Discussion:
Alexander Hohenzollern
(too old to reply)
Dan Willis
2004-04-06 02:30:02 UTC
Permalink
As has been reported on "Royals Portal", Alexander Hohenzollern, grandson of
King Carol II of the Roumania has been in a horrific accident. A little over a
week ago he was trying to walk across a road in Aspen, Colorado during a
blizzard and did not see the SUV coming towards him. He was hit and had both
legs smashed as well as some internal injuries.

Tonight I spoke to his employer in Aspen and learned a great deal about his
condition. He seems to have pulled through the initial surgeries on his legs
well. However he will be in a wheel chair for next 3 months at least. He has to
have additional surgery to repair some of the internal damage, which is why he
was moved to Grand Junction. The local hospital in Aspen did not have the
necessary facilities (Aspen is a very small town, for all of its fame)

No one in Alexander's family has been contacted. His employer, Andy Hanson, has
taken on the responsibility of helping Alexander with his immediate needs. He
did tell me that Alexander did not want his father told (I imagined this is
because of Carol's advance age and reported bad health, but did not mention any
of this). And I found it interesting that Alexander's maternal grandmother is
still alive, she must be well into her 90's by now.

Hanson has been spear-heading an effort to raise money for Alexander to help
him get through his recovery period which is expected to be rather lengthy.
They have found a new place for him to live which is wheel chair accessible
(his previous apartment was not) and are now trying to raise money to cover the
rent. Hanson is collecting donations from any want to give. His e-mail is
***@comcast.net if interested.

Thanks
Dan Willis
marlenekoenig
2004-04-06 14:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Willis
No one in Alexander's family has been contacted. His employer, Andy Hanson, has
taken on the responsibility of helping Alexander with his immediate needs. He
did tell me that Alexander did not want his father told (I imagined this is
because of Carol's advance age and reported bad health, but did not mention any
of this). And I found it interesting that Alexander's maternal grandmother is
still alive, she must be well into her 90's by now.
Alexander has probably had minimal contact with his paternal family
for most of his life. I also suspect Alexander has tried to keep his
"royal" connections quiet because of his own difficult life. I doubt
that his father's age would have anything to do with the lack of
contact.
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2004-04-06 18:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Willis
As has been reported on "Royals Portal", Alexander Hohenzollern, grandson of
King Carol II of the Roumania has been in a horrific accident. A little over a
week ago he was trying to walk across a road in Aspen, Colorado during a
blizzard and did not see the SUV coming towards him. He was hit and had both
legs smashed as well as some internal injuries.
Tonight I spoke to his employer in Aspen and learned a great deal about his
condition. He seems to have pulled through the initial surgeries on his legs
well. However he will be in a wheel chair for next 3 months at least. He has to
have additional surgery to repair some of the internal damage, which is why he
was moved to Grand Junction. The local hospital in Aspen did not have the
necessary facilities (Aspen is a very small town, for all of its fame)
No one in Alexander's family has been contacted. His employer, Andy Hanson, has
taken on the responsibility of helping Alexander with his immediate needs. He
did tell me that Alexander did not want his father told (I imagined this is
because of Carol's advance age and reported bad health, but did not mention any
of this). And I found it interesting that Alexander's maternal grandmother is
still alive, she must be well into her 90's by now.
Hanson has been spear-heading an effort to raise money for Alexander to help
him get through his recovery period which is expected to be rather lengthy.
They have found a new place for him to live which is wheel chair accessible
(his previous apartment was not) and are now trying to raise money to cover the
rent. Hanson is collecting donations from any want to give. His e-mail is
Thanks
Dan Willis
there is no grandson of king carol called alexander.... so who is this bloke?
Dag T. Hoelseth
2004-04-06 21:48:13 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
there is no grandson of king carol called alexander.... so who is this bloke?
Oh yes, there is a grandson named Alexander...

http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/romania.html
I.e. Ion George Nicholas Alexander Lambrino (von Hohenzollern). I understand
Mr. Willis as saying that the said grandson uses Alexander as his main given
name.
--
Dag T. Hoelseth
***@nospam.online.no
http://www.geocities.com/dagtho/royalty.html
Gidzmo
2004-04-06 22:11:07 UTC
Permalink
From ***@nospam.online.no on 04/06/2004

From http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/roma
nia.html

1a) CAROL II, King of Romania, renounced his rights 28 Dec 1925, reneged on the
renunciation and was proclaimed King 8 Jun 1930, then abdicated again 6 Sep
1940 (Castle Pelesch 16 [or 15] Oct 1893-Estoril 4 Apr 1953).
MARRIAGES:
M.1st Odessa 31 Aug 1918 (annulled 1919) Joanna Marie Valentina "Zizi" Lambrino
(3 Oct 1896-11 Mar 1953);
M.2d Athens 10 Mar 1921 (div 1928) Helen Pss of Greece/Denmark (3 May 1896-28
Nov 1982);
M.3d Rio de Janeiro 3 Jun 1947 Elena Lupescu (15 Sep 1899-29 Jun 1977)

(from first marriage/Joanna Lambrino) Mircea Gregor Carol Lambrino (b.Bucharest
9 Jan 1920).
MARRIAGES:
M.1st Paris 22 Mar 1948 (div 1958) Helene Navagatzine (b.Paris 26 May 1925)
M.2d Paris 20 Dec 1960 (div 1977) Thelma Williams (15 Nov 1930-5 Jun 1988).
M.3d Fulham Town Hall 27 Jun 1984 Antonia Colville (b.Bracken, Church Crookham,
Hants, 29 May 1939)

(From second marriage/Princess Helen):
2b) MICHAEL, King of Romania 20 Jul 1927-8 Jun 1930 and again 6 Sep 1940- ,
abdicated 30 Dec 1947 (b.Castle Pelesch 25 Oct 1921); m.Athens 10 Jun 1948 Anne
Pss of Bourbon-Parma (b.Paris 18 Sep 1923)

Question: why didn't Carol's son from his first marriage (to Joanna Lambrino),
as the elder son, become King of Romania instead of Michael? Was there
something about the marriage that made it of a rather short duration?
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2004-04-07 01:53:13 UTC
Permalink
The marriage was not valid under the laws of Roumania or the House of
Hohenzollern. The child of the couple was also born after the marriage was
declared null and void.

-- Stephen Stillwell
Post by Gidzmo
From http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/roma
nia.html
1a) CAROL II, King of Romania, renounced his rights 28 Dec 1925, reneged on the
renunciation and was proclaimed King 8 Jun 1930, then abdicated again 6 Sep
1940 (Castle Pelesch 16 [or 15] Oct 1893-Estoril 4 Apr 1953).
M.1st Odessa 31 Aug 1918 (annulled 1919) Joanna Marie Valentina "Zizi" Lambrino
(3 Oct 1896-11 Mar 1953);
M.2d Athens 10 Mar 1921 (div 1928) Helen Pss of Greece/Denmark (3 May 1896-28
Nov 1982);
M.3d Rio de Janeiro 3 Jun 1947 Elena Lupescu (15 Sep 1899-29 Jun 1977)
(from first marriage/Joanna Lambrino) Mircea Gregor Carol Lambrino (b.Bucharest
9 Jan 1920).
M.1st Paris 22 Mar 1948 (div 1958) Helene Navagatzine (b.Paris 26 May 1925)
M.2d Paris 20 Dec 1960 (div 1977) Thelma Williams (15 Nov 1930-5 Jun 1988).
M.3d Fulham Town Hall 27 Jun 1984 Antonia Colville (b.Bracken, Church Crookham,
Hants, 29 May 1939)
2b) MICHAEL, King of Romania 20 Jul 1927-8 Jun 1930 and again 6 Sep 1940-
,
Post by Gidzmo
abdicated 30 Dec 1947 (b.Castle Pelesch 25 Oct 1921); m.Athens 10 Jun 1948 Anne
Pss of Bourbon-Parma (b.Paris 18 Sep 1923)
Question: why didn't Carol's son from his first marriage (to Joanna Lambrino),
as the elder son, become King of Romania instead of Michael? Was there
something about the marriage that made it of a rather short duration?
Noel S. McFerran
2004-04-07 03:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
Post by Gidzmo
why didn't Carol's son from his first marriage (to Joanna Lambrino),
as the elder son, become King of Romania instead of Michael? Was there
something about the marriage that made it of a rather short duration?
The marriage was not valid under the laws of Roumania or the House of
Hohenzollern. The child of the couple was also born after the marriage was
declared null and void.
The union of Carol and Joanna took place in Odessa and was perfectly
valid there.

What law of the Kingdom of Romania did the union of Carol and Joanna
violate?

The couple themselves did not seek any declaration of nullity. It was
clearly forced upon them by others.

--
Noel S. McFerran
Lisa Davidson
2004-04-07 05:41:19 UTC
Permalink
The annulment was indeed forced upon the couple. I believe that Carol's parents
had to approve the marriage of their heir for it to be valid in Romania, but this
may not be correct.

Lisa Davidson
Post by Noel S. McFerran
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
Post by Gidzmo
why didn't Carol's son from his first marriage (to Joanna Lambrino),
as the elder son, become King of Romania instead of Michael? Was there
something about the marriage that made it of a rather short duration?
The marriage was not valid under the laws of Roumania or the House of
Hohenzollern. The child of the couple was also born after the marriage was
declared null and void.
The union of Carol and Joanna took place in Odessa and was perfectly
valid there.
What law of the Kingdom of Romania did the union of Carol and Joanna
violate?
The couple themselves did not seek any declaration of nullity. It was
clearly forced upon them by others.
--
Noel S. McFerran
marlenekoenig
2004-04-07 14:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
The annulment was indeed forced upon the couple. I believe that Carol's parents
had to approve the marriage of their heir for it to be valid in Romania, but this
may not be correct.
The marriage did not have the approval of the king, and thus it was
not a dynastic relationship. Moreover, the child was born after the
annulment, which makes the child illegitimate. Carol II lost interest
in Zizi and her son (he also fathered at least one other child out of
wedlock) .. when Mircea tried to make contact with Carol in the 40s,
he was told that Carol did not know him.
Charles von Hamm
2004-04-07 18:59:00 UTC
Permalink
"marlenekoenig" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
: Lisa Davidson <***@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:<***@socal.rr.com>...
: > The annulment was indeed forced upon the couple. I believe that Carol's
parents
: > had to approve the marriage of their heir for it to be valid in Romania,
but this
: > may not be correct.
: >
: >
: The marriage did not have the approval of the king, and thus it was
: not a dynastic relationship. Moreover, the child was born after the
: annulment, which makes the child illegitimate. Carol II lost interest
: in Zizi and her son (he also fathered at least one other child out of
: wedlock) .. when Mircea tried to make contact with Carol in the 40s,
: he was told that Carol did not know him.

At least not dynastically, but children born after annulments or divorces
are legitimate if conceived in wedlock, correct?

Charles
Samuel Dotson
2004-04-07 20:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
: > The annulment was indeed forced upon the couple. I believe that Carol's
parents
: > had to approve the marriage of their heir for it to be valid in Romania,
but this
: > may not be correct.
: >
: >
: The marriage did not have the approval of the king, and thus it was
: not a dynastic relationship. Moreover, the child was born after the
: annulment, which makes the child illegitimate. Carol II lost interest
: in Zizi and her son (he also fathered at least one other child out of
: wedlock) .. when Mircea tried to make contact with Carol in the 40s,
: he was told that Carol did not know him.
At least not dynastically, but children born after annulments or divorces
are legitimate if conceived in wedlock, correct?
Charles
According to Paul D. Quinlan (»The Playboy King«, Greenwood Press, 1995)
the Supreme Court of Romania, meeting in private and without consulting
either Carol or Zizi, annulled the marriage on January 8, 1919, on the
grounds that the Crown Prince had violated the rules of the House of
Hohenzollern and the Consitution by marrying a Romanian citizen. The
results were not officially published until May 17, 1919.

Mircea Carol was born on either 8 or 9 January 1920 (depending on your
source).
He was not only born after the annulment, he was conceived after the
annulment.

Sam Dotson
Hans Jacobs
2004-04-07 21:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Start discussing the Romanian succession and the marriages of Carol II and you
open a can of wurms. The answer and outcome depend on which position you are
willing to take or whose claim you are willing to support. Here are just a few
Carols first marriage was never annulled - because neither Church nor couple were
actually involved in its annulment. The child born out of the relationship is the
rightful claimant to the throne, hence his son is rightfully styling himself as
Prince Paul. By consequences: Carol is a bigamist, as he married twice
afterwards. King Mihai is an usurper.

But Carol did accept the annulment. He never recognised his child (who fought for
recognition in the court) and married Princess Elena of Greece, and fathered
Mihai. Later he divorced and married again.

Why did he accept it? Beacuse of his succession rights? And why, once he had
become king and divorced Elena, did he never return to his first wife, nor
recognize in any way their child? Mircea and his son Paul ignore these puzzling
facts, and stake their claims on the legality of the marriage (disputed by the
royal family and indeed the king at the time as being contraty to the House law
and later also the constitution, which forbade a royal marrying a Romanian citizen
and also the sovereigns permission for any marriage of a royal) and what they see
as the non-valid annulment.

Mihai, who was deposed by his father in 1930, has never really reconciled himself
with Carol II, as evidenced by his staying away last year when Carol was reburied
in Romania. Mihai also refuses contact with Mircea and Paul.
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-08 02:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
if conceived in wedlock, correct?
yes. Mircea, however, was conceived after the annulment.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
David Pritchard
2004-04-08 05:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Charles von Hamm
if conceived in wedlock, correct?
yes. Mircea, however, was conceived after the annulment.
author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
The child was conceived after the Romanian civil annulment but this
ruling had no effect on the validity of the marriage according to the
civil laws of the Ukraine nor upon the validity of the marriage
according to cannon law. Accordingly, the birth of Mircea was
legitimate according to cannon law and Ukrainian law.

The question about the child being a dynast is another issue but
illegitimate he was not.

David Pritchard
marlenekoenig
2004-04-08 15:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Pritchard
The child was conceived after the Romanian civil annulment but this
ruling had no effect on the validity of the marriage according to the
civil laws of the Ukraine nor upon the validity of the marriage
according to cannon law. Accordingly, the birth of Mircea was
legitimate according to cannon law and Ukrainian law.
The question about the child being a dynast is another issue but
illegitimate he was not.
David Pritchard
The Ukraine was not an independent nation, but I believe under German
control at time. Ukraine law would have been an oxymoron at the time.
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2004-04-08 19:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Marlene --

Nice article on the girls.

-- Stephen Stillwell
Post by marlenekoenig
Post by David Pritchard
The child was conceived after the Romanian civil annulment but this
ruling had no effect on the validity of the marriage according to the
civil laws of the Ukraine nor upon the validity of the marriage
according to cannon law. Accordingly, the birth of Mircea was
legitimate according to cannon law and Ukrainian law.
The question about the child being a dynast is another issue but
illegitimate he was not.
David Pritchard
The Ukraine was not an independent nation, but I believe under German
control at time. Ukraine law would have been an oxymoron at the time.
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-09 02:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
Nice article on the girls.
thanks ... I had to blink for a minute - what does this have to do with Romania
;)

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
David Pritchard
2004-04-09 02:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by marlenekoenig
Post by David Pritchard
The child was conceived after the Romanian civil annulment but this
ruling had no effect on the validity of the marriage according to the
civil laws of the Ukraine nor upon the validity of the marriage
according to cannon law. Accordingly, the birth of Mircea was
legitimate according to cannon law and Ukrainian law.
The question about the child being a dynast is another issue but
illegitimate he was not.
David Pritchard
The Ukraine was not an independent nation, but I believe under German
control at time. Ukraine law would have been an oxymoron at the time.
In November-December 1917, the city of Odessa was in the control of
the Bolsheviks. It the was retaken the the forces of independent
Urkraine, from March to December of 1918 it was under the control of
German forces as part of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Again the city came
under control of Urkrainian forces. In 1918-1919, French forces
fighting the Bolsheviks were also in the Odessa area. In 1920 Urkaine
was invaded by the Polish Army which captured Kiev in March 1920 but
the Poles expelled from the Ukraine in June 1920 by the Red Army. The
Crimea was taken from the control of the White Army under Baron
Wrangel in June 1920. By 1921 all of the Urkraine was firmly in the
hands of the Soviet authorities.

David Pritchard
marlenekoenig
2004-04-09 13:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Would be safe to assume that that a codified law would not exist at
this time for Odessa ... :)
Post by David Pritchard
Post by marlenekoenig
The Ukraine was not an independent nation, but I believe under German
control at time. Ukraine law would have been an oxymoron at the time.
In November-December 1917, the city of Odessa was in the control of
the Bolsheviks. It the was retaken the the forces of independent
Urkraine, from March to December of 1918 it was under the control of
German forces as part of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Again the city came
under control of Urkrainian forces. In 1918-1919, French forces
fighting the Bolsheviks were also in the Odessa area. In 1920 Urkaine
was invaded by the Polish Army which captured Kiev in March 1920 but
the Poles expelled from the Ukraine in June 1920 by the Red Army. The
Crimea was taken from the control of the White Army under Baron
Wrangel in June 1920. By 1921 all of the Urkraine was firmly in the
hands of the Soviet authorities.
David Pritchard
Charles von Hamm
2004-04-09 13:55:43 UTC
Permalink
"David Pritchard" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...
: ***@aol.com (marlenekoenig) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
: > >
: > > The child was conceived after the Romanian civil annulment but this
: > > ruling had no effect on the validity of the marriage according to the
: > > civil laws of the Ukraine nor upon the validity of the marriage
: > > according to cannon law. Accordingly, the birth of Mircea was
: > > legitimate according to cannon law and Ukrainian law.
: > >
: > > The question about the child being a dynast is another issue but
: > > illegitimate he was not.
: > >
: > > David Pritchard
: >
: >
: > The Ukraine was not an independent nation, but I believe under German
: > control at time. Ukraine law would have been an oxymoron at the time.
:
: In November-December 1917, the city of Odessa was in the control of
: the Bolsheviks. It the was retaken the the forces of independent
: Urkraine, from March to December of 1918 it was under the control of
: German forces as part of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. Again the city came
: under control of Urkrainian forces. In 1918-1919, French forces
: fighting the Bolsheviks were also in the Odessa area. In 1920 Urkaine
: was invaded by the Polish Army which captured Kiev in March 1920 but
: the Poles expelled from the Ukraine in June 1920 by the Red Army. The
: Crimea was taken from the control of the White Army under Baron
: Wrangel in June 1920. By 1921 all of the Urkraine was firmly in the
: hands of the Soviet authorities.
:
: David Pritchard

Sorry, I missed my mark, but in response to Marlene; hasn't it been argued
that the annulment was invalid anyway? Conception after the "fact" would not
matter then.

Charles
marlenekoenig
2004-04-09 20:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
Sorry, I missed my mark, but in response to Marlene; hasn't it been argued
that the annulment was invalid anyway? Conception after the "fact" would not
matter then.
Charles
What would make the annulment invalid ... the Romanian sovereign had
the power to decide if his son's marriage was valid or not ...
Charles von Hamm
2004-04-10 00:00:08 UTC
Permalink
"marlenekoenig" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

: What would make the annulment invalid ... the Romanian sovereign had
: the power to decide if his son's marriage was valid or not ...

Was it not a forced "religious annulment"?

Charles
Lisa Davidson
2004-04-10 03:08:25 UTC
Permalink
I believe the poster's point is that the Romanian annulment was valid only in
determining Mircea's dynastic status. IOW, the dynasty had the right to say he was
not a dynast, but beyond this narrow scope, the annulment was civilly and
religiously invalid. The reason for the later being that the marriage was lawfully
contracted in the Ukraine and the couple took no action to end their marriage.
Therefore, the annulment was invalid everywhere but Romania and Carol's later
marriages were bigamous, at least outside Romania.

A similar situation occurred with the marriage of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich
of Russia. It was a legally valid everywhere but Russia.

Lisa Davidson
Post by marlenekoenig
Post by Charles von Hamm
Sorry, I missed my mark, but in response to Marlene; hasn't it been argued
that the annulment was invalid anyway? Conception after the "fact" would not
matter then.
Charles
What would make the annulment invalid ... the Romanian sovereign had
the power to decide if his son's marriage was valid or not ...
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-04-10 07:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
I believe the poster's point is that the Romanian annulment was valid only in
determining Mircea's dynastic status. IOW, the dynasty had the right to say he was
not a dynast, but beyond this narrow scope, the annulment was civilly and
religiously invalid. The reason for the later being that the marriage was lawfully
contracted in the Ukraine and the couple took no action to end their marriage.
Therefore, the annulment was invalid everywhere but Romania and Carol's later
marriages were bigamous, at least outside Romania.
What about Ukranian marriage laws of the time? In the Russian Orthodox
Church of the Imperial period (I think Ukranian church was in August 1918
still a part of ROC) there were several requirements for the wedding to be
valid. For example, both should be major, she should have parents consent,
he (if civil or military officer) should have consent of his boss, the
marriage should be first three times announced during the church services
and so on.
Post by Lisa Davidson
A similar situation occurred with the marriage of Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich
of Russia. It was a legally valid everywhere but Russia.
Two marriages of GD Nicholas Constantinovich were not legal although
contracted not abroad:
1. to Ms Dreyer was proclaimed null and void (by Holy Synode) because a)
without sovereign's approval b) he was mad
2. to Ms Khmelnitskaya was not recognized the sacrament at all (by Holy
Synode) because a) during Great Fast b) at home and not in church c) priest
said he was under pressure.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Lisa Davidson
2004-04-10 17:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Nicholas Constantinovich was not mad. I was under the impression that Nicholas
II later allowed NC's marriage and this brought about the Princes Iskander.

Lisa Davidson
Post by Lisa Davidson
Post by Lisa Davidson
I believe the poster's point is that the Romanian annulment was valid only
in
Post by Lisa Davidson
determining Mircea's dynastic status. IOW, the dynasty had the right to
say he was
Post by Lisa Davidson
not a dynast, but beyond this narrow scope, the annulment was civilly and
religiously invalid. The reason for the later being that the marriage was
lawfully
Post by Lisa Davidson
contracted in the Ukraine and the couple took no action to end their
marriage.
Post by Lisa Davidson
Therefore, the annulment was invalid everywhere but Romania and Carol's
later
Post by Lisa Davidson
marriages were bigamous, at least outside Romania.
What about Ukranian marriage laws of the time? In the Russian Orthodox
Church of the Imperial period (I think Ukranian church was in August 1918
still a part of ROC) there were several requirements for the wedding to be
valid. For example, both should be major, she should have parents consent,
he (if civil or military officer) should have consent of his boss, the
marriage should be first three times announced during the church services
and so on.
Post by Lisa Davidson
A similar situation occurred with the marriage of Grand Duke Michael
Alexandrovich
Post by Lisa Davidson
of Russia. It was a legally valid everywhere but Russia.
Two marriages of GD Nicholas Constantinovich were not legal although
1. to Ms Dreyer was proclaimed null and void (by Holy Synode) because a)
without sovereign's approval b) he was mad
2. to Ms Khmelnitskaya was not recognized the sacrament at all (by Holy
Synode) because a) during Great Fast b) at home and not in church c) priest
said he was under pressure.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-04-13 20:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
Nicholas Constantinovich was not mad.
I am not psychiatrist, so I can not discuss whether his extraordinary
behavior was mental illness or something other. But, as like as the Holiest
Synode, I believe medical commission which proclaimed HIH not competent.
Post by Lisa Davidson
I was under the impression that Nicholas II later allowed NC's
marriage and this brought about the Princes Iskander.
His union with Ms Dreyer was proclaimed null and void and she was allowed to
wed another man. She choosed to follow him and they lived in sin, two sons
were born. Later HIH bought one 15yo girl and lived with them both. Also he
"married" Ms Khmelnitskaya (for 10000 gold roubles for her mother).

What about Iskanders, I have read original documents in the Historical
archive:
11 Dec 1874 - Ukase about guardianship
15 Feb 1878 at 8pm - wedding in village Berdy, 7 miles from Orenburg
17 Jun 1878 - union was proclaimed null and void by Holiest Synode
19 Jun 1878 - determination was approved by the Lord Emperor
12 Aug 1889 - Artemy (pupil of noblewoman Dreyer) was granted surname
Iskander and personal nobility
10 Mar 1894 - Alexander (pupil of noblewoman Dreyer) was granted surname
Iskander and personal nobility
22 Apr 1899 - noblewoman Dreyer was granted surname Iskander
22 Apr 1899 - Artemy and Alexander Iskanders were granted hereditary
nobility
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Pierre Aronax
2004-04-13 21:41:08 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Lisa Davidson
Therefore, the annulment was invalid everywhere but Romania and Carol's
later
Post by Lisa Davidson
marriages were bigamous, at least outside Romania.
That is more or less how I understood it.
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
What about Ukranian marriage laws of the time?
THAT is an interesting point, although I am not sure that, even if the
marraige has been unvalid in Ukrainian law, it would have been for that, for
example, in England (since Carol was also a British citizen).
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
In the Russian Orthodox
Church of the Imperial period (I think Ukranian church was in August 1918
still a part of ROC) there were several requirements for the wedding to be
valid. For example, both should be major,
I think they were.
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
she should have parents consent,
I don't know if she had.
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
he (if civil or military officer) should have consent of his boss,
He had probably not, but one can ask if this provision applied to a "boss"
who was not Russian.
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
the
marriage should be first three times announced during the church services
and so on.
Pierre Aronax
2004-04-08 20:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles von Hamm
: > The annulment was indeed forced upon the couple. I believe that Carol's
parents
: > had to approve the marriage of their heir for it to be valid in Romania,
but this
: > may not be correct.
: >
: >
: The marriage did not have the approval of the king, and thus it was
: not a dynastic relationship. Moreover, the child was born after the
: annulment, which makes the child illegitimate. Carol II lost interest
: in Zizi and her son (he also fathered at least one other child out of
: wedlock) .. when Mircea tried to make contact with Carol in the 40s,
: he was told that Carol did not know him.
At least not dynastically, but children born after annulments or divorces
are legitimate if conceived in wedlock, correct?
And anyway the validity of the annulation from a religious point of view is
more than dubious: Mircea was a legitimate son. He was not dynast in Rumania
for that nevertheless.

Pierre
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-09 02:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
nd anyway the validity of the annulation from a religious point of view is
more than dubious: Mircea was a legitimate son.
He was conceived AFTER the annulment ...

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Pierre Aronax
2004-04-09 18:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Pierre Aronax
nd anyway the validity of the annulation from a religious point of view is
more than dubious: Mircea was a legitimate son.
He was conceived AFTER the annulment ...
The annulment was probably valid as far as the Rumanian succession is
concerned (Rumanian authority can decide about the dynasticity of a
marriage after all). But it was NOT valid from a religious point of
view and outside Rumania: neither the Rumanian authorities nor the
Rumanian church had any power to annul a marriage celebrated by the
Ukrainian Church. Mircea was a legitimate son, even if the marriage of
his parents was (retroactively) made void in Rumania. Tribunals in
France and Portugal have recognized this fact, and more recently
Rumanian tribunals have done the same.
To take an analogy: if a marriage celebrated outside Britain, for
example in France, is certainly invalid in British law wherever
celebrated, all other jurisdictions will nevertheless recognise it as
valid. The posterity will be illegitimate inside Britain and
illegitimate anywhere else. The same is true for Mircea (except that
he is no more illegitimate in Rumania, although he can hardly be seen
as a Rumanian dynast).

Pierre
Hans Jacobs
2004-04-09 19:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Pierre Aronax
nd anyway the validity of the annulation from a religious point of view is
more than dubious: Mircea was a legitimate son.
He was conceived AFTER the annulment ...
The annulment was probably valid as far as the Rumanian succession is
concerned (Rumanian authority can decide about the dynasticity of a
marriage after all). But it was NOT valid from a religious point of
view and outside Rumania: neither the Rumanian authorities nor the
Rumanian church had any power to annul a marriage celebrated by the
Ukrainian Church. Mircea was a legitimate son, even if the marriage of
his parents was (retroactively) made void in Rumania. Tribunals in
France and Portugal have recognized this fact, and more recently
Rumanian tribunals have done the same.
To take an analogy: if a marriage celebrated outside Britain, for
example in France, is certainly invalid in British law wherever
celebrated, all other jurisdictions will nevertheless recognise it as
valid. The posterity will be illegitimate inside Britain and
illegitimate anywhere else. The same is true for Mircea (except that
he is no more illegitimate in Rumania, although he can hardly be seen
as a Rumanian dynast).
Pierre
All good and well. But where does that leave Carol? He accepted the annulment and acted as if there had never been any
marriage -.whatever Mircea and his obnoxious son Paul have since been contending. He married again (and again, after a
proper divorce), and never looked back at Mrs Lambrino. Was he a bigamist?
Jane Keel
2004-04-09 20:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
And anyway the validity of the annulation from a religious point of view is
more than dubious: Mircea was a legitimate son. He was not dynast in Rumania
for that nevertheless.
Pierre
Perhaps the best way to put it is thus: Carol and Zizi's marriage was
illegal from a civil standpoint -- for which it was annulled (not just
dissolved by a divorce). My understanding is that the term ANNULMENT
can apply as much to civil terminology, as to religious: it's just
defined differently -- i.e. that a putative marriage was ILLEGAL (not
"invalid": after all, the state doesn't care in the least as to
whether a "sacramental bond existed in the eyes of God").

As such, Mircea was indeed illegitimate -- by the state: and it would
not have made a difference if he had been conceived before the civil
annulment. Hence, he never had -- and still does not -- enjoy any
dynastic rights.

However, the matter takes another spin from the religious standpoint:
indeed, it's not certain whether a church annulment was issued --
since in most monarchies (then and now) it's really only the civil
marriage that counts, for dynastic purposes.

But even if it was, one might argue that the ecclesiastical annulment
was invalid -- insofar as it was forced on the couple: the Church,
after all, is not terribly concerned as to whether a marriage is legal
according to the state -- much less the mundane issue of dynastic
recognition.

So from that standpoint, you and others in this correspondence might
have a case that Mircea was perfectly legitimate (contrary to popular
opinion, such a term does apply from the ecclesiastical standpoint,
not just the civil) -- at least as far as the Church was concerned.
And it would not have made any difference that he was conceived after
the (presumably invalid) annulment.
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-10 03:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane Keel
Perhaps the best way to put it is thus: Carol and Zizi's marriage was
illegal from a civil standpoint -- for which it was annulled (not just
dissolved by a divorce). My understanding is that the term ANNULMENT
can apply as much to civil terminology, as to religious
Jane -- these folks are not Catholic .. different rules

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Jane Keel
2004-04-10 15:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
Jane -- these folks are not Catholic .. different rules
author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
Actually, if I understand correctly, the term ANNULMENT doesn't apply
only to the Catholic canon but also, to civil law -- as well as the
rules of most other organized religions.

Suppose, for instance, a couple marched up the altar of a Lutheran
church completely drunk (or drugged) -- and in fact, uttered their
wedding vows in a state of intoxication (or at least one partner did),
throughout the entire ceremony.

Would any religious group (Christian or otherwise, Catholic or non)
recognize such a marriage as valid? Wouldn't even the state (in, say,
America, where civil law recognizes the legality of church marriages
-- unlike most countries of Europe) regard it as illegal?

This is certainly worlds different from a DIVORCE (civilly speaking,
defined to be the dissolution of a legal marriage; canonically
speaking, defined to be the dissolution of a VALID marriage -- which
the Catholic Church does not nominally recognize. But as you know,
there's a lot of fudging around this through the annulment loophole:
in today's world, many couples with marital problems -- despite having
undergone religious ceremonies and living in unions deemed perfectly
legal by the state, having no overt or explicit impediments at the
beginning of their marriages -- try later on to get tribunals to
retroactively declare them INVALID! And almost invariably, this is
sought precisely to enjoy a second chance to marry someone else, in
accordance with Catholic rites ...)

If I understand correctly, Dennis Rodman himself (several years ago)
got a marriage annulled by the state -- for reasons that his wedding
(I believe it was in a civil ceremony) was a shotgun one. I can't
imagine civil law in any jurisdiction to regard such a union as legal
(hence, the term DIVORCE need not apply) ...
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-10 16:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane Keel
Suppose, for instance, a couple marched up the altar of a Lutheran
church completely drunk (or drugged) -- and in fact, uttered their
wedding vows in a state of intoxication (or at least one partner did),
throughout the entire ceremony.
The Lutheran church here in the USA cannot annul a marriage. For one thing, it
is unlikely that the pastor would have allowed the wedding to take place, and
for another, all marriages in the USA are technically civil as the license to
marry comes from the civil authorities not the church.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Andy.III
2004-04-10 18:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane Keel
Would any religious group (Christian or otherwise, Catholic or non)
recognize such a marriage as valid? Wouldn't even the state (in, say,
America, where civil law recognizes the legality of church marriages
-- unlike most countries of Europe) regard it as illegal?
It is not that church marriages are recognized as legal but rather that the
ministers are authorized to perform a legal marriage. A minister who has not
been so authorized couldn't perform a marriage that would be recognized by the
state as legal even if it were performed at the main alter in St. Patrick's
cathedral - or such is my understanding. Notice that all relifious marriages
include the words " by the power invested in me by the state of ___, I now
pronounce you.. "


Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-10 20:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Notice that all relifious marriages
include the words " by the power invested in me by the state of ___, I now
pronounce you.. "
Andy, this clause is not always included (not necessary) ... mine didn't ...
clergy, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and so on, are authorized by
local jurisdictions -- and the authorities may maintain a list of "registered"
officiants. However, usually, the authorization is state-wide ... our minister
has performed weddings outside the state but all he needs to do is contact the
local authorities and provide the appropriate information, I guess.

Looking at my wedding service, a part of the service is the Pronouncement

"for as much as Bill and Marlene have consented together in holy marriage, and
declared the same before God and in the presence of this company, I pronounce
them husband and wife. In the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit. Amen! which followed by "The Lord God who ordained and sanctified the
union in marriage, sanctify and bless you; that you please God in all you do,
and live together in holy love until life's end. Amen!"

However, the marriage is not legal until the license is signed by the
officiant, returned to the court house, and registered ...

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Jane Keel
2004-04-12 00:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
It is not that church marriages are recognized as legal but rather that the
ministers are authorized to perform a legal marriage. A minister who has not
been so authorized couldn't perform a marriage that would be recognized by the
state as legal even if it were performed at the main alter in St. Patrick's
cathedral - or such is my understanding. Notice that all relifious marriages
include the words " by the power invested in me by the state of ___, I now
pronounce you.. "
Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
That's what I meant: it simply came out wrong. The point here (which
many people miss) is that in North America, you can have a
one-size-fits-all wedding ceremony -- but only if it's performed by a
cleric (not a judge, since the church will not recognize the validity
of civil marriages: I guess you might call this a double standard).

In other words, a priest/minister/rabbi not only serves as the chief
witness to a marriage, whose validity is recognized by the religious
community, but also is authorized by the state to serve as a LEGAL
witness to the said marriage ("Do you take this person to be your
LAWFULLY wedded spouse?"). Of course, some states require additional
witnesses to sign documents, during/after the religious ceremony.

A number of Europeans seem to have difficulty in understanding this --
i.e. the fact that American clerics carry some civil authority
(indicating a degree of respect for organized religion, in the United
States and Canada: indeed, a certificate of baptism/circumcision can
serve as a birth certificate in most places, if the latter gets lost),
which theirs (by and large) do not.

Similarly, many Americans don't realize the extent to which church and
state are separated, in most countries of Europe -- for which one
usually needs to undergo two weddings (civil and religious) in order
to satisfy both (the state does not recognize the legality of
religious marriages any more than the church recognizes the validity
of civil marriages: I had quite a time explaining to one friend, in
particular, that Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium
could theoretically have eloped to any place in the world for a
Catholic wedding, in which case the Church would (presumably)
recognize the validity of their marriage. But if they failed to
undergo a civil ceremony at home, then the marriage would be deemed
illegal by Belgian state law -- in which case their children would be
deemed illegitimate, with no succession rights. Of course, I realize
that they could have married civilly in Belgium and religiously
anywhere, in which case their children would be deemed legitimate by
both the church and state; but if they failed to receive the requisite
consent of his sovereign father, King Albert II, then Elisabeth and
Gabriel would be considered bastards for the purpose of succession).

As such, some run into trouble when getting married abroad -- as they
find themselves having to do the same thing: after all, it wouldn't
make sense to authorize (say) an Italian priest to serve as a legal
witness to a marriage involving Americans -- anymore than it would to
authorize an American judge to serve as a legal witness to a marriage
involving Italians.

One option for such a hypothetical American couple, then, is to first
marry civilly in the United States -- and then travel to Italy for the
church wedding. Another, of course, is to undergo the civil ceremony
in some U.S. embassy (presumably in Rome) -- and afterward, head to
the church for the religious ceremony.

And I suppose one could theoretically have the opposite scenario --
whereby an Italian couple first marries in a civil wedding (since it's
required by the law of their country) in their hometown, and then
travels to America for the church ceremony (entirely optional, since
religion is a purely private matter and such weddings are conducted
exclusively for spiritual reasons).

Fortunately, the Church (Catholic or otherwise) does not care in the
least as to the geographical location of the religious wedding, or the
nationality of the cleric who presides over the said ceremony.
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-12 01:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane Keel
at Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium
could theoretically have eloped to any place in the world for a
Catholic wedding, in which case the Church would (presumably)
recognize the validity of their marriage.
If they had married in a Catholic church in the USA, the marriage would have
been recognized in Belgium as the civil marriage.>

Another, of course, is to undergo the civil ceremony
Post by Jane Keel
in some U.S. embassy (presumably in Rome) -- and afterward, head to
the church for the religious ceremony.
Am not sure that US embassies perform wedding these days .. each country as
certain requirements for civil marriages for non-residents/citizens ...



author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Said Vassallo
2004-04-07 01:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
Post by Dan Willis
As has been reported on "Royals Portal", Alexander Hohenzollern, grandson of
King Carol II of the Roumania has been in a horrific accident. A little over a
week ago he was trying to walk across a road in Aspen, Colorado during a
blizzard and did not see the SUV coming towards him. He was hit and had both
legs smashed as well as some internal injuries.
Tonight I spoke to his employer in Aspen and learned a great deal about his
condition. He seems to have pulled through the initial surgeries on his legs
well. However he will be in a wheel chair for next 3 months at least. He has to
have additional surgery to repair some of the internal damage, which is why he
was moved to Grand Junction. The local hospital in Aspen did not have the
necessary facilities (Aspen is a very small town, for all of its fame)
No one in Alexander's family has been contacted. His employer, Andy Hanson, has
taken on the responsibility of helping Alexander with his immediate needs. He
did tell me that Alexander did not want his father told (I imagined this is
because of Carol's advance age and reported bad health, but did not mention any
of this). And I found it interesting that Alexander's maternal grandmother is
still alive, she must be well into her 90's by now.
Hanson has been spear-heading an effort to raise money for Alexander to help
him get through his recovery period which is expected to be rather lengthy.
They have found a new place for him to live which is wheel chair accessible
(his previous apartment was not) and are now trying to raise money to cover the
rent. Hanson is collecting donations from any want to give. His e-mail is
Thanks
Dan Willis
there is no grandson of king carol called alexander.... so who is this bloke?
An illegitimate child from King Carol II I suspect. I first assumed it
was one of King Michael's half nephews, but I cannot locate
any!!!!!!!!

Is this another Michael, Duke or Prince of Albany story??

Regards

C.Said-Vassallo
www.maltagenealogy.com
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-07 02:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Said Vassallo
An illegitimate child from King Carol II I suspect. I first assumed it
was one of King Michael's half nephews, but I cannot locate
any!!!!!!!!
Is this another Michael, Duke or Prince of Albany story??
No - this is a true story.

From my book
HM KING CAROL II OF ROUMANIA, born October 15, 1893 at Castle Pelesch, Sinaia;
died April 4, 1953 at Estoril, Portugal. Married (1) August 31, 1918 (annulled
January 8, 1919)at the Pokrowska Church, Odessa, Russia, Joana Marie Valentina
(Zizi) Lambrino, born October 3, 1898 at Roman, Roumania; died March 11, 1953
at Paris, France, daughter of Colonel Constantin Lambrino and Euphrosine Alcaz.
1. Mircea Gregor Carol Hohenzollern, born January 8, 1920 at Bucharest.
Married (1) March 22, 1944 at Paris, France (div. May 3, 1960 at Paris), Hélène
Henriette Nagavitzine, born May 26, 1925 at Paris, daughter of Paul
Nagavitzine and Renée Marguerite Brissot.
1) Paul Philippe Hohenzollern, born August 13, 1948 at Paris. Married
September 15, 1996 (civil & religious) at Bucharest, Lia Georgia Triff, born
February 23, 1949 at Great Lakes, Illinois, daughter of Thomas Triff and
Elizabeth Andrea.
Carol married (2) December 20, 1960 (civil) at Saint Maur-sur-Loir,
Eure-et-Loire, France and at the Roumanian Church (religious) at Paris, France
(div. 1977), Thelma Jeanne Williams, born November 15, 1930 at Nashville,
Tennessee, USA; died June 5, 1988 at the Rutland Regional Medical Center,
Rutland, Vermont, USA, daughter of Richard Williams and Josephine Owens.
2) Ion George Nicolas Alexander Hohenzollern, born September 1, 1961 at
St. Mary's Hospital, Poole, Dorset, England



Alexander is the younger son, born in 1961.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2004-04-07 16:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Said Vassallo
An illegitimate child from King Carol II I suspect. I first assumed it
was one of King Michael's half nephews, but I cannot locate
any!!!!!!!!
Is this another Michael, Duke or Prince of Albany story??
No - this is a true story.
From my book
HM KING CAROL II OF ROUMANIA, born October 15, 1893 at Castle Pelesch, Sinaia;
died April 4, 1953 at Estoril, Portugal. Married (1) August 31, 1918 (annulled
January 8, 1919)at the Pokrowska Church, Odessa, Russia, Joana Marie Valentina
(Zizi) Lambrino, born October 3, 1898 at Roman, Roumania; died March 11, 1953
at Paris, France, daughter of Colonel Constantin Lambrino and Euphrosine Alcaz.
1. Mircea Gregor Carol Hohenzollern, born January 8, 1920 at Bucharest.
Married (1) March 22, 1944 at Paris, France (div. May 3, 1960 at Paris), Hélène
Henriette Nagavitzine, born May 26, 1925 at Paris, daughter of Paul
Nagavitzine and Renée Marguerite Brissot.
1) Paul Philippe Hohenzollern, born August 13, 1948 at Paris. Married
September 15, 1996 (civil & religious) at Bucharest, Lia Georgia Triff, born
February 23, 1949 at Great Lakes, Illinois, daughter of Thomas Triff and
Elizabeth Andrea.
Carol married (2) December 20, 1960 (civil) at Saint Maur-sur-Loir,
Eure-et-Loire, France and at the Roumanian Church (religious) at Paris, France
(div. 1977), Thelma Jeanne Williams, born November 15, 1930 at Nashville,
Tennessee, USA; died June 5, 1988 at the Rutland Regional Medical Center,
Rutland, Vermont, USA, daughter of Richard Williams and Josephine Owens.
2) Ion George Nicolas Alexander Hohenzollern, born September 1, 1961 at
St. Mary's Hospital, Poole, Dorset, England
Alexander is the younger son, born in 1961.
author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
thanks Marlene for clarifying this... in my notes I just had him under
the name of Ion... well ...
MarleneKoenig
2004-04-07 02:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
here is no grandson of king carol called alexander.... so who is this bloke?
Yes there is ... Mircea Lambrino has been married three times. His second
wife, Thelma Jeanne Williams, was the mother of Alexander.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
c***@gmail.com
2018-08-23 08:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Hallo im Constantin Pencu do you have the mail Adress from Alexander de Hohenzollern or Andy Hanson ? I want to help them ! Iam a frien of Nicholas Medfort- Mills de Roumanie Grandchild of Mihai the 1 of Romania. Please contact me on ***@yahoo.de
Loading...