User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2024/May

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tgeorgescu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Paul cannot be a member Head of the House of Romania if he was never a member of the house, it was established in 2010 by his half-uncle King Michael I, who specified the membership and limited it to whomever he wanted. understandable Romania is a republic, so looking at the House of Romania like an organisation or a society, Mr Lambrino cannot be a member of that organisation or society if he was never inducted as a member of said organisation or society by its chairpersons (King Michael I or Margareta, Custodian of the Crown). 90.243.93.26 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

it was established in 2010 by his half-uncle King Michael I—that's a disputed claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok wrong date, however it is still an indisputable fact that it was established by King Michael - https://casamajestatiisale.ro/familia-regala/normele-fundamentale-familia-regala/

This is something which can’t be disputed when it is an indisputable fact.

For arguments sake, let’s say the House of Romania is not a dynasty but is an organisation which specifically has rules of its membership (like any organisation does), when the chairperson decides who is a member of the organisation, how can Wikipedians claim that an individual who has never been a member, is all of a sudden not only a member but is the chairperson, that make no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.93.26 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

All what you say is disputed. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a single official source for this claim? Especially as nothing which I have said is actually ‘disputed’, it’s actually an indisputable fact which you don’t get to dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.93.26 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I advise you to stop edit warring, and do write at the talk page of the article, not here. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, no edits since my last, but would you so kindly be able to respond to my previous question? Do you have a single official source to claim what I have edited is disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.93.26 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by official source. Both Houses of Romania are private clubs, so there is going to be no "official source" that one of them is genuine, since being a genuine royal house of Romania is WP:CB (juridically speaking).

Frankly, if there was a referendum, I would have voted for Michael I becoming king again. But now it's too late for monarchy in Romania. And here at Wikipedia we have to obey WP:NPOV, whether we like it or not.

Your opinion is that only one of the two Houses is the House of Romania, which is extremely gauche.

Until the changes in the Statute of the Royal House get approved by the Romanian Parliament, Margareta is not and never was Custodian of the Crown. And the Romanian Parliament simply refused to debate the matter. So, both Royal Houses of Romania are in limbo. Not only one of them. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Royal House of Romania and the House of Romania, the Royal House of Romania is the House or the Dynasty (previously it was the Romanian Branch of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, maybe Mr Lambrino wants to be the Head of this branch which King Michael I as head, had abolished, but the current royal House is the House of Romania) whereas the House of Romania is the newly established House/Dynasty of which only members of that club are members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.93.26 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael I did not have the authority to change the Statute of the Royal House. Who says that? The Statute of the Royal House. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

According to whom did he not have this so called authority? Especially as he was Head of the Romanian Branch of the House of both Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen which he abolished and also he was the founder of the House of Romania, something which was his as he established it himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.93.26 (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is: some WP:RS believed him, others didn't. Some WP:RS even believe Prince Paul. That's why it is a WP:NPOV matter: because WP:RS disagree among themselves.

What you are saying is essentially like "there can be only one football club in Bucharest". In reality there are many. Same applies to the Houses of Romania. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No, what I’m saying is as per the club which calls itself the ‘House of Romania’ of which the Chairpersons heading that club are former King Michael I and his successor Margareta of Romania have not included Mr Lambrino as a member of that club, their club their rules, furthermore even Mr Lambrino himself (who has made many false and exaggerated claims) has never claimed to be Head of the Club called ‘House of Romania’ or a member of it, however he does claim to be Head of the Romanian branch of the German club called ‘House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen’, which was formerly headed by king Michael I which he also abolished; yes there may be many football clubs in Bucharest, however I doubt that they’re all called ‘Football Club of Bucharest’ right? There are distinguishing factors between a and b? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.93.26 (talk • contribs)

I will no longer answer your posts on my talk page. If you have something to say, say it at Talk:Paul Philippe of Romania. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)