Talk:Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen/Archive 1

Accusations of Securitate collaborationism

This article in Romanian is a recent example of such an attack against Radu Duda. In it Duda is portrayed as a puppet of Ion Iliescu, the leader of the neo-communist Social Democratic Party (PSD), who, as former President of Romania, controlled SRI (Securitate's successor organism) and, thus, the compromising Securitate dossiers of all its collaborators. Stefanp 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Much ado about not much!

At present there no such "continuous accusations" about prince Radu. Also, if there is diminshed support of the monarchists for the Romanian royals why bother to make attacks against him? If he is so unimportant, no-one would attack him. MarinaC 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

He is not so unimportant as you claim, since Radu Duda in his official governmental position, has been spending for almost four years many billions annually out of the Romanian taxpayers's money. Many question whether or not there are any tangible concrete benefices of these spent money, especially in terms of foreign investments in Romania which Duda had set out to draw in his official capacity. Stefanp 19:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be consistent - is he important or is he unimportant? I am not claiming anything about his importance. Your edit box spoke about "diminished support" from monarchists..What is the connection with this "diminished support " ? Sorry, but all this is very unclear. Thanks if you can explain a bit more. MarinaC 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure if he is or isn't important - this is not at stake here. What is at stake here is that the Wikipedia readers be able to get a balanced view of the subject and see not just the praises, but also the critiques regarding Radu Duda. This is why I posted these pieces of "verifiable, reliable, published" information. Have a good day! Stefanp 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mircea Dinescu is now in big trouble himself. Evenimentul Zilei has published a very long investigative piece on him and his property dealings- with the help of a PSD party official(Iliescu's party!) he has knowingly and illegally become the landowner and is exploiting property (many acres of land and a big house) belonging to people who had it confiscated by the communists, and had already started legal proceedings to claim it back when Mr Dinescu got hold of it. Link: http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=256389. Sorry , I can't yet find an English version, but will keep a look out. Anyway, these are certainly not "veiled" accusations, but facts....What goes around comes around, eventually. MarinaC 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Radu Duda's so-called "cifru" (crown logo), my reason was that it is an illegitimate logo. Only sovereigns and their children have the right to bear a crown closed with arches. Radu Duda is not a sovereign nor child of one. Therefore, his and any nobleman's must be an open top - not closed - coronet. Stefanp 03:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another very recent attack (in Romanian) dated May 3 2006 on Radu Duda's credibility as former Securitate informer and, moreover, as a rude, dictatorial, money-hungry, stuck-up, and fussy employer. He is behind with Savarsin castle employees' salaries (barely above the minimum national wage) and utility payments and, moreover, gave the former castle manager, a local leader of the pro-monarchist PNTCD party, nothing less than a ... heart attack (!) through false accusations of theft!!! While King Michael is very simple in his culinary and general care demands, Radu Duda always faxes over to the Savarsin employees his desired menu ahead of his arrival. This article is even more credible as it is published not in an anti-monarchical leftist paper, but in the rightist pro-monarchist Banateanul daily printed in Timisoara, one of the most right-leaning and pro-monarchist Romanian cities. Stefanp 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What a Gypsy-like character this Radu Duda has! No wonder about all these accusations about Duda's Roma origins: there is no smoke without fire. Nicusor1983 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Racist, inflammatory,unacceptable comment. Prince Radu may or may not have a nasty character, but you should not characterise any social, racial,religious or other group in this hateful way, and I mean hateful:full of hatred. The gypsies have brought much to international culture, for instance in music and dance. One of their greatest fans was Yehudi Menuhin, for example. Shame on you.

As for " No wonder about all these accusations..." you yourself admitted that you could find no reliable, published source besides one that quoted somebody unreliable such as CV Tudor (well known to be a racist), so there are not "all these" accusations. Anyway, why should being qualified as a Rroma be an "accusation"? If it were suggested that Prince Radu was of Jewish origin, or that he had African-American blood, would you say these were "accusations"? You obviusly have racist opinions. Doubly shame on you.

Marina C (2) 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you grew up, but I assure you that Romania is not England. As a young child many a times I was chased by little Gypsies trying to steal my backpack while I was walking back from school. So I learned to avoid their side of the street where they occupied nationalized properties. In them the Gypsies lived in squalor and filth, without ever bothering to repair what used to be very beautiful houses before the Communists had seized them and, in an attempt perhaps to make up for the ethnic cleansing of the Nazi regime of Ion Antonescu, had handed them over to the Gypsies. The Gypsies in my hometown at least were very antisocial, the little ones often chasing down the streets Romanian kids biking or playing, trying to steal their bike or football. And we're talking young Gypsy children here, 6-8-10 year olds, not adults! Try imagine, then, who must have taught them these anti-social behaviors and how much more anti-social their teachers must have been... I remember a Gypsy colleague from middle school who was forced by her traditions into an early marriage (at about 12 years of age) and then had to drop out of school. Now you tell me: what chance does somebody without any education have to earn an honest penny? Obviously very little, reason for which most of the prostitutes in my hometown central square are Gypsy. You can check that for yourself if you ever visit Romania...

I don't believe everything that CV Tudor says, but most of the sensitive and politically incorrect stuff he writes about is later confirmed by the mainstream media. Such as, for instance, was the case with the scandal of the CIA flights via Romania, of which he wrote first. Nicusor1983 23:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Banateanul article is confirmed by another recent article in the pro-monarchist central daily Romania Libera. In it, the former Savarsin castle manager and local leader of the pro-monarchist PNTCD party, is reported to have asked the party president to intervene to have Radu Duda excluded from the Royal Family. Amongst other reasons similar to those invoked in the Banateanul article, this article provides another proof of Duda's money hunger and lack of compassion. Duda reportedly demanded too high a fee for a mobile phone antenna to be installed on the Savarsin domain, which deprived the villagers of Savarsin of the chance to get any mobile phone coverage. Stefanp 06:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your anecdotal input Nicusor (23:43, 10 June 2006) however biased it may be. As a person who grew up in Romania and feels persecuted by gypsies you cannot be fully objective and seem to have a vested interest in attacking them. If you'd like your edits included in any Wikipedia article, they cannot be your points of view and have to come from a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "verifiable, reliable, and published source." and must be NPOV, thus not contain racist views. Thankyou.

Roger Preston 17:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted input by Nicusor1983 according to Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Remove unsourced criticism: Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criteria A6). Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]Marina C (2) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Revert byMarestefanpopnicu 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed vs. open crown

Here is another proof that only a sovereign and his children have the right to a closed crown. All other nobles may bear only open top crowns (coronets). Stefanp 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The "proof" offered by Stefanp is specifically regarding the use of coronets by FRENCH princes over their coats-of-arms.

What is absolutely clear is that the monogram letter R surmounted by a closed crown IS used by Radu. Whether or not he has a right to it would be determined presumably by the rules for Hohenzollern princes (not French princes). Noel S McFerran 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The decree ("urkunde" in German) of the head of the princely house of Hohenzollern granted Radu Duda only a name, not the right to a coat of arms with/without a crown. For more on this topic, including the original text of the urkunde, you can consult the following discussion. Therefore, I maintain my point of view that Radu Duda's crest is illegitimate and that its usage on his website is unreliable. Hence, the crown logo - despite being published and also verifiable on Duda's website - fails to meet all of the three required qualities for Wikipedia sources: "verifiable, reliable, and published." Stefanp 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The monogram R surmounted by a closed crown is a symbol which Radu uses for himself. The fact that he uses this symbol is "verifiable, reliable, and published". I do not believe that there is any question that he does actually use this symbol.

Stefanp maintains that Radu does not have a right to use this symbol. The evidence which he has provided is that it's use is contrary to FRENCH heraldic rules. Perhaps he should look at a book about heraldry in the Holy Roman Empire and in the German-speaking lands. He would then discover that there the distinction is not between an open and a closed crown but with the completeness of the cap.

IF Radu is actually a prince (a big IF), then he would have a right to the use of the closed crowned monogram according to old HRE and German heraldic laws. But it doesn't really matter whether or not this usage conforms with any old heraldic laws. The fact is that Radu uses this symbol for himself. That is what Wikipedia records. Noel S McFerran 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The original German text of the princely decree (urkunde) states that Radu Duda was granted the "name" of Hohenzollern-Veringen, not a "title". Had it been a title, a coat-of-arms with a crown should have also been granted in the same urkunde. But since Radu Duda received not a title, just a name, there is no mention in the urkunde of a coat of arms topped by a crown of any kind. So Radu Duda received no coat of arms, nor any crown whatsoever - topped with arches or without. It follows that the logo we see on Duda's website was made up by himself/his graphicians, not granted officially by the Furst von Hohenzollern - the only one who can do so. Therefore, the material quoted from Duda's website is unreliable, is made-up, and, thus, fails the Wikipedia standard of reliability. Stefanp 21:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Radu uses a monogram R with a closed crown. That is verified. His use of that monogram may or may not conform with certain heraldic rules, but that is of absolutely no consequence to whether or not the use of this monogram is recorded by Wikipedia.

I remind Stefanp that if he reverts the page again within the next 22 hours, he will be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule. Noel S McFerran 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The source you quote for the crown logo is unreliable and, therefore, fails Wikipedia's standard of reliability - "verifiable, reliable, published information." Radu Duda's graphicians made up the crown logo, as it had not been granted to him. Radu received no right to a crown, no coat of arms, only a "name". Stefanp 22:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a rambling mindset, so bear with me: AFAIK, republican governments are not responsible for the regulation of coats of arms except in terms of copyright. The use of a crown over a monogram is not legally reserved for royalty within republics, as far as I am aware. Radu H-V has chosen to create an emblem that he feels is sufficient to reflect his position, etc, etc, etc. My main point is if I haven't heard royals creating commotion about a mere monogram, I don't think you should either. Remember, royals tend to regulate grants of arms, etc (not you), if regulated at all. Arms have been assumed all through the renaissance ages and on. So what? Maybe Radu shouldn't use any crown at all, however nothing can really stop him, can it? If you don't personally agree, all you can really do is frown or roll your eyes. Personally, I don't think Beatrix of the Netherlands should call her house Orange-Nassau, but I can't stop her. Genealogy says that house is extinct. Unless you can convince Radu otherwise, he will continue to use whatever emblem he sees fit and until then, that is what Wikipedia ought to use. Charles 23:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that only certain people have the right to use a crown over their monogram is preposterous. I have worked in a number of European archives in both Germany and Italy, and seen thousands of letters and decrees from various princes of various houses. Never once have I seen a decree authorizing anyone to use a crown over their monogram.

Everybody has a monogram. Some people choose to put a crown over it. Noel S McFerran 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Preposterous and untrue.

Why should any "royal" or anyone else object to someone using a monogram or logo with a crown? Where is the proof that permission is needed?

As Charles says,there is no evidence that any royals have created any commotion about monograms (not even King Michael about Paul Lambrino's use of the royal coat of arms.) It doesn't seem to be in royal families' policy to do so. Stefanp is being "plus royaliste que le Roi".

Stefanp says that"only a sovereign and his children have the right to a closed crown. All other nobles may bear only open top crowns (coronets)" . So what about Prince Henrik of Denmark? He uses a closed crown, and he is neither a sovereign nor a child of one. See:

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheFlag/the_naval_ensign.htm#Prinsens%20Flag http://www.aalborg-industries.com/ifs/files/AI/eng/Content/images/News/hrh_award.jpg According to stefanp, Prince Henrik is acting illegally, go tell that to the Danish authorities.

Additionally, as Noel McFerran has said, the "proof" offered by Stefanp is limited to the use of coronets by FRENCH princes over their coats-of-arms." The rules differ according to royal houses and countries. As far as I can see, Prince Radu can do as he sees fit.

Wikipedia's Five pillars states that:

“When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.”

So I have moved this issue to this discussion page, rather than in the article, let’s discuss it here and try and find a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies before inserting it into the article. Arkadiam 19:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the use of various crowns and coronets is regulated only with grants of coats of arms, which tend to be registered with with heraldic authorities. There are no such restrictions on monograms. Charles 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Radu Duda's investiture

Original text of the princely decree concerning Radu Duda's name change:

Urkunde Mit Wirkung vom 1. Januar 1999 genehmige ich, dass der Prinzgemahl Radu Duda

den Namen

PRINZ VON HOHENZOLLERN-VERINGEN führen darf. Diese Namensführung erfolgt nur "ad personam"

Sigmaringen, de 1 Januar 1999

Friedrich Wihelm Fürst von Hohenzollern

Translation: "With effect from 1 January 1999 I give licence for the Royal spouse Radu Duda to bear the name Prinz von Hohenzollern-Veringen. This name change takes place "ad personam." Sigmaringen, January 1 1999 Friedrich Wihelm Prince of Hohenzollern"

Radu Duda is, therefore, not granted by this decree a coat of arms or the right to bear any kind of crown. He is only granted a name change. Stefanp 23:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems quite clear: his surname has been changed by Princely decree from "Duda" to "Prinz von Hohenzollern-Veringen". He is not a prince, nor of the House of Hohenzollern. If the decree had changed his name to "King of the Moon" would that make him so?

He needs not ask the Prince of Hohenzollern to grant him any monogram. Such is a seperate action. Charles 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A monogram, sure: Radu needs no approval for that if we agree that he is now a prince (ignoring the fact that the urkunde granted him a "name", not a "title"). Any prince can create a monogram for himself. But for the crown topping it, Radu surely needs approval: either from the Furst von Hohenzollern or from King Michael. The right to bear a crown - of any kind - is granted by a sovereign prince, which Radu is clearly not. Stefanp 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be regulated within a republic and surely Michael of Romania knows of the website and its use of the monogram. You are not a heraldic authority and cannot unilaterally remove or denounce a graphic based on the inclusion of a crown. Please, attack Burger King if you must. Charles 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways: the head of a princely house can grant one a title but not a coat of arms?! Either such a prince can grant both or none of the two. And since Radu Duda continues to lack a coat of arms, it follows that, by your argument, with Germany being a Republic, the Furst von Hohenzollern cannot grant either titles or coats of arms.

Besides, Radu Duda was granted a "name," not a "title." Read again the urkunde and its translation if you have any doubts. Your edit to the article was erroneous, which I corrected, as Duda was not granted a "title", only a "name". Stefanp 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern has publicly stated that he has never granted the name to Radu and that the document is forged. Henq 02:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost correct. It was not the Furst (approximately translated as Lord) von Hohenzollern, the most senior Prince Friedrich Wilhelm and head of the family, who had granted Radu Duda the name change, but his eldest son and next in line to succeed to the Furst position, Erbprinz (Hereditary Prince) Karl Friedrich, who contested in a public letter the title assumed by Duda. The letter is said to have been instigated by Paul Lambrino. If this letter is genuine and if the Erbprinz's intentions are maintained, then the Erbprinz, after he succeeds to his father's position as Furst, may very well withdraw the name change granted to Radu Duda. For more on this affair, you can read this 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., well-informed about ex-communist countries, Richard Carlson.Stefanp 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Abusive use of the monogram crown

Radu Duda surmounted his monogram with an illegitimate crown. It is topped by an orb with a cross, regalia belonging only to a king or emperor. The crown of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family who granted his name (not even title) is a princely crown that lacks the orb with the cross (Source 1, Source 2). Since Duda's name was not granted by King Michael or any of his daughters, the only ones in his family whose monogram or arms may bear a crown with an orb, Duda's monogram crown is abusive. Stefanp 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Get. Over. It. There are no formal rules in a republic that restrict his right to use a monogram surmounted by a crown. It's merely a flourish he decided to place above his initial. Big deal. What's your agenda? Charles 04:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My post isn't about any monogram regulatory authority, AFAIK inexistent anywhere in the world. Read it again. You clearly missed its point: Radu Duda is agrandizing himself in a morally (even if not legally) fraudulent manner. Stefanp 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

His agenda? That is clear if you look at the catalogue of his Wikipedia edits. It is to discredit and try to ruin the reputation first of King Michael and then of Prince Radu as much as is humanly possible. This is what a “Stefan Popescu e-mailed to me in November of last year:

“You can find damning evidence on King Michael of Romania that will change your view of the old thief and traitor and his pathetic family (4 out of his 5 daughters speak no Romanian at all; Radu Duda is a Securitate informer) at: http://www.geocities.com/etienne_le_grand …..

Romanianly yours,

Stefan Popescu”

Before editing on Wikipedia, Stefanp, posted under different names such as “Etienne le Grand”,“Stefan Popescu,”,”AntiRadu” “RudaDadu”and so on. The content of “Nicusor1983” 's edits also have a very familiar ring, but will just leave it at that. He has e-mailed and posted on many Boards precisely the same information over and over and over again,in both Romanian and English,spreading only the most negative and nasty things findable about the Romanian RF, never ever something neutral or pleasant or balanced. He has been banned from most Boards, so now he has found Wikipedia to work on. His method is to find as much negative information about King Michael and Prince Radu floating out there on the Net, some in the most obscure journals (Caminul Romanesc???? It has a tiny print run and is produced in a little flat in Geneva,see ( http://www.casa-romanilor.ch/evenimente/2005/interviu_stefan_racovitza.htm), as well as extremist Romanian publications such as Vadim Tudor’s “Tricolorul” and “Romania Mare” and insinuate it into the relevant Wikipedia articles, but using the Wikipedia "methods". Of course he is not alone in doing this, I have seen pretty bad things on other subjects. 90% of his edits here consist only of negative information or an anti Prince Radu bias (guilty by association type tactics). Regarding King Michael , it is the same scenario. Marina C (2) 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Marina, since you know more about this than I do, you should post this on the administrator's incident notification board, with the linnks, etc. Stefan is not a person who should be editing this article at all with his extreme, heavily destructive bias. Charles 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles, thanks for your advice. I am putting a reply on your user page, so as not to overcharge this page Marina C (2) 18:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Marina C (2), you are more biased than I am: your contributions portofolio shows you posted solely positives about the Romanian royals. Not a single negative. None. I, on the other hand, posted both positives and (significantly more) negatives about them. You are also misrepresenting me when you say I edited any article using Vadim Tudor's publications as sources. As about your POVs about the other sources used (e.g. Caminul Romanesc), they are irrelevant: my quoted sources meet the Wikipedia standards of "verifiable, reliable, and published" information. Have a good day! Stefanp 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Negative input on this discussion page

Following on from the previous section, in which StefanP wrote: [See my posting dated 23:24, 25 June 2006. Stefanp 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)]

I would like to continue:

- No Sir, I do beg to differ. I may "post" positive information, but, unfortunately, you seem to have an agenda, That is the distinction between us.

- I am acting according to Wikipedia policy on "Biographies of living persons" which require a degree of sensitivity, they should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Please refer to the relevant Wikipedia pages about this.

- "Not a single negative" have I "posted"? of course not! All the negatives,possible or imaginable, have already been put by you into the articles. Why should I make an effort? You have done it. My effort is to balance this "information" of yours according to the Wikipedia philosophy and guidance.

- I do apologise if I have mis-represented you, but I have yo say that your exclusively negative input has created an atmosphere in which people like Nicusor1983 feel encouraged to vent racist, homophobic and extremist viewpoints. I equally contest that all your sources are 'reliable'. "Caminul romanesc" (for example) is tiny,with a circulation of about 500, edited by some poor Romanian exile in his flat in Geneva, who does not have the courage to return to his country but permits himself to vent about it just because he is of Romanian origin...the Swiss are much more understanding!

- Lastly, on a more personal level, out of curiosity - I would like to ask you: why you are so negative about King Michael and now about Prince Radu? Is it something personal? Do you know them personally? Have they been mean to you or hurt you in some way? There must be some reason....

Marina C (2) 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While I cannot comment on what Nicusor or other posters may or may not feel, I can do so on your 100% positive postings: they show a clear bias in favor of the Romanian royals and an agenda of pure propaganda. As about sources, a smaller circulation does not make a publication less reliable. Reliability is rather given by the personal reliability/quality of those who write for it. Stefanp 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever.... My record stands for itself. Happy editing!Marina C (2) 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Monarchist alternatives to the Romanian royals

Radu Duda is totally unacceptable to the main monarchist party PNTCD as prince consort for a potential Queen Margarita of Romania, for reasons detailed in the article. This is presumably why Prince Charles of Wales was one of the alternatives considered by the Romanian monarchists. Charles, however, reportedly declined the unofficial offer. The offer is believable as it is alluded to by the British expert in Romanian history and politics Tom Gallagher, a monarchist and a personal admirer of King Michael of Romania. The unwritten law amongst royals that while the heirless monarch of another country (e.g. King Michael) is still alive, no foreign Dynasty will claim the Throne, appears to have prevailed. Other alternatives sought by the Romanian monarchists include princes from the former Moldavian and Wallachian reigning houses, such as Sturdza, Bibescu, and Brancoveanu. Stefanp 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another indication that the Duda couple is falling out of favor more and more each day with the Romanian elites, is the conciliatory tone towards King Michael's arch-rival Paul Lambrino adopted by the main pro-monarchist daily (faithful supporter of the PNTCD party), Romania Libera. The daily, for which the British monarchist historian Tom Gallagher is a regular editorialist, has recently started referring to Paul Lambrino as "Prince Paul" (Source #1, Source #2, Source #3, Source #4, Source #5), a title very much contested by King Michael as being "abusive." Stefanp 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have had the press report about Prince Charles roughly translated by a romanian speking friend and we can't see where the thing is about him being offered the throne. Can you point out the line where it is mentioned, including translating, thanks Iapethus 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence beginning in Romanian with "Iar daca, utopic vorbind,..." is the pertinent one. It reads in English approximately 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." Stefanp 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not much good, I'm dissappointed - I am wanting to put the information in Prince of Wales wiki-entry, as it seems very interesting for UK. The article you point to is too tenuous to put there, you said that romanian monarchistes propose prince charles to be their king, but teh article speaks of maybe some vague invitation, not specified who is inviting. Don't you have something better? prince Charles wiki-entry is more rigorous than the stuff here in this one , we need something more definite, thanks if you can help. Iapethus 15:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The article said 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 "offer" such as "presumed" or "hypothetical" to put it in doubt. So the offer existed. The "utopical" pertained to "if he had accepted" it. Its acceptance is clearly an 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. Who made the offer is, indeed, not clear from the article, as you say. However, we can safely presume republicans cannot support such an offer. Therefore, logically, it could have come only from the Romanian monarchists, the only ones interested in preserving the ideal of a Romanian Monarchy alive. As about the "tenuousness" of the account, Tom Gallagher is a monarchist and an extremely well-reputed expert in Romanian politics and history (see, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Romania signed by him). Therefore, Gallagher's account of the offer is not tenuous at all; it is beyond doubt. It is now up to you what you do with the Prince Charles article; either mentioning the offer or ignoring it is fine by me. Have a good day! Stefanp 17:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that it is v. interesting stuff. I think I will write to T.Gallacher, he must know more on the subject, and i see he is a prof. at Bradford. Prince Charles' wiki-entry does not even mention romania as one of his interests so it needs to be put up to date anyway.Thanks.Iapethus 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you hear anything back from Tom Gallagher. I'd be very interested to learn more about this amazing offer, which speaks volumes of the trust the Romanian royals (no longer) enjoy from the part of the Romanian monarchists. Thanks! Stefanp 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, ive e-mailed him, lets see. Maybe they are on holiday in UK Unis now, so it may be a long time to wait for an answer, will keep you in picture. I also put the romanian interest angle in prince charles' wiki-entry. You say that Romanian royals are distrustede, but as I was searching around the web, I also saw that prince charles has lots of attacks and controveries , I have put one here: http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:johWq5jb5_oJ:www.thedmonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/01/424d3e4ac1516+&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

so it sems normal for royals to be in the news and attacked, not such a big deal for them, they go on and on.Iapethus 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Acting career

Radu Duda was acting professionally for 20 years at least, see:

• [1]

"Interpretul dificilului personaj este actorul român Radu Duda – ieşeanul format la Academia de Teatru şi Film din Bucureşti, debutând în 1982 la Teatrul Mic şi producându-se apoi în cele mai mari roluri ale Naţionalului din Iaşi."

• [2]

Laissez-passer (2002)(A film of Bertrand Tavernier) Cast, Crew, Reviews, Plot Summary, Comments, Discussion, ... Radu Duda.....etc.

"Actor pana in 1999, a devenit membru al Casei Regale." (Prince Radu website) Also, in a public interview, Radu Duda stated that he had acted for 25 years between 1974 and 1999, obviously beginning as a high-schooler (he was born in 1960): "In anul 1996 (...) nu intentionam sa renunt la profesia pe care o slujeam din ziua de 14 ianuarie 1974. (...) De aceea nu am deloc nostalgia celor 25 de ani in care am slujit scena, ca lume." However, since a career presupposes a professional degree, Radu's career started only with his college graduation in 1984 and lasted until 1999 according to his confession, for a maxium of, thus, 14+ years. If Duda's fans Marina C. and others want to speak of a "25 years" figure, of which 10 years were at the amateur unprofessional level (not part of a professional career) -- between 1974 and 1984 --, then they should not use the term "career." Carbunar 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the facts prove that he acted from 1982 (Teatrul Mic) until 2002 (the Tavernier film) so Radu is wrong in his calculations. Remove "career" if you want, I didn't draft that part. You can have a career, for example, also as a volunteer in the charitable sector, so if he was acting while a student, on a "professional" stage as it were, and to spectators who paid to see the performance, then that is part of a career. But I don't mind if you want to change the word.

Marina E.Cummings 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to monarchists' alternatives to the Romanian royals or Prince of Wales "offered Romanian Throne"

Stefanp asked me thus (see above in "Monarchist alternatives to the Romanian royals") "::::::: Let me know if you hear anything back from Tom Gallagher. I'd be very interested to learn more about this amazing offer, which speaks volumes of the trust the Romanian royals (no longer) enjoy from the part of the Romanian monarchists. Thanks! Stefanp 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)"

So I got a reply, in fact two from professor Gallagher. 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 . Prof. 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

Expéditeur:T.G.Gallagher@........uk

Date : Sam, 28 Octobre 2006, 18:38

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 21:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No emails can be used to edit Wikipedia. Please, see the editing rules Verifiability and Reliable sources. Carbunar 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No emails are being used to edit Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkCharles%2C_Prince_of_Wales#The_offer_of_the_Romanian_throne

to enlighten you. Specifically the quote "While we shouldn't source his comments and include them in the article, as that would be OR, there is not rule saying we can't use Gallagher's words as a basis to remove the claim, apparently disproved, that Gallagher was writing that the Prince of Wales had been offered the Romanian throne. I would suggest that we remove the whole business. john k 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)"

As I said before, I kept this subject of this nonexistent "offer" in the article, (although I believe that it is unwarranted and a waste of time), but the text in Wikipedia must stick to what Gallagher wrote, and only that. Libertatea just based itself on Gallagher, it is not a new text, an indeoendent source. It added "by Romanian monarchists", and "refused by the prince" without any clear source, just said that this could be "read between the lines" in the text by Gallagher. Not very convincing, reliable or anything to prove your point.Lovellester 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Franck's allegations about Radu having driven away the King's daughters

A couple of quotes from a French book, as reference, showing that the sisters met rarely together long before Radu and Margarita had married. They had all grown up and had families of their own. The title of the book is:TOI MA SOEUR The Author: ELLSEN ISABEL

Published by:LA MARTINIERE,Paris,France Published date: 01/10/1998 ISBN:2-7324-2413-7

• http://fr.bookbutler.com/do/bookSearch;jsessionid=836DB593D1FA337B4C9E55EC9889557E?pageNr=1&showMore=true&sortBy=salesrank&searchFor=ISBN%3A2-7324-2413-7&searchBy=isbn&searchIn=de&shipTo=de&amountIn=eur

• http://www.livres-chapitre.com/-J079NQ/-ELLSEN-ISABEL/-TOI-MA-SOEUR.html

Pp182 S.A.R. La princesse Margarita de Roumanie: “Aux quatre coins du monde”

“Bucarest” - et si c’était possible que ce lieu puisse enfin réunir magiquement toute ma famille: mon père, ma mère et nous, leurs cinq filles?

Hélène, Irina, Sophie, Marie. Mes quatre soeurs éparpillées aux quatre coins du monde.

Pendant notre enfance nous étions très proches toutes les cinq…(….) La dernière fois que nous avons été toutes ensemble, ce fut en 1982, réunies dans le deuil et la douleur autour du cercueil de notre grand-mère, la Reine Hélène.

(…) Cinq soeurs soudées et pourtant condamnées à ne pouvoir que “correspondre” pour être ensemble et vaincre les distances et l’exil.

(…) Cinq soeurs unies grâce aux surprises de la vie qui sont parfois plus extraordinaires que nos rêves ou nos espoirs: après seize ans, toutes ensemble dans le grand salon de la maison de Bucarest, autour de l’arbre de Noël, le grand escalier en bois...

(…) Noël 1997… c’était à Bucarest, à Bucarest.

Marina C (2) 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article needs a cleanup: It does not read like an Encyclopedia entry: it contains all sorts of minute details about Radu Hohenzollern that are useless and POV , it needs balancing. I started cleanup of the article befor tagging it, which I am doing now, as the more I advance in the cleanup, the more I see that the article needs this process. I also see that Stefanp and some of his sockpuppets such as Carbunar, John Mathis,MihutM have been editing here, so a cleanup is certainly in order.Marina C (2) 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, the article has too many references, it litters the text, very many of them in Romanian with no translation, some of them quoting obscure little publications(Caminul Romanesc???? What on earth is this? Is it a reputable source?) and unknown people (Ion Varlam??)Marina C (2) 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking well-referenced statements that contradict your pro-Radu views. This is sheer vandalism! Miron25 04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Most often alone"

Proof from "May 10 - Sad Destiny, Memorable Date" (in Romanian), Dilema Veche, May 12, 2006 (quote in Romanian): "Ce mai face restul familiei? Aici e-aici: nimeni nu ştie. (...) Supraexpunerea prinţului Radu - oricît de potrivit ar fi d-sa pentru rolul de vlăstar regal - a condus la o suspectă tăcere în privinţa celorlalţi. (...) Or, de la o vreme, pe cît de omniprezent e Radu, pe atît de absentă e Margareta."

Translation in English: "How is the rest of the family doing? This is it: nobody knows. (...) Prince Radu's over-exposure -- however suited he may be for the role of a royal offshoot -- has led to a suspect silence regarding the others. (...) Lately, the more omnipresent Radu is, the more absent Margareta is."

Further proofs of Radu's public representation of the Royal Family most often alone and unaccompanied by neither Margarita, nor other royals, can be found in his public agenda. Miron25 04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Dreaded Securitate"

Here are the sources used to qualify Securitate as "dreaded": 1. "(...) the apparent life-and-death struggle between the Army on the side of the People and the dreaded Securitate" ("The “Timisoara” Syndrome and the Modern Media," BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP) 2. "The man who had taken me there was from the dreaded Securitate." ("A Romanian Looks at Her Secret File (Why Few Do)," London Daily Telegraph, December 2, 2004) 3. "journalists and other public figures collaborated with the dreaded Securitate." ("007 News," AXIS INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS, January 3, 2007) Miron25 00:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cifrul ASR Principelui Radu.JPG

Image:Cifrul ASR Principelui Radu.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of "scandal-mongering"

The neutrality label (instead of immediate deletion, which is warranted) was re-inserted because of this statement: "The scandal is believed to have been instigated by a descendant of King Carol II and friend of the Hereditary Prince, Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern[54]", which besmirches Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern. WP:BLP requires, "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity...We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." The source cited appears to be an evangelical freemason site that lacks the high credibility necessary to be used as a source accusing someone of deliberately injuring another person's reputation. The allegation also violates WP:NPOV because it is a one-sided view, attributing sabotage against Duda to Paul, the political and dynastic rival of Duda's father-in-law -- with no hint as to whether Paul accepts that accusation. Whereas NPOV requires "the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives". (Also, since Stefanp's been banned, I suspect that there is a lot of anti-Radu material in this article that needs to be cleaned out.) Lethiere (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you can keep the neutrality label. However, you should know that the daily Ziua used to reference this statement is a very high-quality, very reliable investigation journal. No question here of reliability. For a non-Romanian like yourself, you should perhaps ask around for more opinions on this Romanian source before going ahead with such an unwarranted decision such as deleting the statement. Paul Philippe is somebody who is not a stranger at all to such dirty attacks on the Romanian royals: in 2006 he asked for his uncle, King Michael, to be executed for crimes against the Jews during WWII! He went as far as to lobby the measure in Israel's Parliament! So his "milder" attack on Radu's title is all the more believable, especially when coming from such a reputable source like Ziua. Lil' mouse (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)