Christianity does not forbid to admonish the sinners - vide: Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 18.
Christianity does not forbid to admonish the sinners - vide: Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 18.
I was referring to Forum members "admonishing" the King for his alleged implacability in relation to Nicolas.
Indeed, but King Mihail or people close to him could have said "you are a sinner and I disapprove the way you behaved but you are still your grandfather's grandson and you are welcome to pay a last visit before he passes away".
Indeed, but King Mihail or people close to him could have said "you are a sinner and I disapprove the way you behaved but you are still your grandfather's grandson and you are welcome to pay a last visit before he passes away".
I personally believe that the last wishes of a person should be followed to the letter no matter what or who disagrees. The dying individual is the only important human at that specific time. If anyone, no matter who, gets upset or causes a scene because they feel their wants are more important, tough. They will just have to get over it properly or make a fool of themselves which does no one any good. If a person never wanted to see another individual ever again for whatever reason that is it and it is the immediate family to make sure his/her final wishes are followed to the letter even if they disagree. No one should ever reverse a dying individual's wishes especially when these wishes were made known many months prior and never wanted them changed. It is his/her last wish on this earth and should be honored.
I do agree that the last wishes of a person are very important
I do agree that the last wishes of a person are very important. But I don't see how a grandson rejected by his grandfather and his family can make fool of himself when he bears the suffering of not being able to see a love one for the last time and express it. And when the last wish of a dying individual is due to bring more suffering than good on the earth, I am not sure it should honored whatever the price. A last wish can be evil, even when being a last wish. Not to speak about a mother who is undignified enough to spit publicly on her own son.
...
H.S.H Prince Albert reigns over Monaco without anyone making a fuss over his having 2 illegitimate children born prior to his marriage and subsequent heirs being born..
eager to discredit the royal house (and/or certain members).
By acting like this Elena might cause that she will never see her grandchildren Nicholas and Alina hopefully will have.
Well I am not perfect myself but I don't think it was judging on my part, just reminding one of the strongest belief in Catholisism.... to forgive the people who have offended you, especially at the end of your life....As a Christian, do you interpret "judge not that ye be not judged" to be an exhortation for Christians to "wonder" about their own souls rather than speculating about what's in the soul of others?
King Michael would have been a wonderful constitutional monarch.
He had the company of his mother, the Queen Mother Elena, during his darkest moments during the 1940s. Then the king was blessed to be joined with Queen Anne as his spouse right after he was forced to leave his country. Like many individuals, he flourished when he is given the support that is needed, because at his core he is a "good" person.
Sadly, due to the rigours of exile, the king and queen were caught up in the Moral Re-Armament Movement in the 1950s. This organisation, which Glenn Close also experienced due to her family's involvement, has been likened to a cult. It obviously had an effect on the upbringing of the five princesses.
In a way, the Romanian royal family were not ready to face the explosion of publicity and exposure that followed the 1989 Revolution. King Michael had a formidable aid in Queen Anne, but, by and large, the daughters did not have the same good fortune in finding supportive and well-intentioned consorts. The fruits of this are what is now being witnessed.
PS - As to the news outlet, Adevârul has been around since 1871...it now has a circulation of between 30k-50k persons.
Andrew, you're not the only person to hold these suspicions, I've read other's opinions on other Royal Boards and forums. I've read some persons who suspect Nicholas' "downfall", being stripped of his title, and being banished from the Royal Family are due to the actions of a certain individual who is not the King or any of his daughters, shall we say. It's also distressing that Nicholas' own mother has joined the family in disowning him and banishment, so to say.
The actions of the Royal Family in the last couple of years have certainly not helped their image and have given anti-Monarchists ammunition to press for their cause.
Nicholas seems very attached to his royal title and position. I hope that's not the main reason why he wanted to see or speak to the King in his last moments.
I certainly do not believe he was 'confused' as to why the King stripped him of his title. It sounds like everyone, in or out of the family, knew about the paternity thing. If he really wants to be back 'in favour' so desperately, then deal with the problem as the head of the family wishes, or forget about being the heir to a deposed King and get a normal job and move on with his life as a private citizen like everyone else.