some his horrible comments about King Michael.

 

[Cory]

There is no Prince with such a name (Paul) in the Royal House of Romania.
The Members of the Royal Family are: HM the King, HM the Queen, HRH the Crown Princess, HRH Prince Radu, HRH Princess Elena, HRH Prince Nicolae, HRH Princess Irina, HRH Princess Sofia and HRH Princess Maria.

 

[Cory]

Why a new book about the Romanian Royal Family and the German Hohenzollerns and the non-dinastyc descendants of Carol II? Which is the real purpose of this book?

Official Website of The Hohenzollern Case File

 

[USCtrojan]

Zizi Lambrino's grandson, Paul, presents himself as "Prince of Romania" and has a very different point of view from his father (who died few years ago but never proclaimed himself as "Prince of Romania") and from his half-brother.The Romanian Royal Family does not recognize any titles for the descendants of Zizi Lambrino.

Strangely Paul obtained the identity card and the romanian passport where it is written "Paul of Romania".Obviously some romanian authorities are still quite against the Romanian Royal Family.

Now Paul has a child whose godfather is the romanian president Basescu:

Traian şi Maria Băsescu l-au botezat pe Carol Ferdinand de România - VEZI VIDEO | REALITATEA .NET

Carol Ferdinand de Romania, botezat! Traian Basescu i-a fost nas! VIDEO!

Here are some pictures from de christening:

Băsescu l-a adus la botez cu Dusterul pe finul său, fiul Prinţului Paul - GALERIE FOTO - Mediafax

The Romanian Royal Family and the romanian royalists simply ignored the "event".

Do these men call themselves "princes of Romania" because they are the only males close to the throne who are Hohenzollern? Being that HM has no sons, I am guessing they are assuming the head of the house is officially there's upon his passing?


I am guess also that these men do not realize nor do they respect HM decree that allowed women succession rights and gave Nicolae the title HRH, prince of Romania?


I do have a question regarding Elisabeta-Karina... Is she in line for the throne? I notice that she was not given the title HRH, Princess of Romania, and does not go by that or is addressed by such... Can someone explain why she was not included in the decree that gave Nicolae a title and succession rights?


Is she not a princess?

 

[Ish]

Do these men call themselves "princes of Romania" because they are the only males close to the throne who are Hohenzollern? Being that HM has no sons, I am guessing they are assuming the head of the house is officially there's upon his passing?

I am guess also that these men do not realize nor do they respect HM decree that allowed women succession rights and gave Nicolae the title HRH, prince of Romania?

I do have a question regarding Elisabeta-Karina... Is she in line for the throne? I notice that she was not given the title HRH, Princess of Romania, and does not go by that or is addressed by such... Can someone explain why she was not included in the decree that gave Nicolae a title and succession rights?

Is she not a princess?

I believe the argument here isn't so much that they believe they're the heirs to Michael, but rather that they believe they're the rightful heirs to Carol II.

Carol had two sons, Carol Lambrino and Michael I. Carol Jr was born from Carol Sr's first marriage, which was later annulled, while Michael was born from Carol Sr's second marriage. As such, Carol Jr is older than Michael. However, his legitimacy wasn't established until 1955 (in Portugal and 1995 in Romania) - after Michael had already been established as king. Carol Jr never claimed to be the rightful heir of Carol Sr, but his son, Paul, has claimed as much.

Basically, Paul's claim is that because his father was born first, and legitimately as confirmed by the courts of Romania, and he himself is the eldest son of his father, then he is the head of the house and the rightful claimant to the throne. However, in a way Michael's claim is stronger - when Carol Sr abdicated in 1925 it was in favour of his younger son, Michael, establishing him as the heir. Then, when Carol Sr was overthrown in 1940 it was Michael who was put on the throne and crowned. Thus, Michael ruled (in as much as he ruled at all) by conquest, nullifying the actual order of succession. As such, Paul's claim to the Romanian throne becomes rather similar to Charles Stuart's claim to the British throne in the 18th century - yes, he has the better claim in terms of primogeniture, but the ruling party (in as much as there is one) does so by right of conquest, nullifying the better claim.

This is going to become even more of a problem when Michael dies, as he doesn't have a male heir and the Romanian throne requires a male heir. While he can say that he's changed the rules of succession to allow for inheritance by his daughter all he wants, it's not entirely supported legally (owing to the lack of a throne). He might have been better of naming his grandson as his heir, but even then there's still the issue of Paul and his legitimate, male-line descent.

 

[USCtrojan]

I guess the idea of a restoration will likely never happen at this point... This is for sure going to cause issues in the long run after the kings passing -statute or not. If only parliament would accept the statute and change -no one ever said that HM had to officially be head of state for them to do that.
.

 

[Ish]

I guess the idea of a restoration will likely never happen at this point... This is for sure going to cause issues in the long run after the kings passing -statute or not. If only parliament would accept the statute and change -no one ever said that HM had to officially be head of state for them to do that.

I believe Michael is active in trying to have the monarchy restored, while Paul isn't (which makes Paul's claim rather defunct in terms of the actual monarchy; there's issues regarding other inheritances that I think are more pressing to him). It doesn't seem like there's a large amount of support for a restoration within Romania, making it rather moot who the head of house is.

Because Paul isn't clamouring for a restoration and Michael is universally recognized as king, it almost seems more likely that someone descended from Michael will be made monarch in the event of a future restoration (if Michael himself is no longer alive). I think as Michael's eldest daughter doesn't have any children, but his second daughter does have a son then the whatever future of the Romanian monarchy there is lies in there.

 

[Cory]

The descendants of Zizi Lambrino are not members of the Royal Family and the have never received any titles.

 

[MAfan]

Basically, Paul's claim is that because his father was born first, and legitimately as confirmed by the courts of Romania, and he himself is the eldest son of his father, then he is the head of the house and the rightful claimant to the throne. However, in a way Michael's claim is stronger - when Carol Sr abdicated in 1925 it was in favour of his younger son, Michael, establishing him as the heir. Then, when Carol Sr was overthrown in 1940 it was Michael who was put on the throne and crowned. Thus, Michael ruled (in as much as he ruled at all) by conquest, nullifying the actual order of succession. As such, Paul's claim to the Romanian throne becomes rather similar to Charles Stuart's claim to the British throne in the 18th century - yes, he has the better claim in terms of primogeniture, but the ruling party (in as much as there is one) does so by right of conquest, nullifying the better claim.

There is also one more point. The Courts in Portugal, France and Romania has declared that Carol II and Zizi Lambrino's marriage was fully legal and thus their son Carol Mircea was indeed their legitimate son. On this ground Carol Mircea has been authorized to change his surname from Lambrino to Hohenzollern and was able to inherit a share of Carol II's estate (equal to King Michael's share, as both them were his legitimate sons).
However the marriage of Carol II and Zizi Lambrino, although legal, wasn't recognized as dynastically valid by King Ferdinand and Carol Mircea was never recognized as a member of the Romanian Royal Family. Even Carol II never made any attempt to get or make an acknowledgement of Carol Mircea as a meber of the Royal Family, nor Carol Mircea ever made any claim to the Throne or to the status of Romanian Prince.
Only Carol Mircea's eldest son, Paul, has in the last years claimed that his father legally was a Prince of Romania on the grounds that his father was the legitimate eldest son of King Carol II; but although Carol Mircea was indeed the legitimate eldest son of Carol II, he has never been his dynasti heir nor a member of the Romanian Royal Family.

 

[Ish]

But in discussing restorations the dynast heir is not necessarily the heir that gets put into a restored throne. Instead, it's the heir that best fits the needs and desires of the government putting him or her on the throne.

Look at France in the 19th century. In 1814 the British put Louis XVIII on the French throne, then in 1848 the French put Louis-Philippe on the throne, then in 1852 they put Napoleon III on it. Each man had a different claim and was from a different house - Bourbon, Orleans, Bonaparte - and each had a different appeal to the individuals who put that man on the throne.

The same can be said with a hypothetical restoration in Romania. Right now the clear contender would be Michael, as he's the last king, however once he dies there won't be a clear contender and the person who would be restored would be the one that the Romanian government doing the restoring felt is best suited for the job - be it someone descended from Michael, Paul (or another Lambrino), or someone descended from an earlier Romanian king.

 

[branchg]

I don't see how Paul can possibly claim any right to the Romanian throne. While his father was legally recognized as a legitimate heir of Carol II, the marriage was non-dynastic by order of the reigning King.