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

[Gaudete]

That’s a cop out. I’ll take a look at that link of course but if the extent of your proof every time you’re questioned is going to be “Someone told me” or “I saw it on TV”, there’s little point in entering into debate about these things. Opinion and fact are two different things and fact requires sources to back it up.

The link you provided says the story comes from the liberal Romanian blogger Lilick Auftakt. It doesn't mention how Auftakt came across the story. Which means so far that the only sources we have that this actually happened come from an unnamed person present at the event, a blogger and people you've spoken to personally. You can surely see why that is hardly solid evidence?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

That’s a cop out. I’ll take a look at that link of course but if the extent of your proof every time you’re questioned is going to be “Someone told me” or “I saw it on TV”, there’s little point in entering into debate about these things. Opinion and fact are two different things and fact requires sources to back it up.

The link you provided says the story comes from the liberal Romanian blogger Lilick Auftakt. It doesn't mention how Auftakt came across the story. Which means so far that the only sources we have that this actually happened come from an unnamed person present at the event, a blogger and people you've spoken to personally. You can surely see why that is hardly solid evidence?

You do not believe anything that proves the injustices done to the King's grandson anyhow.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Cory

You do not believe anything that proves the injustices done to the King's grandson anyhow.

I'm not trying to antagonise you but this is the issue we have. You make statements but they rarely have sources. When I ask for sources, you offer explanations such as "I've seen it on TV" or "Someone told me". The two sources you provided for the statement you made that this incident was true are lacking in clarity. Indeed, both rely on "Someone told me". If you make a statement of fact, as you have done, you have to back it up with sources. The burden of proof is with you because you made the statement. I offered the same explanation to Benjamin. I'm very much open to new information but as yet, there hasn't been any new information offered that isn't; "I know this definitely happened and it's sad".

All I'm suggesting is that we can't know it happened based on the sources quoted (when they are quoted). We need something more solid to examine if this debate is going to move on from just hearsay.

[LadyFinn]

In the last issue of Taifasuri magazine, Nicolae's lawyer, Radu Enache, stated: "The child in Braşov legally does not exist for Nicholas because Mrs Nicoleta Cârjan (the mother of the child) does not come to DNA test. Neither to INML Bucharest, nor to INML Cluj, where she has been invited, nor does begin the process of establishment the paternity. In the communiqué of the prince's mother, Princess Elena, the only reason invoked to remove Nicholas from the succession line is this alleged child, which is not legally his. The Lady from Braşov has maintained this state of uncertainty for a year or something.
On the other hand, the lawyer says that Nicholas "desires to be reintegrated into the Royal Family in order of succession. That's what he's fighting for. The removal order was not communicated to him in the original. He has not signed the declaration of acceptance of his removal from succession. The withdrawal of the title and its removal from the line of succession were made by a decree and should have been drafted and signed in two originals, one of which should have been sent to prince Nicholas. This has not happened. We got a xerox. However, we can not make a graphical expertise based on a xerox. That is why this exit from the line of succession is questionable if it was indeed the King's wish, if he signed such a thing. Because of that everything was done to keep Nicholas away from his grandfather".
According to the prince's representative, the stake of this war is actually the money: "We are talking about a real estate assets estimated at least 60 million euros and other millions of euros, money that could be allocated from the budget annually for the Royal House".
Regarding the call of the Police by Princess Margareta at the residence of the King of Switzerland, the lawyer says that by doing so, the Royal Family seeks to discredit Nicholas: "is an attack of the image, in order to emphasize the behavior or in kind and chip in what they want to support. Trying to discredit."
Ce relație specială au avut Regele Mihai și nepotul său! _ Click
Translation

[Somebody]

The lady from Brasov invited Nicholas to take the paternity test at a different clinic (and if he did so, she was ok to also have it taken at INNL) and he refused, so his argument that SHE is not cooperating when he himself could easily solve the issue - it seems that he has a far greater interest in getting it resolved than she has!

Moreover, why would Nicholas have to sign or agree to this exclusion from the throne? Did his aunt and cousins sign such a statement that they welcomed their removal? It was not his decision to make...

So, if I understand it correctly, Nicholas is now saying that he has a signed copy (xerox) of the declaration but they cannot properly analyse the king's signature?

And Nicholas was not kept away from his grandfather from the moment he was excluded. They met about a month and a half afterwards at which time Nicholas didn't feel the need to raise the issue.

And what iabout the money? Is his lawyer really saying that Nicholas' prime motive is the money?

[Andy T]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

In the last issue of Taifasuri magazine, Nicolae's lawyer, Radu Enache, stated: "The child in Braşov legally does not exist for Nicholas because Mrs Nicoleta Cârjan (the mother of the child) does not come to DNA test. Neither to INML Bucharest, nor to INML Cluj, where she has been invited, nor does begin the process of establishment the paternity. In the communiqué of the prince's mother, Princess Elena, the only reason invoked to remove Nicholas from the succession line is this alleged child, which is not legally his. The Lady from Braşov has maintained this state of uncertainty for a year or something.
On the other hand, the lawyer says that Nicholas "desires to be reintegrated into the Royal Family in order of succession. That's what he's fighting for. The removal order was not communicated to him in the original. He has not signed the declaration of acceptance of his removal from succession. The withdrawal of the title and its removal from the line of succession were made by a decree and should have been drafted and signed in two originals, one of which should have been sent to prince Nicholas. This has not happened. We got a xerox. However, we can not make a graphical expertise based on a xerox. That is why this exit from the line of succession is questionable if it was indeed the King's wish, if he signed such a thing. Because of that everything was done to keep Nicholas away from his grandfather".
According to the prince's representative, the stake of this war is actually the money: "We are talking about a real estate assets estimated at least 60 million euros and other millions of euros, money that could be allocated from the budget annually for the Royal House".
Regarding the call of the Police by Princess Margareta at the residence of the King of Switzerland, the lawyer says that by doing so, the Royal Family seeks to discredit Nicholas: "is an attack of the image, in order to emphasize the behavior or in kind and chip in what they want to support. Trying to discredit."
Ce relație specială au avut Regele Mihai și nepotul său! _ Click
Translation

If I were Nicholas, I'd sack this lawyer: this man is really clutching at straws. lawyers aren't interested in telling the truth, they're interested in making money and gaining a reputation for themselves. They'll present any story that is plausible enough to get their clients off the hook, be the crime murder or breaking and entry. This guy is quite obviously not telling the whole truth, but (as lawyers do) trying to weave half-truths into a plausible 'story', padded out with irrelevant distractions.

Nicholas really needs to ditch the crowd he's fallen into, and fast, because they are going to destroy the poor man, ruin any chances he has of a reconciliation with his family and leave him broke.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by LadyFinn

In the last issue of Taifasuri magazine, Nicolae's lawyer, Radu Enache, stated: "The child in Braşov legally does not exist for Nicholas because Mrs Nicoleta Cârjan (the mother of the child) does not come to DNA test. Neither to INML Bucharest, nor to INML Cluj, where she has been invited, nor does begin the process of establishment the paternity. In the communiqué of the prince's mother, Princess Elena, the only reason invoked to remove Nicholas from the succession line is this alleged child, which is not legally his. The Lady from Braşov has maintained this state of uncertainty for a year or something.
On the other hand, the lawyer says that Nicholas "desires to be reintegrated into the Royal Family in order of succession. That's what he's fighting for. The removal order was not communicated to him in the original. He has not signed the declaration of acceptance of his removal from succession. The withdrawal of the title and its removal from the line of succession were made by a decree and should have been drafted and signed in two originals, one of which should have been sent to prince Nicholas. This has not happened. We got a xerox. However, we can not make a graphical expertise based on a xerox. That is why this exit from the line of succession is questionable if it was indeed the King's wish, if he signed such a thing. Because of that everything was done to keep Nicholas away from his grandfather".
According to the prince's representative, the stake of this war is actually the money: "We are talking about a real estate assets estimated at least 60 million euros and other millions of euros, money that could be allocated from the budget annually for the Royal House".
Regarding the call of the Police by Princess Margareta at the residence of the King of Switzerland, the lawyer says that by doing so, the Royal Family seeks to discredit Nicholas: "is an attack of the image, in order to emphasize the behavior or in kind and chip in what they want to support. Trying to discredit."
Ce relație specială au avut Regele Mihai și nepotul său! _ Click
Translation

This is such a bizarre statement for his lawyer to make and one can see the results of such bad advice in Nicholas' behaviour. By the sounds of things, Nicholas and his lawyer are having trouble keeping their story straight because that statement from his lawyer is contradicted several times over by statements previously made by Nicholas himself. It's a very strange approach and sadly one that will just leave him out in the cold with no chance of ever being rehabilitated.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Somebody

The lady from Brasov invited Nicholas to take the paternity test at a different clinic (and if he did so, she was ok to also have it taken at INNL) and he refused, so his argument that SHE is not cooperating when he himself could easily solve the issue - it seems that he has a far greater interest in getting it resolved than she has!

Moreover, why would Nicholas have to sign or agree to this exclusion from the throne? Did his aunt and cousins sign such a statement that they welcomed their removal? It was not his decision to make...

So, if I understand it correctly, Nicholas is now saying that he has a signed copy (xerox) of the declaration but they cannot properly analyse the king's signature?

And Nicholas was not kept away from his grandfather from the moment he was excluded. They met about a month and a half afterwards at which time Nicholas didn't feel the need to raise the issue.

And what iabout the money? Is his lawyer really saying that Nicholas' prime motive is the money?

If the King really had known about the stage story of August 2025 he would have certainly spoken with his grandson one month when they met. There is no proof the King had ever known about this decision attributed to him.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Cory

If the King really had known about the stage story of August 2025 he would have certainly spoken with his grandson one month when they met. There is no proof the King had ever known about this decision attributed to him.

I don't think that's the conclusion I would draw. Somebody makes a very good point. Nicholas' statements on the paternity issue don't add up. His statements on his removal and who is really responsible don't add up. His statements on his finances don't add up. Seemingly, he's taking legal advice now that he didn't take in August 2015 but here's the facts as they stand:

1) Nicholas has refused to take part in a DNA test. This leaves the paternity issue wide open which his mother spoke about as the main cause of division between her father and her son. Nicholas could put this right. His lawyer says that the girl involved refused to take a DNA test. This is untrue. She agreed but wanted a second test in a different clinic alongside the one Nicholas arranged to provide a burden of proof. This is quite usual and I'm not sure why Nicholas and his lawyer have objected to this.

2) However Nicholas found out about his removal, it was the King's right to remove him as he had removed others. The statements issued from all sides were upheld for at least 12 months as being released by the authors attributed to them without any contradiction or concern raised about their validity. That only changed in the last month and only from one side - Nicholas. He claims he didn't write any of his statements released by the Royal House, he also claims his mother didn't write the statement attributed to her....now he claims his grandfather didn't release the statements attributed to him. This seems very unlikely.

3) Money is involved here in a way I don't think has been properly explored. The first possibility is that the lawyer wants Nicholas to have his stake in the money received from the state in the future to be paid to him now. This would be impossible given that the bill allocating that money hasn't even passed yet. The second possibility is that Nicholas feels the entirety of the money should be paid to him as rightful head of the Royal House but nowhere does Nicholas contest Margareta's position so this sounds unlikely. The third possibility is that he feels he won't now get the money he would have got after the eventual death of his mother. But had he remained in the line of succession, this would have been the case anyway. The fourth possibility (and mostly likely IMO) is that Nicholas took a stipend to live a private life, ran out of money and then began this new approach to replenish his bank balance. If he was so offended by the mere suggestion of what he infers was "hush money", why did he accept it in the first place?

4) Nicholas is on the tail end of some terrible, terrible advice. I don't believe it was his idea to go to Aubonne and to cause trouble, I believe now he was advised to go and things got out of hand. This doesn't excuse his behaviour, that is if the allegations are true. I cannot see why they would not be when Nicholas himself admits that he's guilty of forced entry. This is unfortunate because given his statements and the eyewitness accounts, he's sure to have some kind of conviction which would (in part) legitimise his grandfather's concerns expressed in 2015 which kicked this whole sorry mess off in the first place.

[Cory]

The campaign started in 2015 against Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills continues today but the Romanians are not fooled at all and we noticed their reaction at the funeral.of the King. Those that are afraid of the popularity of this young man and of the prospects of a growing demand for Monarchy would say anything to affect his image.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Cory

The campaign started in 2015 against Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills continues today but the Romanians are not fooled at all and we noticed their reaction at the funeral.of the King. Those that are afraid of the popularity of this young man and of the prospects of a growing demand for Monarchy would say anything to affect his image.

I honestly give up. It's impossible to discuss this if you return to a default position of asserting your opinion as fact and refuse to answer any question put to you with credible sources. You can't substantiate a single claim you've made and so this is a conversation that will simply go round and round and that's sad because somewhere in the middle of everybody's views and knowledge, there's probably the truth. It's a shame we can't approach this at a healthy level of debate because it could provide great insight into a unique situation.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Andy T

If I were Nicholas, I'd sack this lawyer: this man is really clutching at straws. lawyers aren't interested in telling the truth, they're interested in making money and gaining a reputation for themselves. They'll present any story that is plausible enough to get their clients off the hook, be the crime murder or breaking and entry. This guy is quite obviously not telling the whole truth, but (as lawyers do) trying to weave half-truths into a plausible 'story', padded out with irrelevant distractions.

Nicholas really needs to ditch the crowd he's fallen into, and fast, because they are going to destroy the poor man, ruin any chances he has of a reconciliation with his family and leave him broke.

Everybody noticed how interested in reconciliation was the Family when they did not want him on the Royal Train.

[tihkon2]

My only question is, why do we assume Nicholas is lying about the paternity test? Can't it be Princess Elena or the alleged baby mama that are lying about his refusal?

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by tihkon2

My only question is, why do we assume Nicholas is lying about the paternity test? Can't it be Princess Elena or the alleged baby mama that are lying about his refusal?

You're quite right of course, it's a possibility. But I don't think that's the case. Primarily because Nicholas' statements are often contradictory and although I could believe the mother of the child has lots to gain from lying, Princess Elena does not. Also, that wouldn't say very much about Her Royal Highness. She doesn't strike me as a power-mad woman who'd throw her son under the bus for the sake of a few medals and a palace.

[tihkon2]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

You're quite right of course, it's a possibility. But I don't think that's the case.

And here we have it...some other posters here "don't think that's the case" that Nicholas is lying.

So we have two sides that are basing their posts on "feelings".

In my opinion Elena certainly can be portrayed as someone who had no interest in Romania until a couple of years ago. She strikes me as possibly jealous that she was sort of ignored and pushed out of the way by her father in favor of her son for several years. I have no proof of that but, hey, just like you on other matters, I think that might be the case.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by tihkon2

And here we have it...some other posters here "don't think that's the case" that Nicholas is lying.

So we have two sides that are basing their posts on "feelings".

In my opinion Elena certainly can be portrayed as someone who had no interest in Romania until a couple of years ago. She strikes me as possibly jealous that she was sort of ignored and pushed out of the way by her father in favor of her son for several years. I have no proof of that but, hey, just like you on other matters, I think that might be the case.

I wouldn't say it was based on feelings. If you quoted the next line of my post, I clearly said that I base that on the fact that Nicholas' statements are often contradictory. That's a big step up from just a feeling. But on the Elena point yes, I have no proof that she isn't jealous of her son and isn't wreaking a Brothers Grimm style revenge. On that point certainly I can only offer a feeling that she isn't like that but I'd absolutely be happy to change that opinion if I saw a pattern of behaviour which could qualify that view. I see that with him, not with Her Royal Highness.

[tihkon2]

In my opinion, anyone who makes a press statement about her son's paternity test is not a model mother. So I take that as an example of her being a less than loving parent. Of course she and her sisters were raised in a cult for a while..so who knows what they learned about morality.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by tihkon2

In my opinion, anyone who makes a press statement about her son's paternity test is not a model mother. So I take that as an example of her being a less than loving parent. Of course she and her sisters were raised in a cult for a while..so who knows what they learned about morality.

Is that so? I hadn't heard about that. What cult did they join?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Is that so? I hadn't heard about that. What cult did they join?

It is not a cult, it was a certain Christian vision on society after the slaughters of WWII. King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola and other royals like Queen Juliana were also in it or in similar movements. It is called Moral Rearmanent. Google for it.

[Gaudete]

Oh I see! I've heard of Moral Rearmament, I believe the Ven. Archbishop Sheen gave a talk on it once. Certainly not a cult.