In Memory of Crown Prince Kardam

 

Royal photos - 1980s

Most of these photos were taken in NYC, Washington, D.C, and in London with not-so-fancy cameras.  I took the photos.  Please do not copy or post these photos. If you want to use any of them, please contact me. 

Kennedy Airport  November 1982.  the Queen asked me to sit next to her at the press conference.

Princess Alexandra at Lincoln Center

Duchess of Kent

Duchess of Gloucester in NYC  September 85

Duke and Duchess of Kent Westbury Hotel  1985

At Aquascutum 1985

Charles in DC November 1985

King Carl XVI Gustaf at Orrefors

Princess Alexia of Greece

King Constantine II

the Princess of Wales (night before wedding of Duke and Duchess of York)

November 1986

Infanta Pilar at the Spanish Gala, Waldorf Astoria November 1986

Duke and Duchess of York in Greenwich

Rooftop garden, Metropolitan Museum of Art  October 1987

with Placido Domingo.  I sent a copy of this photo to Their Majesties, and was told by a cousin that the photo was in a frame on a table in one of the reception rooms

Queen Mum's 87th birthday

Duchess of York in NYC

Prince John's ecumenical godparents

August 18, 1905

Prince John, the youngest son of the Prince and Princess of Wales, will be "well cared for in the spiritual sense," reports the Marquise de Fontenoy.  His sponsors, who have "pledged themselves to look after his religious welfare," are members of the Church of Rome, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Lutheran and Presbyterian churches.

There is no truth to the reports that King Carol of Romania was asked to be one of the godfathers,.  It is the "fat and jolly" King Carlos of Portugal, who is the Roman Catholic godparent, and the Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Greece are members of the Orthodox Church.  Crown Princess Sophie was raised in the Lutheran faith, but converted after her marriage, "much to the disgust of her brother, the Kaiser."

The infant prince's christening took place at Sandringham, and in the case of royal christenings, the water "used for the purpose was that of the River Jordan."  A stock is always kept in bottles at Windsor, Potsdam and at the imperial palace in Vienna."

The little boy was named John Charles Francis. The last of the three names is in "memory of his maternal grandfather, the kindly and popular" Duke Franz of Teck.  Queen Mary's second brother is also named Francis.

John is in honor of Queen Alexandra's uncle, Prince John of Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg. a "great favorite with all of the English royal family," and Charles, of course, is for the King of Portugal.

The ceremony took place at the Church of St. Mary Magdalene on August 3.

The complete list of godparents are: The King of Portugal, Prince Carl of Denmark, Prince Johann of Glücksburg, the Duke of Fife (represented by the Prince of Wales), Crown Prince of Greece, the Crown Princess of Greece, and  Princess Alexander of Teck (represented by Princess Victoria).

Richard Palmer's most excellent article

Should candid pictures of young royals be banned?

THE Duke and Duchess of Cambridge understandably want to protect their children from paparazzi but freedom of expression also has to be defended in Britain and the rest of the world.

By Richard Palmer

It's hard not to be sympathetic to a young family whose days out are ruined by paparazzi photographers stalking their every movement, particularly one descended from the late Princess Diana. Family time is precious and if I were in William and Kate's position or worked for them, I'd be trying to ensure that Prince George and Princess Charlotte were given as much space as possible to have as normal childhood as possible.

But I'm not and as a royal correspondent, I want to set out the balance that needs to be achieved between the Royal Family's rights and those of the rest of us.Last Friday Kensington Palace published an open letter, seeking to highlight the behaviour of a small number of paparazzi whose actions in concealing themselves to take pictures of the children prompted a warning from Scotland Yard that sooner or later someone might be mistaken for a "terrorist" and get shot. Kensington Palace wanted to stop the media using such photographs and to try to dissuade royal fans and other readers from spreading the pictures on social media. Appealing to the public's better nature was quite a shrewd move, as time and again it is those who shout loudest about the need for their favourites to be left alone who feed the market for these photographs and send them around the world on social media.
It's important to say that none of these pictures have been used by newspapers or magazines in Britain.
Using hidden cameras, or photographs taken as a result of intimidation, harassment, or persistent pursuit is forbidden under Britain's media ethics rules, the editors' code of practice. www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html

 

Above and beyond that, the UK media has shied away from anything involving the children that has not been sanctioned by the palace so far.
But that is not to say British newspapers will not use similar photos in future, if they can be sure that they were taken without pursuit, harassment, or subterfuge.
By contrast, in the past few months a small number of online and print publications overseas have used a steady stream of pictures of George on trips to parks and other attractions near the Cambridges' two main homes, Kensington Palace in London and Anmer Hall in Norfolk.
The palace alleges some of these have been the result of paparazzi hiding to take the photos.
There's something creepy about a man or woman who hides behind blankets covering their car and takes photographs of little children through a small hole or uses other children to try to draw out their young quarry, as has been alleged.
So far, I'm with the Cambridges but their communications secretary at Kensington Palace, Jason Knauf, went on to say: "They want both children to be free to play in public and semi-public spaces with other children without being photographed."
He talked about "unauthorised" photographs and seemed to suggest that no photographs should be taken without prior consent.
Some schools and other institutions may ask children to sign consent forms before events at which the media or parents are invited to attend but, contrary to widespread belief, there is no restriction on photographing children in public places - with or without their parents' consent - in Britain.
And so it stands to reason that what William and Kate are suggesting is that there should be a huge change in the law here and around the world - or at least a change in media practice.
Paul Weller, the former Jam singer, and his wife Hannah have campaigned for such a change in the law in this country after going to court in a case where they claimed they were pursued by a photographer in Santa Monica, California, whose pictures subsequently appeared on a British newspaper website (perhaps in breach of that code of practice if the claims of pursuit were true).
But the British Government, echoing my first sentence above, has so far responded by saying there needs to be a balance between the rights of a family and the rights of freedom of expression and the press.
Kensington Palace officials were unclear what exactly the Cambridges were seeking, apart from a dialogue with the national and international media about this issue, but it's important that this is clarified.
Do William and Kate want their children to be treated differently to other children?
Do they want the children of all famous people to be protected from people taking photographs of them out in public?
Or do they want the entire world to ban photographs of children unless their parents have given consent?
In Britain and America in particular, there are some in favour of that latter option, fearing a potential paedophile on every street corner.
It would be wrong in my view to play into the hands of the paranoid and criminalise millions of people who might be attacked or arrested because they had the temerity to include another person's child in a photograph of a tourist attraction, for example.
One of the most powerful arguments deployed by the palace is that the Cambridges want their children to have the freedom to play in public places so that they do not grow up isolated from the people they will one day represent. I get that.
William and Harry are better royals for the experience of having spent time with ordinary people as younger men.
But there are further complications if we are to give special treatment to the royals.
Do we really want to live in a country where if members of the Royal Family walk into your neighbourhood park, you have to turn your back, put down your phone camera and pretend they are not there?
Be honest. What would be your response if William, Kate, and the children walked into your park?
Why do we not see the Queen going shopping down Oxford Street in London's West End or having a walk around the shops in Windsor?

View image | gettyimages.com

Because she knows that she is one of the most famous women in the world and her presence there would cause mayhem.
When members of the Royal Family go out in public it is often a news event and there has long been recognition in park bylaws, for example, and other spaces such as beaches that photographs taken for editorial use are legitimate.
They are regarded as entirely different from commercial photography such as fashion shoots that often require a license and payment of a fee.
In a sinister attempt to blur the lines, Kensington Palace has increasingly referred to editorial photographers as commercial photographers.
The palace, it has to be said, has also proved unreliable in its attempts to portray just about every single "unauthorised" photograph as unacceptable for one reason or another.
Its complaints often lack credibility.
Then we come onto another argument that is important for our democracy.
Why, for example, should newspapers be able to publish pictures of David and Victoria Beckham out with their children and not pictures of the future King and Queen out with another future King and his sister?
Ah, some people say, the Beckhams are different because their children are part of their very public brand.
And a future King and Princess of Britain and 15 other realms around the world are not?
It's difficult raising some of these issues without being portrayed as some sort of ogre who defends people who stalk children.
Last Friday in a ludicrous article presumably written by a 12-year-old, I was vilified by the online news service Huffington Post when I tried to do so.
Yet I discovered that the Huffington Post, something I've not really read properly before, has an entire section of photographs and stories about celebrity children, illustrated in some cases by paparazzi pictures taken in the street.
As a royal correspondent, I feel conflicted. I don't want to be part of an industry that makes life hell for the people I write about.
They are part of an institution that I believe does a great job for Britain. But I do not believe they should be above criticism, scrutiny or challenge.
After all, they are spending my money every second of the day, not least because they are guarded by taxpayer-funded police officers.
There are many people, for example, who think William and Kate are lazy and should undertake more royal duties. So if they go on holiday that becomes a talking point.
They have based themselves in Norfolk away from their 22-room apartment at Kensington Palace which cost the taxpayer £4.5 million to refurbish for them. Shouldn't the media be examining what they are doing up in Norfolk and asking whether that £4.5 million was a waste of money?
Like most royal reporters and photographers, I don't want to be restricted to portraying the Royal Family completely on their terms, exactly as how they dictate it, "allowing" me to cover just events where they want publicity.
To fulfill my responsibilities towards our readers, I want the freedom to portray them in the way that is closest to the truth and that means, just as a biographer would do, writing about all aspects of their life, not just the small amount of time that they are on public duty or show.
There is no easy answer to all of this but in my view, William and Kate are going to have to give more ground than they are prepared to do at the moment.
Perhaps more regular family photocalls would help to suppress the international market for the candid photographs that are making their lives hell.
But I'm not convinced that would stop foreign media wanting still more.  I certainly don't envy the family, that's for sure.

[This is well-thought out piece that reasonably and professionally addresses the situation of taking photographs.   Yes, there are laws in the UK regarding harassment, etc., and if a photographer breaks these laws, he or she should be arrested.  These days. it is not the long lenses that people should worry about.  Anyone with a camera phone can snap a pic.]


 My thanks to Richard Palmer for allowing me to reprint his article.

A superb article on Princess Anne

The Princess Royal is about to celebrate her 65th birthday.  Here is an excellent piece by Maclean's awesome Royal Correspondent, Patricia Treble.




http://www.macleans.ca/society/6-reasons-why-princess-anne-is-the-best-royal/

Princess Xenia's baby is baptized

marriage of Princess Xenia and William B. Leeds, Jr,

August 13, 1925

The infant daughter of Princess Xenia of Russia and her American husband William B. Leeds, Jr., was baptized today in Paris, reports the Associated Press.

The ceremony took place at the American Pro-Cathedral.   The baby, who was born on February 125, was named Nancy Helen Marie.  Her godmothers are the Dowager Empress Marie of Russia, who was represented by Princess Irene, the baby's aunt. and the Crown Princess of Romania.

Among those who attended the ceremony were Grand Duchess Helen of Russia and her two daughters, and Prince and Princess Andrew of Greece.

William B. Leeds, Jr., is the son of the late William B. Leeds, "who amassed great wealth from tin-plate," and the late Princess Anastasia of Greece, who acquired her title when she married Prince Christopher of Greece.

Mr. Leeds met Princess Xenia, the daughter of Grand Duke George of Russia and Princess Marie of Greece, at the Greek court.

A new emperor for Austria?

View image | gettyimages.com

August 13, 1905

It is "being hinted" in Europe that the young Archduke Karl may become the new emperor as early as next week, according to the Chicago Daily Tribune.  He will celebrate his coming of age -- his eighteenth birthday
 -- on August 17, and Emperor Franz Joseph will celebrate his 75th birthday the following day.

It is "thought possible" that the elderly emperor will "choose this opportunity" to abdicate in favor of his great nephew.  It is expected that the Emperor's nephew, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, will also renounce his rights in favor of Archduke Karl. 

Karl's father, Archduke Otto, is "barred by the condition of his health" from succeeding to the "responsibilities of the turbulent empire."

From the historian Diana Mandache

Unfortunately, Romanian royal historian and biographer, Diana Mandache's op-ed is only in Romanian. 

Google translate does not do it justice. 

http://adevarul.ro/news/societate/nicolae-mihai-medforth-mills-principele-nicolae-1_55cb3976f5eaafab2c7797ab/index.html#

A few English language articles on Nicholas Medforth-Mills

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/11/prince-nicholas-romania-royal-throne-king-Michael

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/11796744/Romania-prince-stripped-of-title-by-former-king-for-lacking-modest-moral-principles.html


https://books.google.fi/books?id=3qPuBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&dq=The+Road+Home+prince+Nicholas&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMI947z8rqhxwIVxfxyCh18BgNY#v=onepage&q=The%20Road%20Home%20prince%20Nicholas&f=false

The statement of Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth-Mills

The press office of His Majesty King Michael I is authorized to convey the following declaration of His Majesty's grandson, Nicholas:

Communiqué from His Majesty’s Press Office, 11 August 2015

The Press Office of His Majesty King Michael I has been authorised to release the following declaration on the part of His Majesty the King’s grandson, Nicholas:

 

On Sunday, 1 August 2015, His Majesty King Michael I, my grandfather, took the decision to withdraw from me the title of Prince of Romania and my place in the Line of Succession to the Crown of Romania. This decision, which I accept, comes after a period in which I have reflected on the future of the country and our Royal House, and on the rôle that I might take in their advancement.

The position of Prince of Romania and inclusion in the Line of Succession to the Crown of Romania demanded that I lead my life in a way that I found difficult to assume For this reason, with great sorrow in my soul, I believe that the decision of His Majesty the King is fitting to me. In future, I shall seek to serve my ideals and my principles in a different fashion.

I thank all those who, in the years when I was in the midst of the Romanian people, granted me their support, placed in me their trust and their hopes, and provided their assistance in projects dedicated to Romania’s advancement. In my new circumstances, I shall continue to dedicate myself to ecological, charitable and youth work, about which I have learned so many things during my time in Romania.

I also wish to thank the central and local public authorities for the openness with which they granted their support to joint projects, and above all I wish to thank my family for the love and understanding with which they have surrounded me here.

It is my hope that God will continue to protect the Romanian Nation and Crown.

More on King Michael's decision.

all three photos from August 1 meeting.  @Romanian Royal Family

Communiqué from His Majesty’s Press Office, 10 August 2015

The Press Office of His Majesty King Michael I has been authorised to release the following communiqué:

On 1 August 2015, His Majesty King Michael signed a document whereby he withdrew the title “Prince of Romania” and the style of “Royal Highness” from his grandson Nicholas, the son of The Princess Helen. Likewise, the King has excluded Nicholas from the Line of Succession to the Crown of Romania. These decisions came into effect on the same day.

As Head of the House of the Royal Family of Romania, King Michael took the aforementioned decisions for the sake of Romania in the times that will come after the end of his reign and the lifetime of his daughter, Margareta, the Custodian of the Crown. His Majesty has stated that the Royal Family and Romanian society of those times to come will need guidance that rests under the sign of well-tempered modesty, moral principles, respect and constant thought for others.

Preserving the same affection for his grandson, King Michael hopes that Nicholas will in the years to come find an appropriate way of serving his ideals and making use of the qualities with which God has endowed him.

Her Royal Highness The Princess Helen, Nicholas’ mother, has been informed of this decision in a personal letter from His Majesty the King.

 

Royal Family spokesman Ioan-Luca Vlad told me tonight:

1. The decision is the King's sovereign decision. At 94 years and almost as many years of political experience, he is qualified to see that a person, namely Nicholas, has ideals and preoccupations which are incompatible in the future with the duties of a member of the Royal Family. The gist of this is in the decision and communique. 2. The decision opens the way for Nicholas to pursue his goals in a private capacity. It was not requested by him, but he does not oppose it, the burden of his position in Romania being quite heavy for him; 3. The Line of Succession does not stop. What the King referred to is that he took the decision for when Princess Margareta will not be with us anymore, i.e. to prevent Nicholas from claiming then that he should have the Crown. The Line of Succession goes after 1) the Crown Princess to 2) Princess Helen, then 3) Elisabeta-Karina (her daughter), then to 4) Princess Sophie and her daughter 5) Elisabeta-Maria, and then to 6) Princess Marie. So there are still six persons left, and the Head of the Family can always change this according to what he/she deems best.

The decision on August 1 was made after "a long process of thought, Mr. Vlad added, and "that it was firm, and came after a lot of consideration, as well as consultation within the family and with the Royal Council. It was not overnight although the breaking news always seems to be. And it was not with an easy heart."

The King made the decision, and informed Nicholas, who did not challenge it."

Nicholas is currently abroad on a private trip, and will return to Romania, although it is not yet known if he will remain in the country.

When Crown Princess Margarita becomes the head of the family, she will have the right to select a new heir.

Mr. Vlad is the Royal Family's attorney and advisor. 

Trying to suss out the reason why?

I sincerely doubt King Michael's decision to remove his grandson's title and place in the succession was not made overnight.  I know some are thinking that there are dark forces working within the family to have forced his change.

Let's look at it from another perspective.  Romania is not a monarchy.  It is a republic, born out of the ashes of a brutal Communist regime.  The country suffers from a myriad of economic and social problems.  Corruption remains a serious issue.

King Michael is treated as a former head of state.  He and his family are allowed to use the Elisabetha Palace as their Bucharest residence although the property belongs to the state.   Other properties, including Sinaia and Savarsin, have been returned to the king, as these were considered private property.

King Michael and Queen Anne live for most of the year in a modest home in Switzerland.  Crown Princess Margarita and her husband, Prince Radu, live full time in Romania, and have a public role that they have created.  Elected officials dine at their home.  

Romanian prime minister Victor Ponta, a member of the Social Democrats, said he would offer a referendum on the monarchy after the last presidential election.  He was defeated, and the new president is Klaus Iohannis, an ethnic German-Romanian, who has dined with the royal family at the Elisabeta Palace.   In November 2014, as president-elect, Iohannis had a private lunch with the King, and invited him to his investiture.  

Despite this social call,  President Iohannis has made no commitment to a discussion of a referendum on Romania's political system.

Nicholas, 30, was named as a prince in 2010.  He has spent the last five years in Romania, largely fluent in the language, working with NGOS,  taking an active interest in the country and its people.

He recently biked across  the country to raise money and awareness for children's issues.  http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2015/03/prince-nicholas-of-romania-to-bike.html

Perhaps King Michael and Crown Princess Margarita accepted that Romania's monarchical status is in the past, and why give this burden to Nicholas, who will never be king.  Why not allow him to have a largely normal life, as the grandson of a much loved and respected sovereign.

This announcement  was unexpected although Crown Princess Margarita and Prince Radu recently traveled Switzerland to see her family.

Nicholas is not being punished.   His plans have not been formalized, but one report says he will be leaving Romania.  

Apart from the official statement this morning, and a comment to the Romanian media by a spokesman for the family,  there are no other reports on why.  We can speculate. 

Nicholas may have decided that he wanted to have his own life back.  Or, perhaps, there was a family recognition that realized that in the years to come,  the family might not have the same "official" support that they have now.  Margarita is the daughter of King Michael, and thus, a Romanian princess by birth.

Nicholas was not born to be royal.  He had not grown up with the expectation of having the mantle of monarchy thrust upon his shoulders.  I have met Nicholas several times, a nice, personable young man, who was dedicated to his family and Romania.  He was popular and eager to promote the country.   But he is 30 years old, and he has not had a full time, remunerative job.  It is difficult to be a prince without an income, especially if he ever expected to marry and have a family.  How would he support them, and maintain even a minimal royal lifestyle.

It could be a lot of things.  A romance.  Getting involved with Romania's fractious politicos (never good for a royal). There are even rumors that Nicholas is gay, but coming out would not be a reason to remove one's title and succession rights.

But I do not think that that anything egregious has been done.   I will be very surprised if this were the case.

King Michael removes grandson's title and place in the succession

 

 

On August 1, 2015, King Michael of Romania signed a document removing the title Prince of Romania and the qualification of Royal Highness from his grandson, Nicholas.  Nicholas has also been removed from the line of succession.

The king took the decision that the royal family will come to an end after the "reign and life" of his eldest daughter, Crown Princess Margarita.  King Michael added that the the government needs to be marked by modesty and moral principles, respect and "always thinking of others."

The King hopes that Nicholas will find in future years a suitable way to serve the ideals and use the qualities that God gave him.

This is not a punishment for any wrong doing, and decision was made with Nicholas.

Nicholas' mother, Princess Helen, received notification of the King's decision in a personal letter from the king.

http://www.romaniajournal.ro/prince-nicolae-removed-from-the-line-of-succession-of-the-romanian-royal-house-stripped-of-prince-title/


The new line of succession:  HRH Crown Princess Margarita,  HRH Princess Helen,  Miss Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth-Mills,  HRH Princess Sophie,  Miss Elisabeta Biarneix and HRH Princess Marie.

Royal Family spokesman Ioan Luca Vlad told reporters that the decision was made by Nicholas.  "Some of us could watch and grandson of His Majesty's private route. I saw very good things that increased stature and role of the Crown in our country, but also a certain internal mismatch was not noted in any way terrible. This does not work with scandals, with news sources, but simply a mismatch between the ideals emotional Prince and the rules they impose and the role that it assumed. Here is the big difference to other situations where securities retreated prince. He did not do something, it is a decision for the future, and not a penalty, it is a decision that Prince is consent, a decision that King took it with sadness, but enables him to concentrate on other things, ecology, youth, business, any would like to do abroad. Not only that title, is the role that he assumed and which involved 24 hours of 24 to devote to this mission. You can understand that it was too much for him. All the things that made them remain, all projects that involved can not sponge dynasty remains strong, and he remains almost to the royal family in his capacity as private."  

[I used Google translate for Vlad's comments.]

Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth-Mills was born on April 1, 1985.  He became HRH and Prince Romania in 2010.

http://m.adevarul.ro/news/politica/regele-mihai-i-a-retras-titlul-principe-nepotului-nicolae-l-a-exclus-linia-succesiune-coroana-romaniei-1_55c8a2a2f5eaafab2c6a4a7c/


http://www.libertatea.ro/detalii/articol/principele-nicolae-excludere-tron-regele-mihai-547185.html

http://www.romaniatv.net/regele-mihai-i-a-retras-lui-nicolae-titlul-de-principe-al-romaniei-i-calificativul-de-alte-a-regala_238015.html

Health, freedom and the King of Thailand

This is utterly despicable.  A Thai man was given a harsh sentence for 6 posts on Facebook, where he insulted King Bhumibol Adulyadej. 

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-07/man-jailed-for-30-years-for-insulting-thai-monarchy-on-facebook/

The American-born monarch is 87-year-old and has been in poor health for years. He has spent much of 2015 in hospitals, as he is said to have prostate cancer, kidney issues, and, most recently, had his gall bladder removed.  

For the past decade, the king has lived at the Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok, where he has been treated for a number of illnesses, including depression and Parkinson's disease.  Both he and Queen Sirikit have suffered debilitating strokes.

The much married (3 times) Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn is 62 years old, and not popular.  The power behind the throne is said to be Princess Sirindhorn, the king's second daughter.  The Princess is affectionately know as Phra Thep, which translates to "Princess Angel."    There are many who believe she will emerge as her father's successor.  Women have had succession rights since 1974. 

Princess Sirindhorn is not married. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2014-year-in-review/analysis-thailands-political-crisis-could-hinge-whos-palace-n270901

The current Thai government took power in a coup in 2014.

In 2005, the king said: "Actually, I must also be criticised. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know. Because if you say the king cannot be criticised, it means that the king is not human. If the king can do no wrong, it is akin to looking down upon him because the king is not being treated as a human being. But the king can do wrong>

http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/thailand-king-health-crisis/


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32955068

Mass card for Archduchess Dorothea of Austria