Nicholas Medforth-Mills (formerly His Royal Highness Prince Nicholas of Romania) - Page 58

LadyFinn · #**1141** 10-31-2015, 02:10 AM

The article quotes Nicholas' Facebook, where he writes, mostly in Romanian, and you can see that Romania means much to him.
There is also this nice photo of him in Madagascar in 2005.
https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...bb&oe=56AE6869

Nicolae de Roumanie Medforth Mills

Duc_et_Pair · #**1142** 10-31-2015, 03:40 AM

Nicholas has no own public accessible facebook page. It is a page dedicated to "a famous person" which is serviced by someone else. Like you or I can dedicate a FB-page to the singer Adèle or something. The Romanian language used in this FB page is not written by Nicholas himself.

Cory · #**1143** 10-31-2015, 05:01 AM

He seems to have fully accepted the decisions of his Family.

eya · #**1144** 10-31-2015, 10:28 AM

And what else could be done; I do not think that it could come to a public confrontation with the grandfather. What you should do is to keep any contact can make in Romania can be as close to the country and you know what happens in this life;

Why fortunately ; If I were Romanian and supports the monarchy would like to know why Nicolae dismiss. And I would not let this misty and any saying that he wants. And everyone to hope that the king took the right decision. More damage is done to the family.

It was not punishment; One young man left his life had returned to his country after his asked his grandfather. He tried and he did to become part of this country. The people the learned and loved him. And suddenly

. Maybe we say and say again the same things but the royalists in the country had to support more Nicolae and not the king why Nikolae is the future of the monarchy in Romania. And I agree with Benjamin should return back to the position it had.

....so he takes it and change as and when he wants. Who cares?

Cory · #**1145** 10-31-2015, 11:39 AM

Fortunately the details of this story are not public.

Cory · #**1146** 10-31-2015, 05:58 PM

I do not want to comment further on this issue.

Benjamin · #**1147** 10-31-2015, 08:06 PM

The truth is no one seems to actually know the full and specific reasons behind the expulsion of Prince Nicholas.

The Royal Family said the exclusion was not a punishment or due to a scandal, but as time has passed, it seems that this statement might have been rather misleading.

Either way, the Royal Family has condemned itself to extinction unless it reverses course and reinstates the King's grandson.

Duc_et_Pair · #**1148** 11-01-2015, 03:19 AM

Most likely Nicholas Medforth-Mills will feel relieved, away with all the royal blockades, he is a free man and he can fully pursue his own career, without omnipresent eyes. I don't think we need to feel any pity with the man.

Cory · #**1149** 11-01-2015, 03:20 AM

Different royalist personalities were called after what happened and the they were explained what had happened . This is a closed chapter and it is better nobody speaks about anymore.

Duc_et_Pair · #**1150** 11-01-2015, 03:26 AM

That does not take away that King Michael has handled it in the most clumsy possible way. That counts for all decisions. For an example: where is the Royal Decree granting Nicholas a royal title? Where is the Royal Decree stripping Nicholas said title? Where is the Royal Decree in which Princess Irina and her offspring were removed from the succession? Where is the Royal Decree in which Princess Irina was stripped from the royal titles from both the Royal House and of the House Hohenzollern (only the Fürst could do that last, in my opinion)? The Romanian "Court" still has Byzantinean characteristics of misty actions and shady characters. Not very recommendable anno 2015.

Cory · #**1151** 11-01-2015, 03:42 AM

The King knows better than anyone else his proposed Line of Succession does not have any constitutional basis so ...

Cory · #**1152** 11-01-2015, 09:52 AM

He changed it different times but I suppose he is more interested in who will represent his Family in the future. He probably knows very well his descendants will never reign.

LadyRohan · #**1153** 11-04-2015, 10:25 PM

It just might be the case that the King believes that if the monarchy is restored in a modern world, it should involve a modern succession. That includes equal primogeniture, and a Royal Family that can continue even through daughters. It is uplifting to think that a 94-year old King can be more forwardthinking than many who say they support the institution he has represented his whole life.

Lee-Z · #**1154** 11-05-2015, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

It just might be the case that the King believes that if the monarchy is restored in a modern world, it should involve a modern succession. That includes equal primogeniture, and a Royal Family that can continue even through daughters. It is uplifting to think that a 94-year old King can be more forwardthinking than many who say they support the institution he has represented his whole life.

Yes, in theory that could be a reason (although i think he'd have the option of instating this without eliminating his grandson from the line), but is there any reason to believe that that is the case? Did the king ever speak out in these matters?
Or is this just a "what if" scenario?

Cory · #**1155** 11-05-2015, 08:55 AM

There is no proof of that whatsoever.

LadyRohan · #**1156** 11-05-2015, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

Yes, in theory that could be a reason (although i think he'd have the option of instating this without eliminating his grandson from the line), but is there any reason to believe that that is the case? Did the king ever speak out in these matters?
Or is this just a "what if" scenario?

The removal of Nicholas is a separate issue from the question of equal primogeniture, altough it does raise questions that are unanswered. I doubt it will come out properly until the demise of the King, but only time will tell, if we get to know what really happened.

When it comes to the King proposing an updated line of succession, he is acting in accordance with article 78 of the defunct 1923-constitution of Romania, and with dynastic presedence. The Windsors wanted equal primogeniture to be in place in the Commonwealth realms before the child of the Cambridges. The Norwegian RF wanted equal primogeniture in place, but not with retroactive effect, in the 90s, to avoid the Swedish situation of 1980, where the heir switched due to changes in the succession laws.

Romania is not a monarchy today. For the King to suggest to parliament that IF they want to restore the monarchy, the Royal Family is ready to serve, under an updated line of succession, is logical, legal(according to abolished laws) and within dynastic presedence.

Cory · #**1157** 11-05-2015, 11:42 AM

Read article 77 of that Constitution too.

LadyRohan · #**1158** 11-05-2015, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory

Read article 77 of that Constitution too.

I'm reminded of the proverb 'there is no way discussing with a closed mind'.

I have read, and referred to article 77, before. Furthermore, the old constitution was abolished 68 years ago. You acknowledged that yourself, with regards to religion. If a society can change its views on religion and allegiance, what on Earth makes you think women should be treated as second-rate in a modern legal text?

Duc_et_Pair · #**1159** 11-05-2015, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

It just might be the case that the King believes that if the monarchy is restored in a modern world, it should involve a modern succession. That includes equal primogeniture, and a Royal Family that can continue even through daughters. It is uplifting to think that a 94-year old King can be more forwardthinking than many who say they support the institution he has represented his whole life.

You are overlooking a fact. The King does not advocate "equal primogeniture". He has changed the succession so that the firstborn male is the Heir and -when there are no males- it is about the firstborn female. He does not care about equality. He only wants to see his daughter following him, a common trait when royals are faced with no sons. With a son Michael would never have changed it at all..... Remains the fact that apparently the former King thinks he has the authority to change such a Constitution while every Romanian King, Michael included, had to do with the Constitution as it has been laid down before them by the lawmaker, and was forced to swear to observe and maintain it.

Imagine the outcry when King Harald V or King Felipe VI simply wipe their royal derrière with the Constitution? Of course, the Romanian royal Constitution is defunct as there is a republican Constitution now. Too bad for the former King. But when he claims his whole existence as a former head of state, and his daughters as royal princesses, because he once was the legitimate royal head of state of a democratic Kingdom of Romania, ruled by said Constitution, he can not change that very same basic to his own caprices privés.

Cory · #**1160** 11-05-2015, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

I'm reminded of the proverb 'there is no way discussing with a closed mind'.

I have read, and referred to article 77, before. Furthermore, the old constitution was abolished 68 years ago. You acknowledged that yourself, with regards to religion. If a society can change its views on religion and allegiance, what on Earth makes you think women should be treated as second-rate in a modern legal text?

You were speaking about the Constitution of 1923 but when somebody reminds you of the different articles of that Constitution you just say is abolished...