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

[Jacknch]

Well, I've followed this unfortunate set of events the last week or so and really don't know what to make of it.

What was, fundamentally, a family matter became a matter of public concern when the statements and interview were made - and that potentially affects the way in which the family is perceived. People like unity within a royal family!

I am not comfortable with the way in which Nicholas has acted but nor an I comfortable with the statements made from the Royal House - in particular his mother.

Surely since his lost his title and since Queen Ann's funeral there must have been some communication between him and his family - updates on his grandfather's health, advice not to try and see the King since his health is so delicate etc etc.

It confuses me - a man keen to regain his position within the Royal House should do all that he is asked, to act in the way he is advised to act etc etc. But his desperation to see his grandfather makes me think he has a more profound reason to want to see him - his love and admiration for the elderly King.

Emotions are high at this stressful time and I hope the family can reconcile before it's too late and we have a funeral to witness where some family members are not allowed to attend.

Not only that, Nicholas is to be married and what a sad thing it would be if his family were not to attend.

[Denville]

Perhaps he does feel guilty or unhappy about his grandfather and wants to see him. and I think it is wrong not to let him at least visit even if his grandfather is too ill to see him at least his desire has been accepted.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Denville

Perhaps he does feel guilty or unhappy about his grandfather and wants to see him. and I think it is wrong not to let him at least visit even if his grandfather is too ill to see him at least his desire has been accepted.

A feeling of guilt and shortcoming and failing on expectations will certainly play a role. Nicholas has, in some or other way, let his grandfather immensely down.

[Winnie]

So now that Nicholas might feel guilty he feels he has the right to see his grandfather on his death bed when his grandfather has made it clear he does not want to see him. I still believe it is a person's right who they want around them, especially close to death. If the grandfather's conscience is clear [and we all want that at the ending of our lives] and he and priest have confessed forgiveness to others, that still doesn't mean grandfather wants to be used or in the presence of someone he doesn't respect. I give the old man credit and also the others for following his last wishes. People who think that "OH poor Nicholas, he can't see his grandfather, how awful". His grandfather doesn't want to look at him or have him around. If Nicholas really cared about the old man he would honor his wishes and not be only thinking of himself. That to me shows the character of Nicholas.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

A feeling of guilt and shortcoming and failing on expectations will certainly play a role. Nicholas has, in some or other way, let his grandfather immensely down.

Presumably King Michael told you that himself?

Because he has never spoken publicly on the subject. His last public appearance was in November 2015. After that, he has not left Switzerland. The only communications that we have seen "from him" have appeared on romaniaregala.ro, which was formerly the personal website of Radu Prinz von Hohenzollern-Veringen when he was a Special Representative of the Romanian government.

It is not as though the king (or the queen, for that matter) was averse to granting interviews in the past on subjects that involved either developments in Romania, in general, or events in their own family, in particular.

[LadyFinn]

Now an article in english
Romanian Royal House scandal takes new turn

[Dalriada]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

Now an article in english

Romanian Royal House scandal takes new turn

“However, the lawyer of Nicolae told local Digi24 that the King’s grandson never received the original decision to withdraw his royal title and that he has this doubt that the document was actually signed by his grandfather King Michael”

Given that many posters here often call for evidence and court records to substantiate claims and comments made by other posters and journalists alike, it ought to work both ways. If Nicholas did not receive an authentically signed and counter signed document/ affidavit regarding his inheritance then the Royal House’s claims are a bit dubious and could be open to legal dispute.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Dalriada

“However, the lawyer of Nicolae told local Digi24 that the King’s grandson never received the original decision to withdraw his royal title and that he has this doubt that the document was actually signed by his grandfather King Michael”

Given that many posters here often call for evidence and court records to substantiate claims and comments made by other posters and journalists alike, it ought to work both ways. If Nicholas did not receive an authentically signed and counter signed document/ affidavit regarding his inheritance then the Royal House’s claims are a bit dubious and could be open to legal dispute.

The succession in a defunct House is a purely private matter. That is not comparable with -for an example- the rights on an inheritance, which are usually enshrined in a Civic Code with notion of private ownership of goods and properties.

That former King Michael changes and adapts the membership of his House is a private hobby. And shoving aside a former Royal Constitution and the Statute of the House of Hohenzollern by self-written "fundamental rules for the Royal Family of Romania" is nice, but is in essence his private hobby.

For the same money Nicolas Medforth-Mills claims to be Head of the House of Romania. His hobby. Only when the State of Romania has recognized the former Royal House, then it is less "do what you want" as it has consequences because of agreements made with the Republic.

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The succession in a defunct House is a purely private matter. That is not comparable with -for an example- the rights on an inheritance, which are usually enshrined in a Civic Code with notion of private ownership of goods and properties.

When it is claimed the refusal of king Michael to see his grandson has to do with the reasons why he stripped him of the title he has himself granted, it is not a purely private matter. Without any formal paper about the stripping of the title, Nicholas could challenge in a court every decision reported by Margarita and Radu in name of their father and father-in-law and said to be linked what made - according to them - king Michael feel betrayed by Nicholas. Nicholas's disgrace begun when a decision was announced whose track he claims to have none. What really happened around the removal of Nicholas's title should be cleared as there are contradictory reports.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Sancia

When it is claimed the refusal of king Michael to see his grandson has to do with the reasons why he stripped him of the title he has himself granted, it is not a purely private matter. Without any formal paper about the stripping of the title, Nicholas could challenge in a court every decision reported by Margarita and Radu in name of their father and father-in-law and said to be linked what made - according to them - king Michael feel betrayed by Nicholas. Nicholas's disgrace begun when a decision was announced whose track he claims to have none. What really happened around the removal of Nicholas's title should be cleared as there are contradictory reports.

On what grounds can ever a lawsuit started? Any complaint on ground of being "robbed" from a theoretical succession to a non-existing throne or a membership of a defunct Royal House will most likely be dismissed by the tribunal on formal grounds (no jurisdiction in such matters).

A lawsuit because of being denied access to his grandfather? If I understand it correctly, Princess Margareta more or less holds the guardianship over her father, as she is also "curator" of the Royal House. In such a case Princess Margareta's duties as a guardian are to make decisions that are in her father's best interests or according her father's wishes. When it indeed is King Michael's decision not to have contact with his grandson Nicholas, and Princess Margareta can make this plausible, with support of her sisters including Nicholas' own mother, I feel a lawsuit will be useless for Nicholas.

There is no such right of an adult to have access to another adult. Note that there is a complaint against trespassing. This means that an adult has infringed the private lifesphere of another adult, no matter the person in question is a grandparent.

[Sancia]

You are perfectly right : princess Margareta, as a curator, has some rights. However, even as a curator, she is not entitled to get even with the one she does not like by portraying her own decisions as her father's decisions. Should she have done something like this, she could be sued for abuse of weakness, something courts don't really like. She can make decisions in her father's name, other ones can dispute these very decisions. She is a curator, she has not become allmighty.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Sancia

You are perfectly right : princess Margareta, as a curator, has some rights. However, even as a curator, she is not entitled to get even with the one she does not like by portraying her own decisions as her father's decisions. Should she have done something like this, she could be sued for abuse of weakness, something courts don't really like. She can make decisions in her father's name, other ones can dispute these very decisions. She is a curator, she has not become allmighty.

If the curator can make plausible, with declarations from her sisters (including Nicholas' own mother) that the sole aim was as to grant her father a peaceful last phase in life, then Nicholas hardly has a case.

And then we are speaking about a grandfather. But even a very own father or mother -how hard it may be- has the right to deny a very own child access to his house. Of course Nicholas can try to claim that he is barred by "the ring around" but when declarations of the very own daughters of the former King support their eldest sister, Nicholas is empty-handed. Anyway, it is a drama, for everyone involved.

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Of course Nicholas can try to claim that he is barred by "the ring around" but when declarations of the very own daughters of the former King support their eldest sister, Nicholas is empty-handed. Anyway, it is a drama, for everyone involved.

Your point is Nicholas is empty-handed. I, and some others, believe he is not that empty-handed. His lawyer may very well be working on this matter. Time will say.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Sancia

Your point is Nicholas is empty-handed. I, and some others, believe he is not that empty-handed. His lawyer may very well be working on this matter. Time will say.

And then? We may assume his grandfather may have passed away when the lawsuit comes to a conclusion. And what is the purpose? "Make me a Prince of Romania again" ? The judges will say: "The Swiss Confederation / the Republic of Romania knows no princes and no hereditary succession. We have no jurisdiction in your demands regarding a defunct throne and a former Royal House."

If it is about inheritances, then of course the eventual private fortune of the King will be distributed according the Testament which will be drafted in line with Swiss or Romanian law.

[Dalriada]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

And then? We may assume his grandfather may have passed away when the lawsuit comes to a conclusion. And what is the purpose? "Make me a Prince of Romania again" ? The judges will say: "The Swiss Confederation / the Republic of Romania knows no princes and no hereditary succession. We have no jurisdiction in your demands regarding a defunct throne and a former Royal House."



If it is about inheritances, then of course the eventual private fortune of the King will be distributed according the Testament which will be drafted in line with Swiss or Romanian law.

You are right, what then? But such a court case would only be a battle to address the actions of the Crown Princess and her husband. In the scheme of things the battle will be followed by the onward war from both sides to woo the Romanian people which Nicholas had previously been winning before all this nonsense. When Diana divorced from the BRF it launched her new superstar status that endeared her more to the people instead of her in fading into the background. Perhaps time itself is on Nicholas’ side while an unappealing husband is by the side of the Crown Princess. Nicholas has all the personal attributes he possessed before the apparent feud and he also has a fiancé with prospects of marriage and children.

[Andy T]

Originally Posted by Sancia

You are perfectly right : princess Margareta, as a curator, has some rights. However, even as a curator, she is not entitled to get even with the one she does not like by portraying her own decisions as her father's decisions. Should she have done something like this, she could be sued for abuse of weakness, something courts don't really like. She can make decisions in her father's name, other ones can dispute these very decisions. She is a curator, she has not become allmighty.

I don't recall HRH Crown Princess Margareta ever making a personal statement of any sort on this affair. Statements have been issued by the Royal House, and by Princess Elena.

HRH Princess Elena's statement claims that, in addition to a public statement via the Royal House, Nicholas has been informed by his grandfather in a private letter of His Majesty's sadness that he has done nothing to clarify the paternity of the child. She also adds that her father personally stated - and reconfirmed to her as recently as August - his wish not to receive his grandson and that Nicholas has been informed of this. At no point does she say that the King sent a letter to his grandson to say that he did not want to see him again.

Nicholas is saying he didn't get a letter signed by the king that expressly states His Majesty doesn't want to see him.

So, both sides may be telling the truth. Maybe Nicholas hasn't had a letter from his grandfather barring him from visiting but he could well have been informed orally that his grandfather doesn't want to see him and received a letter from his grandfather concerning his opinions on the alleged paternity case.

So what's going on?
Is Nicholas deliberately playing the injured (although hardly innocent) party and side-stepping the inconvenient elements by focussing on the lack of a letter and accusing the Royal House of a lock-out? Such a refusal to accept responsibility for his own role in the debacle by admitting (i) he'd been told orally on several occasions how his family felt and (ii) that his grandfather had made his feelings clear with regard to the paternity case in writing would be in-keeping with someone who has spent two years without resolving a paternity case.

What does he think that he stands to gain? Public sympathy? Money? The chance of restablishing himself as a potential successor? Reconciliation with his grandfather? Is he being manipulated and egged on by advisors, journalists and lawyers who see this as nice source of publicity, fame and money?

You are alleging that the Crown Princess:
is trying to get even ("even" for what?)
does not "like" Nicholas (evidence?)
has made these decisions.
is claiming that the decisions are her father's when they are not.

These are extraordinarily serious allegations yet the only support you have for them is 'a journalist said so'. You have yet to publish any evidence to back up these claims and have only made links to reports containing unsubstantiated accustations by said "journalist".

Has it occured to you that maybe the journalist might be the one trying to "get even", that the journalist might be trying to discredit the King's daughters in order to promote a different agenda (which could be the destruction of the Royal House, reduction of the chances of any restoration of the monarchy, undermine support for the proposed laws recognising the Royal house....

It could be argued that the promotion of a vulnerable Nicholas Medforth-Mills (who is clearly a damaged brand with the paternity suit and recent out-of-control behaviour in Switzerland) at the expense of the Royal House benefits supporters of the German Hohenzollern line and anti-Monarchists of all persuasions (from right-wing republicans to communists).



I do not have any answers but the ever-increaing number of questions this raises in my head makes me highly sceptical that most of the "interpretations" we are getting from journalists are accurate.

[Sancia]

Originally Posted by Andy T

I don't recall HRH Crown Princess Margareta ever making a personal statement of any sort on this affair. Statements have been issued by the Royal House, and by Princess Elena.

HRH Princess Elena's statement claims that, in addition to a public statement via the Royal House, Nicholas has been informed by his grandfather in a private letter of His Majesty's sadness that he has done nothing to clarify the paternity of the child. She also adds that her father personally stated - and reconfirmed to her as recently as August - his wish not to receive his grandson and that Nicholas has been informed of this. At no point does she say that the King sent a letter to his grandson to say that he did not want to see him again.

Nicholas is saying he didn't get a letter signed by the king that expressly states His Majesty doesn't want to see him.

So, both sides may be telling the truth. Maybe Nicholas hasn't had a letter from his grandfather barring him from visiting but he could well have been informed orally that his grandfather doesn't want to see him and received a letter from his grandfather concerning his opinions on the alleged paternity case.

So what's going on?
Is Nicholas deliberately playing the injured (although hardly innocent) party and side-stepping the inconvenient elements by focussing on the lack of a letter and accusing the Royal House of a lock-out? Such a refusal to accept responsibility for his own role in the debacle by admitting (i) he'd been told orally on several occasions how his family felt and (ii) that his grandfather had made his feelings clear with regard to the paternity case in writing would be in-keeping with someone who has spent two years without resolving a paternity case.

What does he think that he stands to gain? Public sympathy? Money? The chance of restablishing himself as a potential successor? Reconciliation with his grandfather? Is he being manipulated and egged on by advisors, journalists and lawyers who see this as nice source of publicity, fame and money?

You are alleging that the Crown Princess:
is trying to get even ("even" for what?)
does not "like" Nicholas (evidence?)
has made these decisions.
is claiming that the decisions are her father's when they are not.

These are extraordinarily serious allegations yet the only support you have for them is 'a journalist said so'. You have yet to publish any evidence to back up these claims and have only made links to reports containing unsubstantiated accustations by said "journalist".

Has it occured to you that maybe the journalist might be the one trying to "get even", that the journalist might be trying to discredit the King's daughters in order to promote a different agenda (which could be the destruction of the Royal House, reduction of the chances of any restoration of the monarchy, undermine support for the proposed laws recognising the Royal house....

It could be argued that the promotion of a vulnerable Nicholas Medforth-Mills (who is clearly a damaged brand with the paternity suit and recent out-of-control behaviour in Switzerland) at the expense of the Royal House benefits supporters of the German Hohenzollern line and anti-Monarchists of all persuasions (from right-wing republicans to communists).



I do not have any answers but the ever-increaing number of questions this raises in my head makes me highly sceptical that most of the "interpretations" we are getting from journalists are accurate.

You have got a point here. I don't have the answers to all the questions you raise and, whatever side we support in this feud, they are loopholes in both narratives. What makes me speak for Nicholas Medforth-Mills in this very situation is a simple fact : we were told ten days ago king Michael was living his last hours or days, but not all his daughters rushed at his side, and the last news we had on him was a slight improvement. The only who seemed desperate enough by his grandfather's news was his estranged grandson Nicholas. Things don't add up here. Why ? I am not satisfied with the "Margarita and Duda are devoted and trying to protect the royal family from an erratic and irresponsible Nicholas" and I am trying to dig deeper.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Sancia

[...] The only who seemed desperate enough by his grandfather's news was his estranged grandson Nicholas. Things don't add up here. Why ? I am not satisfied with the "Margarita and Duda are devoted and trying to protect the royal family from an erratic and irresponsible Nicholas" and I am trying to dig deeper.

Nicholas is the only one making things public. It is very well possible that the other grandchildren equally rushed to their grandfather but we know zero about that. We can not make the conclusion that only Nicholas cares for the former King. (If he did care for the former King, he could have been more careful with his actions and responsibilities and protect his once spotless record.)

[LadyFinn]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Nicholas is the only one making things public. It is very well possible that the other grandchildren equally rushed to their grandfather but we know zero about that. We can not make the conclusion that only Nicholas cares for the former King. (If he did care for the former King, he could have been more careful with his actions and responsibilities and protect his once spotless record.)

The Royal Family tells always at their website when for instance princess Maria or princess Elena visits king Michael in Switzerland. It seems obvious that during the last two weeks the grandchildren would have gone to say farewell to king Michael with their mothers, and that would have been told at the website of the Royal Family. And besides, even though the grandchildren would have gone to Switzerland without their mothers, it seems obvious that the press would have found that out, they have written so much about issues around king Michael now.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

The Royal Family tells always at their website when for instance princess Maria or princess Elena visits king Michael in Switzerland. It seems obvious that during the last two weeks the grandchildren would have gone to say farewell to king Michael with their mothers, and that would have been told at the website of the Royal Family. And besides, even though the grandchildren would have gone to Switzerland without their mothers, it seems obvious that the press would have found that out, they have written so much about issues around king Michael now.

I believe Elizabeth Medforth-Mills, Michael Kreuger, Angelica Kreuger and Elisabeth Biarneix are never mentioned in news communications on the website of the Royal House. Only the Princesses and the (then) two Princes of the Royal House. Now Nicholas is no longer a Prince, he does not appear in news communications anymore.