King Michael and the late Queen Anne current events

[andrew]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Who need enemies with "monarchist groups" like these? Apart from the situation of Nicholas, Princess Margareta is the number one and Princess Elena is the number two (assuming that these "monarchists" back the michaelian version of the succession).

Oh wait a moment.... these "monarchists" do not back the constitutional succession (the Fürst and the Erbprinz von Hohenzollern), they do not back the michaelian version of said succession (Princess Margareta and Princess Elena), they back THEIR version of the succession: 1. Nicholas, 2. Nicholas, 3. Nicholas.

It is Breitbart in optima forma.

Imagine a similar situation in Britain(I know that there are a lot of differences,but still) let's say in a few years the Queen would be in hospital,or secluded at home where nobody could visit her exept Charles and Camilla and there would be a statement that William is excluded from succession. How do you think the media and the people would react?
As much as it would be a private family matter some clarifications would be needed.
I think the Romanian public(at least those who have an interest in the monarchy) deserves a bit more transparency.

[andrew]

Until now, the monarchy represented a far more stable and moral alternative for the republic. But it has changed. If we want uncertainty,scandals and struggle for power- we have our politicians....

[Denville]

Originally Posted by andrew

Imagine a similar situation in Britain(I know that there are a lot of differences,but still) let's say in a few years the Queen would be in hospital,or secluded at home where nobody could visit her exept Charles and Camilla and there would be a statement that William is excluded from succession. How do you think the media and the people would react?
As much as it would be a private family matter some clarifications would be needed.
I think the Romanian public(at least those who have an interest in the monarchy) deserves a bit more transparency.

there's no way that that scenario could happen. William can't be excluded from the succession, by the say so of the queen.
He COULD be kept away from the queen's private hospital or sickroom, but its very unlikely to happen.
The Romainan RF are NOT a ruling RF, so really while they're not exactly private citizens, one could say that they are more private citizens than anyting else, so they can protect their privacy.

[andrew]

As long as they live in Elisabeta palace(owned by the state)and are negotiating with the government for a role in Romanian public life,people are entitled to know what will happen when the Crown Princess will no longer be among us. I can deal with the fact that they excluded Nicholas but I expect that they give an alternative. Princess Maria cannot be a long-term "solution" she is approching 60 and doesn't have children of her own.
That is what bothers me,the uncertainty of the future.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Add to this that the former King's hobby, removing and adding people to or from the Royal House or the Succession was already executed when he was in good health, with the former Queen (by account a moderating factor on the former King) was alive. Maybe the King is aware, maybe not. But there are five adult daughters responsible for their father. We hear nothing from Elizabeth Medforth-Mills or Elisabeth Biarneix. We hear nothing from the American grandchildren. The only one making a scène is Nicholas.

The only reason I can think about is Nicholas desperately wanting his frail grandfather to beg forgiveness and make him a Prince again while the rest of the royal family probably already see Nicholas as an irrelevance for the House of Romania.

These feuds are nothing new. See the Bourbon-Parmas, the Orléanses, the Due Sicilies, the Savoias, the Von Sachsens, etc.

[andrew]

Ultimately we have to blame history for this situation...WWII and the communists who ousted the Royal Family and broke the continuity of our monarchical system.
Sad, but it seems that some things just can't be fixed after 50 years..

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Add to this that the former King's hobby, removing and adding people to or from the Royal House or the Succession was already executed when he was in good health, with the former Queen (by account a moderating factor on the former King) was alive. Maybe the King is aware, maybe not. But there are five adult daughters responsible for their father. We hear nothing from Elizabeth Medforth-Mills or Elisabeth Biarneix. We hear nothing from the American grandchildren. The only one making a scène is Nicholas.

The only reason I can think about is Nicholas desperately wanting his frail grandfather to beg forgiveness and make him a Prince again while the rest of the royal family probably already see Nicholas as an irrelevance for the House of Romania.

These feuds are nothing new. See the Bourbon-Parmas, the Orléanses, the Due Sicilies, the Savoias, the Von Sachsens, etc.

Actually, this feud is nothing like the others, because it involves a formerly reigning house that is on the cusp of receiving an unprecedented recognition by the current republican government of their country. Further, the divisions are personal. This family is small, and was extremely united in exile, and only after the entrance on the scene of a certain individual did it all start to fracture. One would have to be extraordinarily naïve to believe otherwise - and there are plenty who are, it would appear.

Further, only one of the five adult daughters is responsible for the King. Only Crown Princess Margarita is a Swiss citizen, where Michael is kept, and clearly she (and her husband) are the ones who are making the decisions. The couple has been doing so for some time now.

Your interesting line of reasoning does nothing to dampen the immense scandal that is brewing in the mainstream Romanian press about this. There have been many stories that were told in private before all of this broke. Now, it is like a floodgate has been opened.

Suddenly the king was announced to be deathly ill. His heiress and her husband rushed to his bedside. Michael was given the last rites. His grandson, who has been denied multiple attempts to simply *see* his grandfather and has been kept totally in the dark about Michael's health, flies from London to Geneva with the hope that he will at least be able to see the man who acted as his second father before the king dies. That same day, the heads of the two houses of the Romanian parliament announced that the legislation on the royal house was finally being put forth (and it had been on the table since before Queen Anne's death). Now, radio silence about the king's health. Margarita and Radu have remained in Aubonne, but Marie is still in Bucharest. Perhaps they all knew something that Nicholas did not.

[CSENYC]

All of these people (King Michael and Margarita excluded) are trashy. It doesn't matter who might have done or said whatever.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Actually, this feud is nothing like the others, because it involves a formerly reigning house that is on the cusp of receiving an unprecedented recognition by the current republican government of their country. Further, the divisions are personal. This family is small, and was extremely united in exile, and only after the entrance on the scene of a certain individual did it all start to fracture. One would have to be extraordinarily naïve to believe otherwise - and there are plenty who are, it would appear.

Further, only one of the five adult daughters is responsible for the King. Only Crown Princess Margarita is a Swiss citizen, where Michael is kept, and clearly she (and her husband) are the ones who are making the decisions. The couple has been doing so for some time now.

Your interesting line of reasoning does nothing to dampen the immense scandal that is brewing in the mainstream Romanian press about this. There have been many stories that were told in private before all of this broke. Now, it is like a floodgate has been opened.

Suddenly the king was announced to be deathly ill. His heiress and her husband rushed to his bedside. Michael was given the last rites. His grandson, who has been denied multiple attempts to simply *see* his grandfather and has been kept totally in the dark about Michael's health, flies from London to Geneva with the hope that he will at least be able to see the man who acted as his second father before the king dies. That same day, the heads of the two houses of the Romanian parliament announced that the legislation on the royal house was finally being put forth (and it had been on the table since before Queen Anne's death). Now, radio silence about the king's health. Margarita and Radu have remained in Aubonne, but Marie is still in Bucharest. Perhaps they all knew something that Nicholas did not.

I miss your insight in the actions of Princess Margareta's Heir, who happens to be Nicholas' mother and was quite damning towards her own son. Oh wait... that must be the influence of a certain individual again, that even the own mother publicly desavoued her own son? There is a gap in your reasoninh which essentially says: all are wrong, Nicholas is good.

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I miss your insight in the actions of Princess Margareta's Heir, who happens to be Nicholas' mother and was quite damning towards her own son. Oh wait... that must be the influence of a certain individual again, that even the own mother publicly desavoued her own son? There is a gap in your reasoninh which essentially says: all are wrong, Nicholas is good.

I guess you didn't read my previous post about princess Elena's behaviour toward her son. It explains why Elena can't be seen as a neutral person when it comes to the former romanian crown prince.

[Andy T]

Originally Posted by Sancia

I guess you didn't read my previous post about princess Elena's behaviour toward her son. It explains why Elena can't be seen as a neutral person when it comes to the former romanian crown prince.

Nicholas was never "Crown Prince": he was third in line under his grandfather's proposed succession. What mother is a "neutral person" when it comes to her children? I do not see how Elena's preference for continuing to bring up her young child (and his even younger sister) in the UK (where he was settled and near his father's family) rather than in a very unstable (at that time) Romania compromises her in any way. Every parent decides where to bring up his/her children.

HRH expresses her concern at the deeds of her son, pointing out that his behaviour lacks humanity (with repect to his alleged daughter, to the child's mother, and to his grandfather) and morality (with respect to assuming his responsibilities to clarify the parentage of the child). She expresses how devastating this is for her as a mother and any parent who has watched his/her child go off the rails can surely relate to that feeling. She also quite firmly asserts that it is her conviction that her father's wishes are not to see his grandson. Either she's lying or she's telling the truth; Are you suggesting that she's put out a public statement based on a lie?

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Andy T

Nicholas was never "Crown Prince": he was third in line under his grandfather's proposed succession. What mother is a "neutral person" when it comes to her children? I do not see how Elena's preference for continuing to bring up her young child (and his even younger sister) in the UK (where he was settled and near his father's family) rather than in a very unstable (at that time) Romania compromises her in any way. Every parent decides where to bring up his/her children.

HRH expresses her concern at the deeds of her son, pointing out that his behaviour lacks humanity (with repect to his alleged daughter, to the child's mother, and to his grandfather) and morality (with respect to assuming his responsibilities to clarify the parentage of the child). She expresses how devastating this is for her as a mother and any parent who has watched his/her child go off the rails can surely relate to that feeling. She also quite firmly asserts that it is her conviction that her father's wishes are not to see his grandson. Either she's lying or she's telling the truth; Are you suggesting that she's put out a public statement based on a lie?

What I am saying is that I can't trust her public statement since I have learned she sued her own son for inheritance matters where he still was minor. It was stated by people close to her and her family when it happened, so I am taking her words about Nicholas's lack of humanity with more with a pinch a salt, as, according to trustable people, her own behaviour in the past lacked so much of humanity. Moreover, although I don't praise Nicholas for his behaviour with Iris Anna's mother, I can't help thinking some immoral misconducts (related to money, e.g.) are more easily forgiven that some others (the sexual ones). The "discretion above all" motto can lead to blatant hypocrisy, and it is quite shocking to me.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Sancia

What I am saying is that I can't trust her public statement since I have learned she sued her own son for inheritance matters where he still was minor. [...].

When Nicholas was a minor, his mother was his legal representative, as every parent is for an own child (in a normal situation). I think it is impossible that a mother sues her own underaged son: she would be sueing herself...

Imagine you have an underaged child. I think it is impossible for you to start a lawsuit against your own underaged child, as you have the parental authority over and the legal responsibility for the child.

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

When Nicholas was a minor, his mother was his legal representative, legally responsible for her underaged son. I think it is impossible that a mother sues her own underaged son: she would be sueing herself...

Roxana Iordache, a journalist who was at the time close to the royal family, wrote this very telling piece about Elena and Nicholas's relationship after Elena's divorce : "she wanted all the money, not to take care of her son. Nicholas was just a scared child when his parents divorced and he was sent off to boarding schools". She added some edifying comments on her Facebook profile about Elena's statement : the princess released the statement out of fear her sister and her would be dishonored. She is not a concerned mother, just someone fearing for her position, her influence or her money.

[LadyFinn]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

When Nicholas was a minor, his mother was his legal representative, as every parent is for an own child (in a normal situation). I think it is impossible that a mother sues her own underaged son: she would be sueing herself...

Imagine you have an underaged child. I think it is impossible for you to start a lawsuit against your own underaged child, as you have the parental authority over and the legal responsibility for the child.

Of course it is possible. Obviously Robin Medforth-Mills left money to Nicholas after his and Elena's divorce, probably with a condition that Nicholas would get the money only when he became of age, and that money was taken care by people Robin Medforth-Mills trusted, and among those people wasn't princess Elena. And if Elena wanted that money to herself, she sued her own son.

[Dalriada]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Of course it is possible. Obviously Robin Medforth-Mills left money to Nicholas after his and Elena's divorce, probably with a condition that Nicholas would get the money only when he became of age, and that money was taken care by people Robin Medforth-Mills trusted, and among those people wasn't princess Elena. And if Elena wanted that money to herself, she sued her own son.

Sounds like the princess contested the estate of her late husband regarding money meant for Son. Anyway, it also seems like a very plausible explanation for the incredulous press release from the Royal House purporting to be from Princess Elena regarding her son. Very sad woman.

[Andy T]

Originally Posted by Sancia

What I am saying is that I can't trust her public statement since I have learned she sued her own son for inheritance matters where he still was minor. It was stated by people close to her and her family when it happened, so I am taking her words about Nicholas's lack of humanity with more with a pinch a salt, as, according to trustable people, her own behaviour in the past lacked so much of humanity. Moreover, although I don't praise Nicholas for his behaviour with Iris Anna's mother, I can't help thinking some immoral misconducts (related to money, e.g.) are more easily forgiven that some others (the sexual ones). The "discretion above all" motto can lead to blatant hypocrisy, and it is quite shocking to me.

As far as I can see, no comment has been made by his family on his sexual conduct in the sense of condemning his sexual activity; his mother's statement refers explicitly to his conduct after he (allegedly) had sex, i.e. his failure over the course of the last two years to assume responsibility for the alleged resulting child.

With regard to the journalist's allegations, does she only present her interpretation or does she provide evidence to justify that interpretation? Could you supply a link to her remarks and to a factual report of the court case to help us determine if she's credible or another journalist with an axe to grind or hoping to make money?

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Andy T

As far as I can see, no comment has been made by his family on his sexual conduct in the sense of condemning his sexual activity; his mother's statement refers explicitly to his conduct after he (allegedly) had sex, i.e. his failure over the course of the last two years to assume responsibility for the alleged resulting child.

That is what I call 'sexual activity'. If Nicholas is really the father of his previous girlfriend daughter, I can't praise him for his attitude. However, he is not the only one with a faulty behaviour in this family but he is the only one who is publicly criticized during this mess around his grandfather's health.

With regard to the journalist's allegations, does she only present her interpretation or does she provide evidence to justify that interpretation? Could you supply a link to her remarks and to a factual report of the court case to help us determine if she's credible or another journalist with an axe to grind or hoping to make money?

I provided twice the link to on an article with all her remarks. Everything she wrote is public on her FB account. She is a journalist. If she is running the risk to make such serious assertions in public, she should have serious prove to back it. I read a lot of people knowing this or that related to the romanian royal family as there have once be close to them and none of them have still refuted her assertions.

[Marengo]

This discussion does not belong in a thread about king Michael. I suggest we continue it in the thread about Nicholas MM.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post2037030

[Sancia]

Today is princess Elena's birthday. Roxana Iordache has twice written today very special birthday wishes : she hopes the princess will enjoy many years of life so that she can repent of her behaviour toward her son and apologize. Quite telling.