Talk:Michael I of Romania/Archive 1

No mention of Margareta and the other daughters. --Wetman 06:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added this info - which you could have done yourself with ten minutes research. I have also (again) removed the claim that Michael now lives in Romania. He doesn't, he lives in Geneva, although he makes regular appearances in Romania. See the semi-official website. Adam 07:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

His Majesty Lives in Romania, at Palatul Elisabeta (Elisabeth Palace) in Bucharest, or at Sãvârsin Palace, in Arad.

No he doesn't. Adam 01:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Is he Romanian?
The article has quite a bit of info that makes me question how Romanian he is. (I mean in an ethnic and linguistic sense.) Is Romanian even his first language?

Just curious, so would love to see this info in the article.

King Michael's first language was Romanian, but his mother's preferred language was English, which is why His Majesty speaks fluent English as well. King Michael has always been very pro-British, even during World War II when Romania was being run into the ground by the self-declared 'Conducator', Ion Antonescu, whom King Michael had arrested in 1944. - (Aidan Work 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

That wasn't the question. The question was is he Romanian in an ethnic sense. The Hohenzollerns are of course German. I'm not sure if any of the Romanian Hohenzollers have married Romanians, but I don't think so (too snobbish). Adam 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

it wasn't snobbery. the romanian constitution forbade kings and heirs in direct line to the throne to marry romanians. the romanians in 1866, when they installed carol the first on the throne, were very keen on having a totally foreign ruler with absolutely no preference to any noble romanian family... total objectivity. the clause in the romanian constitution was the reason carol 2nd's marriage to zizi lambrino was not valid and was anulled. king michael spent his first twenty-six years of life in romania. he was educated mainly by romanian people and grew around romanians (although not only). i think we can safely assume he is romanian. ilya 23:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I retract the imputation of snobbery. Whatever the reason, the Romanian Hohenzollerns never married into Romanian society and are thus not, in a genealogical sense, Romanian. Whether this matters or not is a matter of opinion. Maybe it doesn't matter in Romania. It certainly mattered in Greece, where the Glucksbergs were always seen as foreigners imposed on the country by the Great Powers. Adam 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Hohenzollerns were not seen as foreigners and did not even acted like foreginers. In order to gain Transylvania, they fought against their mother country, Germany, in World War I at a time when many Romanian politicians (the "germanophile" faction) were against that. Also, during WWII, after the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum, the king wanted to fight the Soviets and not surrender the territory, but the Romanian politicians cowardly refused to do that (in the end, Romania lost much more lives and territory than expected...) bogdan 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

when king ferdinand declared that his country was joining the antante, the german emperror declared that he was a traitor and that he had no rights as a hohenzollern anymore. the house's name was changed from the house of hohenzollern-sigmaringen, to the house of romania. even today, we talk of michael and anne of romania, not of hohenzollern. there were some protests at the beginning, when carol 1st was first installed on the romanian throne, but carol was a good king and organized the country so well that they diminshed quite fast. ferdinand's move against his own country was pretty much the ultimate proof. even ferdinand himself replied to pp carp who had argumented that he was a german king, and said 'no, i am romanian'. the royal house behaved admirably in the first world war and i sincerely doubt there were many romanians to think of them as foreign anymore. sure, there were republicans, but the republicans didn't oppose they house's origins, but the institution of monarchy. i think we can safely say that after carol 1 (who as much as he did for the country, stayed a german, and it was showed in the last year of his life) the house was romanian. ilya 12:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with ilya: there was no law or ordinance passed by the Parliament, Government, or the former Romanian Royal House to change the name of the Dynasty from Hohenzollern to of Romania. Moreover, King Carol II and his last wife used the name of Hohenzollern while in exile. A solid proof to the lack of any official pre-1947 name change is the fact that the rights to bear the name of Hohenzollern (without any princely title, though) and to inherit Carol II's personal goods was won by Carol Mircea Lambrino, Carol II's first born, in two trials, the first in Portugal, the second in France. The fact is that the decision regarding the Dynasty name, taken by the German Hohenzollerns during World War I, had no binding consequences, no legal power whatsoever in another country, namely Romania. Thus, the official name of the Romanian Royal Dynasty remained that of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen until the end of the monarchy.

It is true, however, that once in exile, King Michael changed his name from Hohenzollern to of Romania, perhaps in an attempt to give himself more legitimacy, constantly undermined by two facts. Firstly, Michael's second reign (1940-1947) had been unconstitutional: Michael had not been sworn in by the Parliament, as required by the last legitimate royal Constitution of 1923, as the Parliament was suspended upon his accession to the Throne. The Parliament resumed its activity only in 1946, a year before Michael's abdication, and never during its activity sanctioned Michael's unconstitutional accession to the Throne of six years before. Without the Parliament's sanction, Michael remained an unconstitutional monarch. Secondly, while in exile, Michael had always been in a sort of silent competition for legitimacy with his father, Carol II, whom he refused to meet at all after abdicating and whose funeral he did not even attend. His father, unlike Michael, had never signed an act of abdication. Carol II had only "empowered" prime minister Ion Antonescu with all the royal prerogatives before fleeing Romania in September 1940, yet he did not sign a proper abdication act, thus allowing for the theoretical possibility of returning to topple his son a second time. The Germans had even used this lack of a proper, legal abdication to explore Carol II's willingness while in exile to return to Romania to take the Throne back from Michael with Nazi help after Michael's coup of August 23 1944.

The controversy surrounding King Michael's (and, thus, the Dynasty's) legal name remains even to this day, as illustrated by the fact that the surname space in his Romanian passport, issued by the (Nota Bene!) pro-monarchical government coallition in power in 1997, fails to mention any surname whatsoever. For a photocopy of King Michael's Romanian pasport, please, see http://foto.rompres.ro/index.php?i=1573&p=9. In order for the Romanian Government to recognize Michael's new surname of Romania adopted in exile, Michael would have had to register it with the proper Romanian authorities when he returned to Romania, something which he has failed to do to this date. As the Romanian authorities do not want to commit an illegal act by changing one's surname without due process, while at the same trying not to offend Michael's sensibilities, the surname section of his passport remains blank. Stefanp 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Succession
It appears that the nearest male heirs to Michael would be the descendants of the older and younger brothers of King Ferdinand I. Since the older brother, William, rejected the throne, does that elminate his heirs? If so, then the succession should fall to the family of the younger brother, Charles Anthony, who had a son, Albrecht. But I don't know if Albrecht's children were male or female.

If none of these apply, then it would appear that the heir would fall back to some other Hohenzollern branch. I have posted this question at alt.royalty. Zoe 02:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Michael has issued a statement making his daughter his heir, something he would have had no power to do under the monarchist constitition. Since the Romanian monarchy is extinct, however, this is a matter of antiquarian interest only. Adam 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's of interest to monarchists. :) It would also be interesting to see, if the monarchy were reinstalled, if any Romanian parliament would recognize Michael's unilateral actions.  And the monarchy is only in abeyance, not extinct.  Check out what's happening in Bulgaria.  Zoe 03:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I think the Prince of Hohenzollern (the heir of Ferdinand's elder brother) is generally considered to be the proper heir. But I'm not sure. john k 03:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Romania has been a republic for 60 years, which seems a reasonable definition of an extinct monarchy. There is a certain amount of nostalgia in Romania for the monarchy but no political support for the idea of restoring it. Adam 04:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands (allow eldest child regardless of gender to succeed). Spain, UK, Luxembourg and Lietchenstein, eldest son succeeds, if no son then eldest daugther. In todays European monarchies (21st century), it can be assumed that if Romania were to become a Monarchy again (restore Michael as King), then it would probably change the line-of-succession to include females, thus Michael eldest daugther would be heiress-apparent. Mightberight/wrong 21:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

That may be so, but if Michael is claiming to be King of Romania now, it can only be under the prewar constitution, and his daughters cannot be heirs under that constitution. Adam 22:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam, King Michael is right to have issued a proclamation declaring his eldest daughter as his heir. The Kings of Romania were, in theory, absolute monarchs. Therefore, H.M. King Michael is entitled to do what he likes as far as the succession goes. - (Aidan Work 03:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

That is not correct. Prewar Romania had a constitution. Adam 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

King Michael's title.
King Michael's title remains that of 'King'.He cannot be titled as 'Prince'. I regard downgrading his title as wrong. - (Aidan Work 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC))


 * He is still known as King Michael is some circles, but he goes by Prince Michael as to not inflame some republicans. Prsgoddess187 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No he does not! There are several Prince Michaels, or Prince Michels around, but King Michael is not one of them. He has always gone by the name King Michael of Romania. Marina Cummings 21 March 2006

A king is a person who is head of state of a monarchy. Romania is a republic. Therefore Michael is not a king. Adam 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam, a king does not have to be a head of state to be a monarch. There are native monarchies even within some republics. South Africa is an example of a republic within the British Commonwealth that has a lot of monarchies.The most famous one is King Goodwill Zwelethini of KwaZulu-Natal.So,King Michael is a king, which blows your republican-based theory right out of the water. - (Aidan Work 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Where or what is he king of? The answer cannot be Romania, because Romania is a republic. Adam 09:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include Michael's regnal number? Seems very odd when he is likely to remain for all time time the only Michael to reign over Roumania.

this is a very often-encountered discussion on not just michael's page, but many other royalty pages. apparently that's the standard. ilya 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Leopold III was still called "King Leopold III" after his abdication. Just because you are no longer the king of a country doesn't mean you don't retain the personal style of "king." john k 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

King Michael's 'instrument of abdication' is not valid.
As a Royalist, I believe very strongly that King Michael's 'instrument of abdication' is not valid, as King Michael was forced to sign it under duress, as his Commie Prime Minister held a gun to the Queen Mother's head. Had a referendum been held, there would be a majority in favour of King Michael being restored to the throne. - (Aidan Work 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

i sincerely doubt this. the communists did a great job at erasing any tracks of the royalist period in the romanian minds. in school, still, romanians are taught only the basic facts and in a manner that does not make the royal romanian family very popular. sure, there are many royalist romanians, and those are mostly either people who were alive in the royalist period, or people who were educated at home with a sort of a royal spirit (children of intelectuals and of communist active opposants). but the majority of romanians don't care about the romanian family. i am talking about the 51% of romanians, who still live in rural areas, who have no knowledge of politics and who always vote for the socialists (the reason the communist structures are still maintained in romania). those people would vote no and would stop the return of the king. ilya 23:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aidan's contributions might carry more weight if they didn't always begin "as a Royalist." The fact is that Romania has been a republic for 60 years. It is true that the monarchy was abolished by force by the Communists, but Romania has been a democracy for 15 years now and there is no sign that a significant number of Romanians want the monarchy back. I might say that although I am a republican I have a lot more respect for Michael than I have some other ex-kings (such as Constantine of Greece). But neither my views nor Aidan's about that are to the point. The points is that since Romania is now a republic, Michael cannot be described as a king. Adam 09:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam, despite what King Michael has said, there is an active Royalist political party in Romania, like in most of the other Balkan states. There is even a very active Royalist political party in Serbia. - (Aidan Work 00:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

And how many votes did this royalist party poll at the last Romanian elections? It is true that royalism is a significant force in Serbia (and I believe in Montenegro as well). It is not a force in Romania. Adam 06:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

i have never heard about this royalist party... the peasant party once declared that they wish to restore the king but then they came to power in 1996 and did nothing about it. i don't believe there's a single politician in the romanian parliament that wishes to restore the monarchy. even more, i don't believe michael himself wants to be king anymore and that anyone is capable of being king in his place. his daughter, margareta, the only one who is active as a romanian royal family member, has no children. i doubt any of her sisters' children wish to be involved in this. i am afraid the monarchy has long been dead and it will be buried with king michael. ilya 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Also could we please try to find a PD photo of him as an adult? Why don't one of you royalists write to him and get a copy of his official photo? Adam 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! There are some nice photos on: http://foto.rompres.ro/index.php?p=2&q=regele%20mihai&d=-1

Marina Cummings

Are they in the public domain? Or are they copyright? Wikipedia cannot use them unless they are public domain. Adam 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess they must be copyright as when you enlarge them "Rompress" appears on the photo. I will try and find out from them.

You will need to get a statement that they release the photo you want to use into the public domain - not just that they will allow it to appear at Wikipedia but retain copyright. Adam 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Marina (5 March 2006)

Here are two public photos of King Michael as adult: one with his wife, Princess Anne, and one alone, both from his semi-official web site. Stefanp 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are two photos of King Michael giving and, respectively, receiving the Nazi salute at one of the pro-Nazi Iron Guard mass meetings in Iasi, on November 8, 1940. The Queen-Mother Helen is delighted by the display of affection of the adoring Iron Guard masses. King Michael has all the reasons to be grateful to the Iron Guard, as its Government led by PM Antonescu had recently repatriated Helen (see documentary movie) from a long and painful exile imposed on her by her former husband, King Carol II. Stefanp 12:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the copyright status of those photos? (I think, by the way, it is debatable whether he is giving a Nazi salute in the first photo - his arm is not in the "rigid" Nazi salute position. It looks more like a Mussolini-style fascist salute, or even just a general salute of greeting.) Adam 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Those photos are in the public domain: there is no known author and they have been circulating free of copyright rights for over six decades. The salute seems more like the Roman salute, which was adopted by all fascist movements. Stefanp 12:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Roman salute is what I called the fascist salute - arm extended and raised high, palm facing outwards. It was significantly different to the Hitlergruss (Nazi salute) - arm extended rigidly, usually not raised so high, palm facing downwards. Adam 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say all fascist salutes (Nazi, Mussolini's, Romanian, etc.) were variations on the same theme - the Roman salute. Different nuances, but the same essence. Stefanp 13:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you'd be wrong. Adam 13:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Then it means Wikipedia is also wrong, for this is what it says about the Nazi salute: "The Hitler salute (Hitlergruß), also known in German during World War II as the Deutscher Gruß ("German Greeting"), and in English as the Nazi salute, is a variant of the Roman salute adopted by the Nazi party as a sign of loyalty to its leader Adolf Hitler." Stefanp 13:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

that wouldn't be the first time wikipedia would be wrong. remember, you don't have to have any degree to edit - anyone can do so. does the one who wrote that name any sources for his statements? ilya 18:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the following special report on the history of an idea - the European union - of the very reputable magazine The Economist, the Nazi and fascist salutes were the Roman salute: "Hitler's loyalists gave the Roman salute and their cry “Heil Hitler!” was modelled on “Hail Caesar!”. (...) Of course, the Romans have inspired not only despots but also democrats, among them the architects of the Capitol in Washington, DC. And the Romans and Charlemagne also inspired the fathers of the EU, whose objectives were the exact opposite of war." Thus, I can confidently say that King Michael gave and received the Nazi salute to and from the adoring masses of the pro-Nazi Iron Guard party that had swept him into power and had repatriated his mother from a long and painful exile. Stefanp 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Death
I think when his death was reported on 29 January 2006 people were confusing him with his half brother Carol Lambrino, who died in London on 27 January 2006 aged 86. --82.4.86.73 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Abdication controversies
King Michael contradicts the British Foreign Office reports surrounding the alleged offer of asylum made to him by PM Winston Churchill in November 1947, on the occasion of Michael's trip to the wedding of the future Queen Elizabeth II:

"Another memorable visit to London was in 1947, at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth. (...) I decided to reject any offers of asylum and returned to my country, to be with my people for as long as possible." (King Michael, London, March 26, 1997)

"London, Dee. 30 (U.P.). -- Handsome King Mihai returned to his tottering throne in Romania last month at the express advice of Winston Churchill, diplomatic circles said today." (Washington Post, December 31, 1947)

This is but another controversy surrounding Michael's trip to London in November 1947, when he reportedly took out of Romania 42 invaluable State (Crown) paintings, Stalin's "thank-you" note for the cease-fire order King Michael had given to the Romanian Army on August 23, 1944 without having signed any armistice whatsoever (signed much later, on September 12, 1944), order which had immediately rendered the Soviets masters of Romania. A solid proof for these accusations comes from King Michael's ex-son-in-law, John Kreuger, Princess Irene's ex-husband:

"Madonna with the Child" painted by Francesco Raibolini, was donated on Wednesday to the Romanian National Art Museum. The painting was bought in 1983 by Diana Kreuger, from the former Romanian royal family and exhibited between 1983 and 1998 at Malvande Chambesy Castle in Geneva. The painting was inherited by John Kreuger, who had the generosity to donate it." (Daily News, November 25, 2004)

"One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Royal Crown which was supposed to have been taken out of the country by King Michael in 1947, returned to the national patrimony early this year. The painting was donated to the National Museum of Art by John Kreuger, former son-in-law of Romania's sovereign." (Evenimentul Zilei, March 24, 2005)

As about the half million Swiss francs, paid to the King before his departure into exile in January 1948, with which Stalin bought Michael's acceptance of a smooth abdication and his silence in exile, on top of the 42 invaluable public-owned paintings given to him in November 1947, recently declassified Soviet and British archives leave no room for speculation:

"Confidential Foreign Office documents reveal that the exiled monarch was experiencing "serious financial difficulties". It says: "When he left Rumania (sic) his only asset was 500,000 Swiss francs. A large part of this has been spent and his income is now down to £1,200 a year." (BBC, January 2, 2005)

(Translation of recently declassified transcripts of talks between Stalin and the Romanian Communist P.M. Petru Groza, held in Moscow on February 3, 1948): "Petru Groza said that the State had purchased from the King only 360 tons of wine, at a price of 1 million Swiss Francs, of which the King was paid only half, with the remainder to be paid only if "he behaves well." "We didn't pay him too little, to feel slighted/as if injustice was done to him, nor too much, to feel independent," Groza stated. Stalin remarked, in this context, that the Romanian sovereign is an "original" one, and, having been reminded that Michael had been decorated with the highest Soviet order, "Victory", the dictator asked if the former sovereign of Romania took it along in exile." (ROMPRES news agency, quoted by Adevarul de Cluj, April 13, 2005)

handing the country to the soviets
i don't think it's a correct statement. king michael and most of the people who supported him in his coup d'etat (with the obvious exception of the communists) did so wanting to ally themselves with the allies. that the only allies that ever got to enter the country were the soviets was an unfortunate happening, but not king michael's wish. the statement you make implies that when he made the coup d'etat he did it with the specific desire to hand the country over to the communists, which is most definitely not true. if you want to point out the unfortunate consequences of the move you can mention that his act led to the country being invaded by communists, because the allies had made an agreement with the soviets which involved letting romania mostly under their influence (i believe the proportion they agreed upon was 70% soviets, 30% others - not that it actually was that way). ilya 16:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you ilya: King Michael did certainly not want to hand Romania over to the Soviets/Communists for good, for ever and ever. What Michael surely wanted, though, is to preserve his Throne (who wouldn't?!) and, especially, his life, in hope that after a temporary surrender to the Soviets, the Western Allies were to also land in the Balkans, not just Normandy. He did hope that eventually Romania was to be occupied by the Westerners and, thus, delivered from a temporary Soviet occupation.

As with all Nazi allies, King Michael - who, unlike other monarchs under Nazi occupation, did meet Hitler more than once and congratulated him a few times in official letters written after Hitler's military victories - had very, very good reasons to fear for his life (not just Throne). Once the Nazis' defeat was in sight after the turning point of World War II - the battle of Stalingrad - Michael had every reason to earn the Soviets' goodwill, as it became quite clear the Soviets were to rout the Nazis out and occupy Romania. Michael did win Stalin's goodwill through the cease-fire order of August 23 1944, given before any armistice was signed (signed much later, on September 12 1944), an order which equivalated to a "capitulation", an "unconditional surrender".

King Michael, unlike another Nazi ally of royal blood - Prince Kyril of Bulgaria -, did preserve his life as result of his capitulation. Prince Kyril, Regent of Bulgaria, was executed by the Soviets in 1945; King Michael, not. Stalin was extremely happy with King Michael's handing Romania over to him, as Michael's surrender earned Stalin not only Romania, but pretty much all of South-Eastern Europe. As result, Michael kept not only his life, but was rewarded by Stalin very generously upon his negotiated abdication: hundreds of millions of US dollars worth of public-owned paintings (42 total), plus 500,000 Swiss francs. No other monarch ousted by the Communists from South-Eastern Europe enjoyed such generosity. None.

Unfortunately for Romania, King Michael's (and the Romanian political elites') wishes for another Western landing in the Balkans to deliver Romania from the Soviets' occupation, never materialized. Stefanp 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-posted your comments bellow, Morgandy Aithne, because you edited my comments above, interspersing them with yours. It is inappropriate to edit another user's talk on Wikipedia and it can be considered vandalism. Stefanp 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ilya - all I have learned and read about King Michael contradicts this idea of handing over the country to the Soviets, and we should not forget the infernal pressures, dangers and violence of those days. He resisted alot of pressures and Romania was already "sold" to the USSR by the Allies, so the king was completely alone. Whatever he tried to do for his country was doomed. So it is an ex-post facto rationalization to say that he "handed" Romania over. There was nothing he could do anyway. Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Morgandy Ainthe, 25 March 2006Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are these letters of congratulations? If they were indeed written they were probably pro forma, formal letters. Heads of State in constitutional monarchies are obliged to do what their governments want them to do - Queen ElisabethII makes speeches on the opening of Parliament which are written by the Government (for example) and she was also obliged to receive Ceausescu when he visited the UK. Not her personal choice. Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Morgandy Ainthe, 25 March 2006Morgandy Aithne 21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for this? If he got so much money, why was he so poor? Doesn't make sense. And these paintings - they were Crown owned paintings, why should the Communist govt. hand them over to King Michael? Wierd idea! Better to have gold lingots, diamonds, jewels-or something you can exchange. Giving someone their own paintings is strange, and paintings are bulky and delicate to keep. Doesn't make sense at all.21:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Morgandy Ainthe,25 March 200521:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My answers to your questions and claims, Morgandy Aithne:

1. King Michael's letters of congratulation sent to Hitler can be consulted in the national archives in Bucharest. "The ex-king, still alive and living in Switzerland, actively collaborated with Hitler and wrote him congratulatory notes on his military victories." The excerpt is from an article signed by a former US Ambassador, Voice of America director, and member of the U.S. delegation to the annual US-USSR Information Talks in Moscow and Washington, D.C., thus, somebody extremely well-informed about the ex-communist countries, Mr. Richard Carlson.

Your comparison of King Michael's situation to that of Queen Elizabeth II is totally inappropriate, because during the war, Romania was not a constitutional monarchy. The last democratic Constitution of 1923 and the last democratically elected Parliament had both been suspended during the reign of Carol II and remained so until very late during Michael's reign. King Michael was, thus, an unconstitutional monarch, not sworn in by any Parliament, for the entire duration of his second reign (1940-1947). Therefore, outside of normal constitutional arrangements, the King could not be forced into doing anything by his Prime Minister. Under the military dictatorship in place upon his accession to the Throne, the King remained the Head of the Army and as such he could choose to change the Prime Minister, something which he actually did in August 1944.

Moreover, unlike other monarchs under Nazi occupation, such as King Christian X of Denmark, who defied Hitler, King Michael tried very hard to please the Nazi occupiers. Nobody forced King Michael to invite the Nazi field marshal Wilhelm Keitel, a war criminal hanged by the Nurnberg war tribunal, to Michael's own private castle. Furthermore, nobody forced Michael to try to make himself pleasant to Keitel, as the Nazi criminal's memoirs prove it: "I stayed as the young king's guest at the royal castle, where, together with Antonescu, I had an audience with the king and the queen mother (the wife of the exiled king, who had long found a suitable replacement for her in his mistress, Mme. Lupescu). At twenty-one, the king was a tall, slim and goodlooking youth, still rather awkward in his manner but ***not unlikeable***." ("The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel" by Walter Gorlitz, p. 204) To avoid such a compromising situation, Michael could have pretended to be sick and let the Prime Minister alone handle the Nazi opressor. Moreover, nobody forced Michael to personally decorate the same opressor: "In Keitel's original manuscript there follows a description of the conferring of the Order of King Michael on him, and details of various society functions during his visit; these have been omitted by the editor." ("The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel" by Walter Gorlitz, p. 205)


 * (The extent to which King Christian "defied Hitler" has been greatly exaggerated. Like everyone in the occupied countries, the Danes compromised with the Germans to the extent they thought necessary for their own safety. So no doubt did Michael and the Romanians. Adam 12:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Just to note, Romania was not an occupied country - it was a Germany ally, so comparisons with Christian X are not apt. The appropriate comparisons would be to Victor Emmanuel III, Boris III, and Admiral Horthy, I think.  But it should also be noted that Michael was not really his own master.  Power in Romania up until the coup was really in Antonescu's hands.  john k 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

2. The evidence regarding both the paintings and the large sum of money given to the King by the Communists can be found above, in the "Abdication controversies" section. As about your claim that Michael was poor, it is inconsistent with the large amount of Communists' endowment of 500,000 Swiss francs. That Michael ran out of this money and had to find a job, which prompted his plea to the British Government which is noted in the BBC piece of news above quoted, is entirely his own fault, not anybody's.

Please, note that the paintings in question were not King Michael's own private property, nor his family's, but the State's. If you are from the US, you will understand that the White House residence is the property of the US Presidency, that is the American State, not G.W. Bush's nor any particular president's. Similarly, those paintings were the property of the Romanian equivalent of the US Presidency - the Romanian Crown. Thus, being public goods, the paintings could not be appropriated by any particular individual, king or commoner.

PS: If you answer, please, have the courtesy of posting your answers after mine, not insert them within mine, for it is inappropriate and it can be considered vandalism. Thank you. Stefanp 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

just because the formalities of being sworn in by his parliament didn't take place, doesn't mean king michael didn't act like a constitutional monarch. he tried to create a democratic government, but the soviet occupation (ie armies) on his territory kind of twisted his hand and he had to include communists in it, more and more with each government created. i'm sure he was aware that at the time there was no communist monarchy and that it was very little probability of ever existing one because the concepts are totally opposing each other. so i can't possibly believe he simply allowed the communists to take over, knowing that. also, you must realize that ion antonescu had total control during the period of time 1940-1945... king michael had no power absolutely, he heard about romania joining germany in war on the radio, for god's sake! whatever those letters you have they were letters of protocol and should not be in any way considered as representative for his opinion. ilya 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree absolutely with ilyawh. And I do beg your pardon stefanp if I wrote in the wrong place, thankyou for repositioning my answer - I am not as familiar as you are with the methods of using this site and anyone can make a mistake and not be considered a vandal.

About these paintings - I think it is a non issue. Pretty silly stuff. The comparison with the US situation is spurious - Romania was a monarchy and the paintings and palaces were bought with the cash of Carol 1st - not gifts. If the artwork belonged to the Crown, King Michael represented the Crown, and if on top of that the communists who had taken over the country and confiscated all property (his and others), actually gave Michael something as a "sop", what is the problem with him accepting his own property? All this just goes around and around in boring circles. It really is so unimportant when you think about all the thousands of properties and millions of artworks that the communist regimes confiscated from thousands upon thousands of people. And if you think of all the millions of broken lives... this stuff about king Michael's artwork is really irrelevant. ~Morgandy Aithne, 26 March 2006~

You are completely wrong about the paintings, Morgandy Aithne:

1. They were not bought with Carol I's private money, but public money, as you can see from the following article: "Two of the three paintings "Saint Sebastian" and "The portrait of Giacomo Bosio" are works of the famous El Greco. The first one is part of a private collection in France while the second can be admired at Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, US. The third painting named "Concerto" whose author was Tintoretto, is presently part of the Labadini Collection in Milan. A letter sent by a painting dealer to the managing board of the Art Museum in Forth Worth (USA) proves without a doubt that the El Greco painting was bought from King Michael. The Romanian Royal House Collection was bought with public money by Bratianu government at the end of the 19th century. This was a fact well-known by the first Romanian king, Charles I, who mentioned in his will that the great values in this art collection belong to the Romanian people and will never be sold."

2. Since the paintings are worth hundreds of millions of US dollars, they are not at all irellevant, as you claim. Such Communist generosity towards any monarch - a traditional class enemy of the Communist regimes everywhere - is unheard of, even astounding when compared to the fate the Communists reserved to another monarchical figure and former Nazi ally, just like King Michael - Prince Kyril, Regent of Bulgaria, executed by the Soviets in 1945.

3. The misappropriation of these invaluable public goods by King Michael was an illegal act, as no public goods can become private, without due process (such as Governmental privatization, an act of the Parliament, etc.). King Michael has no ownership act on these paintings to this very day, as proven in the U.S. Courts of Justice: "So mad about horse-racing was the art dealer Daniel Wildenstein that he once remarked that it was a surprise he and his family were not born with hoofs instead of feet." This chicken hawk was not only born with hoofs but also with horns! Yes! In the eighties,I sued him in Fed. court NY over an El Greco and Botticelli which he had sold me for 4.5 million US dollars. The El Greco turned out to be "stolen" by former Romanian King Michael from his country and the Botticelli had a similar problem! Sandro Boticelli's, "La Bella Simonetta" and El Greco's, "San Sebastian", two "belle" lemons." (Michel van Rijn) Here are van Rijn's two other testimonies on this issue: 1 and 2. For more on Michel van Rijn's credentials, please, see links 1 and 2. Stefanp 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

@ John Kenney: I disagree with your statement "Power in Romania up until the coup was really in Antonescu's hands." The King was the Head of the Army even under the military dictatorship laws and as such he was Marshal Antonescu's boss. The King had both the right and the power to change the Prime Minister, as proven by the fact that the Army rallied behind his coup. Stefanp 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Stefan you really undermine your credibility when you make silly comments like that. Antonescu was a dictator who ran the country with the backing of the army, and Michael was a figurehead who had no power to defy him. What changed in 1944 was that it became apparent that the war was lost and Michael was able to find allies in the army and political class for a coup against Antonescu. On your argument, Victor Emmanuel was the real ruler of Italy and George VI the real ruler of Britain. Adam 07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, Adam. You make the same mistake as Morgandy when comparing apples with oranges: Romania, unlike Italy or England, was not a constitutional monarchy, but a military dictatorship. The Constitution and Parliament being both suspended, the power resided with the Army - this is what a military dictatorship is after all. Thus, whoever had the confidence and affection of the Army enjoyed real power in the country. Both the King and Marshal Antonescu enjoyed the Army's trust and affection, so both had actual power. The King had, besides real power, moral power as well, as he embodied the Nation and was, under the laws of the time, supreme Head of the Army and, thus, Antonescu's boss. The King simply chose not to use his real and moral power over the Army and, thus over Romania, as it provided him with a carefree life of automobile driving, airplane piloting, and hunting pursuits. He chose not to use his actual and moral power over the Army and, thus, Nation until his Throne and life started being at stake: after Stalingrad, when it became clear the Soviets were to rout the Nazis out and occupy Romania. Stefanp 07:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. As you say, in a military dictatorship the real ruler is the commander of the army - in this case Antonescu. It is not possible for two people to hold power in a dictatorship. As you also say, the constitution was suspended. Therefore, Romania was not a constitutional monarchy and Michael was not Antonescu's boss: this is a constitutional fiction even in normal times, in wartime it is a ridiculous assertion. He was a figurehead monarch, like Victor Emmanuel (and since when was Mussolini's regime a constitutional monarchy?). He had no power at all to challenge Antonescu until other powerful people decided that regime change was necessary. The analogy with Victor Emmanuel is exact, because he was able to depose Mussolini in 1943, despite his previous powerlessness, for precisely the same reason. Adam 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be careful when using terms such as "nonsense": somebody else might perceive them as insults and complain officially about such language. I won't. As about your assertions, they are utterly wrong. Firstly, Antonescu was a Marshal of the Army, whose Head was the King, as confirmed by the royal decree of September 6 1940. Thus, the King - also a Marshal - was Marshal Antonescu's boss. Secondly, there were no "other powerful people" who decided to challenge Antonescu's authority. The King was the sole really powerful person who decided to do so, who only sought the democratic parties leaders' advice, but decided to go ahead without them when they couldn't be found and consulted at their residences in Bucharest on the fateful day of August 23 1944. The coup was largely a personal act of the King, not of "other powerful people", carried out with the support of the Communists, to whose armed gang Antonescu was handed over. Thirdly, Michael was not "a figurehead monarch", for his very own son-in-law Radu Duda claims otherwise in a public interview: "Monarchy is the crown, as well as political power. This is the way monarchy in Romania was until 1947. If this is the monarchy you have in mind, this model is no longer possible. No E.U. institution will accept the idea that a person should receive as much power as King Michael had on 29 December 1947. In the EU model, the monarch does not have this sort of political power, so returning to such a model is no longer possible." You should read up more on Romanian history before making any such false claims. They make you lose your credibility as historian. Stefanp 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From reading all this, it is obvious that you have an agenda, stefanp, and that is not so appropriate for writing in an encyclopedia, where facts should be listed dispassionately. You may use (barely) polite language, but your bias is no better than using terms such as "nonsense" which is a good english word, not an insult. >Arcadiam, 27 march '06>


 * I deny your slanderous accusation of being almost impolite. However, such accusation does not surprise me in least, as it is obvious that you do have a pro-Romanian royals agenda - agenda for whose furthering you have recently joined Wikipedia. Here are your contributions to Wikipedia so far: they are limited only to positions in favor of the Romanian royals. Stefanp 13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

if you wanna check out adam's bias you don't have to look further than this page on the 'king michael's instrument of abdication is not valid' section. there you will see someone who is clearly objective about the royalist situation in romania. you, on the other hand, are not. i, in many many years of studying history have never heard anything of the sort you're saying than from two kinds of historians: the communists who were trying to discredit the monarchy (for obvious reasons) and "prince" paul, who is interfearing with a very well written article (before you showed up anyway) and filling it with biased affirmations that no-one else believes but yourself. there's a saying in romania: 'when three people tell you you're drunk go to sleep'. the whole world is telling you you're wrong. get the message. ilya 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---i am editing my own paragraph because somehow a full sentece got lost on the way. after "prince" paul i said 'who is trying to discredit king michael (for even more obvious reasons)'... the whole interfearing with a very well written article thing was referring to stefanp. just trying to make that clear ilya 07:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilya is so totally right. Stefanp, I would be careful when using such terms as "slanderous" which are offensive. All that you write, and the way that you write it are only parroting the lies that the communists told for years and are now continued by the extremist Greater Romania Party, made up of old communists, and, as Ilya says, "prince Paul" who is desperately trying to discredit the King and his family. He is also close to the Greater Romanian Party and to it's leader Vadim Tudor. Get the message indeed. User:Arkadiam 23:31, March 28 2006


 * @ ilya & Arkadiam: It is obvious that you are both fans of the Romanian royals. Rather than employ name calling, which doesn't help anybody and reflects poorly on you, why don't you better come up with reliable sources in King Michael's favor? I always backed my opinions with English-language sources, most of them not of Romanian origin, independent of the old Communist anti-monarchical propaganda, and, therefore, unbiased. Please, do the same: back up your assertions with English-language sources, if at all possible non-Romanian in origin, unbiased, to counter my sources so that the Wikipedia readers may judge for themselves. Thank you for reading my answer and have a good day! Stefanp 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't see why romanian sources are excluded. king michael is more slandered than praised in romanian writings, thanks to his successors, the ommunists... you yourself referred to 'evenimentul zilei' (romanian) which, by the way, is a tabloid and would write anything that would sell newspapers, true or false... so don't put much basis on whatever is written in there... as for the other sources you are quoting, two cannot be seen because i have to 'buy' the articles, and the other one left is an obviously biased article against the romanian monarchy and anyone with even the smallest degree of intelligence can see that the author is out to get him. have you got anything else?

i have searched the internet for articles of king michael but most of them are incomplete... would you be satisfied with quotes from books? that's where most of my sources are...

oh and btw... i am not a king michael fan, because king michael never actually got the chance to prove what he could do (if there is something he could do). he was first a child, then he was dominated by antonescu and then the communists. he never actually got to be a king and i have no idea if he would make a good one. and besides, i don't think even he wants to be king anymore and it's pretty obvious that the monarchy in romania is dead. however, from 'not being a fan' to saying he 'handed' the country to the communists is a big difference. you have him first a close ally of hitler than of stalin. i'm sure stalin totally trusted such a fervent follower of hitler as you made him, which would of course explain making him an even more fervent follower of himself, right? you're being inconsistent and your sources are dubious to say the least. ilya 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Evenimentul Zilei" I quoted above is not a tabloid, but a serious investigative journal, for the well-reputed press freedom watchdog group "Freedom House" from the U.S. does not defend politically insignificant tabloids. For the reliability of "Evenimentul Zilei", please, see the positive "Freedom House" reports. From these reports, it is clear that "Evenimentul Zilei" is the leading anti-communist newspaper (it took the most numerous positions against the neo-communist SDP party; its journalists were beaten up for their investigations into the shady affairs of the SDP). Therefore it cannot be suspected of being biased and continuing the old communist propaganda against King Michael. Stefanp 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can quote whatever you wish, as long as they are not Romanian publications and are in English. Observers from outside Romania are usually more objective and neutral than Romanians, who have been indoctrinated for decades about the merits of the "glorious" August 23 1944 royal & Communist coup. A coup whose merits, let's not forget, made the Communists establish August 23 as Romania's national day during their dictatorship. Since I quoted unbiased, non-Romanian, English-language sources about the August 23 1944 coup, I expect the same from you. For the sake of objectivity. Stefanp 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I never accused you of being a "King Michael fan", but of being a fan of the Romanian royals - which you are. Stefanp 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1. you quoted a romanian newspaper but i can't quote romanian books? 2. i don't know where you are from. i am from romania. trust me, evenimentul zilei is a tabloid. there are degrees and degrees of tabloids. there's stuff like 'atac', which is the most degrading newspaper ever, there's 'libertatea' which is better than 'atac' (a bit more classy articles), but still tabloid, and there's 'evenimentul zilei' which is better than 'libertatea' (again, classier articles), but a tabloid. if you understand romanian, check out the site and you'll see the news it delivers. if not, here's a short presentation: an article about an 11 year old boy who hanged himself, an article about a football goalie who is in danger of not playing tonight (in what is a pretty important game, i'll grant you), an article about katie holmes and tom cruise, another about the football game.... yes, it has some political news too, but so does 'libertatea' and it doesn't make it less of a tabloid. 3. if you want to quote things to prove your point, please don't quote me people no-one's ever heard about. the two articles i managed to read from your bibliography were both written by non-specialists. you have not quoted a serious historian who spent his life searching for proofs. you quoted a couple of journalists who write about dozen of things and have no time to actually go and document themselves properly for them (because they have to do a column a week or something). they hear of a story and they present it, and many times many of these stories have proved themselves to be false. as for these particular journalists, not only have i not heard of them, but they are not mentioning their own sources, they are simply writing an article from hear-say (most likely) and people like you believe every word in it. i am looking for a serious book (or article) on king michael, written by an aknowledged historian, which mentions serious sources, that would prove your statements. 4. the romanian books are biased AGAINST the monarchy. because the communists came after the monarchy and no matter how much they liked michael while he was on the throne (which they didn't but let's say what you state is true and he handed them the country and all that), they hated him after he left. because for the romanians who weren't communists, he was the alternative. so of course they tried to degrade him any way they could. yes, they indoctrinated the 'merits' of august 23rd, but they conveniently forgot to mention michael's role in it. they simply said 'what a glorious day, the romanian people got their freedom back, yay!'. just like they mentioned the glorious unification of transylvania to romania in 1918 but they conveniently left out king ferdinand, and also left king carol out of the romanian war of independence. in the general school and high school history you couldn't read anything on monarchy, i didn't even know there was one before the communists until i got to be somewhere around 15. the only ones who knew about it were the ones who really studied history (in university) and the ones who were told by their parents (my parents had no interest whatsoever in the monarchy). and trust me the books on romanian monarchy studied in the communist universities were in no way flattering. so trust me, romanian publications are not biased in favour of king michael. 5. i am a monarchist in the sense that i believe the best political system right now is the monarchy (which does not exclude the appearance of other new systems). that does in no way make me a fan of every monarch out there. carol 2nd of romania was a dreadful monarch. ferdinand was weak (luckily he had good advice and was good-willed, which is more than we can say on his son). carol 1st was a german through and through which was good at the beginning but in the end he proved he was more interested in his own origins than in his country's best interest by insisting the country go in the 1st world war on germany's side. luckily he died before he could push the idea any further. translation: yes, monarchy is good, but that does not mean every monarch is good. carol 2nd stole a lot from the romanian people. he left with a whole train full of valuable things. don't tell me that i can accept the father's undoings and not the son's. i am very much aware of the faults of the monarchs. i support the SYSTEM, not necessairily the MAN. so, no, i don't consider myself biased. maybe if we have a conversation about which political system is best, then i might not be the most objective historian, but i have many arguments that support my opinion and i think i can present my case pretty good. however, this is not a discussion about the system this is a discussion about king michael. and no, he did not hand the country to the soviets. for the reasons stated above (in my previous argumentations).


 * 1. With regards to the most critical issue of King Michael's second reign - the royal and communist coup of August 1944 -, I quoted non-Romanian sources, as they are free from 50+ years of Communist bias and indoctrination. Therefore, I expect the same from you. With regards to other issues of lesser importance besides the coup (e.g. the paintings), I did quote Romanian sources of English language (e.g. "Evenimentul Zilei") and non-Romanian equally, so please feel free to do the same. 2. Despite the evidence I put forth about the reliability of my sources, you continue to wrongly claim "Evenimentul Zilei" is a tabloid. I repeat: the reputable US press watchdog group "Freedom House" (led by high ranking Republicans and, thus, anti-communist figures), does not defend politically insignificant or unreliable newspapers from around the world. According to "Freedom House" reports, "Evenimentul Zilei" is the most anti-communist newspaper of Romania, and I can, therefore, say, free from any anti-King Michael Communist bias. 3. My sources are not unknown or unheard of, as you wrongly claim, but are standards of professionalism in their field - the BBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. 4. I am not surprised at all that you continue to make wrong claims about my sources, since, as a fan of the Romanian royals and monarchist, you are evidently biased in King Michael's favor. Regardless of your bias, I am still looking forward to your quotes and sources and less so about any of your wrong claims over my sources. Have a good day! Stefanp 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

you're simply not reading what i'm saying if you don't like it, do you? this is pointless. i gave you plenty of arguments but you don't reply to them you just say i'm biased so of course what i say is wrong. if king michael was such a communist servant what was the point of the royal strike of 1946? if he was such a willing monarch why did the communists dethrone him? if he left with so many valuable things why did he have to sell his houses abroad? why did he get a job? for fun? i'm not even gonna comment on my so-called bias because whoever reads with an objective eye will see my point in the previous comment. the facts i mentioned (royal strike, dethronement, job) are well-known by anyone who has read anything on king michael so i hope you won't claim any sources for them. as for the fact that ion antonescu ruled the country, that is again common knowledge. carol 2nd before abdicating (or whatever he did, cause the way he left in 1940 was very dubious) gave antonescu full power. the only power that the king still had was the one king michael used in 1944 for the coup d'etat. quotes. from romanian books so you will probably ignore them, but for people who actually are interested. florin constantiniu (a very reputed historian here) in his excellent 'a sincere history of the romanian people' (and trust me it's very sincere, it tears down myths and heroes, very well written, for those who are actually interested): 'the king (carol 2nd) tried to get general d. coroama to eliminate the uncomfortable prime minister (antonescu). the general replied: "the army that let our country's territory taken away from us, without a fire, will refuse to fire general antonescu. i will refuse to order it". the purpose of this particular quote is to show that antonescu was popular in the army and that the army defied a king for him. don't tell me they dared to defy carol and not michael (who was so young and inexperienced). this proves that no, michael had no control over the army, antonescu did, he maintained a military dictatorship and king michael was a mere puppet. as for the powers of general antonescu, even officially he had the power. on the 4th of september 1940, king carol 2nd signed a document that invested antonescu "with full powers for the state leadership" (same book). the next day anotonescu, maniu and dinu bratianu came to him and they pretty much forced him to abdicate. hoping he'll one day return (the way he did before) carol signed a document that did not mention the word 'abdication', but he 'passed' to his son 'the heavy burden of ruling'. when his sister, ileana, published her memoires and mentioned that carol abdicated he personally wrote her a letter urging her to correct the statement, claiming he had never done so. but back to that document, it stayed valid during king michael's rule. meaning not only the army was for general antonescu, but also he had no right to order the army. i'll be back with more books once i find them (most of the books i read were borrowed and i have to call my friends again... but don't worry i know where to look) ilya 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Antonescu did have full powers as Prime Minister, but the supreme power as Head of the Army, by the September 6 1940 royal decree, still rested with the King - King Michael. You are wrong to claim the Army had any reason whatsoever to defy King Michael, just like it had, indeed, defied his father, Carol II. Michael had been a victim of Carol II, just like all of Romania had been - growing up deprived of his mother, exiled by Carol - and was, therefore, much sympathized and even loved by the Army and the people. The huge masses of Romanians acclaiming King Michael and Queen Mother Helen on her return from exile, which you can see in the documentary movie, prove you wrong. The acclaiming Iron Guard masses at the Iasi rally prove you wrong again. Michael enjoyed the affection of the Army and people, as well as moral and legal authority with the Army, whose supreme Head he remained, above Antonescu. Michael, thus, had both moral and legal power over the Army - the deciding body during any military dictatorship - and was, therefore, not a mere puppet. Michael's son-in-law Radu Duda strengthens this conclusion in his public interview above quoted. Stefanp 10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Debate on the sources used for editing
This page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to pursue endless feuds about Romanian history. Adam 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i was trying to get mr. stefanp to improve the article by removing some statements that are wrongly formulated. the only way to do that (it seems) was through this endless feud. but i have been already convinced that none of us will ever convince each other so in a way i agree with you. ilya 13:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to convince me, but rather the Wikipedia readers. Any statement made in an article must be backed up by "verifiable, reliable, published sources." All my statements were backed up with such sources. You can add your statements, too, just make sure you have equally reliable (non-Romanian, free from decades of Communist propaganda and bias) sources to prove them . Stefanp 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Proofs for my edits to the coup and armistice: "On August 23 King Michael, a number of army officers, and armed Communist-led civilians supported by the BND locked Ion Antonescu into a safe and seized control of the government. The king then restored the 1923 constitution and issued a cease-fire. The Red Army occupied Bucharest on August 31, 1944. In Moscow on September 12, Romania and the Soviet Union signed an armistice on terms Moscow virtually dictated. The Red Army also transported about 130,000 Romanian soldiers to the Soviet Union, where many perished in prison camps. After its surrender, Romania committed about fifteen divisions to the Allied cause under Soviet command." (U.S. Library of Congress) Stefanp 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The royal decree of King Carol II, given on September 5 1940 just before vacating the Romanian Throne, states that the King, besides other prerogatives, was "Head of the Army" and "named the plenipotentiary president of the Ministers' Cabinet" (i.e. Prime-Minister). The Prime-Minister exercised "the other powers of the State." Thus, King Michael had the supreme and decisive command of the Army, not Prime-Minister Antonescu, as the latter had only prerogatives "other" than the King's, who was "Head of the Army". Moreover, King Michael could legally change the Prime-Minister. On the basis of these two legal powers, King Michael was to command the Romanian Army to cease-fire before any armistice was signed (i.e. to surrender to the Soviets) as well as to change Prime-Minister Antonescu on August 23 1944. Stefanp 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Romanian Kings were constitutional "Kings of the Romanians" ("Regele Romanilor"), not feudal ones "of Romania", just as the constitutional King Louis-Phillipe was "King of the French", unlike the absolutist feudal Kings "of France": "Reverse: the inscription "MIHAI I REGELE ROMANILOR" meaning "KING OF THE ROMANIANS", MIHAI I head facing right. Under the neck lies H. IONESCU, the engraver's name." (Romanian coins) Stefanp 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This needs more rigorous verification and discussion before having a place on the article page.
 * Historical evidence about the royal coup d'état of August 23 1944 and its consequences

MarinaC 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it does not need more verification. The information contained in an article must be "verifiable, reliable, published sources." All the sources quoted in this link are reliable: the BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, US Library of Congress, etc. According to the above Wikipedia rules, "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Therefore, there is no need for "more rigorous verification" of these sources quoted in the above link. Of course, we can always discuss them here in this area, but one should never vandalize the article when such reliable sources are posted there, even more so when the information presented in them is not to one's liking - as is clearly the case with you and the respective information. Stefanp 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

so what you're telling me is that it doesn't matter whether the information is true, if it's published in the new york times? that's absurd! ilya 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly aware of Wikipedia fundamentals regarding"verifiability" versus truth.


 * Secondly, my edits do not constitute "vandalism"; please be more dispassionate and refrain from personal attacks. I am trying to improve the article.


 * Thirdly, no-one has a monopoly over posting about King Michael,or his family,and I fully intend to exercise my democratic right to edit on this subject, even if you do not like it.


 * Next, you wrote above: "Any statement made in an article must be backed up by .. "verifiable, reliable, published sources.".....You can add your statements, too, just make sure you have equally reliable (non-Romanian, free from decades of Communist propaganda and bias) sources to prove them". Please abide by your own rules. The first source you cite (Rompres) is Romanian.  The second, BBC's report of declassified Foreign Office documents indeed said that "When he (King Michael) left Rumania (sic) his only asset was 500,000 Swiss francs” but it was NOT stated from where these funds originated, or when    I see that you have yourself "toned down" your previous sentence about the 500,000 francs probably because you are aware of this latter fact.


 * Furthermore,in Ivor Porter's recent biography"Michael of Romania" (ISBN 0-7509-3847-1) page 171, you will find that when King Michael went to Princess Elisabeth and Prince Philip of Greece's wedding in London in November 1947, his private secretary  withdrew 140,000 Swiss francs, 150,000 French francs, and 50 Pounds sterling to cover their expense for the trip.

MarinaC 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You said that we should not use Romanian sources.... in your view they are neither reliable nor verifiable, as they are not free from decades of Communist propaganda and bias. Removing information derived from them is therefore not vandalism, but clean editing. This reliability rule must also apply for your above quoted  sources (http://stiri.rol.ro/stiri/2005/04/185333.htm Rompres news agency,] quoted by [http://adevarul.cluj.astral.ro/arhiva/2005/04/13/p4.pdf Adevarul de Cluj) . In your view they are neither reliable nor verifiable, so why use them?  Please be consistent with yourself!


 * Your attempts at accounting are neither convincing, nor, more importantly, verifiable. None of us have seen the accounts re:how much was spent during the London wedding trip....Part of the amount I refer to could well have - or may not have- still existed after January 1948, as you say "as it must have been spent and covered with official expense receipts". You say  "Must have been", but you have no accounting or other sources to back this up.   We are not allowed such speculation on Wikipedia.


 * : Please provide a reliable, verifiable source for your statement about the post-abdication Communist Government endowment of 500,000 Swiss francs; that would be the best course to reach an agreement on the article's wording and content. In the meantime I have made a slightly more neutral modification.

Thanks MarinaC 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am being consistent with my own rules, as my own standards of reliability of using only non-Romanian sources apply only to the most important and disputed royal act - the royal and Communist coup of August 23 1944. To refresh your memory, here is what I had answered to Ilya in the Discussion archive: "1. With regards to the most critical issue of King Michael's second reign - the royal and communist coup of August 1944 -, I quoted non-Romanian sources, as they are free from 50+ years of Communist bias and indoctrination. Therefore, I expect the same from you. With regards to other issues of lesser importance besides the coup (e.g. the paintings), I did quote Romanian sources of English language (e.g. "Evenimentul Zilei") and non-Romanian equally, so please feel free to do the same." For brevity's sake (having already taken up a whole Discussion Archive with disputes around sources), I deemed redundand to re-iterate this very important aspect - non-Romanian sources only about the August 23 coup - in my brief answer to Ilya above posted. However, it is not my own standards of reliability, but rather Wikipedia's which matter here. According to Wikipedia, one can post anything as long as it is "published" somewhere - anywhere - in the world, by anybody "reliable." These recently declassified transcripts above mentioned were revealed, as you can see for yourself in the two sources you dispute, at a historians' conference organized by the well-respected Institutul National pentru Memoria Exilului Romanesc (National Institute for the Memory of the Romanian Exile). The Institute was recently founded, being thus free from Communist dictatorship constraints and bias, comprises many respected historians (one of whom was quoted by Ilya - the same one who revealed the transcripts!) and numbers as honorary president nobody other than ... King Michael himself! How can you then claim this Institute and the transcripts revealed under its patronage are not reliable?! In conclusion, this source is at the same time "reliable", given the above facts, is "published" and can be "verified" by clicking on the two links (sorry for those of you who don't speak Romanian - I translated the essential part of the article in the Discussion Archive). It, therefore, meets Wikipedia's three standards for information which can be posted in an article. Thank you! Stefanp 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Disappearing text!

 * I made a couple of minor edits, today Monday 17 April 2006, and the whole of the bottom part of the article disappeared....puzzled, I tried to revert the article to it's previous complete form, without success. Now horrified by either my incompetence or a fault in my computer (always blame your tools...) I used another computer and created a second account, and then managed to return the article to it's previous contents... Sorry for any inconvenience, it was not intentional.

Marina C (2) 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anne's Birth Title
Anne's style was never "Anne of Bourbon, Princess of Parma", nor was she ever known as such.
 * 1) The change made in the article's reference to the consort of King Michael of Romania as "Princess of Parma" instead of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented elsewhere, but here goes:
 * 2) The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
 * 3) As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the  Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
 * 4) It is how they are referred to legally:
 * 5) One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
 * 6) Similar title in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (emphasis mine).
 * 7) And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
 * 8) The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
 * 9) Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
 * 10) The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
 * 11) But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
 * 12) The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (e-mphasis theirs).
 * 13) No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal investiture that would normally specify the titular details that treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and seemingly earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former.
 * 14) The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Michael's consort Anne was born 60+ years after exile. Lethiere 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

King Michael and the Soviet Order of Victory
My edit today regarding the reason King Michael received the Soviet Order of Victory is based on many verifiable sources, the formulation "for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies"  is to be found in such sources as:

Library of Congress Country Studies - Romania. "for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies". Use Google

Nations Encyclopedia http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/ http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11127.html

Also at AllRefer.com http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/romania/romania35.html

as well as http://www.ciaonet.org/atlas/countries/ro_data_loc.htmland: " the Soviet Union later awarded Michael the Order of Victory for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies"

and others.

Further explanation can be found at: http://www.vor.ru/English/whims/whims_026.html "The Victory Order was awarded also to international leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition, among them the Commander in Chief of the Yugoslav People’s Liberation Army, General Josip Broz Tito, Marshal of Poland Michal Rolja-Zymersky, British Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, US General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower and King Mihai I of Romania......" Marina C (2) 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WWII heads of state
The article currently states that he is one of the last two living heads of state from the World War II era (the other being Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan). What about Simeon II of Bulgaria?

Also, the succession box at the bottom of the page regarding Michael's titles in pretence is poorly phrased. Why does it say "never ruled" above "King of Romania" (1947-  ) when the row above that indicates that he did in fact reign from 1940-47? Is that supposed to mean that he never ruled while also being deposed? That's tautological. --Metropolitan90 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right on both counts - King Michael and King Simeon were heads of states of countries "taking part", if you will, in WWII. So strictly speaking Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan is in another cartegory.  Afghanistan did not in fact play an active role in the war, however its position meant that it was not completey  untouched by the war.  This needs translating into  Wikispeach.


 * Secondly, I agree that it is incorrect and tautological to have "never ruled" above "King of Romania" (1947-  ) when the row above that indicates that he did in fact reign from 1940-47, which he undoubtaedly did.  It needs redoing.  Will you have a shot at it?  If not, I'll try.          Marina C (2) 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would rather someone else figure out what to do with the succession box. I note that a similar "Never Ruled" appears in the succession boxes for Simeon II of Bulgaria and Constantine II of Greece, the latter also being a deposed king who did reign before the abolition of the monarchy in his country. The treatment of all three should be consistent. --Metropolitan90 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that's part of the template. I'll address that issue at the appropriate template page. --Metropolitan90 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince of Wales offered Romanian throne
I removed the following:


 * Romanian monarchists, however, presumably disillusioned with Princess Margarita's choice of a prince consort, are said to have offered the vacant Romanian throne to HRH The Prince of Wales, an offer which he declined.

which was added by User:Stefanp in June. I don't read Romanian, but as per his user page and Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales, the referenced article does not say this. (The logic on the latter page – getting "A was offered B" from "if A were to accept the offer of B..." – is quite absurd.) -- Jao 22:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The pertinent fragment in Tom Gallagher's article about this offer reads in English as follows: "And if, utopically speaking, His Royal Highness had decided to give up waiting for his mother to pass away, had learned Romanian, and had accepted the invitation to become the head of a state he had fallen in love with - see his repeated visits and gestures of protection extended to a patrimony oftentimes endangered - perhaps he would have ended up proving himself to be the best sovereign Romania had since Carol I." Thus, Gallagher says that it is an utopia for Prince Charles to accept the offer to become sovereign of Romania, not that the offer is utopic. There is no adjective next to the noun "invitation" such as "presumed" or "hypothetical" to put the offer in doubt. So the offer existed. The "utopical" pertained to "if he had accepted" it. The acceptance of such an invitation is clearly a utopia, for it would be very unlikely for Charles to desert his duties towards the British Kingdom, albeit a beautiful utopia as the author further explains. MihutM 04:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jao and have removed the speculation. Lovellester 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi ,I wrote to Professor Gallagher and got some answers. I sent first a message to Stefanp's user page to say that  I  had some correspondence with Professor Gallagher since end August, and I  got the text of the article in english meantime.  I was quite amazed he answered me (2 times). He is a great guy -superior intellect  obvously, but a bit vague through decency i think and refuses to be drawn in. He said  no offer that he knows of was made to prince Charles  to accept the Romanian throne, Prof was just talking "hypothetically" in the article he published, which was about quite another subject.  I was sort of disappointed as the idea was really interesting.


 * Here are Professor gallaghers words, from his first email to me of 23 august:


 * Sujet	Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles 	Afficher l'en-tête
 * Expéditeur	T.G.Gallagher@.........uk
 * Date	Mer, 23 Août 2006, 10:11
 * Dear Mr Perlier,
 * I'm glad that you've been having rewarding times during your visit to Romania. it is a multi-layered country and it is only rarely that some of its finer aspects get the treatment they deserve in the world's media.(...)


 * I had a look at wikipedia and couldn't find the reference to my recent article in which i alluded to an invitation to Prince Charles to come and fill any monarchical vacancy in Romania. (...) maybe I didn't look at the particular sentence with the reference to Prince Charles closely enough. It was a detour from the main point in the article and I was just saying that if there was a vacancy and a call came, he might want to consider accepting it.


 * all good wishes,
 * Yours Sincerely,
 * Tom Gallagher


 * Second email 3 days ago:
 * Sujet	Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles 	Afficher l'en-tête

Expéditeur:T.G.Gallagher@........uk Date	:       Sam, 28 Octobre 2006, 18:38 Priorité: 	Normale


 * Dear Ian Perlier,
 * Thank you for your absorbing message. (....) As for the main point of your letter: sorry to disappoint you, but I am reluctant to get further involved.As you know, I didn't call for Prince Charles to become a contender for the Romanian throne, I just floated it as a hypothesis. Perhaps it was inevitable that royal bloggers from different camps in Romania would choose to argue that I had done the first. But my words stand for themselves in the newspaper and you have managed to find the translation, due to your tenacity.


 * What I say or don't say from now on about the subject will make little difference to how it is treated and I am reluctant to plunge into wikipedia armed with a denial. It was a very rare intervention by me on the royal question and I don't have strong views on the matter, except perhaps that in certain specific circumstances a royal restoration could end an injustice and prove beneficial for the future development of Romania.
 * Best wishes,
 * Tom Gallagher


 * So there was no offer, Prof G would have confirmed it. i guess this counts  as a primary source ? So not valid on wikipedia? Interesting for us all anyway, and so editors can remove speculation and stick to the published text only.It has been a cool experience for me in any case.Iapethus 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC).213.130.141.157 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been following this debate for some time, and searched the whole of the internet and all possible written sources. It is very clear that there is NO WAY that anybody can possibly sustain that the prince of Wales was offered any throne in Romania (there is none to offer in any case). It was a careless way of writing by this Gallagher analyst.


 * Those who cry "Vandalism!" should review the Wikipedia pages on the topic:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
 * I have drawn attention in capitals for those who keep deliberatley re-inserting the same unsustainable meaning to the Gallagher text as these editors are vandalizing Wikipedia by continuously reverting, and by this persistent insistence on something which is just NOT contained in the text /they are using as reference. Among other clarifications they should note that:
 * "Vandalism is also defined as any ADDITION, deletion, or CHANGE of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.


 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably ex::plicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion ONCE is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.


 * Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right, or false but well-intentioned, or outright vandalism.

(...)
 * Types of vandalism
 * Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
 * Blanking
 * Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
 * Sneaky vandalism
 * Vandalism which is harder to spot. ADDING MISINFORMATION, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos, hiding vandalism e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one, or REVERTING LEGITIMATE EDITS TO HINDER THE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS.


 * What vandalism is not


 * Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently:
 * (among others)


 * Bold Edits
 * Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.


 * If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.


 * And:(PLEASE NOTE THIS WELL!)
 * Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopaedia, not a simple difference of opinion.
 * Let common sense prevail.Tobias Greene 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maniu "Cursing the King"
I highly doubt that Maniu did such a thing. The reference provided needs careful translation. The context in which Maniu's words are described in the Jurnalul National piece is not rendered in the reference used in Wikipedia. "Peste cativa ani s-au trezit iarasi ca au nevoie de Maniu pentru un alt proces politic. Venise randul primului ministru comunist al Justitiei, Lucretiu Patrascanu, sa cunoasca "dialecticele" raporturi dintre cetateanul unui regim comunist, adevar si dreptate. Pentru "a dovedi" apropierea lui Patrascanu de "reactiune" la 23 august 1944, o echipa de anchetatori s-a deplasat la Sighet, interogandu-i pe toti detinutii implicati in evenimente. La inceputul lui 1953, Iuliu Maniu era insa prea grav bolnav ca sa mai poata vorbi. Ultimul intemnitat in aceeasi celula cu el fusese, la Galati, Nicolae Carandino. Ce spunea Maniu despre 23 august? – este interogat gazetarul. Nimic, nu povestea despre asta, raspunde Carandino. Si totusi despre ce vorbea Maniu? – insista anchetatorii. Il injura pe Rege, pentru ca nu facuse nimic in apararea taranistilor, desi multe fusesera serviciile pe care ei le adusesera monarhiei – a declarat ultimul vorbitor cu Maniu. " It seems that the communist inquisitors forced Maniu's last cellmate to make this statement.  A statement made under duress is not very credible, the Wikipedia article needs to include this context.  Translation needed, or I will remove the reference.  Marina C (2) 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, there are no "inquisitors" mentioned in the article, which only a "Grand Inquisitor" fan like you would see where, in fact, there are only prosecutors ("anchetatori" in Romanian). Granted, they were Communist prosecutors, but no further details are povided in the article as to their interrogation methods. Thus, there is no indication of force or duress applied to the witness. As to the translation of the relevant part edited into the Wiki article, the last sentence shows what it is said (as the Wiki edit reads) by Maniu's cell-mate: Maniu "was cursing the King for not having done anything in the defense of the PNT members, although many had been the services they had rendered to the monarchy -- stated the person who last spoke to Maniu." I would hope that despite your biased, pro-Michael views, you agree with the translation. Stefanp 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WWII Historical Facts and Interpretations
An expert is sorely needed to edit the section about Romania, and King Michael's role in World War 2. The "facts" quoted in this article have references ok, but they are selected facts, deprived of an overall context and are not completed with others thus the articleis one sided and is unbalanced and biased towards an anti Michael viewpoint. Examples: "facilitated by the King's cease-fire order given before any armistice was reached."

"...on terms the Soviets virtually dictated[6]. The coup effectively amounted to a capitulation[7], an unconditional surrender[8] to the Soviets. King Michael was spared the fate of another former German ally, Prince Kyril, Regent of Bulgaria, executed by the Soviets in 1945, ..."

"However, some claim[9] that Michael's failure to be invited, with a few exceptions, to most of the Victory in Europe Day celebrations in the West throughout the years, could be seen as a tacit condemnation of the consequences of his coup, which afforded Stalin's troops a faster advance[10] into Romania and Europe, to the detriment of that of the Western Allies."

"Stalin decorated him with the Soviet Order of Victory, for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu, for putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies, and as a sign of gratitude for the King's cease-fire order[11] given during the coup, which had speeded the Red Army's advance into Romania[12"

"Moreover, there are several reports[13][14][15][16] that the Romanian Communist authorities obedient to Stalin presented King Michael with 42 valuable Crown-owned paintings shortly before the King's abdication, some of which[17] were reportedly sold through the famed art dealer Daniel Wildenstein." Only negative stuff. and so on.Marina C (2) 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, before you demand "Expert" opinions, why don't you first make the minimal effort to research the topics and come up with pro-Michael opinions/facts properly referenced? I'll delete the "Expert" opinion demand to give you the chance to do some research work first, ok? Intellectual laziness is not a good enough excuse to demand "expert" opinions. Stefanp 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Marina! You claim that "the articleis one sided and is unbalanced" and that there is "Only negative stuff." I beg to differ: the article is fairly balanced, in that for each accusation against King Michael, there is also an opposite, pro-Michael argument. The difference between the two kinds of arguments lies in the amount of evidence on each side: there seems to be more evidence against rather than pro. There is, though, one exception to this balance rule: the story of the Crown paintings is remarkably one sided. Since you seem to be a fan of King Michael, perhaps you could try to find out more pro-Michael evidence, especially about the story that it was Carol II rather than Michael who took the Crown paintings out of Romania? John Mathis 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article it's not balanced at all. It's obvious the article describe the negative part of Michael. Most of the references lead to online articles with no sources at all. There is no serious work about King Michael used here as a source.--Roamataa 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Roamata! I agree that this article could use some quotes from scholarly works. However, the referenced on-line materials do meet the Wikipedia standards for acceptable sources. Besides, a lot of them are very reputable, being true standards of professionalism in their respective fields of journalism or history: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Congress Library. John Mathis 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all the sources pointed to are in Romanian, and the arguments themselves are either matters of opinion that shouldn't be in the article, even if sourced, or highly dubious factual claims, like the one about the paintings. john k 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the paintings, the van Rijn article claims that Michael abdicated in 1945, so I don't see how it can be treated as reliable. i've always heard that it was Carol who took paintings out of the country. Furthermore, that article claims that the Romanian government was asserting its rights over the paintings, which hardly suggests that they gave them to Michael, as this article asserted. john k 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are the experts on Michael's reign?
Hi, Marina! Would you, please, be so kind as to name some experts (either Romanian or foreign) on King Michael's reign that you wished would edit the "Rule" chapter and, if possible, mention some of their credentials (books, articles written on this subject)? Thanks in advance! John Mathis 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello John Adams


 * Ivor Porter would be one such expert, Dinu Giuirescu would be another one, as well as historians of WWII in general, of which I will supply you a list asap, but this is the reponsibility of all editors=to find the best sources possible.So up to you too. Who would you suggest? Secondly, according to Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy , the burden of proof is on the editor making any claims in his/her edits. You make edits and quote sources , fine, but you need rock solid sources, several of them to back up any edit which may be contested. Read the rules boyo. Marina C (2) 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Marin, please, quote sources you, too, before making any edits. As far as I can tell, all of the statements deleted by you and other King Michael fans (some would call these vandalisms) have rock-solid proofs, reputable sources behind them. John Mathis 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Coup effectively amounted to a capitulation"
This comment is a judgment made by the narrative voice of the article, and is blatantly a POV attempt to make Michael look bad. The description of what happens makes it clear enough that the purpose of the coup was to end Romania's participation in the war on the German side. Romania was in no position to do this on its own terms. We should let people judge for themselves, not tell them to think that this was some kind of betrayal of Romania, which strikes me as a bizarre perspective. john k 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV, but a fact that the New York Times and the Washington Post had labeled the coup as a "capitulation" and an "unconditional surrender" in the absence of any prior armistice or truce. An armistice would be signed only 3 weeks later. Here are the full quotes: "London, Aug. 24 (AP). -- The Germans, trying to salvage what they can from capitulated Romania, promptly announced today the vague formation of a puppet regime opposing King Mihai's new pro-Allied government, appealed for Romanians to remain in the war on the Axis side, and said that rioting had broken out in the Balkan nation." ("Hitler Resorts To 'Puppets' In Romania," Washington Post, Aug 25, 1944) "BERNE, Switzerland, Aug. 23 -- In a brief proclamation to the Rumanian people broadcast from Bucharest at 9:25 o'clock this evening, King Michael of Rumania ordered his armed forces to cease fire against the forces of the Allies, saying he had accepted their terms of unconditional surrender in the name of the nation." ("King Proclaims Nation's Surrender and Wish to Help Allies," The New York Times, Aug 24, 1944) Stefanp 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't the facts. The point is the spin you are trying to put on them. Also, the coup itself was not a capitulation. Michael staged a coup so as to take charge of the Romanian government and surrender to the allies before the Soviets overran the country. Your whole purpose in this article is to spin facts to make it look as though Michael sold out the country to the Soviets. john k 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no spin in the sentence about the capitulation, only quotes from two most reputable sources. Which you have just vandalized. If you want your POV included in the article, please, find references for it and stop destroying other people's research. Stefanp 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read what vandalism is. I don't have a POV - I have no dog in this fight, except opposing POV pushing. john k 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, you, too, read what blanking vandalism is - which is what you've been practicing here: ""Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." (Vandalism rules) Also, I'm not seeing any sources quoted in support of your POV's regarding King Michael: "Michael staged a coup so as to take charge of the Romanian government and surrender to the allies before the Soviets overran the country." Stefanp 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing parts of an article because one thinks they are bad and don't belong is not vandalism. You've been around long enough that you should know this. john k 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

VE Day
I have no idea what the basis of this claim is. The idea that Michael's coup and signing of an armistice is negatively viewed in the west is flatly false - he has generally been honored for it, and it was his courage in overthrowing Antonescu that led to a great deal of sympathy for him in the west - much more than that for other overthrown Balkan monarchs. The link provided provides no support for the idea that the west somehow resents Michael's coup as having somehow hurt the west. The basic fact is that the Soviets were going to overrun Romania one way or the other. The article seems to be trying to claim that somehow the Soviet take-over was Michael's fault. This is just utterly bizarre. The Soviets took over because their armies were right there. It'd have just taken longer if he hadn't, and perhaps been done in a way that was even harsher to Romania.

None of these weird insinuations belong in the article. john k 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, no insinuations, but facts: King Michael had only very seldomly been invited at the VE Day celebrations in the West and was notably not invited at the grand 60th VE Day celebration in 2005. Stefanp 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. But there is absolutely no support for the reason this might be that was in the article. I assume he hasn't been invited for fear of offending the Romanian government. john k 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong assumptions: all the Romanian governments since the 1996 elections have been monarchy-friendly, restoring Michael's citizenship in 1997 and making his son-in-law a government special representative since 2002. So no such fears of offending the Romanian government. The only offense here is that against King Michael, who has not been deemed worthy of any invitations at the VE Day celebrations... Stefanp 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly prior to 1996 that would arguably be a reason. At any rate, there is still no reason to believe your supposed reason for Michael's absence - that the western allies somehow resented his coup and surrender, a surrender which they welcomed at the time. john k 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At any rate, Michael's absence from the post 1997 celebrations, especially the biggest ones of 2005, speaks louder than any of your words. And besides, as long as I can find a "verifiable, published, reliable" source that supports my edit, my edit meets Wiki standards and your blanking it equals vandalism: "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." Vandalism rules So stop vandalizing this article. If you want your pro-Michael POV's included, that's fine, as long as you find a reliable, published source that says what you want. Stefanp 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it says absolutely nothing. Perhaps Michael is excluded because Romania was, for most of the war, an axis power.  Perhaps because he was 75 years old in 1997, and has only gotten older.  Who the hell knows?  The particular reason you give seems incredibly unlikely.  Romanian newspapers are not a reliable source as to the feelings of western governments about King Michael.  And "blanking" an article is replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense.  It isn't removing parts of an article because one thinks they don't belong.  john k 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well. The mere fact that you don't even seem capable of reading carefully says enough about your POV's and your edits. You wrongly claim the following: "And "blanking" an article is replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense. It isn't removing parts of an article." Read again, please, the following Wikipedia rule: "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." (Vandalism rules) Learn first to read carefully before doing anything else to Wikipedia, ok? Stefanp 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is when you randomly remove large chunks of an article for no reason. If someone adds paragraphs of garbage to an article, it isn't "vandalism" to remove them. Vandalism specifically says that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."  So you are accusing me of bad faith, and of trying to make wikipedia worse. john k 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You claimed above that only "replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense" is blanking vandalism. That's not true: removing parts of an article can also be vandalism. Learn to read first before vandalizing anylonger in order to further your pro-Michael POV's, unsupported by any references whatsoever. Stefanp 09:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael's financial status in 1948
Does the fact that 5th Avenue is expensive and that a gossip column from 1948 claims that Michael considered buying a plane really serve as evidence of Michael's financial situation in 1948? This seems like a novel synthesis of primary sources, and as such is original research. This whole business is incredibly tiresome. Can't we just ban Stefan and get on with it? This entire article is a tendentious mess. john k 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your unsourced pro-Michael POV's push you to vandalisms (i.e. deletions of referenced statements, alterations of original quotes) as well as unacceptable edits (e.g. based on so-called emails, which cannot be used as sources cf. Wikipedia rules). Any more of these abuses and I will have to report your vandalisms. Stefanp 09:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A synthesis of primary sources requires: 1. an unreferenced personal opinion added by the editor to the primary sources so as to advance 2. an unreferenced conclusion also formulated by the editor. (Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) Please, quote both the unreferenced personal opinion and the conclusion statement. If you cannot quote both, then there is no such synthesis and, hence, no original research. Stefanp 09:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are making the implication that because Time magazine in a gossip column quotes a lightly made remark by Michael about buying an airplane, that this implies that he had a lot of money. This is clear original research.  And please, please, please report me. john k 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * John, Stefan, let's put aside personal threats of banning or reporting. They are quite silly. I have read the Original Research rules and I have to agree with Stefan. John, you need to show that A) a personal editor's opinion, and B) a personal conclusion, both unreferenced, were inserted in the edit along with the primary sources, in order to qualify as synthesis/original research. I see no such two statements, only quotes from primary sources. So no synthesis/original research here. Carbunar 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What "personal threats"? No threat was made. The edit twists the facts, King Michael went shopping? What did he buy? That is not reported. If I had come out of such a difficult time in Romania I would probably also have headed for the bright lights (Broadway, 5th Avenue,etc), and if I express the wish to buy a yacht, that does not imply that I have the money to do so. You are indeed implying that because Time magazine in a gossip column quotes a perhaps frivolous remark by Michael about buying an airplane, that this implies that he had a lot of money-it IS original research. No synthesis?  Putting one statement next to another can distort the real meaning  of the original reference, this amounts to the same. Report me as well, it's not personal and it's not a threat.Marina C (2) 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MarinaC, you and the other King Michael supporters must quote two unreferenced personal opinions statements: one that links facts from the primary sources and one that states a conclusion. Simply enumerating the facts/primary sources does not constitute synthesis/original research. Parisian2006 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is original research when you are clearly constructing sentences in ways to make insinuations that are original research. Just because you don't state your insinuations straight out does not make them any less original research.  Also, you are the same person as Stefanp, right?  john k 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and undue weight
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." (Undue weight) According to the last opinion poll taken in Romania that I am aware of on the topic of Monarchy vs. Republic, somewhere around 15% of Romanians are monarchists vs. 85% republicans. This proportion is a very good proxy for the views of the published sources on the issue of King Michael and the Monarchy he incarnates as its last legitimate representative, since the Romanians have shaped their views on the matter from these published sources. Therefore, the weight given in this article to the views against King Michael must be signifcantly higher than the weight given to the pro-Michael views. I hope this poll results calm down the completely unfounded objections of the pro-Michael fans here present (MarinaC, John Kenney, Lovellester, e.a.) that this article presents too much evidence against Michael: it has to do so to comply with the Wikipedia NPOV rules. Therefore, the objections of the pro-Michael fans to the neutrality of this article, through the warnings inserted both at the top of the article and in the "Rule" section, must be removed. Stefanp 10:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a translation of the respective article from the Socialist (Republican) party press organ "Dimineata", the April 4, 1997 issue: "Thus, for a credulous anti-royalist the figure of 5% monarchists would make them jump for joy; 85% are republicans. (...) In reality, the proportion of the royalists is as high as 12-15% (...)." If anybody has more recent such poll results on the royalist vs. republican percentages, please, post them. Stefanp 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The evidence you cite indicates current views in Romania on restoration of the monarchy as an institution (if accurate). It is an unjustified leap in logic to attribute those views to negative allegations about Michael's deeds in the 1940s. In 1993 Brazilians voted overwhelmingly against restoration of the monarchy, which was abolished during the reign of Pedro II of Brazil. But Pedro was personally popular and is historically respected as a model constitutional monarch, notwithstanding the coup that ousted him and the subsequent expression of Brazilians' opposition to restoration. The institution and the individual are not the same. To attribute views of the former to the latter requires specific proof that the two are related causally or by correlation, which is missing in these allegations. Lethiere 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When Romanians were asked about their views on Monarchy vs. Republic in the 1997 poll, it was because of the Socialist party's allegations against the ruling govenrmental coalition and its President of Romania that they wanted to restore King Michael I on the throne. This was especially true with the then-president of Romania, who had literally declared before the 1996 elections something to the effect that once he wins the Presidency, he will give the power back to the rightful ruler, King Michael. So there you have it: when Romanians said "No" to the Monarchy in the 1997 opinion poll, they really said no to King Michael, who was the hot topic of the entire political class back then. Hence, it's very clear what the majority vs. minority views are. And yes, they are current views. After all, the NPOV Undue Weight rules use the present tense, so they mean current views. If the rules meant past views, then they would create havoc, as editors would argue and fight, as you try, to pick and choose a particular set of views in the past that's convenient to their own views as editors. Carbunar 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

POV's? Quote them!
I invite MarinaC and the others who claim this article is "full of POV's" to quote them here so that they be corrected individually. Thanks! John Mathis 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs work
Sourcing does not an NPOV article make.

Here are the worst parts:

Moreover, there are several reports[13][14][15][16] that the Romanian Communist authorities obedient to Stalin presented King Michael with 42 valuable Crown-owned paintings shortly before the King's abdication, some of which[17] were reportedly sold through the famed art dealer Daniel Wildenstein. One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Crown which was supposedly taken out of the country by King Michael in November 1947, returned to the national patrimony in 2004 as a donation[18][19][20] made by John Kreuger, the former husband of King Michael's daughter Princess Irina.

Other sources, such as the memoires of the King's aunt Princess Ileana[25], quoting the high-ranking Communist Party politburo member, Soviet spy, and minister of defense[26] Emil Bodnaras[27], rumored to have been Ileana's lover[28], claim that if the King had refused to sign the death warrants for the political prisoners condemned for "war crimes," the Communist government would have upheld his decision: "Well, if the King decides not to sign the death warrant, I promise that we will uphold his point of view."

In December 2003, Michael awarded the "Man of The Year 2003" prize to the then-prime minister Adrian Nastase, leader of the ex-Communist PSD party, on behalf of a minor tabloid. Recently, Adrian Nastase has been sent to trial[51] on charges of bribe-taking, blackmail, and abuse of public office. Some monarchists regarded[52] Michael's gesture as a break with the traditional political neutrality of the monarchy and a financially motivated compromise with his former Communist enemies.

Good luck improving the article. - Francis Tyers · 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck? Thanks for the help.  The article isn't going to be improved as long as Stefan and his merry band of sockpuppets are constantly reverting. john k 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis Tyers! Indeed, a NPOV requires not only statements properly referenced (which all of the above are), but also properly referenced opposite views. Would you or others, please, find primary sources of opposite views that tackle these issues? I would love to make this article as compliant with NPOV rules as possible with your help. Thank you in advance! John Mathis 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is not what he was saying at all. The point is that an article can be completely referenced, and opposite views can be completely referenced too, and it can still be completely POV because of tendentious interpretations, and undue weight on minor points, and so forth, which this article has in spades. john k 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any mentioning of "tendentious interpretations" in Francis' statement. However, since you claim these quotes are examples of such "tendentious interpretations," please, be so kind as to quote their exact words. John Mathis 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * John k is right, "One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Crown which was supposedly taken out of the country by King Michael in November 1947, returned to the national patrimony in 2004 as a donation[18][19][20] made by John Kreuger, the former husband of King Michael's daughter Princess Irina." for example is boring, tedious and confusing, why is it here? It doesn't add to the biography, its like you might read in Private Eye (a splendid publication, but this style of editorialising is not appropriate for Wikipedia). Francis Tyers · 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On what concrete example(s) do you rely when you claim that John K is right about the presence of "tendentious interpretations" in the above-mentioned sentence? Stefanp 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gossips
Wikipedia is not a place for gossips. The gossip that Bodnăraş was the lover of Ileana is off-topic and inappropriate for this article. bogdan 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur. - Francis Tyers · 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's more than a rumor, it's a secret intelligence report. Also, I think it's totally appropriate, as it lends credibility to Bodnaras' promise made to his alleged lover, Princess Ileana. Without it, there are only negative qualifiers preceding his name. A positive one such as this one is sorely needed to balance the statement. Without it, it's pretty clear that these negative qualifiers are meant to destroy any credibility whatsoever of his statement in order to save Michael's reputation - clearly a biased approach. Need I remind you, gentlemen, that a NPOV is always needed on any issue? Stefanp 10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The newspaper labels them as "gossips" and casts a doubt over that report. We're not supposed to post dubious information. bogdan 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)