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

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

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

Moral Re-Armament.

The King and Queen were not in the most ideal circumstances when they began their family. Michael and Anne did not have much in the way of financial resources, they ended up moving quite frequently in the first few years of their marriage and they had a difficult time finding "meaning" in their new roles.

Queen Anne explained this time of constant transition in Anne of Romania: A War, An Exile, A Life: “The wound of being cut off from our country [Romania] was harsh and deep, especially for my husband. That was why we kept changing towns and countries, moving from one house to another. We could not manage to settle permanently anywhere at first, because we were searching for ourselves, searching for a place and an identity; we were looking for a place with which we could feel in harmony...It took the King almost ten years to find himself again...Our first three daughters grew up with a father who was gentle, fair and loving, but very quiet, serious and sad. When Margarita, at the age of four, asked why her father was so sad and quiet, I told her he was upset because he had lost his country. Our children knew this right from the beginning, even if they had to grow up a little before they could understand the situation properly.”

Her Majesty further confessed: “Around the beginning of the 1950s, the King and I began to face up to the problem of our inability to adapt to the society around us...At that time, we were both very sad, and I had begun to be full of bitterness. My husband’s reaction was to close in on himself; mine was to become bitter. We began to go out less often than we had before, because we had no doubt that most of the time he was invited only for his name, and not for who he was himself. Organising a dinner around a king was just a way of making a good impression in society. And so we withdrew.”

During the beginning of their time in Switzerland, Michael and Anne, as well as their daughters, presumably, became involved with Frank Buchanan (who died in 1961) and an organization he had created known as the Moral Rearmament Movement, which was based in Caux, not far from the family’s home in Versoix. Through Frank Buchanan, Michael and Anne became close friends with the British tennis player Bunny Austin and his wife, the former Phyllis Konstam, who acted in several Hitchcock movies. The Queen remembered that Bunny and Phyllis saved she and the King from “a terrible loneliness,” and that the Romanian royal family’s experience of Moral Rearmament was that “it was an initiative which greatly enhanced us from a spiritual point of view.” This may all very well be true, and perhaps Moral Rearmament ultimately had a beneficial impact on King Michael, Queen Anne and their family. However, actress Glenn Close, who was involved in Moral Rearmament as a result of the involvement of her father, Dr William Taliaferro Close, with the organization. Recently Close disclosed what it was like to grow up at the MRA’s Swiss headquarters. Close referred to MRA as a cult, and of Frank Buchanan she had this to say: “I haven't made a study of groups like these, but in order to have something like this coalesce, you have to have a leader. You have to have a leader who has some sort of ability to bring people together, and that's interesting to me because my memory of the man who founded it was this wizened old man with little glasses and a hooked nose, in a wheelchair.” Glenn Close also recalled what life was like at the MRA headquarters: “They had a big hotel, a very glamorous, exclusive hotel called Mountain House, which I think is in one of Fitzgerald’s novels. [They] made it into one of their world headquarters, and we stayed there for two years...You basically weren't allowed to do anything, or you were made to feel guilty about any unnatural desire. If you talk to anybody who was in a group that basically dictates how you're supposed to live and what you're supposed to say and how you're supposed to feel, from the time you're 7 till the time you're 22, it has a profound impact on you. It's something you have to [consciously overcome] because all of your trigger points are [wrong]." Close’s disclosures into what she deemed a cult causes one to wonder exactly how positive was the involvement of the King and Queen of Romania with MRA, and what lasting effects this exposure to a controversial organization might have had on their family and personalities.

[Duc_et_Pair]

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 yedars. I have no proof of that but, hey, just like you on other matters, I think that might be the case.

Note that when former King Michael removed his son from the Royal House, from his version of the succession and from his royal style and title, only one person went to the public. That was Nicholas. And what did he say? Sad? Angry? Disagreement?

No...

He found that his position in the Royal House restricted him. He welcomed (!) his grandfather's decision. He would pursue "a different life".

Not Margareta, not Radu, not Elena, no... it was Nicholas' very own communiqué to the public! And now, years later, he probably has second thoughts about it. The dude is so inconsequent and often contradicting. Boy, even when he whistles, big chance it is a lie.

You can drag his mother into it, but so far she has been quite silent about the whole situation. Also aunt Margareta and uncle Radu. For so far the Romanian royals remain stoïc and calm on all the upheaval which comes only from one side. The side who was actually relieved to be freed from his royal limitations...

[Gaudete]

Thanks for that Benjamin.

I don't think I would go so far as to call it a cult. Certainly it doesn't seem very cultish even if it seem to drift away from a Christian focus before it became the IofC. I had heard of it and the royal connections to it, I just didn't recognise it from the OP because I'd never heard it deemed a cult before. It certainly can't have been recognised as one in any serious way because it was never prohibited at all as far as I know.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Not Margareta, not Radu, not Elena, no... it was Nicholas' very own communiqué to the public! And now, years later, he probably has second thoughts on it. The dude is so inconsequent and often contradicting. Boy, even when he whistles, big chance it is a lie.

More than second thoughts, he claims he never wrote the thing in the first place. I predict in a year's time, he'll say that he never released any statement over the November/December 2017 period either.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck....

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Thanks for that Benjamin.

I don't think I would go so far as to call it a cult. Certainly it doesn't seem very cultish even if it seem to drift away from a Christian focus before it became the IofC. I had heard of it and the royal connections to it, I just didn't recognise it from the OP because I'd never heard it deemed a cult before. It certainly can't have been recognised as one in any serious way because it was never prohibited at all as far as I know.

Let's face it, with statements like these, it becomes clear that a lot of us involved in the discussion do have firmly held views, from which we are unlikely to budge. I am more than candid enough to admit that is the case with me.

Glenn Close actually experienced life in Moral Re-Armament. You did not. You claim that you are "open" to new information, but anytime a source is provided to you, you dismiss it. You fall back on previously stated opinions (and yes, they are *opinions*) about why you think things are the way they are. You (nor Duc et Pair) do not provide sources to back up your statements or claims. I have given presentations on the Romanian royals at royal history conferences in the United States. I have covered a royal wedding recently in Eastern Europe where Margarita and Radu walked right past me on their way to the reception, and I happily took their picture. You can respect people's status and not worship their every action and see them as infallible.

I am pretty sure I have posted hundreds of news articles about the Romanian royal family over the years. As has Cory, who is someone I have disagreed with about plenty in the past, but I can at least respect the fact that he puts forth real sources to back up his point of view.

Many posters on the board of this family do not. They simply spout opinions ad nauseam, and complain when others post *sources* to support their points of view, while never citing sources themselves. It is most interesting.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Moral Re-Armament.

The King and Queen were not in the most ideal circumstances when they began their family. Michael and Anne did not have much in the way of financial resources, they ended up moving quite frequently in the first few years of their marriage and they had a difficult time finding "meaning" in their new roles.

Queen Anne explained this time of constant transition in Anne of Romania: A War, An Exile, A Life: “The wound of being cut off from our country [Romania] was harsh and deep, especially for my husband. That was why we kept changing towns and countries, moving from one house to another. We could not manage to settle permanently anywhere at first, because we were searching for ourselves, searching for a place and an identity; we were looking for a place with which we could feel in harmony...It took the King almost ten years to find himself again...Our first three daughters grew up with a father who was gentle, fair and loving, but very quiet, serious and sad. When Margarita, at the age of four, asked why her father was so sad and quiet, I told her he was upset because he had lost his country. Our children knew this right from the beginning, even if they had to grow up a little before they could understand the situation properly.”

Her Majesty further confessed: “Around the beginning of the 1950s, the King and I began to face up to the problem of our inability to adapt to the society around us...At that time, we were both very sad, and I had begun to be full of bitterness. My husband’s reaction was to close in on himself; mine was to become bitter. We began to go out less often than we had before, because we had no doubt that most of the time he was invited only for his name, and not for who he was himself. Organising a dinner around a king was just a way of making a good impression in society. And so we withdrew.”

During the beginning of their time in Switzerland, Michael and Anne, as well as their daughters, presumably, became involved with Frank Buchanan (who died in 1961) and an organization he had created known as the Moral Rearmament Movement, which was based in Caux, not far from the family’s home in Versoix. Through Frank Buchanan, Michael and Anne became close friends with the British tennis player Bunny Austin and his wife, the former Phyllis Konstam, who acted in several Hitchcock movies. The Queen remembered that Bunny and Phyllis saved she and the King from “a terrible loneliness,” and that the Romanian royal family’s experience of Moral Rearmament was that “it was an initiative which greatly enhanced us from a spiritual point of view.” This may all very well be true, and perhaps Moral Rearmament ultimately had a beneficial impact on King Michael, Queen Anne and their family. However, actress Glenn Close, who was involved in Moral Rearmament as a result of the involvement of her father, Dr William Taliaferro Close, with the organization. Recently Close disclosed what it was like to grow up at the MRA’s Swiss headquarters. Close referred to MRA as a cult, and of Frank Buchanan she had this to say: “I haven't made a study of groups like these, but in order to have something like this coalesce, you have to have a leader. You have to have a leader who has some sort of ability to bring people together, and that's interesting to me because my memory of the man who founded it was this wizened old man with little glasses and a hooked nose, in a wheelchair.” Glenn Close also recalled what life was like at the MRA headquarters: “They had a big hotel, a very glamorous, exclusive hotel called Mountain House, which I think is in one of Fitzgerald’s novels. [They] made it into one of their world headquarters, and we stayed there for two years...You basically weren't allowed to do anything, or you were made to feel guilty about any unnatural desire. If you talk to anybody who was in a group that basically dictates how you're supposed to live and what you're supposed to say and how you're supposed to feel, from the time you're 7 till the time you're 22, it has a profound impact on you. It's something you have to [consciously overcome] because all of your trigger points are [wrong]." Close’s disclosures into what she deemed a cult causes one to wonder exactly how positive was the involvement of the King and Queen of Romania with MRA, and what lasting effects this exposure to a controversial organization might have had on their family and personalities.

It is not really a cult. Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and her daughter Princess Wilhelmina came into Moral Rearmamanent via the Queen's cousin the Earl of Athlone (Governor-General of Canada). King Baudouin of the Belgians came into the same via Leo Cardinal Suenens, the Archbishop of Malines and Primate of Belgium. I do not associate the Anglican Earl of Athlone, the Roman-Catholic Cardinal Suenens or the Dutch-Reformed Queen Wilhelmina as part of "a cult". It was just a visionary Christian idea for society and was en vogue for a while. Really no cult or so. I can see why Michael and Anne felt attracted to it.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

It is not really a cult. Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and her daughter Princess Wilhelmina came into Moral Rearmamanent via the Queen's cousin the Earl of Athlone (Governor-General of Canada). King Baudouin of the Belgians came into the same via Leo Cardinal Suenens, the Archbishop of Malines and Primate of Belgium. I do not associate the Anglican Earl of Athlone, Roman-Catholic Cardinal Suenens or the Dutch-Reformed Queen Wilhelmina as part of "a cult". It was just a visionary Christian idea for society and was en vogue for a while. Really no cult or something.

Fabulous. Terribly enlightening. So happy you could share your opinion on the subject!

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Let's face it, with statements like these, it becomes clear that a lot of us involved in the discussion do have firmly held views, from which we are unlikely to budge. I am more than candid enough to admit that is the case with me.

Glenn Close actually experienced life in Moral Re-Armament. You did not. You claim that you are "open" to new information, but anytime a source is provided to you, you dismiss it. You fall back on previously stated opinions (and yes, they are *opinions*) about why you think things are the way they are. You (nor Duc et Pair) do not provide sources to back up your statements or claims.

I am pretty sure I have posted hundreds of news articles about the Romanian royal family over the years. As has Cory, who is someone I have disagreed with about plenty in the past, but I can at least respect the fact that he puts forth real sources to back up his point of view.

Many posters on the board of this family do not. They simply spout opinions ad nauseam, and complain when others post *sources* to support their points of view, while never citing sources themselves. It is most interesting.

I appreciate your view but to set the record straight...

I present opinion based on fact and where possible, I include those facts in my posts. I may not always do so via an external link but if you'd care to review my posts, you'll find that in many cases I have directly quoted from statements made by the Royal House. It is upon these statements I have based my opinion because they come from a reputable source. I accept you disagree with this and that is your right but to say I do not provide sources or base my posts only in opinion is disingenuous.

In a post made on another thread, I asked you two questions directly relating to controversial statements you had made about Prince Radu and Nicholas. I asked for sources. You chose to ignore that post and didn't respond. In a similar way, I asked Cory for sources based on the claim he made about Nicholas being excluded from an event. He provided two external links which I read. The first attributed the story to an unnamed source in the Episcopate. The website was found to be lacking in credibility and therefore I didn't consider it a source upon which to form an opinion. So I asked Cory for a second source. He provided one. A more credible website yes but the piece referred to it's own source for it's published article as a Romanian blogger. When asked for a more credible source, Cory told me that it was just something he knew because he'd spoken to some at the event. As I'm sure you would if I made such a claim on the opposing side of the debate, I discounted that.

Again, you're being disingenuous when you say I haven't posted sources because I have. And when I misrepresented (unwittingly) a source which you questioned, I apologised and put my statement right. You chose not to respond to posts requesting sources, Cory chose to do the same when his sources amounted to nothing substantial. I'm sorry you feel that I'm being unfair in this debate and I am more than willing to provide external link sources to any of my statements you might wish to question. I'm not attempting to discredit you or Cory, neither am I saying you are wrong or not entitled to your opinion. I'm simply saying that, as yet, I have seen no reliable source that backs up the claims you made about Prince Radu, the Custodian of the Crown, King Michael, Princess Elena or Nicholas himself.

On the Glenn Close source, I appreciated you posting that and of course I have no personal experience of the Moral Rearmament group. But I have heard it referenced before by very learned people and it never struck me that it was a cult. As it drifted away from Christian inspiration (around the time Ms Close was a member I believe), perhaps it took on something a little more sinister and I was actually reading into this online when you chose to attack me in your post. I can't make a stand on the statement from Ms Close alone. I have to look at others and in fact, I was looking for the lecture given by Fulton J Sheen on the Moral Rearmament Group to put a different point of view across. Perhaps I should have waited to include that before I made my post which seems to have upset you. Again, I do apologise and hope that you'll feel free to ask me for sources in the future on any statement I make which I'd be more than happy to give.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Fabulous. Terribly enlightening. So happy you could share your opinion on the subject!

Recently Jolande Withuis published a bestseller on the life of Queen Juliana and the unavoidable Faith Healer in the 1950's of course was part of her life. The author found out how all this was part in all royal families actually. From the spiritism of "Madame Blavatsky" to the readings of Krishnamutri, to the ideas of fantasts or to concepts like Moral Rearmament. For some reason almost all Royal Houses in Europe were open for this sort of theories.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Recently Jolande Withuis published a bestseller on the life of Queen Juliana and the unavoidable Faith Healer in the 1950's of course was part of her life. The author found out how all this was part in all royal families actually. From the spiritism of "Madame Blavatsky" to the readings of Krishnamutri, to the ideas of fantasts or to concepts like Moral Rearmament. For some reason almost all Royal Houses in Europe were open for this sort of theories.

It's worth remembering of course that Queen Marie took to Bahá'í in a big way. She said it was "a great cry toward peace, reaching beyond all limits of frontiers, above all dissensions about rites and dogmas". This is wildly off topic though of course, for which I apologise to the Mods!

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I appreciate your view but to set the record straight...

I present opinion based on fact and where possible, I include those facts in my posts. I may not always do so via an external link but if you'd care to review my posts, you'll find that in many cases I have directly quoted from statements made by the Royal House. It is upon these statements I have based my opinion because they come from a reputable source. I accept you disagree with this and that is your right but to say I do not provide sources or base my posts only in opinion is disingenuous.

In a post made on another thread, I asked you two questions directly relating to controversial statements you had made about Prince Radu and Nicholas. I asked for sources. You chose to ignore that post and didn't respond. In a similar way, I asked Cory for sources based on the claim he made about Nicholas being excluded from an event. He provided two external links which I read. The first attributed the story to an unnamed source in the Episcopate. The website was found to be lacking in credibility and therefore I didn't consider it a source upon which to form an opinion. So I asked Cory for a second source. He provided one. A more credible website yes but the piece referred to it's own source for it's published article as a Romanian blogger. When asked for a more credible source, Cory told me that it was just something he knew because he'd spoken to some at the event. As I'm sure you would if I made such a claim on the opposing side of the debate, I discounted that.

Again, you're being disingenuous when you say I haven't posted sources because I have. And when I misrepresented (unwittingly) a source which you questioned, I apologised and put my statement right. You chose not to respond to posts requesting sources, Cory chose to do the same when his sources amounted to nothing substantial. I'm sorry you feel that I'm being unfair in this debate and I am more than willing to provide external link sources to any of my statements you might wish to question. I'm not attempting to discredit you or Cory, neither am I saying you are wrong or not entitled to your opinion. I'm simply saying that, as yet, I have seen no reliable source that backs up the claims you made about Prince Radu, the Custodian of the Crown, King Michael, Princess Elena or Nicholas himself.

On the Glenn Close source, I appreciated you posting that and of course I have no personal experience of the Moral Rearmament group. But I have heard it referenced before by very learned people and it never struck me that it was a cult. As it drifted away from Christian inspiration (around the time Ms Close was a member I believe), perhaps it took on something a little more sinister and I was actually reading into this online when you chose to attack me in your post. I can't make a stand on the statement from Ms Close alone. I have to look at others and in fact, I was looking for the lecture given by Fulton J Sheen on the Moral Rearmament Group to put a different point of view across. Perhaps I should have waited to include that before I made my post which seems to have upset you. Again, I do apologise and hope that you'll feel free to ask me for sources in the future on any statement I make which I'd be more than happy to give.

I suppose I don't see it as my place to ask other forum participants for sources. If I want to know something, I look into it myself. This family is not new to me, nor to many people on the forum. I have friends who have actually been friends with either dead or living members of the Romanian family. I do not feel the need to ask anonymous people what their opinions are about subjects that I have heard plenty about over the course of the years (both good things and not so good things).

If I have an opinion (and obviously I have plenty), then I provide sources that back it up. I did not respond to your request for sources to the two questions you posed because I view the exercise as futile. Whatever I post, you simply try to discredit by saying that it is hearsay or you attack the paper/publication its from or you state you do not "feel" like it could be true. I have gone back through your past posts just to make sure I am not totally incorrect in saying so.

If someone else has a contrary opinion, then I expect them to provide sources to back it up. Since this is the internet, doing so has to basically consist of either citing an excerpt from a book or a publication or an article or something similar.

Simple as that.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Recently Jolande Withuis published a bestseller on the life of Queen Juliana and the unavoidable Faith Healer in the 1950's of course was part of her life. The author found out how all this was part in all royal families actually. From the spiritism of "Madame Blavatsky" to the readings of Krishnamutri, to the ideas of fantasts or to concepts like Moral Rearmament. For some reason almost all Royal Houses in Europe were open for this sort of theories.

The fact that it is "common place" among some royal families, and you can hardly say it is the majority, hardly makes it *normal*.

Greet Hofmans was a PR disaster for Queen Juliana.

[Gaudete]

You’re entitled to your opinion and I respect your position. However, if someone makes a statement I expect to see a credible source. In an era of so much fake news, claims to know someone personally or statements (quite defamatory in some instances) based on hearsay or “Someone told me” can be very damaging and should be questioned.

But I accept you don’t feel that’s a correct approach and I’ll be sure not to reply to your posts in the future so as not to cause any offence. Apologies again.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

However, if someone makes a statement I expect to see a credible source.

On that, we both agree.

[Cory]

The fact in the last two years we have seen this organized and vicious campaign against the King's grandson is nothing but a proof certain people realized Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth Mills could have more and more support from the Romanians. Nobody would have bothered to organize such a campaign against a "private person". He is considered certainly by those that speak and act against him as a potential Pretender to the Throne and a symbol of continuity for the monarchists.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

In an era of so much fake news, claims to know someone personally or statements (quite defamatory in some instances) based on hearsay or “Someone told me” can be very damaging and should be questioned.

Further, I live in the United States, so I am quite aware of the damage fake news can wreak. Just look at the head of my country's government. (Sorry to the Admins for getting political!)

Additionally, I never wrote "someone told me blah blah blah." I named one book that you can easily find and then gave enough information to protect the privacy of an American author while still enabling at least one forum participant (who thanked me for it) to be able to quickly discover the book that Radu plagiarised. I also gave enough details of how the American publication was plagiarised by Radu to save anyone who ends up owning both books the trouble of having to look for the blaring similarities.

Lastly, the purpose of my recounting that incident *was* to damage Radu's perfect perception by some on this board. He is not a person without immense baggage. He has made plenty of enemies along the path to where he is now. That is his problem.

[LadyFinn]

King Michael’s grandson wants to be returned to the Royal Family, and for this, according to his lawyer, he will do the necessary. Nicholas will mourn for 40 days, and in 3 months will not appear in public, just like the other members of his family.
The lawyer said that those in the Royal Family made a first step towards normality, accepting Nicholas’ presence at King Michael’s funeral, after when a month ago they opposed the grandson to visit his grandfather.
In front of the crowd gathered on 14 December at the Royal Palace, Nicholas said he will return to Romania.
The images of the former prince have been around the world, being taken over by the press. British journalists wrote that Nicholas won the hearts of the Romanians and pointed out that he had come in the middle of the people with his wife, Alina Medforth Mills.
Nepotul Regelui Mihai vrea să fie reprimit în Familia Regală. Mesajul transmis de Nicolae - Stirileprotv.ro
Translation

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

You’re entitled to your opinion and I respect your position. However, if someone makes a statement I expect to see a credible source. In an era of so much fake news, claims to know someone personally or statements (quite defamatory in some instances) based on hearsay or “Someone told me” can be very damaging and should be questioned.

I would just quickly add that on these forums, as on many forums dedicated to specific topics, you will sometimes find that some people are connected more closely to the topics at hand; in this case, to royalty. That doesn't always allow you to explain your sources in detail when adding your voice to a debate, but it doesn't take much time reading on these forums to see if someone has a genuine and more 'knowing' way of articulating an argument or offering an explanation. You can always choose to disregard a view from a lack of sourcing or a factual base satisfactory to you, but unlike some other online sources, it's quite easy to spot the ones carrying 'fake news' on a regular basis on TRF, and those who are not.

Gosh, I can't believe one has to use that terminology, and that a certain pathetic reality celebrity turned 'world leader', has had such an impact on global conversation :( (sorry for the digression, moderators)

Back on topic: Nicholas released an interesting and respectful message through his lawyer yesterday, one can only hope it will be received in the spirit seemingly intended. What the Royal Family needs now, is calm and serenity during the period of mourning, in loving memory of a much missed man.

[Cory]

A nice gesture would have been to invite Nicholas and Alina de Roumanie Medforth Mills for Christmas at Savarsin Castle with the rest of the Family.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Cory

A nice gesture would have been to invite Nicholas and Alina de Roumanie Medforth Mills for Christmas at Savarsin Castle with the rest of the Family.

Why?

By my knowledge his mother does not live at Săvârșin. And shouldn't it be Nicholas' very own mother, herself a future head of the former Royal House, with whom he has to come on speaking terms again?

You lay the ball at the feet of Princess Margareta, the resident of Săvârșin. It should be laid at the feet of Princess Elena, Nicholas' mother.

First things first. I am sure Princess Margareta will do nothing without consulting her successor, her sister Princess Elena, Nicholas' mother.