What Is The Point Of The Gr Family?

[ReinaMissy]

Well, the reality is that though most people agree with the two of you, many do not.

 

[mktv2000]

I am still wondering about my origonal question...will Pavlos every be styled King? At some point will one of his kids become Crown Prince. (before I get yelled at) I am just asking because at this moment, with no monarchy, there really isn't a crown...so I am just curious as to what will happen.

 

[bigheadshirmp]

I would think that MC would call herself or wants other ppl to call her Queen MC of Greece and King Pavlos' of Greece after King Constaine dies....

 

[ReinaMissy]

That's not only highly unlikely, bigshrimp, it's really not possible.

The Greek RF is not the only mediatized ruling family; no other family that is still royal allows the family head to suddenly assume the title of "majesty" upon the death of the previous head of the family.

 

[USCtrojan]

Ummm, all I can say is WOW!

 

[mktv2000]

The Greek RF is not the only mediatized ruling family; no other family that is still royal allows the family head to suddenly assume the title of "majesty" upon the death of the previous head of the family.

So the answer is no then? Unless the Greek monarchy is restored...they will forever be Prince and Princesses?

 

[ReinaMissy]

Yup, just like every other no-longer-ruling family. The German Royals are a good example of that (not that I'm an expert, lol).

 

[Sean.~]

That's not only highly unlikely, bigshrimp, it's really not possible.


The Greek RF is not the only mediatized ruling family; no other family that is still royal allows the family head to suddenly assume the title of "majesty" upon the death of the previous head of the family.

Hi ReinaMissy,

Just to clarify, neither Greece or its former RF was ever mediatized. In a nutshell, the term mediatized applies to former states within the Holy Roman Empire who came under suzerians after the Napoleanic wars. The rulers of the mediatized states no longer under the 'immediate' authority' of the Emperor, and now owed allegiance to a suzerian. In Greece, the RF was exiled and the monarchy was subsequently abolished. Chances of restoration are not likely.

The title of the Prince, Princess, and styles of HRH, etc. used by members of former royal houses are all of pretension. In the case of Greece, the country is a republic and does not recognize the titles and styles used by members of the former RF. They have no legal validity. Technically Pavlos can call himself whatever he wants, but he will look foolish styling himself King, as the world knows that Greek is a republic, and that it is doing far better than it ever did under the troubled (to say the least) monarchy. Anyone who knows Greek history knows that the monarchy had a very turbulent history (I know Cuervo and some others might disagree, but I'm entitled to my piece just like they are to theirs ).

As I've written before, unlike under the monarchy, Greece is now a democracy now (a real one). People are free to form political parties, associational groups, lobby/pressure groups, and even run for political office. The last time I personally checked there were at least ten parties, even Communist and Marxist ones (there were troubles with Communists in the postwar era). Conversely, under the monarchy dictatorships flourished. For instance, there was Constantine I's sympathies with the central powers, his and this refusal to recognize the democratically elected government of the pro-entente Venizelos, his dissolving the legitimate government of the country, his continued power struggle with Venizelos to the detriment of the country, the terror camapaign launched on his behalf by General Mexatas, and the Bulgarians grabbing of Greek territory due to Constantine's waffling. Then there was the referendum on the monarchy in 1935, which was marked by fraud, and George II's subsequent appointment of his facist, repressive friend General Mexatas as Prime Minister -- a man who suspended the Human Rights clauses in the country's constitution and engaged in ethnic cleansing. After this there was the dictatorship of Themistoklis Sophoulis aka the "era of white terror". In the post war period there was the repressive government of Konstantinos Tsaldaris, which saw tens of thousands of Greeks placed in concentration camps. His 1946 plebescite on the monarchy, which saw the return of George II, too was marred by fraud, intimidation, and coercion. And that's just until 1946! )



TC.

 

[cuervo]

Reading your views

doesn't mean that I agree with them!I desperately need an eye cleaner after your post!

 

[Alexandria]

Please have respect for all views. That is fine that you don't agree with some of the views expressed here but that is no right or need to be rude about it, either.

Alexandria
Royal Forums Administrator

 

[mktv2000]

Sean and ReinaMissy - thank you both for the information. I really appriciate it.

 

[ReinaMissy]

"In a nutshell, the term mediatized applies to former states within the Holy Roman Empire who came under suzerians after the Napoleanic wars. The rulers of the mediatized states no longer under the 'immediate' authority' of the Emperor, and now owed allegiance to a suzerian. In Greece, the RF was exiled and the monarchy was subsequently abolished. Chances of restoration are not likely."

Yes, you're correct that "mediatized" is the wrong term, Sean. You may, however, wish to notify Netty Liestra of this fact since the Greek Royal Family is listed as such on her official website, which is thought of quite highly even in royal circles.

And I was aware of all the history you listed, but thanks for the explanation anyway, lol.

 

[Sean.~]

doesn't mean that I agree with them!I desperately need an eye cleaner after your post!

You are free to disagree, although everything I've written (from mediatization to the the Greek history) is fact and verifiable.

Have a nice day.

 

[Paulina]

Yes, you're correct that "mediatized" is the wrong term, Sean. You may, however, wish to notify Netty Liestra of this fact since the Greek Royal Family is listed as such on her official website, which is thought of quite highly even in royal circles.

And I was aware of all the history you listed, but thanks for the explanation anyway, lol.[/QUOTE]
Royal circles are aware of Netty's websites? Like RB Forums? Same Netty, right? Wow! I had no idea royal circles even consider websites beyond their official sites. Looks like Netty is in an esteemed circle of journalists!

 

[Genevieve]

Royal circles are aware of Netty's websites? Like RB Forums? Same Netty, right? Wow! I had no idea royal circles even consider websites beyond their official sites. Looks like Netty is in an esteemed circle of journalists!

I don't think its a major royal circle. Only like "minor" royals. But if Sean.~ is correct, and Netty's information is wrong, then perhaps even if some royals do look at her site, it's not that reliable information wise.

 

[Sean.~]

"In a nutshell, the term mediatized applies to former states within the Holy Roman Empire who came under suzerians after the Napoleanic wars. The rulers of the mediatized states no longer under the 'immediate' authority' of the Emperor, and now owed allegiance to a suzerian. In Greece, the RF was exiled and the monarchy was subsequently abolished. Chances of restoration are not likely."

Yes, you're correct that "mediatized" is the wrong term, Sean. You may, however, wish to notify Netty Liestra of this fact since the Greek Royal Family is listed as such on her official website, which is thought of quite highly even in royal circles.

And I was aware of all the history you listed, but thanks for the explanation anyway, lol.

Yes, Netty's unnofficial royalty site (unofficial insofar as it isn't offiially endorsed by any royal house) is an excellent site. I've been visiting it on and off since it started back in the late 1990s. In any case, people are often confused when it comes to the term 'mediatized', and my clarification wasn't solely for you (someone here asked me about the term a while back too, and I wrote a lenghty explanation). With regards to Netty, I'm sure it was just an ovesight in her situation, and I'm sure she will correct it one of these days.

I'm not sure why you would write "lol". Although you may have been aware of the history, others may not have been. More specifically, my post wasn't solely for your benefit. The thread is titled What is the "Point of th GR Family". I stated that the Greek Monarchy had a troubled history and that Greece is doing well as a Republic. Rather than arguing by assertion, I felt that stating the historical facts to support my statement was important.

 

[Sean.~]

Sean and ReinaMissy - thank you both for the information. I really appriciate it.

You're very welcome! I'm glad someone did!

S

 

[ReinaMissy]

I saw that mentioned elsewhere; perhaps somebody should ask Netty about it?

In any case, Sean, what you don't seem to understand is that your explanation presents only one side. It IS, in fact, opinion. There are those - cuervo, for example - who lived that history differently and interpret it differently.

It's a matter of politics.

 

[Sean.~]

I saw that mentioned elsewhere; perhaps somebody should ask Netty about it?

In any case, Sean, what you don't seem to understand is that your explanation presents only one side. It IS, in fact, opinion.


There are those - cuervo, for example - who lived that history differently and interpret it differently.
It's a matter of politics.

1. Ask Netty abbout what?

2. Actually, I supported my opinion (ie the monarchy in Greece had a troubled history) with facts. That being said, history is always subject to intepretation. Two people from divergent backgrounds will always interpret the same historical events differently. We all bring our 'baggage' (rather than "politics") to our interpretations. So there we agree.

TC.

 

[ReinaMissy]

I mentioned asking Netty to the other posters who raised issues, not you - but so far as I know, she understands that many royals have looked at her site and like it though nobody has given any official sign of approval. I was, in fact, quoting her site. Your post made me realize that the term is incorrect.

Hey, Sean, FWIW, I personally agree with your INTERPRETATION of the facts. I'm simply pointing out that many others whose families prospered under the royal family would disagree.

 

[Australian]

So we have the former King and Queen of Greece, the Crown Prince and Princess etc but when will the titles stop? will they stop? I dont think they should because although they are not ruling anymore, the are still royal. So when the King eventually dies, does Pavlos take the title of King or not?

 

[ReinaMissy]

No, because he's not a king.

I don't understand why everybody picks only on this royal family; they're certainly not the only royals who no longer rule. They're hardly unique.

 

[cuervo]

You are free to disagree, although everything I've written (from mediatization to the the Greek history) is fact and verifiable.

Have a nice day.

He!He!He!Virtual Democracy in Greece,Virtual the posts,Virtual your Verification!I 've bought an eye cleaner and I used it straight after to clean my eyes off the post I've red and disagreed!Allow me one phrase:

Your Virtual democracy in Greece will soon fall because of the corruption that crwated hershelf!!Do you want me to say more????

 

[Isabel]

I don't think that Pavlos will refer to himself as King upon his father's death. King Constantine is addressed as such because he was the King of Greece at the time of the Greek monarchy's fall and went into exile as such. He actually was the reigning King of Greece at one time, whereas Pavlos will most likely not be. What will most likely happen with this family as times goes by, IMO, is that most of them will be referred to as Princes and Princesses and the title of Crown Prince itself will also no longer be used. The heir apparent will most likely be referred to as "the man who be King if Greece still had a monarchy."

People do pick on this family a lot more than other RF's because they get more media attention and are more visible and recognizable, than other member of non-reigning royal families. I think that what also needs to be kept in mind is that they do still hold titles of "Prince or Princess of Denmark" and Denmark is still a functioning monarchy.

 

[ReinaMissy]

That's certainly true; they do get more publicity.

By the way, the "of Denmark" is not accurate, at least not according to Sean

 

[USCtrojan]

I think that one could attribute to HRH Crown Princess Pavlos for alot of the publicity of the family.

The Greek Royals facinate me.

 

[Australian]

It was not my intention or anyone elses intention to only pick on this family, it is the only real non ruling family i am familiar with, probably becuase im all the way In Australia and we dont get much news about royalty. And since there is a forum called "The Greek Royal Family" that is how i became familiar with it, through research on this board.
No evil intentions- i assure you

 

[Sean.~]

That's certainly true; they do get more publicity.

By the way, the "of Denmark" is not accurate, at least not according to Sean

Actually, that's not what I said, and you know that. I wrote that it is a "courtesy title", but that they are not, however, members of Danish royalty.
(which is what you were asserting). And it isn't according to me. Rather, it is according to the Danes themselves.

 

[ReinaMissy]

Y'know, Sean, I've gotten to the point where I really don't CARE what you wrote.

You are nasty, unpleasant, and rude. You can't seem to express your opinions without resorting to boorish behavior.

 

[Sean.~]

Y'know, Sean, I've gotten to the point where I really don't CARE what you wrote.

You are nasty, unpleasant, and rude. You can't seem to express your opinions without resorting to boorish behavior.

Pardon me, but evidently you do care, or else you wouldn't have (incorrectly) quoted me in your previous post. Personally, I think that you have a problem with being corrected & are more than will blame others for your misinformation (e.g. like Netty's board), and have thus now resorted to name calling.

In any case, since you brought it up, those are my sentiments about you & the way you express yourself by assertion without facts. Frankly, if correcting ones incorrrect information, questioning their penchant for arguing by assertion, and pointing out that they have misrepresnted my comments make me those things in your opinion, then so be it.