King Constantine and The Dicatorship of the Colonels, 1967-1974.

[stef]

Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels

Preston got all his info from one very questionable book; but then again, he's not a Greece expert but a Spain one - all things considers it's something I can forgive.



Damn right 'bout that



I forgot to mention that Preston actually uses Measure of Understanding in Juan Carlos - ????
...................



That the old 1952 constitution wasn't fit for purpose is hard to deny - Greece was in desperate need of social and economic reform and the fact that there was considerable vested interest in maintaining what was a very conservative and corrupt state system is also hard to deny but frankly I fail to see how abolishing the monarchy would further the cause of reform. Although in all honesty Constantine probably should have returned to greece before Karamanlis got a chance - this would have poss forced his hand, but tradition stated that you only returned after the referenda was held...

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1901399

Here's a link through to what i've had to say about the book in question on another thread

Βασιλιάς Κωνσταντίνος Β΄και ΓεώÏ�γιος Î*απανδÏ�Î*ου ‹ The Royal Chronicles

More background from a really fantastic website - what a great resource (even if it needs google translate for an unfortunate monolingual like me!) :)

This is quite difficult to explain because it is part of Greek thought. I think in Greece, it had/has a confusion between the monarchy with a political party (right ideology) .At that time it was more pronounced this confusion.

A King is not a political party. The political party of Karamanlis boasted to be monarchist, most of the voters of this party were considered monarchists. Karamanlis always took advantage of his condition monarchists to attract votes. The people identified to him with monarchy.

Karamanlis and his political party was heavily influenced, it was said, by US when he began to lose his political credibility by corruption scandals , and this favored George Papandreou the other politician candidate, he interpreted that the monarchy was to his service, he thought the king should support him for win the elections.

Karamanlis was always a very arrogant man, all the politicians of the time say it, and I think that most people who voted to him,known of his arrogance, it was natural at him

This is logical that Constantine trust him, because the followers of Karamanlis saw to him like monarchist, even people who occupied positions of trust in the Greek royal house, thought it was monarchical and seeing as such. It is logical that Constantine trust at him, he had not lost between his followings the condition of monarchist.

His followers thought that would be enough for the King to call him or talk to him, and Karamanlis would be there.

When he contacted with the King, it is logical that constantino tried with him, because he had not lost his status as monarchist.

When did he changed?

When he returned Athens, 1974.

and how did he changed? You remember I told you at the beginning that there was a confusion between King and political party by people, King = political party of Karamanlis. the people that voted to karamanlis thought that voted to the King.
It was as simple as applying the same excuse that applied the Colonels,it was, the King was socialist , it was only necessary to say that the king was not with Karamanlis, and " no King."

I'll give you the proof of this, from Constantine lives in Greece, people say, "He has come to engage in politics, sure." , and what is the political party of the King?and many say," New Democracy (the party founded by Karamanlis)!!!!. hahaha

[BELTRANEJA]

You say that in 1968 the Colonels changed the system and created one similar to Franco, it was ratified in referendum, it is true. George Papadoloulus was regent, but you has been talking about Prince michael. Michael says that he did not wanted to be the prince of Greece because the princes had no free time, they did not have privade life, they always occupied and the press always attacking them.....it is true,
However in 1970 1971, the European press indicates that Michael could occupy the regency replaces George.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Originally Posted by BELTRANEJA

You say that in 1968 the Colonels changed the system and created one similar to Franco, it was ratified in referendum, it is true. George Papadoloulus was regent, but you has been talking about Prince michael. Michael says that he did not wanted to be the prince of Greece because the princes had no free time, they did not have privade life, they always occupied and the press always attacking them.....it is true,
However in 1970 1971, the European press indicates that Michael could occupy the regency replaces George.

Although most standard histories of the coup and junta in english don't mention this, its possible that maybe other s who did not want Constantine as king but still wanted a monarch may have considered offering Michael the crown - its possible Karamanlis and his supporters played around with this and the rumours were a way of testing the waters of public reaction. However, Prince Peter would have been in the way, Michael and Marina had no desire for the crown, and Michael had no sons. At that time a male heir was preferred, and playing around with lines of successions is a slippery slope as history has taught us. Once you start trying to pick and choose the king this way, calls to elect your leaders come next.....

[stef]

I believe that these rumours started when Juan Carlos was appointed successor by Franco, in 1969. The press European identified to them,the colonels, with the regime Franco(military in power of state, anti-communist and royalists) and the press began do similarities.

The press played with the imagination: Franco were the colonels, the count of Barcelona, Juan of Bourbon, was Constantine and Juan carlo was, Michael or Peter.

First choice, Michael, has not wanted to be King or Prince in throne, never. Michael lived at that time in Greece, and although he was not in politicy I think than this gave problems to him.this rumor was impossible, was false
Second option, if the colonels would had offered this to Peter, it had resulted comic. Peter had expressed his sympathies by the communism, when colonels amounted to the power, he came out running of Greece.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Some related articles posted by the good folks at RoyalChronicles

ΔεκÎ*μβÏ�ιος 1967: Οι Ï€Ï�ώτες ημÎ*Ï�ες εξοÏ�ίας της Βασιλικής ΟικογÎ*νειας ‹ The Royal Chronicles

Το Βασιλικό Αντικίνημα της 13ης Δεκεμβ�ίου 1967 ‹ The Royal Chronicles

ΕνημεÏ�ωτικό υλικό Ï…Ï€Î*Ï� της ΒασιλευομÎ*νης ΔημοκÏ�ατίας στο Δημοψήφισμα του 1974 ‹ The Royal Chronicles

8 ΔεκεμβÏ�ίου 1974: 42 χÏ�όνια από το Δημοψήφισμα για την μοÏ�φή του Î*ολιτεÏ�ματος ‹ The Royal Chronicles

[WreathOfLaurels]

I promised some time back I would post somthing from Margaret Papandreou's Nightmare in Athens regarding C's role in the events of 1967, after a delay for which I apologize, here it is.

Constantinos had some of the characteristics of his father - the humor, the grace, and the simplicity. He was however, raised by his mother, and she installed in him the medical antidotes of kingship, the blue-blooded tradition, and thus he developed the arrogance that comes from believing he came from a very special category of human being...His image of himself in his role of king was a confused one. On the one hand he wanted to be king of all the Greeks, that is, to be politically neutral, and his first speech in parliament in 1964 inaugurating the new government after the death of his father had that tone. On the other hand, he saw himself as the true leader of the country, a young De Gaulle, decidedly king-politician.

Margaret Papandreou, Nightmare in Athens, 1970, p 80

As you may have been able to guess, this could describe George Papandreou the younger in a number of ways.

[stef]

Her claims are ridiculous, because all people know that she lived in USA to 1964, she said in an interview(2009) that she did not know where was Greece until her husband participated for election of 1963. She did not know who was King Paul or Queen Freiderika because she never lived In Greece, and not King Constantine, for this reason, she can not speak either of King Paul or of Queen Freiderika.....she did not know them.

She was born and lived in United States, and yet in Greece she defended socialism and the Republic.

King Constantine was not a political king, he was neutral. The problem of Margaret is: she did not read the Greek constitution of 1952, the government needed the support of the parliament, vote of confidence, the political party of George was broken by the appearance of the ASPIDA plot (a plot to give a coup),Andreas, her husband, appeared involved in the plot , the political formation of George Papandreou was broken, one side the Papandreous, on the other those who left the political party for feeling the victims of a coup plot. The King had nothing to do with George's failure, it was they who broke their formation and lost the confidence of the parliament.

[WreathOfLaurels]

2017 will be the 50th anniversary of the April 21 1967 military coup which ultimaly lead to the deposition of Constantine II and the final abolition of the Greek Monarchy. I was taking on another thread about the centenary of the Russian Revolution and how the present Russian goverment and society at large are dealing with it.

Unlike for example the 1973 student uprising or the 1974 Metapolitefsi this will be a tricky event to commerate, if at all, not even taking into account the Greek state's budget problems I'm curious about how it will be remembered in the media and society at large given that it is a divisive topic - and the fact that a great many on the far right would very much like to see a return to that style of governence.

Also, the former King is one of the few main players still alive, what will he say and do? What will others say about him? Especially, given the fact that the ongoing financial crisis has cast most of the post 1974 political class in a negative light, how will that affect perceptions. If anything it might lead to a few new books in English on the subject, which is no bad thing.

Any ideas or suggestions?

[fandesacs2003]

Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels

2017 will be the 50th anniversary of the April 21 1967 military coup which ultimaly lead to the deposition of Constantine II and the final abolition of the Greek Monarchy. I was taking on another thread about the centenary of the Russian Revolution and how the present Russian goverment and society at large are dealing with it.

Unlike for example the 1973 student uprising or the 1974 Metapolitefsi this will be a tricky event to commerate, if at all, not even taking into account the Greek state's budget problems I'm curious about how it will be remembered in the media and society at large given that it is a divisive topic - and the fact that a great many on the far right would very much like to see a return to that style of governence.

Also, the former King is one of the few main players still alive, what will he say and do? What will others say about him? Especially, given the fact that the ongoing financial crisis has cast most of the post 1974 political class in a negative light, how will that affect perceptions. If anything it might lead to a few new books in English on the subject, which is no bad thing.

Any ideas or suggestions?

It is nothing to commemorate about this 21 april 1967 in Greece. This date is a dark day in our history. This military coup, made by ignorant and low level Fashists and tortionnaikres, put the country in one of the worst periods of her history, and led, among others to the military invasion of Cuprys and division of the island.

King Constantine has talked about this period, and his position, I do not think that he will be requested to talk more, especially now he does not look very well.

The only people who will celebrate this anniversary in Greece, is some few extreme right and facsist believers, which unfortunately exist in every country.

[stef]

I am relatively in agreement with you. But I would like to specify, I would like this period of history to be studied with objectivity, because this is very interesting. I believe that this is part of the history of Greece and has to be studied trying to find objectivity in the events that occurred, looked at from the perspective of who is studying the past. In Greece history is mistreated, as in many European countries, history is politicized, depends on the political party that governs a country, it is studied in one way or another the history.

For example, I have read books that speak of the liberalization of Thessalonika without enunciating, King Geoge and King Constantine......
To speak of the coup d'etat of the colonels, the version, depends on the political ideology of the person who is speaking to you about it. If this person is a leftist, he always seeks to identify the colonels with the ideology of the right, and they are the victims. However, the people of right-wing ideology remember that the colonels responded to a coup d'etat that they, the leaders of leftists aspired to give in country. Finally the extremes, the extreme right, the colonels are the best(of yesterday and to today haha) , and the extreme left is like them but the opposite.

Each one has its version, for the left, the dictatorship had as its end, the Manifestations of Athens University(17/11/1973) , this is not true, the end was with Cyprus in 1974. ......

Regarding books, I do not think that they will write books in English, in Greek in the last 10 years have published historical books, some good, some pathetic ... but I take this moment to say That it would be good that authobiography of King would be published in English, because many people ask me for it "Do you know if the autobiography is in English?" and because I think that it is relevant to understand this period, and it is very good.

[Nikolopoulus]

I am reading your comments, and this is very interesting, but I think that none of you are explaining the essential motive that led to the political instability of Greece from 1961 to 1967, this instability was the cusp of the 1967 coup.

Two facts to understand. a) The United States was the largest investor in Greece, Greece was a strategic Mediterranean country to control the communists. This investment was beneficial for the country but became a problem in Greek politics.

United States after the 1958 elections ?, where the politics was radicalized, on the right,the ERE of Karamanlis and the left of the EDA, left-wing party, closely linked to communism, US decides to support the ERE in the dark.

b) In 1961, Karamanlis was very discredited by the public opinion, and a coalition of parties in the opposition is created, a very explosive mixture in ideological, the Union of Center of G. Papandreou. Those elections were political strategy of Karamanlis and the United States.

Karamanlis used the monarchy as a claim to favor of his party , trying to turn the parliamentary elections into a kind of referendum," if you vote for me, you vote for the King, but if you vote for EK, you vote for the republic or comunist" .


I think this is the problem, that Karamanlis used the monarchy to get votes.
I know people can not understand why it is wrong for a right-wing political party to use it, the people think the monarchies are one conservaty political party , and it is not true.

I think that this was destructive to the monarchy, because it was provoking that the right-wing ideology people saw the monarchy as theirs, and the people of the left or socialist, thought that the monarchy was conservatory ideology and they began to feel that they were being excluded in the representation of the Head of State

[WreathOfLaurels]

https://sites.google.com/site/standraenos/home/new-light-on-july-1965-continued

An article from the website of Stan Draenos, biographer of Andreas Papandreou about the events of July 1965. It was published in 2008 but still useful for the events that lead up to the coup, albeit from Andreas Papandreou’s perspective.

Any comments or thoughts?

[WreathOfLaurels]

Originally Posted by stef

Karamanlis always denied having betrayed the king, and denied have been managing the return of the King. He denied contacts with the King. But Constantine said otherwise, that he had spoken and met with him , when a British politician or a personality claimed it was true, that Karamanlis had been managing the return of King ...... then Karamanlis ,always resorted to this kind of story, where he was the hero who had saved Greece once again

Do you know who the british politician you mentioned was?

[WreathOfLaurels]

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...reek-king.html

An article related to my post above

[Nikolopoulus]

__I have partially read the book about
HWilson, especially this period,.

Chronology of the Facts:
-In 1966 it is impossible to create stable government, because the parliament where the Prime Minister should be ratified, the Government does not achieve the vote of confidence. The situation is delicate , by the plots of Ideologias of Lefts for a coup .

the King solvented the problem, holding private and secret meetings, with the leaders politicals .The political parties agreed to convoke election and respect, to the result of election. . 12/12/1966 the king annunced to convoke election at may. To the king is irrelevant who win the elections, because according to the agreement, the politicians would respect the winner.



-Harold Wilson and his foreign minister want to know about this agrement of King with politicals. They wanted to known if George Papandreou was present at the meetings (they fear the old man, they believe that he aspires to be succeeded by his son). Surprise!!!, George Papandreou was present at the meetings and in the agreement.
Harold Wilson sees the King's solution to the problem well, but his Minister of Foreign Affairs, not

-April 21, it is coup d'etat, initially there had doubts about who were those militaries, but was ruled out that they were communists, they alleged that they acted against a communist coup that was being given that day.( Today we know of the participation of EEUU ...)

-Two months later, the Colonels infringed the state of exception, and elected charges for those who were not competent, invading competentes. The state of exception is temporary, and they break it. The king begins his confrontation with the Colonels, and begins the preparations of the counter coup d'etat.. In September, the king says "This is not my Goverment ", and the division between Colonels and the king is evident.

Harold Wilson shows his support for King Constantine and democracy, and refuses to support the colonels. According to him the solution, the king and democracy, he is with King Constantine.

-13 December was the coup d'eta of King ....., on December 14, that day he arrived at the airport in Rome.

-January 1968, the United States is the first country that recognizes as legitimate government of Greece to the Colonels, this is logical. 27 of January, Great Britain, yes, with Harold Wilson as Prime Minister recognizes the Colonels, is the second country .......

Harold Wilson , In December he supported democracy and the king, and in January he supported the dictatorship.

(1968) Harold Wilson met with King Constantine, Harold Wilson wanted King Constantine to support the dictatorship in Greece. Why?, because Britain was interested in dictatorship to give stability to the area, and feared that the Colonels failed, he thought that if the king supported the Colonels would be identified with a dictatorship as the Spain

The king angried with him. First he showed his support to him and democracy, and then he supports the dictatorship and asks the King to support the dictatorship...and end.

It is true that Constantine was surrounded by traitors. And Karamanlis was one of them. But I do not think he talks about this period and Harold Wilson.

In June 1973, Papadopoulus declared the Republic, and in November were the manifestations of the University. At this time there was already a King -Karamanlis plan. I would say a "goverment in exile"

The King conversed with the greek politician about the events that were taking place in Greece, this could be the time of the fall of the dictatorship, they should be prepared.

the then British Prime Minister invited the king to a breakfast to talk about what was happening in Greece, there were many doubts, whether these demonstrations could end the dictatorship.

The king thought, if the demonstrations were promoted by communists, anarchists ... they would not triumph, but if they were not it, then if the colonels used force, it could mean their end. It is obvious that the goverment of Great Britain knew about the meetings of the King-Karamanlis.

The demostration and the use of force led to the resignation of G. Papadopulus, but the dictatorship did not end, a new Colonel was appointed President.

_______________________________
Novas was not a political coup, he was the good candidate politician.

The decision of G. Papandreou to appoint himself defense minister is unconstitutional. He should chose a defense minister in person different from himself, or should resigned because a Prime Minister can not infringe the constitution.

First Papandreou refuses to accept it, but after, he committed himself to appoint minister of defense. He goes to the royal palace, but does not appoint defense minister, resigns.

Returning to the moment when Papandreou resigns. It is a free act, and voluntary, nobody forced him or even the king, the king asked him to choose a minister, and Papandreou accepted it.

After resigning, the constitutional process said that the king must propose candidate, Constantine knew that the resignation was a possibility, and he had consulted his advisors, among them professors of the university of Athens experts in constitutional law. They considered that Novas was the candidate to Prime Minister, because:

1- Novas was EK, it was the politicial party winner of the election He was of Papandreou.2.- He had not been in the internal confrontations of the politicial party .3. -He was the President of the Greek Parliament.4 .- And was the most likely to get the confidence vote of parliament. Because he could unify the EK.

But when Papandreou knew that Novas had accepted be Prime Minister , begin to insult to him(nobas was of Papandreou), he called apostate to Novas, Novas was not apostate. Papandreou was hurt that one of his men accepted to be Prime minister.

And Mitsotakis he had no chance of getting a vote confidence, by his confrontation with the Papandreou, and the confrontation with the conservative party , Mitsotakis had not garantee of receive confiance vote of parliament.The King must elect the Prime Minister, the election must propose a person who has more possibilities to take forward the vote of confidence of parliament and this person was Novas.

Papandreou-Mitsotakis, they were confronted, because in 1961 when George created the Union of Center(EK) political formation, in order to attract the most right-wing ideological parties and unite them with those on the left, it was said that they had agreed, George Papandreou would be the President of the party and all they committed themselves within the party to support him, but if there were any circumstances that would lead him to resign or leave office, the succesor of Papandreou would be Mitsotakis.This allowed the creation of the EK, which was a coalition of politicians with different ideologies, but , with a single objective, to win the elections and to govern.

When the whole plot of the ministry emerged and its link to military plots, to overthrow the army's dome (in other countries they call it a coup, but the Papandreou did not it so), the political party broke down. Mitsotakis demanded G. Papandreou to resign and Papandreou refused, and started a campaign of insults and discredit against Mitsotakis. But Mitsotakis was right, George had deceived the politicians of right-wing branches, to get into the EK. mitsotakis and other political parties (left and right) felt victims of a deception, and believed they were used. The Papandreou had used them., By this motive they was confronted . the political party was divided by the scandal of Minister of defence

[WreathOfLaurels]

https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr...ad/16301/14524

A recent (if problematic) article about Constantine and the lead up to the December 1967 countercoup.

Any thoughts?

[stef]

The article you have published is an article in favor of the Papandreous and United States. This version, missing the truth, wing history. During the decade of the 80s, 90s of the last century, the participation of this country (US) in the coup of 1967 was accreted with official documents of the United States.


In the 2000s CIA's documents were declassified referring to the names of US diplomats who practiced in the US embassy in athens, deducting from those documents that the CIA controlled the US embassy in athens, there were even diplomats who were agents of the CIA . they had like the objective of preventing the creation of a stable government in Greece.

Nor speaks of the meetings of the King with politicians to call elections on May 28, 1967, with which the King sought a stable government. In theses meetings attended all political formations, including G. papandreou. All reached an agreement. These meetings were held by the King in the most absolute discretion to avoid the constant political interference of the United States. These meetings appear in the biography of Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of Great Britain.
It is a purely Papandreou version, it does not speak of ASPIDA, it does not speak of the meetings of the king with the political formations in 1966, of the political action of the American diplomats ... it tries to attribute the coup to the king, when today, we have the clarity that the it was against the King .....
It does not even collect data of the last years, like the autobiography of the king.

I explain it:
In the first place, Garufalias was not an imposition of the King. the political party of the EK, party of G. Papandreou, after the scandal of the Ministry of defense, was divided. They, the members of EK, to avoid the division of the party (that would cause the loss of the support of the parliament, George had not majority ), to avoid it, Garufalias was a imposition of the political party of the EK, not King, to stay together and not break of political party. .
Secondly, the King and George Papandreou had an excellent relationship, George Papandreou was the first to call by phone to Constantine to give the condolences for the death of his father, and was the first to call him, "Majesty".
This data is in the autobiography of the King, and proves the good relationship.
The King and George talked about the situation of the country, and met constantly. In a conversation with George Papandreou, the King tells him that maybe the communist party should be legalized, George answers the King, "no, that's crazy"
. In the year 2015 when the autobiography of the King, he wrote about it . konstantine Mitsotakis, who was Minister at that time, on television, the journalist asks him about the autobiography of the king. Mitsotakis said for the first time, that IT WAS TRUE, and he spoke about the meeting of ministers where George Papandreou told them that the King had spoke about legalize the communist party.

The relationship of Papandreou and the King was very good. After the resignation of Garufalias, 1965, Papandreou became Minister of Defense, without complying with the process established in the constitution. This moment is when the King-Papandreou's relationship with this conflict was broken. It is here when the relation was broken, but not before ( as the article claims).
(The King met the Council of State who determined that Papandreou's decision (be Minister of defense) was unconstitutional).
Yesterday the Greek parliament approved a motion of confidence to the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras. I talk about it, because I think that in countries like the United States do not understand the functioning of European parliaments, and I get the feeling that they do not understand that the government is elected by the parliament and parliament is elected by the people. To say that George Papandreou had the majority and the King is the culprit of everything, It's being a liar, and treating people stupid.
Yesterday, there was to Tsipras confidence vote because the coalition of political parties that supported him has publicly removed his support. George Papandreou lost the support of members of his own political party, and they left him in minority in the parliament.
G.Papandreou lost the parliamentary majority when his political party broke, he tried to prevent a motion of confidence in the parliament, first calling himself minister of defense, calling the people out in demonstrations ... Papandreou did not want the motion of confidence because he did not have the majority of the support of the parliament because his party had been broken.



Is the President of the Republic of Greece guilty that P.Kamenos has taken away from Syriza the support in the parliament? NO. the King constantine was not guilty that G. Papandreou had not the majority of the support of the parliament.

-The Diplomats of the United States :


the US diplomats of this time, worked for the CIA, even bribed Greek parliamentarians to avoid giving their support to the Greek Prime Minister proposed by the King. The CIA wanted a political instability in Greece to justify its coup d'etat. They lost their influence in Greek politics (influence that was motivated by the Cold War), when their politician, who was Karamanlis lost the support of the people and lost the elections. United States was not with the King , US was against of the King.

The King called the meetings in 1966 to reach an agreement, in the meetings was G. Papandreou. They agreed to hold elections and support the outcome, the King expected a two-year government that would solve the problem of political instability. The king called the elections for May 28, 1967, in december of 1966(Harold wilson spoke in his biography of this)

The coup d'etat of the coronels frustrated the elections of King, the coup d'etat was against the King.

The meetings to hold elections were secret to prevent US diplomats from finding out. The king did not have any confidence in the diplomats of the United States.

The coup of April 21, we know the whole process.
In the planning of the coup, they sought the incommunication of the King, they organized it to isolate to him in the Palace of Tatoi, . They sought the isolation of the king to avoid the reaction of the King who was the Chief of the armies.
the coup d'etat occurred against the agreement of the king to call elections, the coup d'etats was against the King.

The coup was given by the United States Tatbol was their brain because they did not want the King's agreement on calling elections to move forward.

When the king met with Lyndon Johnson, Johson denied his involvement in the coup d'etat, however that was not true. The whole conversation with Lyndon Johnson was the United States ambassador who passed to the colonels, thanks to the information that the United States passed to the colonels, they managed to frustrate the coup d'etat of the king in December 1967, and oust the King .

In January 1968, Tatbol, in representation of the United States, he recognized as legitimate government to the Colonels and G. Papadopolus as the new Head of State.

During the entire dictatorship, the president of the United States visited the colonels, without anyone remembering the president that Greece was a dictatorship, during this period the United States included money in favor of the dictatorship, in the budgets, without any American seeing it badly, even the Democrats supported it (was not the coronels
dictators?)
Nobody put a sign saying "Go Colonels." No to the contrary they received them with joy.
they even gave them money for being a dictatorship.

[Nikolopoulus]

Bravo Stef,
The king tried to resolve the conflict of political instability by an agreement with all political formations. They agreed to hold elections and respect and support the outcome of the vote. The agreement was promoted by the king and I think it was in Tatoi's palace, because they wanted it to be secret. On December 11 , 1966, the King called for elections on May 28, 1967. G. Papandreou was in Tatoi.
The coup d'etat of the colonels, it avoid those elections that the King had summoned. US diplomats did not want that solution. I agree that the coup d'état was against the king and it was the CIA who planned it.The CIA wanted a dictatorship like Franco's in Spain.
Other proof:
In 1969 died the Ex President Eisenhower, he was friend of King Paul, the family invited to King Constantine to the funeral(he was a guest of the family). The King was in exile. AND THE GOVERNMENT of the United States invited the regime of the Colonels, they had official representation at the funeral, I remember that Pattakos was the coronel that represented to Greece in this event. Greece was a dictatorship, nobody manifested against his presence, was invited by the government of the United States.

[fandesacs2003]

Dear Queen Angélique

I strongly agree to what you said about Queen Anne-Marie.
I also believe that King Konstantine would have been a good King.
Nevertheless I also believe that he lost his kingdom by his fault and only his fault. A clever and powerful management of the situation would have given to him back his kingdom at 1974. He failed to, but this is not the scope of this thread.
Going back to the subject, it is still unclear to me, why a reigning King at his wedding does bow in front of his invitees.

Originally Posted by Queen Angelique

Dear Fandesacs;


I SO agree with you again. She would be a wonderful Queen of Greece, just as Constantine would be a good King. But Anne-Marie is special and so Regally elegant with reserve and dignity. I believe it would be good for Greece if Constantine & Anne-Marie were restored to the Throne. But I am a Royalist of course....


Kind Regards,

Queen Angelique.

[Queen Angelique]

Originally Posted by fandesacs2003

Dear Queen Angélique

I strongly agree to what you said about Queen Anne-Marie.
I also believe that King Konstantine would have been a good King.
Nevertheless I also believe that he lost his kingdom by his fault and only his fault. A clever and powerful management of the situation would have given to him back his kingdom at 1974. He failed to, but this is not the scope of this thread.
Going back to the subject, it is still unclear to me, why a reigning King at his wedding does bow in front of his invitees.

Dear Vandesacs;

Being Greek, you know more about what happened than I do. I had been given the impression, that King Konstantin's Mother, Queen Frederica had been problematic and thus, in a roundabout way, had caused the ending of The Monarchy. What happened in 1974, I don't know, and I would be grateful if you would enlighten me. Why a reigning King bows in front of his invitees, is a mystery to Me too! Thank you for your reaction and additional insights.

Kind Regards,