Talk:Constantine II of Greece/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I have done some editing in the article about Constantine II of Greece. I see that most of my editing was accepted but previous parts of the article (which I had deleted) have reappeared. I should like to comment on those explaining why I had deleted them, point out some further discrepancies and raise some questions and concerns. The topic of the former King is fairly controversial for Greeks and, in my opinion, this controversy has to be kept out of this page, in that the page should not take sides but rather supply relevant information, letting everyone make up their own mind. I had deleted the reference to "King Paul's naughty little boy" since no source is given and, as far as I know, Caramanlis is never officially credited with this term (he may be "rumoured" to have called him that, but even this I've never heard before). The reference to "carcinoma" is also misleading, since what Karamanlis called a carcinoma was NOT the monarchy itself but rather the question of the form of government, what in Greek is often called "to politeaikon" i.e. the question of whether Greece should be a monarchy or a republic. Karamanlis said that now this question was closed for ever, and therefore this carcinoma had been removed. Pro-monarchists who "have it in" for Karamanlis will often accuse him of calling the monarchy "a carcinoma" but this is not the obvious meaning of what he said. Information on Constantine's court case is also misleading in that the European Court did not have power to order the Greek state to give back any land to Constantine, nor indeed to do anything else but to award Constantine damages. So to say that the Court did not order the return of any land is misleading: The Court could not have done that. In that sense it is also misleading to say that Constantine "partially won". I believe he won in the sense that the court found that his human rights had been violated, but it is accurate that the court assessed compensation at a much lower value than he claimed, through his lawyers. Nevertheless, if I'm not mistaken the award Constantine got was the highest ever in the Court's history. The Greek governments assertion that it paid the compensation "as a gesture" should of course stay since this is indeed what they said, although the fact that they chose to use a budgetary line meant for natural disasters seems hardly relevant. At best I would include a reference to the fact that the use of this budgetary line was exploited in the parts of the Greek press who were fiercely against the ex-King, to deride him as a "natural disaster". Still, this may be going too far for a biographical entry. Further, my own understanding is that Constantine used his Danish passport to travel to Greece. It could be that he is using a Spanish passport but I would suggest that, if possible, this information is checked since it is the first time I hear of it.

I'm not the one who originally entered the "naughty boy" line - although I had heard it in the past. I agree that if it is not a documented statement, it should be removed (but the fact that there was mutual dislike between Karamanlis and K-II is well known).

The carcinoma reference was clearly directed towards the monarchy - read his 1981 interview where he recalls the speech:

-Nα σου πω κάτι; μου είπε απότομα, σμίγοντας τα φρύδια του. Εχω χρεωθεί απέναντι στην Iστορία με μια μεγάλη πολιτειακή αλλαγή. Την κατάργηση της Μοναρχίας. Αν ήθελα εγώ, ο βασιλιάς τώρα θα ήταν εδώ. Αλλά έπρεπε να τελειώνουμε κάποτε με αυτό το θεσμό. Καρκίνωμα το χαρακτήρισα τη νύχτα του δημοψηφίσματος. Πρέπει, λοιπόν, να μάθουμε να πορευόμαστε χωρίς βασιλιάδες. Πρέπει να ισχύσει κι εδώ το δικομματικό σύστημα. Κεντροδεξιά - Kεντροαριστερά. Οπως σε όλη τη Δυτική Ευρώπη. Γι' αυτό, πρέπει και το ΠΑΣΟΚ να κυβερνήσει τον τόπο. Αλλά ο Παπανδρέου πρέπει να προσέξει. Εχει μεγάλη ευθύνη. [1].

I'm don't know if you can read Greek, but it leaves no question as to what he meant. I'll translate it, if you want me to.

As for the legal case, it should be reworded a bit, but the fact is that it cannot be truly described as a full victory or a loss for either side. Sysin 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I can read Greek and have read the link you provided. I don't think it can be described as a proper interview. It is a newspaper editor, writing in 1998, after Caramanlis' death, what Caramanlis supposedly told him in 1981 in a private discussion. I think one should try to find Karamanlis actual statement after the referendum in 1974. I have read it but do not have it to hand. I am pretty sure that it could only be understood in the sense that the carcinoma was the "politeiakon", not the moncarhy itself. Whether Caramanlis intended some short of "double-entente" I don't know, but I always think it best to stick to what anyone said than to what others thought he wanted to say.

King of the Hellenes

I was a bit worried to see that the first paragraph of the article on Constantine Oldburg (Glücksburg)simply mentions that he was "born King of the Hellenes" and will remain so until his death. I felt I have to draw attention to the editor of this article that the form "born King of the Hellenes" is not universally recognised. I am well aware of the (very) fine distinction between this form and the title proper and this is exactly why I feel that there should be an addendum, stating clearly that this person´s legal position in his native country is somewhat more complex than that.

More specifically, according to the Constitution (see the Wikipedia link, or go straight to http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/artcl25.html#A1 (Art. 4 par.1 and 7)clearly states that no titles of distinction are recognised. One might argue that the formula "born King of the Hellenes" does not contrast this, since it is not, strictly speaking, a title but merely a reference to Constantine´s status at the time of his birth. In this case however it contrasts par 1 and 2 of the same Article which specify equality before law at time of birth and so long as the tenure of Greek citizenship lasts. Constantine´s citizenship is, of course, under question.

As far as this matter is concerned, I must admit I am not aware of the particularities of his current legal standing, as he has, in fact, obtained a passport and assumed a surname, even if he chose to show disrespect for public opinion by choosing "de Grecia", ie "of Greece" as a last name. In any case, there is no legal reason why entry to the Republic of Hellas should be denied him, but as I explained above, there is a good case for denying ANY reference to his former political position from the moment he crosses the border. I would be grateful if an editor in the know would enlighten me as to Constantine´s legal position and rights in the country of his assumed nationality.

I am rather certain that Constantine was not "born" King of the Hellenes. He was born "Prince Constantine of Greece and Denmark." He became King of the Hellenes in 1964, when he was, I believe, 24 years old. john k 20:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed the phrase "he was born Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων and will remain so until he dies" has been removed from the article. I was writing in reference to that phrase. This is more consistent with his current legal status (if, in fact he has any standing) in his native country. User: GeorgiosKR