Talk:Paul Philippe of Romania

Recent edit
I'm really inclined to revert this recent edit to Paul Lambrino. Referring to Mircea Grigore Carol Lambrino as "illegitimate" strikes me as rather bogus (yes, Carol II's marriage to Zizi Lambrino was annulled, but that was basically just politics). Calling him "Mircea Grigore" instead of "Carol Lambrino" just seems snide. "King Michael is a recognized protector of the Jews during WWII" seems dubious ("recognized by whom")? And removing House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Euro-royal-stub seems just polemical. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Paul Lambrino"
The people editing this article ought to heed the fact that referring to Paul of Romania as “Paul Lambrino” is contentious and hence in contradiction to Wikipedia’s rules. The British passport of Prince Paul states clearly “Paul Philip of Romania” (issued in Paris in August 2008). His Romanian passport states “Paul Philippe al Romaniei” which is the same name stated in the birth certificate of his son (no. 355734), registered in Bucharest, Sector 1.

It is evident that someone here is rather against Paul of Romania. If he is a self-styled “prince” why isn't her cousin Margareta, or the other royal princesses? All of the princesses were born after the monarchy was overthrown so the case could be made that such titles are "self-styled", isn't it correct? However Wikipedia as well as the written press, the television, and other encyclopedia acknowledge these titles of pretense. It is particularly bogus to hang on so stubbornly on the surname “Hohenzollern” for Paul of Romania without even mentioning that for instance “Crown Princess Margareta” herself was born as “Margarita Hohenzollern”; it goes to bias against Paul of Romania.

As rightly mentioned on Wikipedia’s article on King Michael I, he changed his surname to that of “Hohenzollern” after he abdicated. As to my knowledge, Princess Margareta and Princess Elena and Princess Irina were all registered under the family name “Hohenzollern” whereas Sofia and Maria who were born in kingdoms were allowed to be registered with the last name of “de Roumanie”. Similar cases exist for other former ruling houses; for instance, the Archduchess Gabriela of Austria, the daughter of Archduke Dr. Otto, was born in Luxemburg and was allowed to be registered under the name “Erzherzogin von Österreich”. Nevertheless such names were inadmissible for the children of Archduke Otto born in the Federal Republic of Germany (see Otto von Habsburg Die Biographie, p. 217).

Furthermore, claiming that court has ever granted Paul of Romania “rights of succession” to the throne is ludicrous. First of all, no republican court shall ever grant “rights of succession” to whichever throne to whomever. Second of all, there is no throne to succeed as Romania is now a republic; all titles used presently are titles of courtesy or pretense with a social and historical value but lacking legality in most countries.

As a son of the then Crown Prince Carol, his son Carol Mircea, was logically a prince at birth. Even if one argues he was not “Prince of Romania” since the annulment of his parents’ marriage, he was indeed a “Prince of Hohenzollern” in accordance to the Hausgesetze of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen dynasty. Additionally it is odd that people are arguing so much about his “self-styled title” but readily accept Radu Duda to be styled “Prince of Romania” on Wikipedia or even Princess Elena’s son to become “Prince of Romania” in spite to the fact that both titles lack all sort of legality. Moreover, the current political establishment seemed to have acknowledged the de facto rank of "Prince Paul" as the current president became godfather of his son, who at all times has been presented as a prince without disclaimers by the official Romania thereto.

It also seems rather biased against Paul of Romania that whereas people seem to take much care in declaring him “self-styled prince”, no one seems to react about the fact that Wikipedia acknowledges the title “Crown Princess of Romania, etc.” to Princess Margareta, isn’t that title also “self-styled”?

Even in monarchies titles are often not part of the name or even legally bound for members of reigning families. For instance, "Princess Astrid, Mrs. Ferner" in Norway; her legal name is "Astrid Ferner", and that is the name wherewith she is registered in Norway (look for her at www.eniro.no). Equally in Sweden, "Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld" is simply registered in Sweden as "Désirée Silverschiöld". The same is true for her sister, "Christina Magnusson" and certainly not "Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnusson" at the Swedish registration office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.143.231 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 13:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern → Paul Lambrino — This article was moved and and the old location protected by Phil Sandifer without consensus after threats of moving the page if reasoning wasn't up to snuff for him. Paul Lambrino is the most common name for this subject and few if any people call him "Paul Hohenzollern". Ideally and rightly, the old page name should be restored and the onus would be on Phil Sandifer to make an argument for a controversial move which has now become disruptive. One user personally should not have to be persuaded in what an article's title is. The old name ought to be restored and Phil Sandifer should then make a case for moving it. —Charles 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that few people call him Phil Sandifer, I'm not sure that's germaine... Phil Sandifer 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support As nominator and per my reasoning as to the move process and also for the majority usage of "Paul Lambrino". Charles 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Paul Lambrino is not the subject's legal name, and he has actively complained about locating the article there. Given that it is not his name and that he does not wish to be called it, it is a major problem to locate the article there. I am not married to this location, but Paul Lambrino is a policy-violating place for this article. See also OTRS #2007101710008671. Phil Sandifer 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am unable to locate it. Please provide a link. Charles 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect you lack OTRS access, rendering the issue moot. OTRS is the e-mail system by which people contact Wikipedia with questions and concerns - it's locked except to authorized users because it has a ton of sensitive BLP issues in it. Phil Sandifer 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be requesting access to review it. Charles 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I'd have a look at OTRS first. Phil Sandifer 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unable to locate a page which appears to definitively have a process for signing up/volunteering for the system (sometihng I am interested in anyway) other than one with what appear to be requests dating back to July. I can understand the subject being sensitive to material in the article, but the title is in no way libellous or even malicious and reflects most common usage. Any guidance in volunteering for the system would be appreciated as all links I have opened thus far have literally led me in a circle. Charles 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * . Phil Sandifer 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Phil Sandifer and OTRS. ^demon[omg plz] 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern is probably the most neutral name for this article as it is his legal name and doesn't promote his claims by naming it Prince Paul of Romania which he uses, or Paul Lambrino which opponents of his claim seem to use. - dwc lr 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per dwc lr. It would be helpful to know how unbiased secondary sources refer to this person, both before and since the court ruling on his legal name.  Absent that, subject's own preference (considering WP:BLP) and the court ruling seem a strong case.  --BlueMoonlet 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose He was granted the name Hohenzollern without the "von" by the European courts. He may use the surname but not the title of Prince. As much as I disagree with the usage of the surname the courts prevail. Tim Foxworth 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per dwc and Tim Foxworth. Calling him "Prince Paul-Philippe, heir apparent to the Crown of Romania" would be indulgent, and "Paul Lambrino" smacks a bit of Louis Capet--victor falk 10:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

The Daily Telegraph obit of his father ( February 9, 2006; p.23) calls its subject Prince Carol of Romania (I have this from Lexis, so have no link.) It also offers a clearer account of Prince Carol's birth, and says that he was declared legitimate by a Rumanian court in 2003, but the decision was appealled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This has become an uncited mess
There have been major additions to this article with almost no addition of citations. We need to sort this mess out. - Jmabel | Talk 16:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put a lot of "fact" & "weasel" tags in the article. All of these things need citation & attribution, respectively. Also, because a Washington Times article cited for several points is apparently not available online, it might be useful if someone with "no horse in this race" might seek a copy and make sure it says what it is cited as saying. And/or we might seek a second source to back this up: the Washington Times is hardly one of America's most respected newspapers. - Jmabel | Talk 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some facts could be cited from his website. The Washington Times Article can be found on the talk page of his fathers article. - dwc lr (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic citation
There is a citation in the lede, "General", Evenimentul Zilei. The link is to a password-protected page, the title given is beyond vague, and there is no date. As a citation, it's hardly any more useful than saying "Evenimentul Zilei once said this." If anyone has a better citation or can clarify this one, it would be good. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, when I attempt to access the link in the citation Photos of "Prince Paul of Romania" in the company of King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Prince Albert II of Monaco, Frederick William, Prince of Hohenzollern, and other aristocrats, from the website of "Prince Paul of Romania" as retrieved on January 9, 2008 I get a blank page. Does anyone else get something else? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 07:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the address needs updating to http://www.printulpaulderomania.ro/album-foto/ to see pictures of his meetings with royals. - dwc lr (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012
Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikipedia Foundation.

He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.

In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards HRH Prince Paul, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia. Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers in the UK.

Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" by "mistake" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against Frédéric Mitterand, in 2005 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never been born the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikipedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.

The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien).

You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names

145.116.225.193 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit you've requested has been made here. Please refrain from posting your requests repeatedly. It is vandalism. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 16:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem about referring to him by the name by which he prefers to be known. The point about the lede is to mention other names by which he is known, I don't have a problem about including mention of use of this name further in the article. I have restored the ancestors section, not clear why it was deleted, and removed an annoying Americanism. PatGallacher (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ancestry section was removed because it was unsourced, and I said so in the edit summary. Not sure what "annoying Americanism" you're referring to.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been legally disputed and the subject objects strongly to it. His Fathers name is there and there is a wikilink - it was removed previously after OTRS communication - its not especially must know content either. I suggest we keep it out and have removed it again. Perhaps some wording out of the lede that explains the name may be a resolution suitable to both parties.   You  really  can  16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr PatGallacher,

What you do not fathom is the fact that he is ONLY known as "Prince Paul of Romania", everywhere he is known; it is NOT his "preferable" name, but his ONLY name, is that so hard to grasp? It is concerning that you insist upon having the name "Paul Lambrino" included when this name has been viewed as defamatory and libellous in courts of law (thus a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines). Furthermore, I have pointed out to the bias of the articles used as sources for the name "Paul Lambrino", however, thus far no one has responded to that criticism. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether to include "Paul Lambrino"
Per the news results here, I think it is entirely reasonable (and indeed necessary, per WP:NPOV) to include "also known as Paul Lambrino". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the OTRS communication and how that plays in this issue, but I agree with Pat and with Nomosk that the reference to Paul Lambrino belongs in the article AND in the lead. What the subject "prefers" and claims should not prevent inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I beg you to peruse the google search which you yourself suggested; the articles therein are aggressive towards the article's subject or belong to tabloid press which is unacceptable as per Wikipedia standards.

How many times must I emphasise the name "Paul Lambrino" does not exist legally, nor it is utilised by any major newspapers, particularly not in the English language press as per Wikipedia guidelines. You simply ignore the guidelines, and want to force upon a change with is infamous, defamatory and libellous as per court decisions. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been warned before to stop using terms like defamatory and libelous. Keep it up, and you'll be blocked. First, it doesn't matter whether Paul Lambrino is his legal name - it only matters whether he's referred to by that name. Second, one of the sources was the Chicago Tribune, a major English newspaper. Third, it's only your interpretation that some of the newspapers are "aggressive towards the article's subject". You probably mean that they are simply suspicious of his claims. That doesn't affect this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You should not warn me of anything because I am following the guidelines. I have clarified that the use of those words are as per court decisions (by no means a threat to any of you or to Wikipedia), and I am citing facts as opposed to you.

By the way, newspapers are welcomed to be "suspicious" of his claims (to which claims are you referring? please stop being vague wording to serve your purposes). They can write whatever they wish, however, they called the subject repeatedly a "self-styled prince". Upon request I can provide with a copy of his British passport wherein he is stated to be "HRH Prince Paul of Romania", how can then he be "self-styled"?. Those sources are therefore providing lies, as he is not self-style, nor is "Paul Lambrino" his name. "Paul Lambrino" does not exist as a legal person. If an article (read the links you provide) claims Prince Paul is not a Prince when he is indeed recognize as such by various governments then the information they provide is bogus and subjective. I can provide copies of documents wherein Prince Paul is rightly addressed as "HRH Prince Paul of Romania" by foreign royal houses, and even the government of Romania. I have stated this several times, but you people do not react to my criticism.

The article you mentioned in the "Chicago Tribune" is not accessible for reading, thus you cannot peruse for its content. If you analyse the content objectively you shall realise that the Romanian sources are aggressive towards the article's subject. Furthermore, the article to which you point out is ages old, which by itself is also against Wikipedia's guidelines as I am referring to how he is known in the world --145.116.225.193 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your own opinions about the sources are irrelevant -- see WP:OR. If sources refer to him as a "self-styled prince", then Wikipedia will report that he is a self-styled prince.  If he is also recognized as a prince by various governments and such and this is reported in sources, then Wikipedia will also note this (without however removing the former).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It does seem that "Paul Philippe Lambrino" was the name under which he was first known and even registered after birth . It does not seem that this was the subject of the lawsuit against Stéphane Bern; rather it was the claim that Paul had not been recognised as a prince by any royal house which led to the court awarding damages of €1500 (nearly US$2000), reflecting the severity of the slur. NebY (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You people do not base your statements upon facts:

I have several times offered to provide you with original documents as to Prince Paul's birth certificate (he was born as "Paul-Philippe DE Hohenzollern", and has NEVER borne the surname Lambrino), also about the Bern-lawsuit, the Figaro article is not complete, he was indeed also sued for using the name "Paul Lambrino", but since you do not wish to use primary sources...--145.116.225.193 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful if you could expand on this. Specifically, did the court find that Bern's use of the name "Paul Lambrino" was defamatory? Was part of the €1500 award for this rather than for Bern's statement that he had not been recognised as royal by any royal house? Where can we see reports of these details? NebY (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a German scholarly book (link) about the Hohenzollern, and on p. 184 we get the following (my translation, with a bit of help from google): "Ironically, a descendant of the royal house (or indeed a "commoner" descendant), Paul Lambrino, grandson of Carol II, and his first "illegitimate" wife, "Zizi" Lambrino, has recently accused the royal family of anti-Semitism and complicity in the persecution of Jews." This is hardly an act of aggression against Lambrino -- just another source (indeed quite a good one, in terms of WP:RS), that supports use of Lambrino here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"hardly an act of aggression against Lambrino", who is Lambrino? Your use of words goes for bias against Prince Paul. The book makes terrible mistakes, so thank you for bringing it to my attention!

As the article points out Prince Carol Mircea's legitimacy (and thus that of his parents marriage) was has been upheld by court decisions in Lisbon, Paris, London, Alexandria, and the European Court of Human Rights. Even if the book is scholarly, the information provided in this matter is hence inaccurate. Furthermore, it is beyond discussion that Prince Paul is a "commoner" when he is recognized as prince by the countries wherein he holds citizenship (another grave mistake of that scholarly monograph)--145.116.225.193 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Nomoskedasticity,

Please notice the author of the book you mentioned as well as his publisher have been contacted today by the office of Prince Paul of Romania; I beg you to refrain from using that source until the publisher's legal department replies to Prince Paul's concerns.

Also kindly notice the book's author used an Internet link as reference for his claim Prince Paul is known as Paul Lambrino: http://www.revista22.ro/sah-la-regele-mihaibrpaul-lambrino-tulbura-relatiile-diplomatice-romanoisraeliene-1840.html

The link above is already used as reference in Prince Paul's Wikipedia page. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any real call to use it as a source on the article itself -- though it does help establish that reputable sources write/speak of "Paul Lambrino". Of course, if another editor wanted to use it, then your own dispute with the publisher would have no bearing on such use.  Anyway, the source I do intend to exploit further is the article in the New York Times -- already in use, but there's potential there for expanding the article.  It too establishes that people refer to him as Paul Lambrino.  Incidentally, what was the outcome of the European Court of Human Rights case? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Nomoskedasticity,

Please take note that I have never claimed that certain people do not call Prince Paul "Paul Lambrino", nevertheless, you ought to analyse with a cool head and impartially in which context he is named thus. I shall write it for a last time, people who normally use that appellation do so either intentionally, misinformed or by mistake, claiming he is not a prince. The British Government might disagrees with such statement as he (as was his father) were given identification documents with their princely titles. Likewise, royal houses address him rightly as "Prince Paul of Romania".

What you are trying to do is to manipuliate a few sources to claim that such appellation "Paul Lambrino" has the same standing as his legal name, and the name wherewith he is known universally, which is "Prince Paul of Romania".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say."

The "Paul Lambrino" appellation is only represented by a few sources (thus tiny-minority). Furthermore, you are welcomed to circumvent the rules and use vague wording such as "he is known as Paul Lambrino, however, he does not use that name", or something similar. Beware however that whichever information you provide about that is erroneous as per court decisions (Lisbon, Paris, London, Alexandria and Strassbourg). It is indeed damaging to Prince Paul's image, honour and integrity because they spread lies about his real name (most of the few articles to which you are referring give the impression his real and legal name is "Paul Lambrino"). For such misleading acts there are consequences.

In 2005 Prince Paul won a case against Stéphane Bern. Mr Bern agreed that henceforth if referring to Prince Paul he is always going to use "HRH Prince Paul of Romania" or rather "SAR le Prince Paul de Roumanie". If a court in Prince Paul's country of birth (and wherein he also used to hold citizenship) decided he IS NOT "Paul Lambrino", hence he cannot be "Paul Lambrino" anywhere, no matter how much you want that!!!

If The New York Times or a scientific book have made the gross mistake of misusing the appellation "Paul Lambrino", they shall be duly corrected, do not worry about that.

Prince Paul's father won posthumously the case at the ECHR (as he won all other cases hitherto), and is simply awaiting its application by exequatur in Romania (http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/e4ca7ef017f8c045c1256849004787f5/1054378f3987c561c125772e003b8972?OpenDocument) --145.116.225.193 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolution
Among established editors contributing here, there is almost complete agreement on including "also known as Paul Lambrino". Even the IP acknowledges that "most of the few articles to which you are referring give the impression his real and legal name is 'Paul Lambrino'"; this editor might not like the implication one draws from that statement, but it does support inclusion. In addition, we have the fact that there is a redirect: Paul Lambrino brings us to this page. Any reasonable reading of WP:V and WP:NPOV makes it reasonable to add this; indeed NPOV requires it, insofar as excluding it gives undue emphasis to a position at variance with the sources (i.e., this person really is "Prince Paul" and is not "Paul Lambrino"). We might also consider WP:AUTO and WP:OWN. We are not here to facilitate someone's claim to royalty. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You continue to act actively biasedly against Prince Paul of Romania. I kindly ask you to revert your change. I have read thoroughly NYT's article which you are now citing, but it contains several mistakes. One further guidelines for reliable sources is not only that they are published in reputable places (such as NYT) but likewise one ought to analyse the content and take into account the author.

The article claims Prince Paul brought forward a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights to advance his royal claims. The lawsuit was in fact filed by his father as you can see in the English summary of the decision I have posted before.

He claims Prince Carol Mircea "persuaded" courts in Portugal and France to back up his "rival" claims. I wondered which rival claims, for the cases were mostly about inheritance (and Prince Carol Mircea won in all cases). Furthermore, courts of law in Portugal, France or the UK are not "persuaded" (contentious wording).

He claims the courts decisions in the countries named above were meaningless because they have not been ratified in Romania. However, Prince Carol Mircea did share the estate of his father with his half-brother, so not meaningless at all.

There are further mistakes in the text about historical facts. He claims the Romanian monarchy was imported from Germany. There was a monarchy before Carol I ascended the throne! Only a German prince was imported but not the royal institution. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Known for "Pretender to the Romanian throne"
Could the later heading be changed? It is misleading.

1. There is no Romanian throne to pretend (claim), for the monarchy was abrogated in 1947. 2. As the article rightly states, Prince Paul does not seek restoration of the monarchical system under his leadership. In fact, he has accepted the republic and ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. 3. Furthermore, Prince Paul is the founder and director of the "Prince Paul of Romania Foundation for Romania"; the latter foundation has made him known around the world. Recently, he was appointed "Friendship Ambassador for China" due to his committment to furthering Sino-Romanian relations:

http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/

Some suggestions from my part are for the headlines "known for" are "Romanian royalty", "Prince of Romania", "Pretender to the Headship of the Romanian Royal House"--145.116.225.193 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's name ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"
I beg you to consider changing the article's name to "Prince Paul of Romania". I suggest the following change:

Prince Paul of Romania (born in Paris on August 13, 1948), under the name Paul-Philippe de Hohenzollern, is the son of Carol Lambrino and Hélène Nagavitzine.

- The second name Philippe ought not to be emphasize because it is NEVER used in daily life by Prince Paul, and it only appears rarely in articles about him (normally in article wherein he is called "Paul-Philippe de Hohenzollern", so I postulate they use Wikipedia as a source). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people). "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or an abbreviation, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format." Most sources including the ones mentioning the Lambrino appellation do not mention "Philippe".

- Several editors here are persistent upon using the appellation "Paul Lambrino" because it appears in few unreliable sources, however, hitherto they like to ignore the fact that Prince Paul is known with the name and title "Prince Paul of Romania" in major English sources. In fact, that name is the common denominator used by major legitimate sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines ("Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability).

http://www.romania-insider.com/prince-paul-of-romania-to-his-uncle-king-michael-you-did-nothing-for-our-people-during-50-years-of-communism/38635/

http://www.bursa.ro/prince-paul-has-proposed-to-the-chinese-of-huawei-to-invest-in-jucu-152124&s=print&sr=articol&id_articol=152124.html

http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/

http://www.princepaulofromania.com/images/stories/press/dailymail/04_dailymail_nastere_carol_ferdinand.jpg

http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/15-01-2010/52986/

http://www.nineoclock.ro/prince-paul-filed-suit-to-be-acknowledged-as-royal-house-member/

http://www.princepaulofromania.com/images/stories/press/dailymail_26-05-2010/0000003-daily-mail-26-may-2010.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281403/The-tangled-love-life-school-s-boss.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/8097787/Dashwood-Houston-has-a-problem-with-Romanian-royalty.html

Furthermore, I can offer copies of articles published in reputable British magazines wherein Prince Paul is referred to as "Prince Paul of Romania". In addition, over 80 FRONT PAGE articles in Romanian national papers going back to year 2000 wherein Prince Paul is known as "Printul Paul al Romaniei".

- Moreover, all members of the Royal Family of Romania who hold a princely rank as named as such in their Wikipedia's pages (i.e., Princess Margarita of Romania, Princess Elena of Romania, Princess Irina of Romania, etc.). Even those persons whose title might be disputed such as Prince Radu of Romania or Prince Nicholas of Romania. Wikipedia's NPOV demands the name of Prince Paul's page be changed! There are more than enough reliable sources which ONLY (as opposed to the Romanian-Adevarul sources) refer to him with his REAL name and title.

- I can imagine some of you shall claim that making such change would further Prince Paul's claims, so I ask in advance, claims to what? He IS a Prince of Romania just like his royal cousins.

According to Wikipedia's own standards for Royalty and Nobility(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Other_royals), there should not be a problem to change the pages title and lead. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is an inconsistency. We should not use royal titles to refer to Romanians born after Romania became a republic in 1947, I have already raised this at the talk page for the so-called Crown Princess. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We use the common name for people. I really don't think Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern is the common name so this should probably be moved to something else. - dwc lr (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How come no one here takes into account all the major English language articles wherein the article's subject is named Prince Paul of Romania? Can anyone point out to so many reliable sources wherein he is known simply as "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern", or with the latter name altogether? If that name is used then normally "Paul de Hohenzollern". Philippe is hardly ever used, why no one responds to my comments, I thought this forum was to discuss?

Taking away titles for everyone would not be accurate. To my knowledge all the daughters of King Mihai I are also British citizens and titled "HRH -forename- Princess of Romania" in their passports.

A good compromise would be the title of the page to the "Prince Paul of Romania", in the lead it can be pointed out he was born under the name "Paul-Philippe DE Hohenzollern" in Paris. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a discussion about our general attitude to self-styled princes and the like? I think we need a discussion at WP:NCROY? PatGallacher (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a discussion at WP:NCROY would be useful. WP:TITLE addresses the factors that should be considered when naming an article, and a discussion about this article's title should probably be resolved on this page. Without an in-depth analysis, renaming the article to Prince Paul of Romania would hardly be a neutral choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Intentions about becoming king (or whatever)
I'm concerned that the following statement is unsourced and in conflict with an available source: "Nevertheless, he states that he accepts Romania's republican form of government and does not wish to see the monarchy restored." I have added a citation request, and I'm tempted to replace it with the statement that he does hope to become king -- something evident in the NYT article which gained his own views on the point:. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The source is the next footnote, this article, an interview from 2011. Allow me to translate the relevant passage. "Some have alleged that with this decision [to grant his share of Peleș Castle to the Romanian government, should he be awarded a share], Prince Paul is trying to become head of the Royal House. However, the Prince has stated on countless occasions that he does not have this intention because he respects Romania as a republic and does not see it becoming a monarchy."
 * It could also be that he changed his mind between 2002 (the NYT article date) and 2011. Or there might be some journalistic confusion between his desire (or not) to head the Royal House &mdash; a largely symbolic role, as Romania has not been a monarchy since 1947 &mdash; and his desire or lack thereof to head the Royal House and become King of Romania, something that would have much wider domestic repercussions.
 * It may also be relevant that he ran for President in 2000: that might imply acceptance of the republican system, but we can't really say anything (WP:SYNTH) without knowing about what sort of platform he ran on. - Biruitorul Talk 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- the fact that the source you quote is subsequent to the NYT (and indeed quite recent) is probably sufficient to alleviate the concerns I had. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can the reference to "Pretender to the Romanian throne" be changed to something more accurate please! --145.116.225.193 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's supported by high-quality reference (e.g. the NY Times article). If there are independent reliable sources that tell us he is the "Prince of Romania", then it can be considered -- though as others have pointed out the fact that Romania is a republic is likely to make this a difficult choice.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The prospects for an unqualified "Prince Paul of Romania" on this page
... are nil. Paul claims he is; others claim he isn't -- in particular, his uncle, per this New York Times article. Since there are sources that support Paul's claims to be "Prince Paul of Romania", this of course can be included -- but again not in an unqualified way, per WP:NPOV. Deleting the other names by which he is known, so that "Prince Paul of Romania" is the only thing left, is not appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

More problems over the name
One of the IPs who is interested in this article is trying to change the main name used in the article to Prince Paul. At first, he was only trying to refer to him as Prince Paul in one part of the particle (ostensibly because the cited source refered to him that way), but then the IP went further and made significant changes to the lead. I've reverted and warned the IP, but I can't revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Court decision
I'm not sure the current edit is accurate, see which says nothing about 'possesions', whatever they are. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the Romanian source via google translate -- it seemed to support the "possessions" claim, though I think the way the article currently reads most people won't understand what "Romanian Royal possessions" are (I certainly don't). Anyway the source you provide shows that "Prince Paul of Romania" is still contested, despite today's ruling.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded (twice because I screwed up with Google translate the first time). I added the English source Doug cites above. I've tried to keep it bare bones in terms of the ruling, but if you think it needs rewording to be more source-compliant (it's hard to sort out the Romaninian source), feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). PatGallacher (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Which form of his name to use
A few weeks ago an issue relating to the subject's name was raised above by our IP friend: the Philippe part is not commonly used. I have done some searching in GBooks and GNews and I can see some merit in that claim. A GBooks search suggests that the most commonly used form is simply "Paul Hohenzollern" (with a significantly lower number of results for "Paul de Hohenzollern"). In news (archive) results, there is an even split between "Paul Hohenzollern" and "Paul de Hohenzollern". "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern" is much less common. On this basis I would propose moving this article to "Paul Hohenzollern". But I'm in no rush to do this and would appreciate hearing the thoughts of other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

On citing press releases
There's been a bit of a back-and-forth over whether we should have this press release cited in corroboration of a statement released by King Michael regarding the recent court decision. I believe it should be removed, for two reasons:


 * We already cite two sources - one in Romanian, one in English, both independent - quoting the same press release and presenting the same information
 * Directly citing press releases, without the filter of a third-party source, is simply not something we do, at least not in most cases. Press releases are inherently biased, they have no independent editor reviewing them, and for that reason WP:SPS states that "self-published media... are largely not acceptable as sources", and goes on to say in a footnote: "Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases ..." (underlining mine)

Oh, I know none of us is trying to push King Michael's claim and that the citation is there simply to present a fact &mdash; I'm not alleging any malfeasance. I'm simply saying this is both irregular (see the policy) and unnecessary (see the two sources we already have). - Biruitorul Talk 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't doing any harm, and I prefer to keep it as most of the other sources are in a foreign language. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does do harm -- it erodes our ability to keep people from using press releases as sources, something we don't want in general. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is legitimate in this context, providing we make it clear that we are only reporting King Michael's opinion, no more and no less. There is a shortage of reliable English-language sources in this article. I am rather puzzled by how a Romanian court can rule on who is a member of the royal family, given that Romania is now a republic. PatGallacher (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the press release is citable in this context. It is essentially Michael's response to the lawsuit, for what that's worth. As for Pat's puzzlement, I think we'd have to understand more about what the lawsuit was about and how the Romanian legal system works to be able to resolve the issue. Not easy to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Religion
I know we don't have a reliable source explicitly stating Paul's religion, but it would be useful to stop pretending he's anything but Romanian Orthodox. Consider:


 * Over 90% of ethnic Romanians (which he considers himself) are Orthodox
 * The Romanian Constitution of 1923 (which he perhaps wants to revive) requires the heir to the throne to be Orthodox
 * Carol II was Orthodox; Zizi Lambrino was Orthodox; there is no reason to suppose Paul's father or his mother (a Russian) were not Orthodox as well
 * Paul's staffer has confirmed he is Orthodox, likewise his wife and parents
 * Paul married in an Orthodox ceremony, for which at least one partner must be Orthodox (in this case, both were)
 * His son was baptized Orthodox; the godfather was Traian Băsescu, who is Orthodox
 * Paul himself, with his wife, baptized ten orphans into the Orthodox Church
 * Paul presented his son to Patriarch Daniel of Romania (simultaneously describing this event, the baptism and the wedding as "three extremely important spiritual occasions" in his life) and had him blessed by Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, described as a personal friend

Given all this, any reasonable observer would conclude that Paul is indeed Orthodox. It's likely sufficient to include him in Category:Romanian Orthodox Christians, and certainly should be sufficient to quash the notion that he adheres to Roman Catholicism or some other faith. - Biruitorul Talk 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Our policy is very clear on this. WP:BLPCAT states "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." And we certainly don't use IPs or even accounts as sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me first clarify that I didn't make my comment out of the blue - it was in response to this edit summary.
 * Let me also say that of course I don't propose citing the comment of an IP, but that comment, coming as it does from someone whom we have no real reason to doubt works for Paul, does form part of a pattern.
 * Finally, while we do not have a statement from Paul explicitly and unambiguously stating his religion, we do have, on his official site, the following statement from Paul:
 * We had the honor to present our son to our protector and dear friend Patriarch Daniel of the Romanian Orthodox Church. In Romania, we have had the joy of living through three spiritual moments that have been extremely important to us: our wedding, which took place at Cașin Church in 1996; the baptism of our son, which took place this year, on May 22, in Domnița Bălașa Church in Bucharest; and the honor of having been invited today to the Patriarchal Palace to present our son, Prince Carol Ferdinand, to Patriarch Daniel.
 * Logically, one doesn't make that kind of statement if one doesn't belong to the Orthodox Church, and moreover, taking part in such events and making that kind of statement (along with serving as honorary godfather to ten children baptized into the Orthodox faith) indicates his religion is relevant to his public life. - Biruitorul Talk 21:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Mircea Lambrino was an illegitimate son born out of wedlock, there's no tendentiousness intended (i didn't use the word bastard). Mircea Lambrino and his son were never formally recognised by any head of the Royal House of Romania (Ferdinand, Mihai or Carol) as members. That's also a fact. I don't see the problem in my edit.--Mihai (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819013348/http://www.printulpaulderomania.ro/ to http://printulpaulderomania.ro/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Royalty
Even the courts that sentenced him to prison didn't deny that he is royalty, whatever that means in a republic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

He is a convicted felon, we cannot change that. But please do not indulge in the nonsensical fight over which is the true royal house of a republic. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Philippe of Romania → Paul-Phillipe Hohenzollern – Propose to move the article back to this title, which it appears to have been moved from without proper discussion. The current title is also POV, it's not the job of Wikipedia to decide who is entitled to royal titles, particularly in countries which are now republics. PatGallacher (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose: Paul Philippe al Romaniei (Paul Philippe of Romania) is his official name according to http://portal.just.ro, which is the official portal of all Romanian courts of law (High Court and Constitutional Court excepted). I mean that's his name from his passport. The Romanian courts liberally called him Prince or HRH. They condemned him to prison, nevertheless. Unlike the titles doctor or engineer, the title Prince grants no legal rights. The claim of being a prince is not falsifiable in Romanian law. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose legal name, not a title (as you said, it's a republic, has no royalty)Anonimu (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article title doesn't actually use a royal title (there's no 'prince' or 'king' shown) and it would seem to POV to deny this man the surname 'of Romania' when it is used for the other branch of the family (such as Margareta of Romania). DrKay (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * His second given name is spelt with one L, by the way. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

His civil name should not be translated in this instance
His surname “al României” should not be translated to ‘of Romania’ given that he has never been recognized as a dynast in this family and the current naming makes him look like a monarch. 2607:FEA8:C240:B700:DC52:E94B:A311:30EC (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Romania is a republic, it has no dynasty, so there is none who could approve or disapprove such translation. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also there is no Wikipedia convention which says that describing a person as "somebody of somewhere" implies that they were a monarch or royal, see e.g. Hildegard of Bingen. Wikipedia has not taken sides in these disputes between descendants of King Carol II of Romania. PatGallacher (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also if you think it is inappropriate to call him "of Romania" then translating this into Romanian doesn't really resolve the issue. PatGallacher (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Pipe dream
A "genuine" royal house for a republic is a pipe dream. Monarchy in Romania ended with Michael I. One could not establish a royal house of Romania in 2011, since the whole year the country was a republic. One could merely pretend to establish a royal house for Romania in 2011. So, Margareta's and Paul's claims of being the true royal house are equally bogus.

@IP: The last King of Romania was Michael I. This is a fact. But it is not a fact that there would be a "genuine" royal house of Romania. There are just several people who claim to be the genuine royal house of Romania, which is not recognized by the Romanian state, since the statute of the royal house has to be approved by the Romanian Parliament, which did not happen after Michael I was dethroned. And don't shoot the messenger: it is not my fault that Romania is a republic.

In Romanian law, titles of nobility are not protected. So the Romanian state cannot affirm that Paul is either a genuine or a fake prince. The title prince means nothing in Romanian law: there is no procedure for validating or denying such title. Same applies to the words royal house: the Romanian state holds no opinion whether a certain royal house of Romania would be genuine or fake. The words royal house are not legally protected. Romanian courts of law lack any authority to decide which is the "genuine" royal house of Romania. That is simply a matter which cannot be solved juridically. Since juridically speaking, the words royal house of Romania are much ado about nothing. Property rights are another matter, but royal house of Romania is juridically meaningless.

The conclusion is that both royal houses of Romania, Paul's and Margareta's, are nothing more than pipe dreams, and they are equally so. So, I'm not saying that only one of the two houses is a pipe dream: both are. So, we are left arguing about which is the most genuine (or realistic) pipe dream. The claim that Romania has a genuine royal house is a big load of tosh. The Romanian state does not care about which is the "real" royal house of Romania, nor about how many royal houses of Romania there are. For the state, such problem is like which is the genuine association of pigeon breeders? like there could be only one genuine association, instead of a plurality of associations. The House of Romania is nothing else than a private club for hobbyists: there could be multiple clubs of hobbyists. Juridically speaking, claiming to be Romanian royalty is quite similar to having a hobby, it is just that this is a hereditary hobby, and there are multiple hereditary lineages of hobbyists. So, we have the hobby club House of Romania at Margareta's and the hobby club House of Romania at Paul's. None of them is more real/genuine than the other. The courts don't care that both use the words House of Romania, same as they don't care that there are two bridge clubs in the same city.

And, IP, enlighten us: provide the number of the law and its year. E.g. Law no. X of 20XX. The proof is in the pudding. We have no use for a project of law which died in the chambers.

The document you provided is anonymous. It is written under it President of the Chamber of Deputies and President of the Senate but no real name is given. They both remain anonymous since presidents of flesh and blood of the chambers never signed it. That law never passed.

The PDF itself is signed (authored) by Danut Nancu, who never was a member of the Parliament.

And, remember: a number and an year, that's all you need to prove me wrong. You need to provide up to 8 digits in order to show everyone that I'm mistaken. First four digits: the number of the law. Last four digits: its year. The number of the law probably has only one or two digits, and two digits of the year are known: 20. So, you only have to provide four digits. Or, at most, five. The year being 2016 or later. So the third digit of the year is either 1 or 2. If it's 2, then the fourth digit is either 0 or 1. See how easy I made it? You only have six choices for the year. According to http://www.expert-monitor.ro/LexMonitor/Demo/index.jsp, only 1718 laws were published to become enacted between 1 January 2016 and today, so there are not that many choices. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

And, what's true is true: that project of law came highly recommended, but it died in chambers due to boring bureaucratic/legalistic objections. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Romanian courts of law have liberally called him HRH Paul Philippe of Romania. Why? Because the title "Prince of Romania" is juridically meaningless, and it costs nothing to say that somebody is a Prince of Romania. There can be no fake Prince of Romania same as there can be no genuine Prince of Romania. Such title is only relevant to historians, courts of law don't care if he is a prince or not. E.g. the sentence "The King of France is bald" has no truth value, because there is no King of France. Paul Philippe has a claim that he is the Prince of Romania, many WP:RS also believe that, but in the end there is no way to test his claim against reality, since Romania is a republic, and titles of nobility are not legally protected.

His pretense of being the genuine royal house is not true for the precisely same reason that it isn't false. The marriage of Carol II was cancelled by the Romanian government. That cancelling was itself cancelled by a Spanish court of law. While the present-day Romanian government does not bother to hold a view about the validity of that marriage. Does this have any meaning at all?

About the name "of Romania": if one gives the court a plausible reason, Romanian citizens can officially change their name. So that's a translation of his real name. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See above. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The website redirects to a business site.
Somebody should change the site, as this is clearly a hidden ad 2A02:2F0D:B215:E700:AC53:68FF:5D17:7C01 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hyphen or not in his name?
We are using both styles. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, good question. I don't know the answer. Official sources use both versions. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

True House of Romania
@IP: His claim of belonging to the House of Romania is neither true, nor false, it is simply a disputed claim. See. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

&mdash;that's a disputed claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

&mdash;right, legally no House of Romania exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Listen, IP, it's not about what I wish or what I think, but about WP:NPOV. Obey WP:NPOV or be gone from Wikipedia. It is fairly obvious that you don't like NPOV, and we won't allow you to breach it with impunity.

E.g., Michael I lacked the authority to appoint Margareta as his heir (crown-bearer), since only the Romanian Parliament has this authority. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is: some WP:RS believed him, others didn't. Some WP:RS even believe Prince Paul. That's why it is a WP:NPOV matter: because WP:RS disagree among themselves. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@IP, about &mdash;nope, "logical thinking" is banned by website policy WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

is made up of whole cloth, since no WP:RS even claimed that such Royal House exists. "Paul belongs to the House of Romania" is a claim. "Margareta belongs to the House of Romania" is a claim. Some WP:RS believe Margareta, some WP:RS believe Paul, other WP:RS say that Romanian dynastic rights are patent nonsense. So, the reality of the "House of Romania" is murky, because WP:RS disagree. "Paul belongs to the House of Romania" is neither true nor false, since truth and falsehood are reserved for claims that can be tested against reality. "Paul belongs to the House of Romania" is juridically meaningless. There is no Royal House of a republic. So, "Margareta belongs to the House of Romania" is equally meaningless. There can be two Houses of Romania, meaning private clubs, same as there can be two football clubs in the same city. Saying that one of them is the genuine Royal House of Romania is patent nonsense. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)