The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Royal Family of Greece (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f77/)
-   -   The Monarchy in Greece (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f77/the-monarchy-in-greece-834.html)

Fireweaver 09-22-2003 03:40 AM

The Monarchy in Greece
 
Having come late into the wonderful world of royalty, I can't help but be saddened every time I hear about a monarchy being abolished. I so hope that in my lifetime I hear of either King Constantine or one of his decendants regaining the throne they lost.

Alexandra 09-22-2003 03:14 PM

Oh, that I hope, too. But I think, it is only a romantic hope. But as the situation is what it is in Greece, they probably never will get the throne. Anyway, I hope they will some day. :P

:Jay: 09-22-2003 05:24 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if they did. It seems as though the euro has put a quite a few Greeks into debt, which they managed to avoid before. The 3 countries in the EU but outside of the euro and doing ok are Denmark, Sweden and the UK. All constitutional monarchies. It's possible, it could also be for the better if KC and his descendants learn from past mistakes.

Sitadevi 09-23-2003 09:32 PM

Learning from past mistakes is what life is about, you are right. If the people
want him back that is good, if not, well, Greece is such a rich nation and there
is the glorious museum collections of Macedonia monarchy from long time ago.
I was there this summer and enjoyed the walks on the beach, the food, I was
at Mykonos and did everything. Athens has everything bristling now-people
walking with all sorts of things and it reminded me of home.

Catharine 09-28-2003 07:40 AM

The chance of King Connie getting his throne back...is slim to none. But, this is a wait and see approach. I just hope Connie has his luggage pack...if the circumstances change in the near distant future!!!!! :innocent:

USCtrojan 09-28-2003 11:45 PM

I am with Catherine on this one. However I dont see Connie really ever getting it back in the back of my mind. With MC at his side, I dont see Pavlos ever getting it back...

Splodger 11-09-2003 12:25 PM

Most Greeks I have spoken to on the subject desperately want the King to return, all be it in a modern constitutional fashion. At the moment its a long way off, however it must be a very real concern for the Greek Government. They do all they can to hush any visit he makes to the country, and are so afraid of his return that they would rather pay him off with all those millions of Euro's than allow him to have his property back.

Constantine has been told he can go home if he abandons the title of king and adopts a surname. However his reluctance to do this is clear in that it doesn’t matter if he called himself Joe Bloggs, he is still the man who would be king and that there is more to being Greek than ones surname. In fact it says something at the lack of liberty and democracy in Greece if the Government will not tolerate an opposition to the regime. What is the worst that could happen... the people might vote in favour of a Monarchist Party at the next elections???

I can totally sympathise with Fireweaver on the sadness of royal downfalls. The story of the Kings exile is very much a result of the major problem with republicanism, in that he was betrayed by people who were more concerned with their own political careers than either loyalty or what was best Greece. Too many people assume that monarchies are just medieval autocracies, when no one is suggesting this is how Constantine would like to return. The fact that the King went into exile to prevent a blood shed of a civil war speaks volumes. A Modern Constitutional Monarchy with a King who cares about the people and not how long he can remain in public office can only be positive. Following the success of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia will be an insight for the Greeks on how no one looses when someones objectives are to promote the country and not them selves.

Sorry for LONG post there, it’s one of my passions.

hrhcp 11-09-2003 01:15 PM

Its too bad that power tripping is so divisive. In a modern monarchy, there is a recognition that the exercise of power for longterm stability should be a muted expression.

I would like to know what circumstances exactly brought about the downfall of the current ex-king.

It seems that the first king (of Danish origin) knew his leadership was of a tenuous nature, and went to great lengths to learn about his new country, and had an outstandingly successful result. His reign seems to have run into problems, because he was shot. Why ?

Quote:

dr.dk/aroyalfamily/resume5.html Part 5
Shaky Thrones

The great powers [of Europe] were on the look-out for a new king of Greece.

Having attended his elder sister Alexandra's wedding in England, 17 year old Prince Vilhelm was back at home in Denmark and about to have lunch when he glanced at the newspaper his packed lunch of sardines had been wrapped in.

To his confusion he read that he had been proclaimed as the next king of Greece. A few months later he arrived in Athens as King George I of Greece.

To pacify the troubled Greeks, who had had a king thrust upon them, Queen Victoria [of England] gave Greece the Ionian Islands by way of a dowry.  This mollified them considerably, because they had considerable ambitions to expand their frontiers.

On his arrival in Athens George I decided to move into a couple of rooms in one corner of the vast royal palace in Athens.

He knew his throne was fragile and spent the first couple of years traveling the country and getting to know his subjects. Soon he could read and write fluent Greek.  He captured the Greeks' hearts by storm and demonstrated considerable reluctance to uniforms, preferring to appear in civilian clothes. His courtiers were often more resplendently attired, and as a result Greek peasants often mistook the liveried coachman for the king, quite overlooking George I.

George I knew that the future of Greece would depend on his own relations to the great powers.  In 1867 he married sixteen year old Grand Duchess Olga in Russia, and when the newly-weds arrived in Greece the new queen brought with her a trunk load of dolls.  But soon after her arrival her childhood was packed away for good, because Queen Olga proved to be an eager collaborator with her husband when it came to improving social conditions in the country.

They had seven children, and the line of their eldest son, Constantine (I) spread the family across Southern Europe to ... Spain.

In 1913 George I was murdered in the street in Salonika.  He had been king for fifty years. For the next fifty years Constantine and his three sons took turns to rule the country and live in exile.

The youngest son, King Paul, fathered King Constantine II and Queen Sophia of Spain.


Splodger 11-10-2003 09:30 PM

In Answer to "King Christians" Question...

To understand eventual abolishment of the Greek Monarchy and the factors that influenced its downfall, I have attempted to outline the main events on the lead up to the excile of King Constantine II and an analysis of the factors that lead to the result of the 1974 referendum that officially deposed the Monarchy.

King Constantine II acceded to the throne aged 24 upon the death of his farther King Paul (Pavlos) in March 1964. In the September he married with great popularity, Princess Anne-Marie of Denmark. King Constantine’s reign started off well, and was known as a man who mingled with the crowds and was a Peoples King, however true to history their happy reign was doomed to be short.

In mid 1965, King Constantine was forced to demand the resignation of the left wing and anti monarchist Prime Minister George Papandreou, after it became apparent that he and his son Andreas had connections in organising a secret left wing cell in the army. A series of weak governments came and went over the next year and new elections were scheduled for May 1967. Meanwhile tensions were rising as Greece was brought to the brink of war with Turkey due to further disputes over Cyprus, and a fear of Communism was spreading down from Greece’s neighbouring soviet satellite Balkan countries.

Before the elections could be held in the May of 1967, a Military coup d’etat was staged on the 21st April, claiming that a Communist takeover of Greece was imminent. All members of the civilian government and the King were placed under arrest by the military junta known as the Colonels Coup. The King refused to co-operate with the military regime and in December 1967 he attempted a counter coup with a small number of loyalist forces. However King Constantine realised it was a futile attempt and called off the coup before hurriedly fleeing Greece into exile declaring that “my throne is not worth the price of Greek blood.”

In exile Constantine refused several requests to return, declaring he would only return to perform his constitutional responsibilities and not play a puppet to an illegal government. However, sadly he was unable to effectively put across his resistance to the Government, across to the Greek people who now believed he had deserted them. When the Military regime finally ended and a referendum was held as to whether to restore the monarchy it was unsurprisingly pro republican in out come.

Unable to communicate with his people in the April of 1967, due to his arrest and the militaries control over the national broadcasting stations, the King had no way of publicly condemning the military takeover. The King asked to appear in a photograph with the leaders of the coup (the photo is posted on another section of this site) in which he adopted a stern expression which he hoped would be recognised by his people, in contrast to his usual jovial expressions, that he was not in support of the new government. Unfortunately his subtle message was lost and combined with the Militaries propaganda the people believed he had sold out on them and democracy.

The Kings mother, the dowager Queen Frederica has also been attributed as a handicap to the young King. She had the misfortune (as far as Greek relations were concerned) to be German by birth, and there was considerable resentment towards Germany after the War. She was a proud woman who genuinely loved her adopted country, however her good intentions were often ill advised and her miss placed influences were considered to be unwanted medalling. She was certainly a woman of presence and appearance; however claims she was there for the lifestyle are inaccurate. For a Dowager Queen she had a simple existence and refused the annual allowance allotted to her by the Government upon the death of her husband. However as some people are popular, she lacked the magnetism of her daughter Anne-Marie and simply was not a Queen of Hearts. Her unpopularity was used by republicanisms to remind the people, unnecessarily, of her presence in pre-coup Greece, by producing quite now famous posters of her with her arms open wide saying “I'm coming Back.” The post Coup Premier Karamanlis is to have said he had nothing against Constantine other than he was Frederica’s son.

The final hindrances to the King were that he was a young King with little preparation and little support from Governments who were not necessarily interested in supporting him for the good of Greece. The Military take over is an event that given the reason for the coup, would have been a problem to either a King or President at the time. However it is the use of propaganda that was used effectively by the Militarian Republic and the successive civilian governments to use situations to their advantage that ultimately did the greatest damage to the Monarchy. His final mistake was not to return to Greece upon the dissolvent of the military regime. He was advised by a former Prime Minister Karamanlis, whom shared no love for the monarchy, to wait to be summoned by the people. Karamanlis later accepted the appointment of President.

It is interesting to note that King Constantine has refrained from directly criticising the Greek Governments in most cases, but aloud those willing to read between the lines. In evidence of the current government’s manipulation of events, it is unsurprising to find that Greeks would be unfavourable towards their former King when they have just given him 13million Euros from their taxes. However the King had not sought this money, he wanted the Private Property of the palace at Tatoi returned to him which the European Court of Human Rights acknowledged was wrongfully confiscated by the Greek Government. The Greek Government chose to compensate Constantine financially as opposed to return the property to him. Not so publicly known in Greece is that the money Constantine was awarded as compensation, he has used to establish the Anna-Maria foundation for the benefit of Greek Nationals as an independent charitable organisation.

If anyone has any other views upon the subject, whether they are pro monarchy of pro republican, if they are objective and not subjective gossip, I would be interested to know them.

Alexandria 11-10-2003 10:19 PM

Thank you for this very helpful and concise summary, Splodger.

Some questions that you or others may be able to answer for me:

Quote:

... called off the coup before hurriedly fleeing Greece into exile declaring that “my throne is not worth the price of Greek blood.”
This seems like a very noble comment and gesture: to declare that being the King was not as important the loss of (Greek) lives. Did this endear the Greeks to the King anymore? Especially in light of the fact that he was earlier referred to as the "People's King." And was this message lost when it was time for the Greeks to vote on whether or not they wanted their royal family back? Or had the regime in power at the time "brainwashed" (so to speak) the Greek people to believe that the King had deserted them and squashed any reports of his desire to come back, etc.?

Quote:

The final hindrances to the King were that he was a young King with little preparation and little support from Governments who were not necessarily interested in supporting him for the good of Greece.
Why did no one want to or were not willing to help the King "learn the ropes" so to speak? I imagine that the King must have prepared in some minor way for his role as the future king. For example, look at the military training the present CPs have gone through (even if it is symbolic); did the King as a CP not receive any of this training? And I can't imagine that there wasn't even one individual who was willing to give the King the "heads up" on the current political or military situation at the time so that he could seek the aid of more trust-worthy individuals. He may not have been able to "conquer" the opposing side even with this assistance, but he could've stood a bit of a chance.

Quote:

It is interesting to note that King Constantine has refrained from directly criticising the Greek Governments in most cases, but aloud those willing to read between the lines.
Do you think it would be better if the King went public with his opinions and criticisms of the government instead of hinting for others to read between the lines? For the King to take a stand because he doesn't have much to lose - he has already been in exhile for several decades now and it seems like the present Greek government (and by extension its people) don't want the King back? Do you think the Greek people might accept say Pavlos or Nikolaos as king, bypassing Constantine for one of his sons?

Lots of loaded questions, I know, but an interesting topic!

Sean.~ 11-11-2003 02:55 AM

Quote:

In mid 1965, King Constantine was forced to demand the resignation of the left wing and anti monarchist Prime Minister George Papandreou, after it became apparent that he and his son Andreas had connections in organising a secret left wing cell in the army.
And why was he anti-monarchist, pray tell? Could it have anything to do with the incompetence of the King and the entire monarchial system <snort>? If one were to compare and contrast the economics and politics of Greece from the time of the monarchy (from Constantine I to Constantine II) to today, it will be obvious that that form of government was a failure.

You should also note that not all lefitst governments and parties are evil (which is what it seems you were insinuating) In fact, if it were not for them we wouldn&#39;t enjoy many of the social benefits that we enjoy today.

Quote:

If anyone has any other views upon the subject, whether they are pro monarchy of pro republican, if they are objective and not subjective gossip, I would be interested to know them.
My views are not "subjective gossip", thank you very much. I have stated widely known facts by those who have backgrounds in economics and global politics (which I do), within the Greek community, and by those who have been close to members of the former royal family. Indeed, I could say that you and others view the Glucksburgs with rose coloured glasses. For anyone who is interested in a *truly* objective analysis, I would suggest visiting your local public library and going through the history and government sections (most central libraries will have newspaper clips from the period as well).

In any event, this is all I will say on the matter for now. I shall write a more detailed, *objective* reply based on facts (and not rose-coloured, devotee glasses) when I have more time over the next week. Oh, and also, I would like to point out that I am not not a republican. I&#39;m just not so blinded by the glamour of royalty that I can&#39;t see the failings of the monarchial system (any monarchy).

Finally, only a small portion of the tax money he took from the Greek people went to the so called charitable fund. Which, IMO, was more self-serving than anything.

cuervo 11-11-2003 05:44 AM

You all follow,wrong way of thinking&#33;&#33;King Christian only made a good question&#33;George I of Greece was perfect,but what happened after he was shot???

I &#39;ll answer now&#33; Country&#39;s (greece) history was always of three conditions&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;Pre-war,WAR,and post-war&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;Most of them victorious,and in parallel there was Nobel prices,Olympic Games,and a nation that was growing his standarts,his wealth&#33;Yes there was poverty but in little time (until the next war)poverty was vanishing&#33;

SO ,THERE WAS NO USELESS OR IMPOTENT KING IN GREECE&#33;&#33; NOT ONE OF THE SIX&#33;&#33;&#33; The "why"king Konstantine has left the country is another discussion&#39;s theme&#33;&#33;Don&#39;t forget that the famous "COLD WAR"was at his edge&#33;&#33;&#33;


PSS: CAN YOU PLEASE ALL DO ME A FAVOR???When you are refering to King of Greece {Please}don&#39;t use shortcuts like "connie"or "con" or &#39;Tino"&#33;It is quite annoying&#33;&#33; The best abreviation I thing is " Kons "PLEASE USE IT&#33;&#33;&#33;

ellinotati 11-11-2003 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Splodger@Nov 10th, 2003 - 8:30 pm
In Answer to "King Christians" Question...
splodger,just wanted to khow,why did constantine accepted to pose for a photograph with the military coup?he must have been aware of the impression it would create to the greeks.couldn't he say NO?Also,i don't khow much about his exile and the coup, because of my age, but i believe that a great king will show his abilities when the times are difficult.everyone can be a good king when the country runs smoothly but when the hard times come this is when you prove yourself.constantine in the eyes of greeks failed when the country was in trouble.maybe he is a decent man and so his family but that dosen't make him a good king, i am afraid.also,i have to accept that greek politicians haven't treated him fairly in the past and he should have been given a greek passport.lastly he did a good job bringing up his kids with awareness of the greek culture.

Splodger 11-11-2003 09:05 PM

Before I attempt to answer the several questions that have been put forward by Alexandra and Ellinotati, I would just like to clarify some points raised by Sean that are relevant to the questions raised, but are confusing if taken out of context.

Firstly, I made no judgement and no remark that left winged governments are evil. Communism was a significant political movement across Eastern Europe at the time that effected politics across the world. Greeks by nature appear by nature to have a left of centre ideology in their view of equality (Greeks please correct me if this is an unfair analysis) however Communism was not the Greeks way as it is not democratic. The fears however that lead to the military coup was that the Soviet Union might take the opportunity of Greece’s diverted attention towards Cyprus to psychically invade, or that politically the Government would move to far left wing, so as to align its self with the Soviet Block. Such an action would be detrimental not only to Greek democracy but to the independence they had fought for from Turkey for so long.

Secondly I have not criticised the Hellenic Republics general rule of the country for the last thirty years. What I have questioned is the motivation of their decisions regarding the now former King, his nationality and private property. In regards to Economic growth, Greece has benefited greatly from the increase in tourism by advances in aviation in particular, that opened up the entire of Europe to holiday makers in the 1960s and 1970s which has coincided with the Republic existence. As for stability, Greece has only been a republic for less than half of the countries independence, which has had considerable instability caused by two world wars and intense conflicts of interests with its neighbours over territory, which would have been issues to any form of government. However the Greeks appear to be content with their Republic and it is working for them; however my only reservations are that in their hostility towards Constantine they arouse the question, what is the Government afraid of?

Splodger 11-11-2003 09:08 PM

In answer to Alexandra’s first question:

1) Calling off the Coup to Save Lives:

Let me pose the question, what if King Constantine had support from a significantly larger militia group, would he have continued the counter coup and gone a head and fought for the Constitution and the Throne? In a military manoeuvre, the loss of life even to just military personnel who are there to fight for their country would have been a possibility. Therefore in instigating a counter coup in the first place, the Throne was worth the price of Greek blood if it meant re-securing democracy. However taking the question back into the context of the situation in December 1967, how bad was it to ‘surrender?’

King Constantine’s main goals during the months between April and December 1967 were to avoid another Civil War that would result in the deaths of Greeks by Greeks, whilst also trying to depose the Government which is obviously an obstacle when they are the military and an estimated eight thousand people had been arrested within the first few hours of the take over, including the civilian government and civil servants. Attempts to control the junta peacefully had achieved nothing, and by the December the King has resorted to mobilising loyalist military personnel, Known as the ‘Democratic Army’ in a counter-coup. However, although Greece was entering a ‘dark period’ as he refers to it, the King realised that the counter coup would fail in its mission and would more than likely launch the country into the Civil War that he had tried to avoid.

Constantine could have in theory kept his Throne if he had cooperated with the Junta. However he believed in his responsibilities as a Constitutional Monarch to protect the liberty as directed in the Constitution. His ‘sacrifice’ of the Throne was therefore a sacrifice of the Constitution and Liberty as opposed to his Throne which he believed was meaningless if the people were dead at the hands of each other. He fled in exile to find other ways, albeit unsuccessfully, to over though the regime. It has been suggested that the lack of support the ‘Democratic’ side received from America at the time was that in the hands of the Junta, Greece was one less country to worry about falling Communist at a time when their forces were occupied in Vietnam (I read this but can no longer find the information to validate it). It is also of note that during his early exile the Junta made two attempts to assonate him.

- Personal Opinion -
As for endearing himself to the people in his ‘gesture,’ the military were in control of the media so the people would not been given the opportunity to know at the time. Subsequently it would appear this and many other things, including the reason for the photograph with the Generals, and other actions during the Military Regime were obviously buried by the Junta and quietly forgotten and downplayed by the Republic. It can appear that the Greeks have been ‘aloud’ to continue their resentment.

2) Learning the Ropes:
King Constantine succeeded his farther only aged 24. Being the People King is easy if you’re a personable individual, however political wheeling and dealing is another matter. He would have had close royal advisors at his side; however for various reasons, political and personal, not all members of the civilian government were keen to see him succeed. Whilst he would have been ‘groomed’ in the behaviour of a King since birth, he had little time to prepare as an Adult for the Political duties of a King.


3) Constantine and the Republic
- Personal Opnions as Asked -


I don’t think that criticising the Government would get him very far. His main ambitions appear to be to take his children to where he was born, to claim his personal rights and property and to be there for those Greeks who want him. By directly criticising the Greek Government, whether he is in the right or wrong, will only anger them and close off all avenues to his return and secondly destabilise people’s confidence in the Government over a ‘small’ issue which would do Greece very little good. Constantine does not want a revolution, and he does not want to return to be an autocrat. I don’t doubt he wants to have a role in Greece and that he will find one. He respects the Republic, and respects that he is no longer the Head of State by popular decree of 1974 and he has no intentions to force himself on the Greece. However I am quite sure that he wants his role to be an ‘unofficial’ representative of Greece, and to promote as he does anyway, its progress in the world sphere, and I am positive that if he is called, he will stand.

[ELLINOTATI - Promiss to get to your question tomorow]

cuervo 11-12-2003 07:49 AM

Greece will not go back ,when Greeks vote for Constitutional monarchy,because ,since this monarchy quarantees stable standards of living during wars ,we can all imagine what standars of living they can quarantee the present times(times of peace and relative prosperity)!!For the same reason Greeks will never vote for another royal familyand for one more reason!They are simply Greeks and never stopped been Greeks!

Splodger 11-12-2003 09:55 AM

I would agree with Cuervo that if Greece ever decided to return to a Monarchy they would not choose another family over the existing claiment. If this were to happen, in my opionon, it would prove distastorous to Greece and totaly destabalise the country. The last thing that Greece needs is two claiments to a non existant throne, not to mention who would be invited to be the other King. Ultimatly the nations loyalties would be devided and produced the most unstable monarchy Greece has ever known. As seen in France, people can not decided who would be the rightfull claiment out of the three possibilites (Henri Orleans, Louis de Bourbon and Charles Bonapart) when the Monarchys restoration is hardley and issue. Its a case of all or nothing.

Splodger 11-12-2003 09:06 PM

In Answer to Ellinotati’s questions:

King Constantine did not actually accept to pose for the photograph with the Generals, in actual fact he specifically requested that the photograph be made. When the Military ceased power, they also took control of the Broadcasting Stations and Newspapers. An estimated 8,000 people were arrested within the first month of the regime, and within two hours on the night of the 21st April 1967, the King, his family and the Civilian Government had been placed under arrest. The King remained under House Arrest whilst the Military told the people the King was in not only in support of the regime but in charge ofit, in an attempt to legitimise their actions. Powerless to stop the Military and with no means to tell the Greek People directly he was against the regime, he request the photograph be taken in which, as opposed to his usually jovial and smiling appearance, he adopted a stern expression in the hope the people would be able to see he was not happy. Unfortunately the message was miss understood and instead the people believed he had betrayed them which prompted the deep resentment that still lasts today. Constantine now regrets the photograph but stands by his decision as the only course open to him at the time. Outside of Greece, Constantine has explained his rational behind the photograph many times, and it is unfortunate that has not been explained more fully in Greece, where it appears that the information is not prohibited but is not promoted either. There are many things that about the fromer King that have been played down or twisted to suit the purposes of others. I don’t know for example how widely it is known in Greece he visited New York to visit the Greek Community in the aftermath of September 11th 2001. As Zhontella pointed out, it is the winners who write the history books.

ellinotati 11-14-2003 06:35 AM

thanks a lot ,splodger,for taking the time to answer my question .do you know what else constantine might have done for greece that the media there did not report?

moody 11-14-2003 06:42 AM

;) He gave them the Olympics 2004&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;He also helped in many many questions of macropolitics that uneligible goverments of the last 3 decades refuse to recognise&#33;&#33;They had HM&#39;s property confiscated instead&#33;&#33; Pelieve it or no,this is the truth&#33;&#33;&#33;If smb is an historian here,he &#39;llconfirm that&#33;&#33;

ellinotati 11-14-2003 08:08 AM

Greece had asked for the olympics of 1996 to celebrate the 100 years of games.the olympics were given to atlanta.how come and constantine didn&#39;t manage to give the olympics then to greece that we wanted so much?i remember with crystal clear memory the moment when greece was given the olympics for 2004 and the media reported how emotional he felt which i do believe.also he celebrated with the greek members of the group who worked for the olympics 2004.i believe it was team work and not just constantine who gave us the olympics.As for incompentent goverments Greece is doing pretty well at the moment and will continue to do so&#33;

cuervo 11-17-2003 12:05 PM

The official American argument against Greece in 1996,was terrorim&#33;&#33;Remember??(17N) So, Constantine is a King,not God himself&#33;&#33;&#33;Did i replied????

ellinotati 11-17-2003 03:44 PM

poor answer for me.sorry&#33;november 17th was still active until 2 yrs ago so they could have refused the 2004 olympics on that ground.i think the 70000 greeks that booed mr samarang on the mediterranean games a year after the decision not to give greece the olympics of 1996 ,might expain things.he entered the olympic stadium in athens and didn&#39;t manage to make a speech because the greeks wouldnt have him.also the press clearly was against the decision of the olympic committee to favour america over greece when the 100yrs was to be celebrated.so, forget the story that constantine gave us the olympics.we earned them and deserved them&#33;if the birthplace of olympism hasn&#39;t got the right to organise the olympics for once then who has?

TristanKristoss 11-18-2003 07:31 PM

I come a bit late to the discussion but have been following the conversation for several days now and feel that I have some points to contribute. Sean suggested you ask members of the ex-patriot Greek Community well as such you may feel free to ask me anything you like. I have had the privilege to live both in and out of Greece and as such have a comparison of Greek opinion.

I will admit that I am biased towards the King myself, but this therefore means I have had to look for the good in him as the Greek media does little to promote this. I have had the fortune to be brought up in a family loyal to the King and with good reason. My Grandfather had worked in governance under King Paul and had brought up his family loyal to the King. In 1967 my family fled Greece as my grandfather opposed the military. My mum remembers the coup and having to leave quickly, and years later used to tell me and my brothers that the Generals would get us if we were bad. In 1974 my grandfather was involved in promoting the monarchy however this was not made easy and public promotion of the monarchy was not easily tolerated. Tourism had hardly begun at this time and so many people out side of Greece had no idea what it was like and inside Greece no one knew what life outside was like. This was a Government who was not interested in giving the people their king back and now they live haunted by their previous actions. My family had wealthy background and was able to maintain a life off shore. My grandfather died in 2001 having refused to return from self imposed exile and spend another night on Greek soil whilst ‘that government’ exists.

The average Greek does not know the full story of the coup and as it has been said that the Greek Government and Media do not talk about the King kindly as it is not in their interest. The Government has not made a bad job of the country, and who could say anyone else could do better, but they exist only because when the republic was formed in 1974 the population had been told that the King betrayed them. I was in Greece in 1994 when the Royal Family returned and witnessed the military response to the King and this can not be rational for a Government who does not fear him.

When Sean says he finds people and internet pages that do not like the King, it has to be remembered that you are privileged to be able to examine this information, it is only since the invention of the internet that Greeks can find alternative materials about the subject than what they are told with the spin the government and media put on things. The media in Greece does not tell how the Greek Government confiscated the Kings private property in the first place and only says how he demands money. If i did not know better i would probably not like him either. just be carefull when u form opnions that you know why you form them as it upsets me when people make judgements on people they do not know without looking at the whole picture. For the record, the King is not dim witted and is a natural man and that is from first hand experience.

Sean.~ 11-19-2003 04:03 AM

Quote:

My Grandfather had worked in governance under King Paul and had brought up his family loyal to the King.* In 1967 my family fled Greece as my grandfather opposed the military.

My family had wealthy background and was able to maintain a life off shore.*

Well, your family&#39;s political and socio-economic background under the monarchy may explain your biases.

Quote:

The average Greek does not know the full story of the coup and as it has been said that the Greek Government and Media do not talk about the King kindly as it is not in their interest.*
With all due respect, the Greek people are not stupid and/or parochial. Not only do they know how to access information, but they know that the monarchy was never stable in that country and that the country has been far more prosperous and politically stable without it. They can think for themselves, and it is highly doubtful that they would think that the King betrayed them if there wasn&#39;t an element of truth to it. Of course, the old vested interestes would have you believe otherwise.


The Greeks I know hold that when Constantine said he didn&#39;t want a drop of Greek blood spillled, he was referring to *his* blood (During the 70s a friend of mine had a Greek Landlord. There was a picture of Constantine on the newspaper cover and her landlord grabbed the kitchen knife and shred the paper to pieces. This was in Canada. Just an anacdote that I thought I would share). Most of the Greeks who actually live in Greece don&#39;t want Constantine back. The fact of the matter is that there is no movement in Greece to restore the monarchy and there is no pro-monarchist political party.


Quote:

When Sean says he finds people and internet pages that do not like the King
Actually, I didn&#39;t say I find internet pages. My information comes from first hand sources, for the most part.

Quote:

The media in Greece does not tell how the Greek Government confiscated the Kings private property in the first place and only says how he demands money. If i did not know better i would probably not like him either.
The Greek people have access to all forms of media. They are a part of the European community, an are neither illiterate or so dense that they can not listen to divergent sources and form their own opinions. In my opinion, If he truly cared about the Greek people (as opposed to his bank balance) he would have been maganimous enough to give up his properties to the nation, rather that milking them for millions. His foundation is nothing more than PR excercise, and the way he treats his children and wife is abominable. And don&#39;t assume that I don&#39;t know.


Quote:

For the record, the King is not dim witted and is a natural man and that is from first hand experience
Yes, but by your own admission your are biased towards him.

Having heard him speak,having talked with people who know him, and by analysing his...um... political decisions, he certainly doesn&#39;t come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I&#39;m not biased either way, as I have no vested intrests. I am objective on the subject.

TristanKristoss 11-21-2003 08:40 PM

I apologise for the following points but I am angry, insulted and those readers following this discussion have a right not to be miss lead by incorrect information.

Have you ever been to Greece Sean? I openly said I had biases and how dare you attack me on them and &#39;vested interests&#39;. As it happens, my family’s financial concerns have nothing to do with Greek Politics and have not suffered or benefited from a monarchy or a republic, it merely gave them the opportunity to live away from the dictatorship and understand the wider picture.

You claim you are objective yet you make personal judgements on a man you do not know. You provide no facts, only other people’s opinions people have told you. For a serious historian you know very little about supportive evidence, let alone my country or its people. I have yet to read anything you have said that is anything but second hand opinions from all your supposed Greek buddies.

You are at least correct in that Greeks are not stupid, however I don’t believe I ever said they were. You do not understand the type of media access they have. The Government controls the media, and as I can read Greek I can tell you they do not present the King favourably. In addition, Greeks do have freedom of Press but they are prohibited against printing articles that are "insulting to the republic." Discussion of a monarchy is &#39;insulting&#39; to the republic. As for the internet, as only 10% have access they are not going to get much from this. As for monarchist political parties, I am sure your background in economics and politics will explain to you that people do need money and time to support politics, and just as an added fact, voting is compulsory so they are forced to vote for who ever exists. As for stability... it has already been pointed out that Greece experienced instability due to external forces (namely two world wars).

Whilst I can not discredit that your friends may have their valid reasons (either informed or uninformed) for not being pro-monarch, they do not speak for the nation, and if it is so wonderful under the republic why don’t they go back and live there? I do not have a problem with you not being pro-monarchy, but I do have a problem with you making statements that are inaccurate.

Sean.~ 11-22-2003 07:39 AM

Quote:

I apologise for the following points but I am angry, insulted and those readers following this discussion have a right not to be miss lead by incorrect information.
oncerns have nothing to do with Greek

Snort. If you don&#39;t want people to be mislead by incorrect information then stop posting your selective, revisionist history.

Quote:

Have you ever been to Greece Sean? I openly said I had biases and how dare you attack me on them and &#39;vested interests&#39;.
Yes & no one was attacking you. You are the one who said that you had biases. I merely repeated what you said. Moreover, it was *you* who went on about how your grandfather served the King etc. and how they were wealthy under the monarchy. It is the impression that *you* gave. I merely stated that these factors may account for your biases (something you acknowleged having). If you don&#39;t like people analyzing what you write, don&#39;t write it. Simple. People are free to analyze and interpret here. After all, this isn&#39;t Greece under Constane I or George II. It just sounds to me like you are sensitive and/or have a problem with the truth being pointed out to you.

Quote:

You claim you are objective yet you make personal judgements on a man you do not know.
That is your assumption. I preface my statements with the word allegedly (and other terms) when appropriate. Moreover, I based my opinions/perspectives based on reliable first hand accounts, by listening to him, and by studying the subject. I come to my own conclusions by synethsizing all of the material available to me on a given subject. I don&#39;t simply favour someone because my grandfather served their father or because of familial ties. Too bad if you don&#39;t like it.


Quote:

I have yet to read anything you have said that is anything but second hand opinions from all your supposed Greek buddies.*
Likewise. If you don&#39;t like my posts, don&#39;t read them. Simple as that. Oh, and who said that they were all Greek?

Quote:

As for monarchist political parties, I am sure your background in economics and politics will explain to you that people do need money and time to support politics
,

And your point? Greeks have money and time to support other political parties (and there are several). So your argument doesn&#39;t hold water. Also, it has a higher per capita income than many other countries in Europe. Thus the only reasonable explanation then is that there isn&#39;t enough significant interest in the monarchy. Oh, and who told you what my background is in?

Quote:

Voting is compulsory so they are forced to vote for who ever exists.
Snort&#33;&#33; Greece is a DEMOCRACY now (a real one, too). People are free to form political parties, associational groups, lobby/oressure groups, and even...umm...run for political office&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; The last time I checked there were at least ten parties, even Communist and Marxist ones. Contrary to the image you are trying to present, Greeks don&#39;t have to just roll over and accept the status quo. Really, your arugment is quite weak.
Quote:


As for stability... it has already been pointed out that Greece experienced instability due to external forces (namely two world wars).

So did the rest of Europe (that&#39;s why they were called World Wars), Surely you are not claiming that all six referendums on the monarchy were due to external problems? How about having the intellectual integrity of acknowledging that there were internal factors too, like Constantine I&#39;s sympathies with the central powers, his and this refusal to recognize the democratically elected government of the pro-entente Venizelos, his dissolving the legitimate government of the country, his continued power struggle with Venizelos to the detriment of the country, the terror camapaign launched on his behalf by General Mexatas, and the Bulgarians grabbing of Greek territory due to Constantine&#39;s waffling. This disaster of a &#39;leader&#39; only left the country when the allied powers threatened to bombard Greece if he remained.

Then there was the referendum on the monarchy in 1935, which was marked by fraud, and George II&#39;s subsequent appointment of the his facist, repressive friend General Mexatas as Prime Minister -- a man who suspended the Human Rights clauses in the country&#39;s constitution (thus creating a vaccume which led the support of Communism to grow), repressed the left (and I&#39;m not talking about so-called Communists), and engaged in ethnic cleansing.

There was also the Second World War and famine, but I don&#39;t attribute that to the monarchy (although one must ask if Greece would have been as vulnerable if communication among the allies had been better organized).

However, once the war was over, the repression and intimidation continued, this time under the Prime Minisiterialiship Themistoklis Sophoulis. This ushered in what became known as the era of White Terror. An amnesty agreement was ignored and there was vigilantism, extra judicial executions by death squads, and arbitary imprisonment of leftists. In fact, there was so much represion that leftist parties boycotted the less than free elections of the 1946 (an election marked by fraud). The repression continued still under the government of Konstantinos Tsaldaris (yet another member of the old oligrachy), with tens of thousands of Greeks being placed in concentration camps (and no, all of these poor people were not Communists & even if they were they did not deserved to be treated in this abominable way.

Tsaldaris&#39; 1946 plebescite on the monarchy, which saw the return of George II, too was marred by fraud, intimidation, and coercion -(all hallmarks of the Greek right during this era). George II was not popular with many Greeks (not just the left and the so-called Communists [it was easy to tar dissenters with the Communist brush]) due to his collusion with the facist dictator, Metaxas. This, in turn, led to allienation and increased civil strife. Repression continued and the leftists were forced to go underground. Subsequently, the DAG was formed by the Communists under the leadership of Vafiadis and the civil war commenced (in which atrocities were committed by *both* sides).

Up until 1950, Greece used its Marshal Plan dollars on its military (to repress elements of its population), whereas the rest of Europe focused on reconstruction. I admit that this changed in the 1950s, when there was more investment in development, but this too was was done by massive borrowing.

Yes, the colonels were brutal, but so was the monarchy. It was Constantine&#39;s incompetence (somewhat surprising when one considers it was a job he was trained for his entire life) and power struggle with Papandreou that allowed the colonels to take launch their coup. That&#39;s why 70 percent of the people (people who lived under the monarchy) voted to abolish it when Karmanalis took over. Say what you will about the referendum, the vote was legitimate and it was far more fair than any such undertaking conducted under the monarchy.

Quote:


You are at least correct in that Greeks are not stupid, however I don’t believe I ever said they were.* You do not understand the type of media access they have.* The Government controls the media,

Kindly refrain from telling me what I understand and don&#39;t understand, because you haven&#39;t a clue. There is certainly less control of the media than there was during the monarchy (see below). Or are you going to dispute that too? Indeed, one wonders why you have such a double standard.


Quote:

and as I can read Greek I can tell you they do not present the King favourablyGreeks do have freedom of Press but they are prohibited against printing articles that are "insulting to the republic." Discussion of a monarchy is &#39;insulting&#39; to the republic.
That&#39;s your interpretation.

Yes, Greeks do have freedom of the Press, more so than they did under the monarchy, a fact that you assidiously fail to acknowledge. And there is plenty of discussion on the monarchy in the Greek press. Check the Athens News Agency from time to time. The Greek Constitution also prohibts censorship (all government hindrences of the press removed in 1994), and the state monopoly on radio and television ended in the late 80s. Moreover, the country has more newspapers and weekly periodicals than any other country in Europe (as of the late 1990s) based on a per capita basis, which represent all political parties and viewpoints. So don&#39;t tell me that discussion on the monarchy isn&#39;t permitted. If the press doesn&#39;t cover it or cover it favourably, then it is because a). there are more substantive things to cover; and B). there isn&#39;t anything favourable to report.

Quote:

for the internet, as only 10% have access

If I recall correctly, you are quoting a figure from 2000 and the first half of 2001, and it only referred to home access. In 1999 there were 1.33 million internet users (out of a population of 10 million), many of whom had access through work and school. In any event, the rate of users has increased substantially over the last 2-3 years and is projected to reach the 50 percent mark over the next few years.

Quote:

Whilst I can not discredit that your friends may have their valid reasons (either informed or uninformed) for not being pro-monarch, they do not speak for the nation, and if it is so wonderful under the republic why don’t they go back and live there?* I do not have a problem with you not being pro-monarchy, but I do have a problem with you making statements that are inaccurate.
My statements are not innaccurate, thank you very much. Your asserting so doesn&#39;t make them so. *I* could say the same about your statements. I also have a problem with you glossing over the failings of the monarchial system in Greece.

Oh, and I am not anti-monarchist, so kindly do not attribute political views to me. In fact, I am generally a monarchist, however, I am able to discern between good monarchies and bad monarchies. I realize that the system has its failings and that it isn&#39;t always suitable. Also, not only are the people I know very well informed (supporters of Constantine don&#39;t have a monopoly on that), but their nationalities are also none of your affair. For you to questions why they don&#39;t go back and live in Greece is childish, as far as I&#39;m concerned. People immigrate for a host of reasons, particulalry in the new &#39;global village&#39;. Indeed, why don&#39;t we all go back to where our ancestors came from? The whole world would be on the move.

Julia 11-22-2003 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cuervo@Nov 11th, 2003 - 3:44 am
PSS: CAN YOU PLEASE ALL DO ME A FAVOR???When yoy refere to the King of Greece {Please}don&#39;t use shortcuts like "connie"or "con" or &#39;Tino"&#33;It is quite annoying&#33;&#33; The best abreviation I thing is " Kons "PLEASE USE IT&#33;&#33;&#33;
I think it&#39;s best to let the other members refer to King Constantine in any appropriate way they wish...

Splodger 11-22-2003 09:39 PM

So basically the Kings of Greece have loved their people but bodged up a couple of times and the Republics not been an oppressive regime but it hasn’t been an Angel either is what we are trying to say I think. So moving on and learning from history’s mistakes, what is the future for Greece? King Constantine has stated he has no agenda and Karamanlis has said the Republican Regime is ‘here to stay so get used to it’, however I can not help but say ‘never say never’ when it comes to Greece.

So what is wrong in the free Hellenic Republic of Greece with a man with no political powers, calling him self what ever he likes, promoting Greece on the world map and giving his time to public and charitable causes? He in person would either find first hand that people want him or they don’t, and then the argument of popularity is once and for all finished. As for the future, if the ‘never’ happened and the Greeks decided that having a King with modern Constitutional powers and limitations is not such a bad idea after all, who is up for a party?

George 11-23-2003 02:52 AM

Sean: opa&#33; let&#39;s sit down and have a drink...and some bread dipped in the
great cold pressed olive oil...and order lunch...

I said these same sentiments months ago...so I know.

Kalamatria dance...up for it buddy?

There are good monarchists systems and leaders and figureheads and others
who are not-there are good presidents and bad presidents, good governors,
and bad ones...so CA had a "recall and got the terminator in..."

there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade...that is the one draw
back of the monarchial system, and I too am not anti monarchy, I am a
monarchist, but I see the weakness and do not gloss it over, I admit it,
that if one has say, King Ruler I, and he is benevelent, raises the nation,
business, foreign interests, keeps the moral high, then he is doing his job,
but let&#39;s say...he has two sons, and one , the first born, CP I, is well,
lacking in his father&#39;s attributes...he is like Carol of Rumania, he likes
fast cars, fast women, drinks, this and that...all the trappings of good life,
with no desire to duty and responsibility.. and think as the people will:
"he is the next in ...line for the throne?" a good concern, right?

then there is son II, and he has all the intgeligence, thoughtfullness,
common sense* (very vital), and would do a better job of it than his
older brother...but alas, he is baby born #2....&#33;

Let&#39;s say the CP I get s into the shoes of his father, who has passed on...
and he is seen to ignore the counsel of his ministers...and is with a woman
like Lupescu, and has more time to be at the gambling tables and Maxim&#39;s
with the can can dance girls and his playboys than the works of state...
well, there is all of a sudden, a famine...and outbreak of disease, and
he is in no rush to return, after all, he thinks of his own good time first...

over the years, finally, the people have enough of it and rebell, he goes
into exile...the people talk as they do when they spend the time sipping
their tea or coffee..."oh, if only the second son was given the CP posting
and not this meseable let down of a ruler...why could&#39;t the old man have
passed over #1 for #2????"

The inherent problem -unlike "recall Grey Davis" and elect "Terminator" to
post of Governor--is that it is a role one is naturally born to it.*

Sadly, unless a provision is added whereby a father who sees trouble in his
son #1--is allowed to bypass CP status and elect the better of the two
to the post as heir, then this can and did happen in all nations in history
at one point or another.

You understand what I am saying, this is the problem-no parents know what
their child will turn out to be as a grown up-a disappointment or a
heir to be proud of&#33;

But this elective provision if added in many instantces-can serve to keep or remind CP #1 to tow the line or else he is out of the game...

Splodger 11-23-2003 01:19 PM

I am a believer in Constitutional Monarchy, however it appears the biggest problem the Monarchies in Greece had, was that too much power was vested in the King. Politics and Kingship do not mix. However any discussion on the theoretical restoration of a Monarchy in Greece should bear in mind that whether they invited Constantine, Pavlos or Cliff Richard to be King, they would not have this power again. The age of Autocratic Kings are over. If they returned it would be as a figure head for the nation. Any &#39;powers&#39; would be to ensure the legitimacy of government and to ensure the will of the people was carried out. They would not be involved in day to day politics.

I totally understand what George says about having a son inherit the throne who is not worthy of the &#39;job.&#39; Despite my beliefs in the advantages of Monarchy it is something that can not be ruled out as a downside. However being optimistic, a quick look at the European Monarchies today, and they on the whole do not seem to have Kings/Queens and Successors who are unworthy to be there, and in most cases appear to work hard. I do see the pattern has and is changing from the subjects serving the King to the King serving the subjects. I know there is a dilemma over how fit would Pavlos be as King for Greece. I can not comment objectively as I have not studied his movements that closely, however in a general word of defence for him: he was born to be King, but unlike his cousins who can learn from their parents and gradually take greater roles in state affairs, he not only has to wait to be &#39;king&#39; but it is a kingdom he may never have. He reminds me a little of Edward VII and the phrase &#39;Idol Thumbs and Trouble.&#39; I think he would not be as bad as people fear if he could be groomed for the job in a working environment than a theoretical one where he has been exiled from.

ellinotati 11-23-2003 01:55 PM

I wonder if pavlos truly loves greece with all its goods and bads or he is mainly interested in the throne.don&#39;t know why and how but everytime i saw him on the media i got the feeling that he dosen&#39;t REALLY loves greece.instinct or paronoia,i don&#39;t know.... hope that one day he proves me wrong.

cuervo 11-23-2003 05:06 PM

According to his statements,He adores everything Greek,so, does His wife Princess Maria-Chantal and Their children&#33;

Jo 11-23-2003 07:16 PM

so that&#39;s why she hasn&#39;t bothered to learn greek&#33; :rolleyes:

Splodger 11-23-2003 07:23 PM

I honestly do not know a great deal about Pavlos or Marie-Chantel however I do belive he has the best &#39;intentions.&#39; It must be hard for him to have expectations of his parents and royal supporters to be a Greek Prince when he has been unable to access the fundemental aspect of his &#39;Greekness&#39; which is the country of his birth. I am aware that I have provided an excuse for him in this post and my last and as I say I do not know enough about that man to pass an objective comment, but these points are worthy of consideration. He has nothing to gain by being an arogant royal who just wants to be King as such an attitude will not gain him anything in the eyes of Greek Republicans or Loyalists. I do not live where I was born but still feel an attachment to it. I would guess he feels the same, but I am catious to claim my full nationality as I have barley lived there and he undoubtably has these concerns. I was not aware he does not speak Greek, especialy as he was taught by a GReek tutor, his parents speak Greek and he attended a Greek based school. He deserves a chance, but what he does with that chance is up to him.

Fireweaver 11-23-2003 07:26 PM

Pavlos speaks it. His wife doesn&#39;t, and that&#39;s where a lot of criticism comes in. He should have "made" her learn, they should have their children speak it now, etc.

Sean.~ 11-23-2003 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 6:26 pm


Pavlos speaks it. His wife doesn&#39;t, and that&#39;s where a lot of criticism comes in. He should have "made" her learn, they should have their children speak it now, etc.

The whole family speaks Greek to one another, with the exception of MC and Carlos Morales (not sure about the MC&#39;s & P&#39;s children). How do I know? Because I knwow people that know them & because various members of the family have said publicly.

:flower:

S

Sean.~ 11-23-2003 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Splodger@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 6:23 pm
He deserves a chance, but what he does with that chance is up to him.

A chance at what? Being King?

The present system of government works well. The country is stable and is prospering. There is no want or need to restore the monarchy. I know that you are a supporter of constitutional monarchy, however, one must be cognizant of the fact that other systems of government work just as well and, in many cases, better. Greece is one such case. It would be ludicrous for a country to abandon the most stable and democratic form of government it has had in in well over a century for a system of government (even if reformed) that was a disaster.

Monarchies are not suitable for every country. And, In my opion, he certainly does not deserve a chance at the (possible) detriment of Greece. For you to say "what he does with that chance is up to him" is really quite nonchalant if it means what I think it does. As I said above, the very notion of replacing the best system a country has had just so a someone (inexperienced) can have a "chance "due to his birth is outrageous.

Fireweaver 11-23-2003 11:38 PM

I thought that the Greek Royals didn&#39;t have legal last names. Hence the problem for them getting passports.

Fireweaver 11-24-2003 12:44 AM

Don&#39;t most women who marry into royal families go from having a last name to not having one? I mean there&#39;s the dynasty&#39;s name, but it&#39;s not really a surname from what I&#39;ve understood from various geneologists/royal watchers.

Sean.~ 11-24-2003 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 11:44 pm
Don&#39;t most women who marry into royal families go from having a last name to not having one? I mean there&#39;s the dynasty&#39;s name, but it&#39;s not really a surname from what I&#39;ve understood from various geneologists/royal watchers.


No, of course they have last names. They just don&#39;t need to use them like us ordinary folk, because they are known by their titles.

For instance, the family name of the British Royal Family is Windsor. Howeve,r the the QE II"s children are technically Mounbatten-Windsors. This was the last name on the marriage certificates of Anne, Andrew, and Edward. Charles&#39;s marriage certificate had his full name and referred to him as HRH the Prince of Wales.
IIRC, Sarah Ferguson kept her maiden name after her marriage.

I am a lay geneologist and royal watcher too, btw. :rolleyes:

Besides, Constantine and his family are no longer royal family, insofar as they are not the legal representatives of a state. It may have been okay in Greece, but, AFAIK, in Britain you have to have a last name (Although I&#39;m sure some exceptions are made, I don&#39;t see one being made for MC. She isn&#39;t that noteworthy) :P .

Fireweaver 11-24-2003 01:17 AM

the Queen and her children are actually Windsors (if it&#39;s true that royals do have last names). It&#39;s the next generation that are actually M-W, although I&#39;m not convinced that royals do have last names. I seem to recall this causing a bit of contraversy with a few disposed monarchies.

Side note. Isn&#39;t geneology facinating? It&#39;s amazing to think of how just about everyone&#39;s connected in some way

Sean.~ 11-24-2003 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@Nov 24th, 2003 - 12:17 am
the Queen and her children are actually Windsors (if it&#39;s true that royals do have last names). It&#39;s the next generation that are actually M-W, although I&#39;m not convinced that royals do have last names. I seem to recall this causing a bit of contraversy with a few disposed monarchies.

Side note. Isn&#39;t geneology facinating? It&#39;s amazing to think of how just about everyone&#39;s connected in some way

Yes, I&#39;m well aware of her 1960 decree. However, on the marriage certificates (which I&#39;ve seen), they are listed as Mountbatten-Windsors. If they didn&#39;t have last names, then the name would not have been listed. And of course members of royal families have last names (whether they choose to use it or not is their own ffair). Why do you think they have a House names (and why do you think House names sometimes change)? Otherwise, why not just call the house by the name of the country?


However, as I stated previously, they are known by their titles and not their full names. Besides, those deposed are, for the most part, subjected to the same laws as everyone else is. MC doesn&#39;t get special treatment because her father-in-law happens to be the former King of Greece. AFAIK, to live and work in the US (at least legally) you need a last name, no matter who you are related to. The same goes for Britain.

Fireweaver 11-24-2003 01:42 AM

I thought it changed because of certain things, like the Windsors were S-C-G (I can&#39;t spell it, but I think you know what I mean) but because of the war, they changed it. Also, the house of orange-nassau is still that, despite there being 3 queens in a row. and the Luxembourg changed to nassau instead of what it was, due to the unequal marriage (in the eyes of the Bourbon-Parma head of household&#39;s view) of G-D Henri.

Sean.~ 11-24-2003 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fireweaver@Nov 24th, 2003 - 12:42 am
I thought it changed because of certain things, like the Windsors were S-C-G (I can&#39;t spell it, but I think you know what I mean) but because of the war, they changed it. Also, the house of orange-nassau is still that, despite there being 3 queens in a row. and the Luxembourg changed to nassau instead of what it was, due to the unequal marriage (in the eyes of the Bourbon-Parma head of household&#39;s view) of G-D Henri.
The house name in Britain was Hanover during the reign of Queen Victoria. When her son, Edward VII, succeeded, he took his father&#39;s name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Thus the House name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The name then changed after WW I because the SCG was too Germanic sounding.

You are right about the Netherlands, but there was a decision there not to change the House name. Queen Beatrix&#39;s children, however, use the name Amsberg for legal purposes. Her neices and nephews use the surnmes of their fathers. For instance, the children of Princess Margareit are Princes of Orange-Nassau (not the Netherlands), but use the Van Vollenhoven last name (e.g. Prince Maurits of Orange Nassau van Vollenhoven). The Bourbon Parma nieces and nephews&#39;s use the last name Bourbon and the children of Christina use the Guilemero last name.
The Queen&#39;s sister, Irene, is known as Irene Lippe-Biesterfield (the family name of Prince Bernhard).

If you look at pictures of the Spanish King and Prince of Asturias in fatigues, you will notice that their name badge reads "Borbon". Similarly, pictures of Carl Philip and Crown Princess Victoria in military fatigues have the name "Bernadotte" across their chests.

With respect to Luxembourg, the house name was Orange Nassau, but that changed when Grand Duchess Charlotte married Prince Rene of Bourbon-Parma. However, it reverted back to Orange Nassau in the 1980s.

George II 11-24-2003 05:20 AM

They indeed use the name Sleschwig-Holstein-Glücksburg-Oldenburg as a last name, but the Greek royals also have the title Prince/Princess of Greece and Danmark. The first Greek king of this royal family was George I, a Danish prince, who kept his rights on the Danish throne. The Greek royals are also heirs to the Danish throne. Late Queen Friederike&#39;s titles were Princess of Hannover, Duchess of Braunsweich-Lüneburg and Princess of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland. She was a descendant of Queen Victoria, so she was allowed to were the title Princess of Great-Britain and Northern-Ireland.

It&#39;s not quite right that the Luxemburg royal house called Orange-Nassau. The reigning house of Luxemburg is actually the House of Nassau-Weilburg, who came in power in 1890, after the dead of King William III of the Netherlands, who has no male heirs. So a nephew of William III, prince Adolphe of Nassau and Weilburg, became Grand Duke of Luxemburg. Well it is related to the House of Orange-Nassau, the Luxemburg royal family is Nassau-Weilburg

Sean.~ 11-24-2003 05:45 AM

Quote:

the Greek royals also have the title Prince/Princess of Greece and Danmark. The first Greek king of this royal family was George I, a Danish prince, who kept his rights on the Danish throne. The Greek royals are also heirs to the Danish throne.

Actually, the Danish title isn&#39;t seperable from the Greek title. They are not princes of Denmark, but Princes/ess of Greece and Denmark. The Danish King allowed the prosterity of the George I to be titled Princes/ss of Greece and Denmark (it was kind of like one title). They are not Princes/ss of Denmark in their own right. There was a recent controversy about this in the Danish parliament (a couple of years ago). And the Greek royals have no claim to the Danish throne. Since the 1950s succession is limited to the legitimate descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine from approved marriages, thereby excluding the descendants of George I. They also do not have a claim through Anne-Marie becuase she renounced her right in order to marry Constantine.

The Succession to the Danish throne is

Frederick
Joachim
Nikolai
Felix
Benedikte
Princess Elisabeth

The Children of Princess Benedikte fall into a grey area, although officially they are not in line.

Quote:

Late Queen Friederike&#39;s titles were Princess of Hannover, Duchess of Braunsweich-Lüneburg and Princess of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland.
Yes, she was Princess of Hanover and Duchess of Brunswick Luneburg until the 1918, when Germany became a republic. After that the title was one of pretension only. She was never a Princess of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She was a Princess of Great Britain and *Ireland* (as per letters patent in 1914). However, this changed when the laws were changed in Britain in 1917. She was no longer a Princes of Great Britain and Ireland (there was no Northern Ireland then). The family continued using the title as a title of pretension. Her father, Ernst August, issued a decree in the 1930s stating that all members of his house would bear the title,as the senior descendants in the male line of George III. But the decree had no legal standing in Germany (which was a republic) or in Britain (because he had no right to isssue decrees there). Queen Elizabeth II just humours them.

Quote:

She was a descendant of Queen Victoria, so she was allowed to were the title Princess of Great-Britain and Northern-Ireland
She wasn&#39;t a descendant of Queen Victoria in the male line. Rather, she was a descendant in the female line and thus she didn&#39;t derive her British Highness (as opossed to Royal Highness) from her. It was derived from her descent from King George III. Moreover, she only had the title because the letters patent were amended in the 2nd decade of the 20th century to allow it. I posted about it here earlier (I think it was under the thread titled Queen Frederika).

Quote:

It&#39;s not quite right that the Luxemburg royal house called Orange-Nassau. The reigning house of Luxemburg is actually the House of Nassau-Weilburg, who came in power in 1890, after the dead of King William III of the Netherlands, who has no male heirs. So a nephew of William III, prince Adolphe of Nassau and Weilburg, became Grand Duke of Luxemburg. Well it is related to the House of Orange-Nassau, the Luxemburg royal family is Nassau-Weilburg

The Luxmebourg Grand Ducal House officially uses the name Orange-Nassau. Thus this is their "right" name.

Regards,

S

George II 11-24-2003 03:17 PM

The Luxemburg Royal Family is the House of Nassau, or Nassau-Weilburg, and NOT Orange-Nassau.

The only heirs of the Orange familyname are the descendants of William of Orange (1533-1584), and that&#39;s the Dutch Royal Family.

The Luxemburg Royal Family are descendants of the counts of Nassau, thus not of William of Orange (he was also a Nassau, but not the ancestor of the Luxemburg GD&#39;s).

The only heirs of the title Prince of Orange are the Dutch crownprinces and the crownprince of Prussia (or the House of Hohenzollern). This because the Prussian kings were descendants of the Dutch stadholder Frederick Henry.

Greetz,

GII....

And Sean, my compliments for your enormous knowledge of Royalty ;)

Sean.~ 11-24-2003 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by George II@Nov 24th, 2003 - 2:17 pm

Luxemburg Royal Family is the House of Nassau, or Nassau-Weilburg, and NOT Orange-Nassau.

The only heirs of the Orange familyname are the descendants of William of Orange (1533-1584), and that&#39;s the Dutch Royal Family.

The Luxemburg Royal Family are descendants of the counts of Nassau, thus not of William of Orange (he was also a Nassau, but not the ancestor of the Luxemburg GD&#39;s).

The only heirs of the title Prince of Orange are the Dutch crownprinces and the crownprince of Prussia (or the House of Hohenzollern). This because the Prussian kings were descendants of the Dutch stadholder Frederick Henry.

Greetz,

GII....

And Sean, my compliments for your enormous knowledge of Royalty

The Luxemburg Royal Family is the House of Nassau, or Nassau-Weilburg, and NOT Orange-Nassau.

You are correct, of course. I&#39;m just used to writing Orange-Nassau and for some reason in my mind the two are inseperable (although I know it is incorrect). Of course I realize that the family descents from count Walram. In any event, the family uses Nassau and not Nassau-Weilburg.

Splodger 11-24-2003 09:03 PM

I wasnt actualy saying that Greece should become a monarchy just so Pavlos can have five minutes to prove him self on the throne. As I said pages ago, it doesnt matter whether Greece is a Republic, Monarchy, Theocracy or anyother form of government, however secure and stable it may be... Constantine will always be the man who was King, and is the man who would be King had the Monarchy not been abolished, just as the Dukes of Bavaria have some complex Jacobian Claim on the British Crown, of which is even more unlikely to ever happen, however if you are so inclined they are the person to whom you turn.

Whether you agree or disagree with monarchys in general or just in Greece, there are those who are either in favour of its return or simply just look upon the Royal Family with respect. In the same way if your Catholic your focal point is the Pope, and just beacuse he pays a state visit to your country does not mean there is going to be a Catholic forced take over. It doesnt matter if Greece is doing well or not, or if you like or hate the former King, there are people who look towards him for what ever small bit of happiness it brings them. As such I personaly dont see a problem with someone calling them selves Glucksberg, De Greece, Oldenberg or Mr Athens, in supporting charities and promting Greek interests, and generaly doing good works as a private citizen. Now if he started causing trouble and inciting his small or large number of followers into storming the Government Offices and Gunning the down the Oposition in the Street in an attempt to win back his throne then I would understand their reluctance to let him in, but I dont really think it is his style.

The people will do what they want and will have the Government they want whether it is what anyone here wishes it could be. However one day, Pavlos will inherit the claiment for this non-existant throne and be expected to continue &#39;the good greek works.&#39; What i was saying is that he deserves a chance to do this and show he does care for Greece like any other Greek Citizen which is very hard for someone to do when they are not aloud in the country and people just pick holes in you. If he turns out to be nothing more than an arrogant royal who wants nothing more than a crown and status we can then all say "he had his chance to be a good man and he blew it and thank goodness they didnt make him King."

As for what Constantine or Pavlos call their Family I only have one thought. (please note I am not comparing the two for how much work they did)How many people know Mother Teresa of Calcutters Surname? Did her name have any relevance to the good she tried to do?

Idriel 07-08-2005 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genevieve
if he loved Greece so much why not just leave it alone rather than dragging it through the court system to regain his property or to insist that he be addressed the King of Greece or that his children and grandchildren have the right to use Prince and Princess of Greece?

Genevieve, I don't understand why he would not be allowed to recover properties which belonged to his family for ages. I don't think anyone should be spoiled of his inheritance, whatever their wealth or status.
But are there any laws in Greece preventing that to happen?

kelly9480 07-08-2005 11:48 AM

He has a right to fight for the retention of his family's private property, and Greece was wrong in taking them from him. The Greek taxpayers wouldn't have had to give him any money had the government handed the run-down property back to him, but the Greek government hasn't proven itself reasonable when it comes to their former king.

Angela - Natalia 07-08-2005 03:14 PM

On the program the Greek Royal Family made with Kirsty Walk that was shown on Channel 5 at Christmas, Constantine gave the impression (I thought) that the property was bought by his great grampa when he was a young man and his parents in Denmark helped him get started or whatever; mummy Denmark waving him off with her lace kercheif and a napsack on his back. Tatoi and Mon Repos (I SO want to go there it looks beautiful ~ sigh~) where private property and the main house in Athens was what came with the job, where the former Bavarian Prince lived before them, so that was not personal.

I don't see what the problem would be of simply letting them have their own homes back becasue that wouldn't have cost anything to Greek Tax payer ~'Duhhh'. There must be lots of other families who have private estates etc near Athens. As long as they never got into politics again against the government there wouldn't have been a problem.

Hopefully not everyone in the Family quits London for Athens. One at least should stay he is at home here aswell:) .

branchg 07-08-2005 07:04 PM

There is no question that both Mon Repos and Tatoi were purchased from the royal family's private money during the reign of the monarchy over the years, however, some of the land and properties were donated by the State as well. Constantine was very greedy in his demands, not to mention the fact that he wanted to be able to return to Greece and live on his former estates. This was unacceptable to the Greek government, which is their perogative.

Constantine received over $30 million in compensation from the Greek government in the end, which is fair, although he claims he donated it to charity, which is highly unlikely.

oxynia 07-08-2005 07:12 PM

Much of the property that Constantine was claiming a right to was not personal property at all. Upon installation of the royal family in Greece (back in the mid-1800s...this is a modern invention, not a tradition from centuries ago!), property was granted as official royal residences, etc. When Greece became a republic, the property reverted to the possession of the state. Constantine sued the government for much more than the international courts ruled was his to claim, so his greed was very apparent and not just to the Greeks.

As for his claims to love Greece and to wish to live here as a private citizen, he must remember that this was offered to him when the republic was established and he refused it! He refused to pledge allegiance to the republic and to take a surname, which were required in order for him to be recognized as no threat to the new republic and to receive a proper passport. He refused to declare a surname, insisting instead that he be regarded officially as "king of the Hellenes" and refused to declare his support and allegiance to the new Greece. Therefore, he was kicked out. His exile is entirely of his own doing, as he had been given options to remain in the country he claims to love so well. Fact is, he loves his "position" more and his arrogance supercedes any affection he has for Greece or its people.

As a Greek citizen, I can tell you that nothing would ever come between me and my citizenship here. But Constantine has other values and priorities that he simply won't recognize publicly. He prefers to play the role of victim instead and it just makes him all the more pathetic.

acdc1 06-04-2007 02:10 PM

The Coup
 
Al Jazeera English did a special on King Constantine, primarily focussing on the coup.

YouTube - King Without a Country - 10 Mar 07 - Part 1 here's the link to the first part

YouTube - King Without a Country - 10 Mar 07 - Part 2 here's the second part

It must have been tough for them. He was so young when he became king, as well. He says that on the night of the coup, his family was watching a movie. His mother and Princess Irene left early, because they didn't like the movie, and Queen Sofia, who was visiting her brother, wanted to leave but he made her stay since he never got to see her. When the movie was finished I think it was one of his advisors called and let the king hear the bullets coming into his house. I know how the King and his family reacted, but does anyone know about Frederika, Princess Irene, or Queen Sofia, or any other Greek royals affected?

fanletizia 06-12-2007 02:18 PM

A portrait of former Queen of Greece Frederica is seen at a prefabricated storage facility at the former royal estate at Tatoi, on the northewestern outskirts of Athens, Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The Greek government on Tuesday announced plans to turn the sprawilng former royal estate into ecological and historical park. Greece's last monarch, King Constantine II, now 66, was deposed in 1967. In 1991, the Greek government allowed Constantine to remove hundreds of items from Tatoi, which were sold at an auction later that year

At Auction on Yahoo! News Photos

Bella 06-13-2007 11:16 AM

I'm sure this question has been addressed already, but I can't seem to find it so I'm bringing it up again: What is the protocol about the GRF and their titles? This seems to be a topic of debate elsewhere. I understand that HM Constantine is continued to be addressed as "King" because that was his title at the time of the coup. However, when he passes away, CP Pavlos will not inherit the title because there is no longer a monarchy. Does this mean he will be referred to a "Crown Prince" for the rest of his life? I know that socially Pavlos' children are sometimes referred to as Prince/Princess, but when Konstantine grows up and has his own family, will his children be titled? What about when Pavlos' brothers marry and have children? Will they be known as Princes/Princesses? How correct is this? This is all under the assumption that the Greek monarchy is not restored.

Queen Amina 06-13-2007 09:45 PM

Bella, CP Pavlos will probably be called CP for the rest of his life like CP Alexander of Yugoslavia and his children will be addressed as prince/princess for the rest of their lives. However, Pavlos's eldest son may be referred to as Hereditary prince like CP Alexander's eldest son. Note this isn't fact but I'm just taking my cue from the situation from of the Karadjordjevics'

acdc1 06-13-2007 11:16 PM

What happens when the kids grow old and die? Will the Greek titles just run out?

Queen Amina 06-14-2007 09:08 AM

acda1, I don't know what will happen to the titles in the long run it depends on the rules and "letters patent" as laid out by King Constantine or his predecessors but I generally assume the titles may die out so to speak with CP Pavlos's grandchildren.

Anyone with much better knowledge and info please feel free to correct me.

Bella 06-14-2007 12:07 PM

Thank you, Queen Amina. Your explanation makes sense. It's almost too bad that in a couple of generations there really will be no personal link to the monarchy in Greece.

ilias of john 06-15-2007 04:12 AM

link with Greece
 
Hi Bella,
I think you may find that this Royal Family will have links with Greece for a very Looooong time! :)

Bella 06-16-2007 12:40 PM

Hi ilias of john ~ I hope so. I'm not political and admittedly know nothing about the causes of the coup and all that, but I sort of like the idea of a Greek RF. True, I am not a citizen of Greece (so I really shouldn't have an opinion) but I guess I feel sorry for the GRF having been treated the way they were.

Jaya 06-19-2007 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 43704)
In Answer to "King Christians" Question...

Before all this that you mention you may have forgotten the great dispute when then Prime Minister Karamanlis openly criticised the royal family especially Queen Frederika for their "ostentious " lifestyle by letter and made apparent his aversion to many things in their lifestyle as early as 1963. There were also rumours that the national coffers were emptied to supply a hefty dowry to Sofia who married Juan Carlos in /62{ this is conjecture but it went down into the masses and not over well]
Also you forget that Kons supposedly had a serious Greek love interest
Aliki Vougiouklaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and that even though of patrician descent herself[her father was the mayor of Tripolis and her mother of bona fide Byzantine purple origin] was not allowed to pursue this which the Greeks as nation would have possibly embraced better than Princess Anne Marie who is impeccable and faultless Let there be no room for misinterpretation.But the Greeks had had enough of the foreign element.And I feel the backlash came from Aliki being rejected as a potential Queen.
I think Aliki God rest her soul who the masses embraced and adored as the "national star" was at the root of the faux pas.It reverberated in the masses that Greeks themselves were not good enough to become royal and one of the Greek soil like Aliki could not be eleveated and so perhaps they pushed back.
In my heart of hearts and knowing that George Papandreou[who even posed in a famous photograph together despite being a socialist with the beautiful couple Queen Anne Marie and King Constantine} was a wholesome Greek less so than Constantine Karamanlis who self exiled to Paris after a supposed irreconcilable difference with Queen Frederkia. and supposedly after internal political conflict.imo I would say Aliki was the beginning of the end; the alpha and omega.For Karamanlis she represented Greece.She was Helen and they wanted [according to what I know of his stand] and needed the renaissance of their own element elevatedto royal power to counterbalance the growing socialist and pre dominating republican sentiment.Dolce Aliki may the ground that covers you be light.

*SofiaM* 06-19-2007 05:54 PM

Greek News - Antiquities Unearthed at Exiled King¢s Palace

ilias of john 06-19-2007 08:52 PM

I often ask myself how difficult it must be for a member of any Royal Family to live their life without incessant media and political coverage and influence.Can you image what H .M the King would have gone through when Karamanlis and Papandrew where supposedly instructing him on which girlfirend he should have and who he should marry. If memory serves me correct he was 20 or so when he was "with" Aliki.By the way,we all know this but has anybody actually got proof that they were boyfriend and girlfriend or is it just another suburban myth?
Secondly,the point of Aliki being of "purple" Byzantine blood is very difficult to believe.Every man and his dog in Greece can claim this because the Byzantine Empire has 82 or so Emperors form more than 9 dynasties over its 1000 odd years and family trees tend to become forests with every generation.
And lastly, H.M Queen Anne Marie, is the Queen of Greece because The King married her.No one else. He made his decision.The Greeks did not "remove" the monarchy because he did not marry a Greek!.It was removed in a fraudulent public referendum where votes for the Monarch were not counted and votes against were inflated and substituited.

By the way,
yes,
may the soil that covers Aliki be light,
may the soil that covers the departed members of the Greek Royal Family be light,
and,
God save H.M. The King.
Konstantinos, Vasilias ton Ellinon

Philippe Egalite' 07-10-2007 09:34 PM

That king Constantine had an affair with actress Aliki Vouyiouklaki is a matter of speculation but irrelevant altogether to this discussion. As was also the case with King Alexander, who eventually married Aspasia Manos but secretely, against the advice of the then prime minister E Venizelos, and the marriage was declared morganatic, the Greek Royals, whether they liked it or not, were NOT allowed by the State to marry into Greek families for fear of political minglings, corruption etc etc.
Another example is the case of prince Michael of Greece who, upon his marriage to Greek citizen Marina Karellas, had to, and did, resign his rights to the throne.
At any rate, even if he did have an affair with the late Aliki Vouyiouklaki, it could have never resulted in marriage. This actress, very popular with the working and uneducated classes, was of lower middle class upbringing and education and petite bourgeoisie background, such that she would have never been tolerated by the Greek upper echelons.

Philippe Egalite' 07-18-2007 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)

The people will do what they want and will have the Government they want whether it is what anyone here wishes it could be. However one day, Pavlos will inherit the claiment for this non-existant throne and be expected to continue 'the good greek works.' What i was saying is that he deserves a chance to do this and show he does care for Greece like any other Greek Citizen which is very hard for someone to do when they are not aloud in the country and people just pick holes in you. ........"

Greece not only allows but is mandated by European law to allow all European citizens to live, practise professions, operate businesses and so on in Greece, if they so choose. Mrs Marie-Chantal Miller (in Greece, by law introduced in the 1980's, even after marriage, all women bear their maiden last name) owns and runs a baby garments' shop in fashionable Kolonaki, just 300 yards from my house, actually.
Further, prince Pavlos, who appears to be very personable, is most welcome to open up a business, run for politics, do whatever else he chooses professionally or live permanently in Greece.
The Greeks may still hold grudges, for right or wrong, against King Constantine but no Greek has a problem with King Constantine's children, no one.

lucien 07-18-2007 10:22 AM

Indeed,HRH The Crown Princess Pavlos,néé Marie-Chantal Miller successfully runs that shop around your corner since a few years now.

And,like anywhere else in Europe,it is their own free choice to let the maiden name trail the husbands name,or use it as they please,
not that it is written in rock that all go by their maiden name only,even after marriage.

Philippe Egalite' 07-18-2007 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucien (Post 642594)
Indeed,HRH The Crown Princess Pavlos,néé Marie-Chantal Miller successfully runs that shop around your corner since a few years now.

And,like anywhere else in Europe,it is their own free choice to let the maiden name trail the husbands name,or use it as they please,
not that it is written in rock that all go by their maiden name only,even after marriage.

Not in Greece. In Greece, whether in identity cards, passports or any document, all women who got married AFTER the passage of the new law, MUST be identified by their maiden last name. Until then, professional women were carrying both their maiden name and the husband's surname in a double barrel fashion (hyphenated, that is), while homemakers or women who had graduated from university or had entered the professions after their marriage were carrying the husband's name.

Now, in the hypothetical setting that Greece were still a monarchy and the 1952 constitution was in effect, the marriage of prince Paul would have been morganatic, as was the case with King Alexander who married Aspasia Manos without permission of the Venizelos government. Posthumously, that is, after King Alexander's death because of septicemia following a bite by a monkey, Aspasia Manos was elevated to princess by unilateral act of the then king but the government and the people never acknoledged that and she is hence quoted in government documents, history books etc as Aspasia Manos.
Last but not least, when prince Micahel married Greek commoner Marina Karella, he had to resign his rights and she remained Marina Karella by decision of the palace - that was in 1965 if my memory serves me well.

Obviously, Mrs Miller is of no concern to Greece and the Greek people and, as long as she remains a non-Greek citizen, the way she gets addressed by people is a private business between her and them and none of Greece's.

mamaptak 07-18-2007 03:12 PM

You'll have to pardon me, as I am trying to follow this thread to the best of my ability and with a relatively recent interest in the Greek Royal Family. Am I to assume that we have some consensus on an actual "last name" that this family uses? If so, can someone clarify what it is? I am quite curious. Thanks in advance.

Benjamin 07-18-2007 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mamaptak (Post 642667)
If so, can someone clarify what it is? I am quite curious.

On his Danish passport the ex-king is "Constantine De Grecia".

ilias of john 07-18-2007 09:16 PM

H.M The King has publicly stated that the GRF has no last name.It is definately an abnormality for us in the modern age but that unfortunately is the sad truth.They use the phrase "de Grecia" (of Greece) on many legal documents ie passports but that is NOT their surname.
They are decended from the Dukes of Gluxburg but neither is that their surname.The British Royal family,who are directly related to the GRF use a number of surnames.They use Windsor,Mountbatten-Windsor(Princess Anne's marriage certificate to her first hubby),Wales(Princes William and Harry in the Army)and Wessex (Prince Edward on all his televisin documentaries.)
I ferverentky hope that the Greek Goverment would allow the Royal Family to use a Greek version of de Grecia on their Greek passports and reinstate their Greek citizenship.I mean honstly,how can they continue to remain stateless?

Iverieli 07-19-2007 12:01 AM

Its shame to Greece not has a monarchy. All orthodox christian counties lost their monarchy and thats started from Georgia, when russia took it. In 20th century Greece was only hope for orthodox christian countries to reinstate monarchy but everybody knows what happened. I'm so sorry post like that but its very hard to imagine because for me, as Georgian very clear what orthodox christianity is and how orthodox church takes things about monarchy.

Philippe Egalite' 07-27-2007 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iverieli (Post 642822)
Its shame to Greece not has a monarchy.

The sovereign people of Greece have decided, by themselves and for themselves, differently and are very happy with the Third Hellenic Republic and its membership to the European Union for which they look forward to becoming also a political entity with common defense and foreign policy.
The Hellenes do not need or invite advice from non-Greek citizens on their State's polity.
Due to a comparatively meteoric economic progress, Greece, which, up until 40 years ago, used to lose her flesh and blood due to forced economic emigration to Australia, Canada and Germany [1.5 million between 1954 and 1964], is now host to 1 million economic immigrants from all over the world including your native Georgia. And this was achieved during the Third Hellenic Republic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iverieli (Post 642822)
All orthodox christian counties lost their monarchy and thats started from Georgia, when russia took it. In 20th century Greece was only hope for orthodox christian countries to reinstate monarchy but everybody knows what happened. I'm so sorry post like that but its very hard to imagine because for me, as Georgian very clear what orthodox christianity is and how orthodox church takes things about monarchy.

Christianity, or Orthodox Christianity in this case, is not about polity [ie monarchy versus republic] of individual nation states. Christianity is about caring, compassion, tolerance and acceptance.

However, it is true that, in distinction from the Orthodox Faith, the Orthodox Church (as well as other organized denominations of Christianity) has always had a hand and glove relationship with all kinds of emperors, czars, kings and despots. And it is also true that the Orthodox Church has historically mingled with polity and political issues. It is because of these practices and these reasons that the Hellenes, albeit >95% orthodox christians, some devout, others linking their religious capacity to culture or ethnic identity, are by a vast majority very skeptical about the Church.

Daytona 07-27-2007 01:19 PM

Iverieli,bear in mind that the monarchy was enforced to Greek people by the western powers (France,England,Italy) and from Russia.No monarch was Greek and hadnt any greek culture or education.Even Constantine speaks adequatly Greek but is very fluent in English.In addition most of the kings didnt really care for Greece or the people and their pollitical decisions were made on the basis of their relations to other european monarchs supporting their interests.Democracy is the best regime.

Philippe Egalite' 07-27-2007 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daytona (Post 646040)
No monarch was Greek and hadnt any greek culture or education.Even Constantine speaks adequatly Greek but is very fluent in English.

In all fairness, former king Constantine speaks perfect Greek, albeit non-scholarly due to limited education. He is fluent in English but with a subtle, clearly Greek accent and this is something I like about him.

ilias of john 07-27-2007 07:47 PM

The Greek monarchs were Greek born after George I.hence most of us would say they were Greek.Their use of the Greek language was and continues to be perfect.Now by the term scholarly Greek, Phillip that language is porbably unknown to 95% of the population.

Philippe Egalite' 07-28-2007 06:54 AM

Since Byzantine times, there had been a very strong bond (hand and glove-type) between Emperors and the Church, in abidance by the age-old Greek motto Η ισχύς εν τη ενώσει (strength in unity) for, by supporting each other's position, they had managed to perpetuate despotism and autocracy. And it was the resultant corruption, incompetence and betrayal that, at least, contributed to the demise and Fall of the Empire and Constantinople. Alas, history always repeats itself. Ieronymos Kotsonis, the royal chapel's priest and confidant of the royal family, betrayed them and became the Junta's archbishop!!!

I understand that, at some point, Archbishop Ieronymos visited the King in Rome and was crying, asking for forgiveness!!

What is fascinating, paradoxical and ironical about King Constantine's downfall, was that it was not caused, prompted or facilitated by what are historically the adversaries of any monarchy such as the communist, left-wing or centrist political parties, but by its allies, that is, the pro-royalist right-wing party, the military and the Church.

Philippe Egalite' 07-28-2007 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mamaptak (Post 642667)
You'll have to pardon me, as I am trying to follow this thread to the best of my ability and with a relatively recent interest in the Greek Royal Family. Am I to assume that we have some consensus on an actual "last name" that this family uses? If so, can someone clarify what it is? I am quite curious. Thanks in advance.

The former King's last name is, as of 2001 and by his own decision and declaration, the spanish sounding de Grecia or De Grecia as Benjamin indicated correctly in an earlier post. Following his application, the Danish Government recognized him as a Dane and, thus, granted him a Danish passport.
The issue, in fact, prompted a discussion in the Danish Parliament (2001) initiated by a republican MP who asked why a Danish passport was granted to former King Constantine. The answer given in behalf of the Foreign Ministry was that former King Constantine is a direct descendant of King Christian IX and, thus, a Dane and a prince af Danmark.
Please note that prince af Danmark is a non-substantive title, that is, without rights of succession to the Danish Throne and without legal rights either. King Constantine, as a direct, agnatic descendant of King Christian IX (great-great-grandson) was born (1940) a prince til Danmark (substantive rank and title with full succession rights to the Throne). However, the 1953 Succession Act limited the Rights of Succession only to descendants of King Christian X and Queen Alexandrine. Those people, who were born princes or princesses til Danmark and ceased to be so, were accorded the honorific but non-substantive and without rights title of prince/princess af Danmark.

Conclusion: By his own decision, former King Constantine is now a Danish and, automatically, a European citizen with the surname de Grecia or De Grecia.

Daytona 07-28-2007 11:48 PM

Only by checking the family tree do you understand how Greek all royals were.I strongly believe that you must read Greek history to know details to judge how useful they were and why people more than once have voted to abolish monarchy.I have heard Constantine speaking puristic Greek(καθαρευουσα) and i enjoy hearing this greek than modern but i insist that he feels more comfortable when speaking English.And this is quite logical if someone has lived abroad for more than 30 years.

ilias of john 07-29-2007 03:29 AM

In September 2005 I was fortunate to meet H.M amd Prince Nikolaos. I can say without a shadow of doubt that their use of the Greek language is flawless, as if they are full time residents of Greece with University qualifications in law or similar. I have grown up speaking the language as a child and as an adult and feel myself well qualified to make such a comment.
Speaking to both of them individually my opinion is that the King feels a lot more comfortable in Greek than in English.
To believe otherwise would be in error, and, as for his children one must remember that he established the Greek school in London for the sole purpose of educating them in Greek.
Now, on to one of my favourite topics, Philippe Egalite',you quoted..

Conclusion: By his own decision, former King Constantine is now a Danish and, automatically, a European citizen with the surname de Grecia or De Grecia.

That is quite correct, however that was because the Greek goverment had stripped the King of his Greek Nationality and passport and subsequently left our Greek Royal family stateless,what would anyone have done except ask for help from family?, ie. his wife's sister.
I would wager everything that when the Greek goverment restores His Magesty's citizenship and passport he will instantly revoke his Danish citizenship and passports.

Daytona 07-29-2007 06:08 AM

Nikolaos does speak fluently Greek,no argument on that.The De Grecia is not a a surname.He is being provocative.This indicates his previous office and this is why no passport is granted to him.He should finally realise that we have a different democracy than the one he wants,people voted and people is the ruler.We have laws that apply to all Greeks.If he wants a passport he should choose a surname.

ilias of john 07-29-2007 06:46 AM

Well said Daytona,
"We have laws that apply to all Greeks".
Would it not be fair to apply true (honourable) Greek Justice to His Majesty and his family?
And, if he wants 'of Greece' or "de Grecia' or 'Felix the Cat' as a surname on his passport what is wrong with that?
In a true constituitional monarchy,ie Australia, Canada, New Zealand the Head of State is either the Governor General or the Sovereign.The true power rests in the hands of the people who elect their representatives by universal suffrage.These representatives then pass laws that by convention the Head of State is compelled to ratify.
It works very well and there is no need to keep changing it unlike the French Republic systems.

Daytona 07-29-2007 11:03 AM

Greek laws allow people to choose their last names but there are restrictions.So the last name he has chosen is against the laws.As simple as that even if you cant accept it.You may call him as you like but remember he has lost his power and hence all the titles and privileges that go with it.He is no king or majesty,he is a simple civilian like any other in the EU and is equal to any other man.

Philippe Egalite' 07-29-2007 03:58 PM

It is not that I am trying to reconcile the opinions of you both, but I feel compelled to be fair.

First of all, what Australia, Canada and New Zealand do or do not is the absolute prerrogative of the people of the respective countries, and is and should be deeply respected by outsiders. All three of these countries have an excellent system of government, but in now way does it mean that there are no other equally effective types of polity. Back to our topic now.

What, perhaps, was not fully understood here is the diplomatic mastery that Denmark employed to accept the de Grecia as a surname, which is exactly that in Danish de Grecia is meaningless. Indeed, it was handled ingeniously, so that Greece could take no offense at Denmark's action for, no matter what HM Queen Margrethe wants, she or her government would never offend a fellow member of the EU.
That the former king of the Hellenes is, as of 2001, a Danish citizen was not intended at criticizing or even critiquing him, but to answer the discussant's (Ilias of John) argument that king Constantine is stateless. The former king of the Hellenes is not a Greek citizen at this juncture, but not stateless.

The Hellenic Constitution doesn't talk specifically about surnames, but commands isonomy for all, which means that what applies to me [all] applies to all [me], be it rights, duties etc. By extrapolation, and because all Hellenes must have a surname, that is, a legal identity by which they get recognized by the state and their fellow citizens, any prospective Greek citizen must declare a surname or must devise one if he doesn't have any. And the surname he devises shall be his for life and he cannot claim a posteriori that he has no name for this would constitute perjury since upon becoming citizens people give an oath. To be complete though, Hellenes who have inherited surnames that aren't tasteful or have a derrogatory meaning are allowed to apply formally for surname change [for example, I know of a getleman with the last name of Κουλόγιωργας (which means George the useless), who changed it to Καλόγιωργας (George the good)].

As Ilias of John indicated correctly, the former king of Greece has no surname or so he declares and this is exactly the crux of the problem the Hellenic Republic has with former king Constantine:
1) that he refuses to devise and adopt genuinely a surname
and
2)that he refuses to acknowledge that he has a surname even after becoming a Danish citizen (2001), when he made the implicit declaration (in most countries by oath) that his surname is de Grecia.
All these make it crystal-clear that former king Constantine considers himself different and different he may be in the eyes of people and countries that allow that (Denmark, for instance, recognizes him both as a citizen and a nobleman, albeit in a non-substantive fasion). However, in a manner identical to that of the United States of America, the Hellenic Constitution has no room for differences of this type. Mr. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was accorded knighthood by the Queen, but neither he nor anyone else ever dared to use Sir Ronald Reagan.

In a way, former king Constantine has created a precedent for it would be difficult to argue that the de Grecia was a surname of convenience, since this could or would technically be an insult to Denmark and could place at risk his credibility and honor. For all intents and purposes, therefore, his surname vis-a-vis the EU is de Grecia. Therefore, one would be inclined to believe that the Hellenic Republic would have no problem with transliteration to Ντε Γκρέτσια, since it is meaningless in Greek but, under no circumstances, would it allow translation to Της Ελλάδος. Translation would be in defiance of international precedent. When people emigrate to foreign-speaking countries, their surnames get transliterated and not translated.

One could guess though that, apart from the surname, two more matters, would be, ipso facto, required or that his Hellenic citizenship would be conditional on:
1) His declaring internationally and particularly to various European or other Courts that what is written in his passport is his genuine surname and that he indeed has a surname (the moment he becomes a Greek citizen) and
2) His not being permitted in public, either within or outside Greece, to allow himself to be addressed as anything other than Κύριος Κωνσταντίνος Ντε Γκρέτσια [Monsieur Constantine de Grecia]. Obviously, all these would apply to former queen Anne-Marie, should she want to become a Greek citizen, who would become Kυρία Αννα-Μαρία Ντε Γκρέτσια [Madame Anne-Marie de Grecia].

However, it is almost certain that former king Constantine is unwilling to live with that, which makes it highly unlikely that he will ever become a Greek citizen again. In the end though, there is no issue, because he can live permanently in Greece by virtue of the fact that he is a European citizen. If I were in his place, I wouldn't be willing to give up so much to gain so little.
If, on the other hand, becoming a Greek citizen again carries a lot of symbolism to him, he may surprise us all.

Philippe Egalite' 07-29-2007 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)
I wasnt actualy saying that Greece should become a monarchy just so Pavlos can have five minutes to prove him self on the throne. As I said pages ago, it doesnt matter whether Greece is a Republic, Monarchy, Theocracy or anyother form of government, however secure and stable it may be... Constantine will always be the man who was King, and is the man who would be King had the Monarchy not been abolished, just as the Dukes of Bavaria have some complex Jacobian Claim on the British Crown, of which is even more unlikely to ever happen, however if you are so inclined they are the person to whom you turn.

Nobody could disagree with the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)
Whether you agree or disagree with monarchys in general or just in Greece, there are those who are either in favour of its return or simply just look upon the Royal Family with respect. In the same way if your Catholic your focal point is the Pope, and just beacuse he pays a state visit to your country does not mean there is going to be a Catholic forced take over. It doesnt matter if Greece is doing well or not, or if you like or hate the former King, there are people who look towards him for what ever small bit of happiness it brings them.

Nobody could disagree with these thoughts either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)
As such I personaly dont see a problem with someone calling them selves Glucksberg, De Greece, Oldenberg or Mr Athens, in supporting charities and promting Greek interests, and generaly doing good works as a private citizen.

It is suprising that you, a Briton, say that. Your country, and in particular the British Peerage, has a strict set of rules as to names, rank, title and style of nobility, knights etc.
For instance, if, say, Mr. Peter Phillips visited Greece and someone called him prince Peter or referred to him as HRH or addressed him as Your Royal Highness, I am sure, you would all have a fit and your Ambassador would have made representations so as to prevent similar events from recurring.
For instance, when the minor princely family of Battenberg moved to England, they were stripped of their princely rank and title, their name of provenance was switched to Mounbatten and only the senior male became 1st Marquess of Milford Haven while the rest of the family became commoners and everybody, whether a British a non-British subject had to observe the rules set forth by king George V.
For instance, when princess Katherine of Greece married major Brandram in 1947, moved with him to England and applied for British citizenship, she had to resign, and she was stripped of, her rank, title and style and, in the end, it was out of king George VI's decision that she was given the courtesy status of a duke's daughter which permitted her to be styled Lady Brandram. Could you imagine the reaction should someone dare address British subject Mr. Paul Brandram, her son, as HRH prince Paul of Greece??? I am sure the British Peerage would have a fit. Imagine The Queen's reaction had Lady Brandram been calling herself princess Katherine, while in England and a British subject??

In England alone, there have been volumes written about the appropriateness of names of the Royal House and their surname. People may argue for hours that Prince Philip's name is neither Mountbatten (anglicized Battenberg) nor Battenberg for it is his mother's name and that it is Glucksburg since he is the son of prince Andrew of Greece. Therefore, precedent shows that names matter and are important indeed.
All the above, therefore, show implicitly and explicitly that form can be in certain settings as important as substance or even more so.

Finally, as analyzed in detail in the preceding post, the issue with former king Constantine is that he declares that he has no name and, apparently,he treats the surname de Grecia accorded to him by Denmark, at his request, as a vehicle of convenience and not as his genuine surname.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)
Now if he started causing trouble and inciting his small or large number of followers into storming the Government Offices and Gunning the down the Oposition in the Street in an attempt to win back his throne then I would understand their reluctance to let him in, but I dont really think it is his style.

Even if this was their intention (and it isn't) there are no more Greeks who are passionate enough, one way or another vis-a-vis former King Constantine, to resort to revolt in his behalf. Members of the former royal family walk in and out of Greece constantly, particularly the former king and his wife and son Nikolaos and they are most welcome to do so. The latter attends parties, society functions etc. Former king Constantine goes around alone and talks to people whether in the streets, cafe's, the bar of Grande Bretagne, where he stays usually, and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)
The people will do what they want and will have the Government they want whether it is what anyone here wishes it could be. However one day, Pavlos will inherit the claiment for this non-existant throne and be expected to continue 'the good greek works.' What i was saying is that he deserves a chance to do this and show he does care for Greece like any other Greek Citizen which is very hard for someone to do when they are not aloud in the country and people just pick holes in you. If he turns out to be nothing more than an arrogant royal who wants nothing more than a crown and status we can then all say "he had his chance to be a good man and he blew it and thank goodness they didnt make him King."

The son of former king Constantine is having a good life in London and New York and good for him. The Greek people are not interested in him in his capacity as son of former king Constantine and don't expect anything from him in this regard. However, he is likeable and most wlecome in Greece 365 days a year including Mrs. Miller and their children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splodger (Post 49031)
As for what Constantine or Pavlos call their Family I only have one thought. (please note I am not comparing the two for how much work they did)How many people know Mother Teresa of Calcutters Surname? Did her name have any relevance to the good she tried to do?

The late ethnarch and major European statesman Eleftherios Venizelos said "The less people are involved with our country's affairs, the better it is for Greece"!

ilias of john 07-29-2007 08:27 PM

Phillip,
His Majesty and the Greek people have given up so much for very little.
King Konstantine will most likely surprise us all as to his Greek Nationality( I am certain no one now denies he is a Greek)
And finally,
you still haven't answered the question as to who would have arrested the Colonels? :(
Daytona,
You mention, He is no King or Majesty, just a normal civilian like every other citizen in the E.U.
Last time I chequed the E.U had many nation,( ie U.K Spain Belgium,Netherlands, Norway, Holland etc etc)where their Head of State was a little more different than a normal citizen.
How come you two blokes use French MONIKERS?

Philippe Egalite' 07-29-2007 08:36 PM

You mistook my nickname. Philippe Egalite' comes from Louis Philippe Joseph II, duc d' Orleans, called Philippe Egalite', who became a fervent supporter of the French Revolution.

ilias of john 07-29-2007 08:49 PM

Phillipo,
a couple of quick corrections,
Letters patent are created by H.M QE2 of the U.k which grant titles and styles of nobility to her relatives and descendants.She has not granted any title of Prince to Peter or Zara Phillips and as such are not entitled to use them.If they were to even in the U.K they would be charged with a Very serious criminal offense.Your point on them using Titles of Nobility in Greece is mute.
The German Battenburg family were not stripped of their German titles when they moved to the U.K. They voluntarilly surended them during the First World War after they had been living in the Uk for many years,I think about 120 all up.That is when King George cganged the Family surname from Saxe Coburg Gotha to Windsor, remember?
Princess Katherine upon becoming Lady Bradman did not have to apply for British citizenship because she was directly related to that Hanoverian Princess that the British parliament said ll successors must be related to(what was her name again?_)
And you are quite right about the Late Ethnarch Venizelos,wasnt he that seccessionist who tried to set up a rival Greek goverment in Thessaloniki?I think today we would call it a revolution,junta words to that effect?
P.s who would have arrested the Colonels?

Philippe Egalite' 07-29-2007 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilias of john (Post 646933)
His Majesty and the Greek people have given up so much for very little.

The Greeks never give up anything. On the contrary they have always fought for independence, then for expansion [Thessaly, Crete, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Samos and the Dodecanese Archipelago] of the country's boundaries and last but not least against fascism and later communism, and all that at the cost of millions of lives. In WWII alone, Greece lost 2 milion souls.

With respect to king Constantine, you may be right or, at least, this is what most Greeks hold against him, that is, that he gave up so much (democracy, 1967) for very little (to save his own life).

ilias of john 07-29-2007 09:38 PM

quote
With respect to king Constantine, you may be right or, at least, this is what most Greeks hold against him, that is, that he gave up so much (democracy, 1967) for very little (to save his own life).Today 07:51 PM
Who would have helped him to arrest the Colonels, Phillip?
He tried on his own, remember?
As for independence and expansion, you forgot to mention the most important one of all.The asia minor campaign, and of course remember that Churchill said
"that from now on no longer will we say that the Greeks fight like hero's.From now on we shall say that hero's fight like Greeks".1941
The Greeks didn't conquer the Dodecanese, we got given them at the end of ww2.We fought for liberty pure and simple.
If memory serves me was it not H.M GEORGE 1 who ruled Greece for 50 odd years and doubled the land size of your nation and tripled the size of the population? And was it not that Venizelos who created an independant Cretan republic, and when that Failed and FINALLY joined Greece he scurried off to Greece, entered National politics there and even tried to destroy that Nation by creating a seccessionist regime?

Daytona 07-30-2007 05:21 AM

Ilias,why is it so difficult for you to understand and accept that the Greek constitution doesnt regognize any titles and that all Greek citizens are equal?Equality and isonomy for all.Former king Constantine was a head of the state and when Greek people decided that monarchy should be abolished,he lost all priveleges and titles.Under Greek laws and constitution he is not anything more or less than any other Greek who have the same rights and obligations to greek laws and constitution.All Greeks in many circumstances of our life,for instance the army,give oath to uphold the greek laws and constitution which is the greek republic.If he wants a surname he should acknowledge the current constitution.ie recognize the referendum which abolished the monarchy.I am curious why someone from the other side of the planet is so persisant on monarchy in Greece without knowing or understanding why Greeks abolished this anachronistic regime.Believe me, Greece is way better off today under the current regime.Now,if you enjoy calling him a king or majesty or bow before him this is your prerogative.Me,on the other hand iam free.

I am a great admirer of the French civilasation and of the Revolution Francaise which actually set the foundations and the ideologic basis for the Greek revolution.

Philippe Egalite' 07-30-2007 06:41 AM

The Hellenic Republic does not recognize titles. In this respect, it goes further and farther than even the United States of America. In the USA, there is one category of people who are addressed differently, the professional groups of physicians and dentists (and infrequently those who hold PhD degrees). Indeed, all MDs and DDSs, in the USA, are referred to and addressed as Dr something.
In Greece, all MDs are referred to and addressed as Mr/Mrs something.

ilias of john 07-30-2007 06:56 AM

Daytona,..
I do not find it difficult at all to understand what the Greek constituition says nor do I find it difficult to accept that it does not recognize any titles of nobility. What I do not accept is the fact that it was a false referendum that brought this constituition in to place and all it did was take power from one and give it to another that is not appointed by the Greek population but by a select few who are primarilly interested in feathering their own nests.
In terms of being from the other side of the planet my friend you will undoubtably know that the Greek diaspora is far flung(notice my name).
I know full well the events of '74 I still remember them.
The French revolution is still developing, they have only had 4 republics since the last Emperor(have you heard the theory that the Buonaparte's were of Maniot descent?).
Every change has brought more instability and uncertainty and I read just recently that their new President wants to change the constituition(again) so that the Prime Ministers powers dont conflict with his own!
Kalinihta!

Daytona 07-30-2007 08:34 AM

Firstly,it is nice knowing you are Greek.Secondly,no one questions the referendum,only the former king and his followers.Even today the former king has limited followers.Do you know why Constantine lost power?I cant understand your point of vue regarding "took power and gave it to another that is not appointed by the Greek people".You obviously mean the generals government but you tend to forget that some military men took advantage of the political instability,created by the palace,that the former king actually inaugurated the illegal government,that the palace prior to that was constantly interferring with politics when objecting with the decisions of the pm and ministers.The monarchy in Greece will never be restored.Kalimera.

lucien 07-30-2007 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daytona (Post 647123)
Secondly,no one questions the referendum,only the former king and his followers.Kalimera.

Perhaps you missed that for decades the Greeks have been brainwashed on the RF,not a chance was missed,or created,to villify the King and his family.
All of Europe questioned that so-called and fraudulous referendum,in fact,it doesn't even deserve that qualification.The subsequent greek governments went out of their way to block out anything related to the RF.Even up to now,if they can.But the Euro's from Brussels lurked and pockets were to be filled,and the coniving & corruption prevails,so they gave/give in,bit by bit,on the rights of the RF that is,acknowledging they existed and allow them back in the country took the EU to accomplish,
all other aforementioned florishes still like the sky is the limit and has become such a "common" matter,they fail to see it as it is.Kalispera.

Daytona 07-30-2007 12:08 PM

The referendum is the ultimate democracy,people choose and decide and that is what happened in our case.Do you know that 90% of the Greek people voted against?The former king questions the result because he wasnt in Greece at that time and he couldnt be certain that any fraududelences were made.It is quite reasonable when loosing your power but i think he disregards the will of the majority.The referendum took place after the democracy was restored in Greece so the situation was altered in terms of freedom of speech,freedoms that were limited or none during the coup d eta.In which Europe are you referring to that questioned the referendum?Only the monarchies.If a referendum took place today under the supervision of the EU,what would the outcome be you think.Never in the Greek history were the greek people pro monarchs,in fact other times the monarchy was abolished.The royal regime is anachronistic.Kalispera.

ilias of john 07-31-2007 06:28 AM

A Royal Duke Who voted YES to execute his King
 
Louis-Philippe of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises