Talk:Romanian royal family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lambrinos

I object to the Lambrinos being moved up. As much as they claim to be members of the family, it makes about as much sense as Margarita being crown princess. Certainly, the extended family is closer socially that the Lambrinos and the Lambrinos only have a genetic connection and are at best extended themselves. Charles 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The de facto nation Romania doesn't have a royal family. There are descendants of past Romanian sovereigns who claim to be members of the Romanian Royal Family. The members of the more senior genealogical line (descended from Carol Lambrino) are not recognised by the members of the more junior genealogical line (represented by Carol's half-brother Michael). Neither of these lines makes an active claim to a throne - but there is significant popular affection for both lines in Romania. It's perfectly reasonable to note that (with a few minor exceptions) the descendants of Carol Lambrino are not close socially with other European royals. But in Romania they do have the surname "al Romaniei" (of Romania) - just as Michael and his family. As such they should be listed before "extended family" - and I'm not sure why these people are listed at all in this article. Noel S McFerran 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to the move these people up because on a article about the Romanian Royal Family the two rival lines are more relevant than the extended family. Charles please respect npov because your opinion is rather clear "The Romanian Royal Family consists of the king, the queen and five princesses. That's it." so stop trying to impose it on wikipedia. - dwc lr 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Treating the Lambrino branch as part of the Romanian Royal Family -- rather than as agnates thereof -- violates WP:DUE. In current Romania they are mostly referred to as descendants of the former Royal Family (but so are non-agnates) or as rival pretenders. But neither government nor media nor the head of house treat them as having belonged as members to Romania's Royal Family: their claim arose after the Romanian government ceased to recognize or regulate membership in the dynasty. Therefore, most reliable sources treat dynastic membership as either 1. application of the rules of membership last in place when Romania was a monarchy, or 2. recognition of membership by that head of the house who enforced dynastic norms under the monarchy or would do so if monarchical law still prevailed. The Lambrino Hohenzollerns do not qualify as members of the dynasty under either standard. As Noel points out above, they shouldn't even be listed in this particular article (but should be at Pretender). I can accept the listing as a compromise if Wiki does not go overboard in its treatment of them. That does not, however, mean that Paul's pretence to the throne is invalid -- merely that his claim would need to be vindicated (or, for Wiki purposes, recorded as plausible by enough reliable sources) for he and his brother to meet the former monarchy's definition of members of the Royal Family. At present, most sources on Romania's Royal Family seem to treat Paul as the senior patrilineal descendant and (some) as dubiously de-dynasticized during the monarchy -- but not as the king or head of house instead of Michael, -- which most sources will shrink from as retroactively re-writing history. But until the sources do so, Wiki should not. Lethiere 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, I agree. At the most I would mention the Lambrinos, but I would not list them in the family tree to the exclusion of the descendants of princesses, etc. Charles 16:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Noel Mcferran is saying that the extended family shouldn't be listed here. So you think that the extended family should be listed above a rival branch who claim to actually be members of the royal family. I think listing them above King Michael's family would violate WP:DUE but not under it and before the extended family. There are sources that refer to them by the princely titles such as Carol Lambrino's obituary in telegraph. Lethiere you say in Romania the Lambrino's are mostly referred to as descendants of the former Royal Family. As Mcferran say's the de facto nation of Romania doesn't have a Royal Family everybody the Lambrino's, King Michaels children they are all descendants of the former royal family. So how are King Michael's children referred to in Romania. - dwc lr 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The relevant criteria I consider decisive remains, "most reliable sources treat dynastic membership as either 1. application of the rules of membership last in place when Romania was a monarchy, or 2. recognition of membership by that head of the house who enforced dynastic norms under the monarchy or would do so if monarchical law still prevailed. The Lambrino Hohenzollerns do not qualify as members of the dynasty under either standard." If I misunderstood Noel's comment, I apologize. The point I was making is that insofar as I can ascertain, most people regard membership in "the Royal Family" of Romania to consist of the former king, his spouse, daughters, and (arguably) sons-in-law. I consider the claims of Paul Hohenzollern to legitimacy to have been legally and publicly established, and his case that his father did not deserve to be bypassed for the throne Michael occupied to be advancing in the literature. But I don't see those changes as having risen to such a level that most reliable sources now deem him to be a member of the Royal Family of Romania -- whereas they do treat Michael in that fashion. Only one cited source suggests that Paul's legal victory implies that he should displace Michael in the status the latter is accorded. Given that, WP:DUE states, "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties...Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis mine) Lethiere (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I took NPOV too far and violated WP:Due when I first edited the article and treated them equally to the accepted Royal Family but I don’t think it violates WP:Due to list them under King Michael’s family as the Lambrino section treats them differently and notes that they style themselves as princes. The individuals themselves are listed under their legal names/article titles so the reader can clearly see their claims of dynastic membership are controversial and largely unrecognised. A sentence can even be added emphasising the point but their claims of membership of the Royal family are more relevant in this particular article than the extended family members. - dwc lr (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DUE is NPOV. The difficulty as I see it is that Paul's claim to dynasticity has qualified him for listing under Pretender, where the threshhold is merely reported plausibility. But his claim is not decisive in this article, where the criterion is treatment in most reliable literature as established membership in the dynasty. Paul has established himself publicly as a rival to Michael for purposes of any Romanian restoration movement, but not as a dynastic member of the family of which Michael is still treated internationally as Head. Suppose Sarkoczy declared himself a candidate for King of France and received coverage of some voter interest. That might qualify him as a rival pretender for the French throne, but it would not make him a member of the Anjou, Orleans or Bonaparte dynasties, which are the only families currently treated by the literature as of "dynastic" status. Nicholas Medforth-Mills, it seems to me, is more widely viewed as belonging to the dynasty Michael heads than is Paul, even though I disagree. I do, however, think the situation is evolving. Lethiere (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If Nicholas Medforth-Mills or King Michael's other grandchildren are viewed as belonging to the royal family (what is their status regarding Princess Margarita being named heir to headship of the Royal Family are they supposedly in line also, this should perhaps also be mentioned in the article) then I could accept the Lambrino's current listing in the article although the grandchildren of Princess Maria and children of Princess Ileana should be removed as far as I know are not regarded or viewed as being members. - dwc lr (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we only list recognized Princes and Princesses of Romania? I am going to remove the grandchildren of princesses, as they belong to other royal families, but I will leave the children of princesses. Charles 02:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Extended family

I suggest that this section be removed entirely. There is no such similiar section on the pages Greek Royal Family or Bulgarian Royal Family. These people are not members of the Romanian Royal Family, nor do they claim to be. Such a section might be useful for a family which allowed inheritance by the children of princesses, but that is not the case with Romania. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't object. Charles 04:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to remove the section, keep the article for actual/claimed members - dwc lr (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the section "Titles and Succession" ("Titluri Si Succesiune" in Romanian) on the Royal Family's official website, since King Michael's 1997 statement on the matter, Margarita is considered "Heiress of all royal prerogatives." Granted that Michael, no matter how much he wants it, cannot change the last royal Constitution banning female succession, but this 1997 statement reiterated in this official website, along with another 1999 interview quoted in my edit, do imply that inheritance of the Crown can be passed through females, at least according to him. Based on this statement, Michael's grandchildren would definitely belong in here, as they are heirs to the Throne in his view. And since we are granting the Lambrinos the right to be included in the article based solely on their own claim to royalty and Crown inheritance rights, we must extend a similar courtesy to Michael's grandchildren on similar grounds (i.e. personal claims).

However, they (like Mr. Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern) are not titled, so they are not "royal" per se, but rather simply "family." Based on this latter argument, I would, too, agree with their exclusion from this article, since it is about a royal, rather than commoner family. But since commoners like the Lambrinos/Hohenzollerns have room in here again solely on their own personal claims, I must conclude that so do Michael's untitled grandchildren, on the basis of their grandfather's claim to Crown inheritance rights. Therefore, I am putting them back in. Lil' mouse (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even HM's personal wishes here do not have a bearing on the succession of females. As far as I know, those rights go to the Princely Family of Hohenzollern. Romania still has heirs and previous generations would not have simply passed the throne to a female on the basis of continuing that genealogical line. I, personally, would like to see just the King and his children since they are the only royals of Romania. Margarita may act as the head of the royal house in her view and her father's, but that rightfully goes to the Hohenzollerns. I am going to remove them on the basis that we should not allow ourselves to continue here to the exclusion of all other descendants. Charles 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit isn't about the succession rights (on which I agree with you fully), but about equal treatment: since both the Lambrinos and King Michael's grandchildren (through their grandfather) claim Crown succession rights, unsupported by laws or customs, both belong in the article. Lil' mouse (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The grandchildren should not be put back in on the basis of the Lambrinos. The Lambrinos claim to have the titles of prince and princess of Romania, the grandchildren do not. It would be better to remove the Lambrinos than to justify having the grandchildren in the article because of them. Charles 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a strong enough argument, as there are untitled members of other Royal Families (e.g. Princess Anne's children in the UK, the Casiraghis in Monaco). The lack of a title doesn't exclude them from their respective Royal Families. Lil' mouse (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between those who are invited to Christmas (the extended royal family) and those who are princes and princesses of the blood (the Royal Family). Members of the Royal Family are defined in limited terms, it does not extend to all descendants of a royal family. Yes, lack of a title does exclude them from the royal families. Why else would royal families have them if the titles weren't indicative of being royalty? Charles 08:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are considering dynasticity with membership in a royal family. Michael may consider his grandson to be a dynast but this does not make him royalty nor does it make him a member of the Royal Family. Also, Michael cannot change the line of succession and I imagine he might not have been able to change it as king either. If there were absolutely no dynasts after Michael then perhaps Margarita could become titular queen and Nicholas eventually titular king. Charles 08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"The term royal family "has no strict legal definition" (The Royal Encyclopedia, 1991). "The expression 'royal family' carries no strict legal definition. (...) When speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people could include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following people: Princess Anne's husband and her children (...). " (Source) While Britain may lack a strict, legal definition for who is comprised in the Royal Family, Romania had quite a clear law of the Statute of the Royal House (1884), plus a Constitution (1923), according to which, as I mentioned in my edit, Michael's grandchildren (along with the Lambrinos, I now add) would have been excluded -- both from the Royal Family, and from the succession. Thus, both should be either excluded together, or mentioned together in the article. And since we are all agreeing to the Lambrinos' claims as sole basis for their inclusion in the article, we must be fair and do the same with Michael's grandchildren on a similar basis -- Michael's own claims. Whether one calls them "dynasts" or "members of the Royal Family" is indifferent to me, although the Romanian public opinion (the monarchists, in particular) view them as the latter, assigning them titles not actually held. One of my edit sources even refers to "Prince Nicholas" as a "representative of the Royal Family:" "He stated that a solution would be Prince Nicholas or finding other representatives of the Royal Family." (Source). Lil' mouse (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

King Michael's own website has a page listing the members of the Romanian Royal Family - according to him [1]. It does not include his grandchildren. Michael has never said anything about the children of his daughters being in line of succession. The fact that an occasional unreliable source misuses the princely title for Nicholas Medforth-Mills changes nothing. Wikipedia uses RELIABLE sources. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. In a 1999 interview to the Romanian-Danish magazine "Dorul," referenced in my edit as "The Royal House Agenda - April 29, 1999," King Michael made "a few remarks on the succession to the throne:" "After her it will probably be Nicholas. But either for her, or for Nicholas, this thing cannot be done unless the Salic Law is changed! (...) In Nicholas' case, there is the same problem as for Margarita. If that article in the Constitution can be changed, both can come after me." Therefore, I'm putting the grandchildren back in. And if you're going to delete them again, you'd better delete the Lambrinos as well, since both the grandchildren and the Lambrinos are present in the article solely on their own claims (through a proxy, their grandfather, for the former), unsupported by any Romanian laws or customs. Lil' mouse (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By your own admission, the grandchildren cannot succeed if Salic law is not changed. It has not been changed. The King even knows this, I am sure. I will delete what we know does not belong. You can delete the Lambrinos; the rest of us cannot be held hostage to those conditions. Charles 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about what I think is right, but about what King Michael claims: he claims Nicholas "will probably be" "after her" (Margarita) "successor to the throne." Read again the quotes in my previous message, please, as you do not seem to have understood it. There is a clear understanding that Michael wants Nicholas to succeed ("will be"), or else he wouldn;t have made such a statement, desire supported as well by Nicholas' public promotion during public royal visits, and that he also wants the Salic Law changed. So there is a reliable source that proves the grandchildren have claims to the throne through Michael's statements. Therefore, I'm putting them back in. Also, I am not holding you or anybody hostage to any conditions: your own sense of fairness should hold you back from deleting the grandchildren again without deleting the Lambrinos as well, as they are both in here on similar grounds (personal claims). Lil' mouse (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

King Michael's own website lists the members of the Royal Family according to him: he and his wife, his five daughters, and Prince Radu. Nobody else is listed there. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Including Paul Hohenzollern. The article never listed Michael's grandchildren as members of the Royal Family, but as collaterals -- just as collaterals are listed under British Royal Family. King Michael never listed Paul at all. I stated earlier that I did not believe that Paul belonged in this article, but that his presence is an acceptable compromise. Then the collaterals were moved down below Paul. Then excluded altogetether. I support the compromise that if Paul is to be included based on self-assertion about his membership in the Royal Family, Michael's right to determine both dynastic membership and affiliation deserve at least as much consideration.Lethiere (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I believe it has been determined, Michael has only ever noted that Salic law still stands and that there isn't much of anything he can do about it. For that reason, his maternal grandchildren are automatically excluded. As for the Lambrinos, they directly claim to be members of the royal family based on (in their view) legitimate agnatic and dynastic descent from a king of Romania. However, I'm going to remove the grandchildren AND the Lambrinos, to end this (it seems to be agreed upon that it's both or none) and also because it was noted that the Lambrinos are simply non-dynastic claimants (and not members of the Romanian Royal Family). I think the individual merits of the groups can be discussed for inclusion, but it is pretty clear cut that the grandchildren of King Michael are not members of the Royal Family, just members of his private family. Charles 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why has all reference to the Lambrino’s been removed I don’t think that’s acceptable under wp:npov. We have a paragraph discussing the claims King Michaels’s grandson and grandchildren we can have a section on the Lambrino’s noting their claims to membership of the Royal Family. - dwc lr (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We have already had discussions about the Wikipedia policy on undue weight in reference to Paul and his claims. Clearly there should be more in this article about Michael's family than Paul's (based on majority/minority views). It seems to be that currently the article is giving undue weight to Nicholas even if it's appropriate to mention him. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

With Nicholas I’d say it’s appropriate to mention in this article that he sometimes referred to as a prince or member of the Royal family but the information on him potentially being an eventual heir is better suited to the Line of succession to the Romanian throne article than this one. - dwc lr (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is further proof that King Michael not only "desires" (as I expressed myself above), but also makes active claims that Margarita will inherit the Crown: "In the company of his wife, Crown Princess Margarita, the Prince represents the Royal Family of Romania on various occasions." This is from the site of the Romanian Embassy in the U.S.A. (source). This means that the Royal Family makes such claims even in front of the Romanian Government! Hence, we are talking here about actual claims of female inheritance of the Crown, y compris rights for their children, not simply wishy-washy desires. Lil' mouse (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

enactment

"privately without any legal consequence in an attempt to replace" is, imo, full of weasel wording or close, and also putting undue weight to a qualification which already is visible from the fact that the signator is former ruler, not current. An editor attempt to put these repetitively, indeed tautologically, to several articles. Henq (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not "privately" anylonger, but "in a private ceremony" -- fact, not speculation, given the two sources, one being the King's Press Bureau. As to the "without any legal consequence," this is true by comparison with the old Law of the Statute that the new Statute attempts to replace: it cannot obviously carry any legal consequence in Romania without a similar approval by the Romanian Parliament, unlike the 1884 Law. Michael, too, implies this, when he asks the Parliament to alter the succession law if the Parliament were to restore the Monarchy. Lil' mouse (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The old Statute is also already defunct in Romania, and was since some 1948. It is/was obeyed only on strength of tradition and voluteering, and as such, was basis of conveyance of some royal properties, because those property-holding individuals (= Michal himself, mostly) wanted to obey it. Thus, on 29 Dec 2007, the Old Statute had no more legal consequence than the new statute on 31 Dec 2007. I say again, that whole "without legal consequence" is undue weight - and smacks of weasel wording. Henq (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I will rephrase it to reflect the reality of my above considerations re: the necessary parliamentarian approval as requested by Michael himself. Lil' mouse (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The so-called rephrasing produces incomprehensible sentences, wordings that only superficially resemble English, but are not anything else than tortuous sequencing of english words to practically no meaning. Is it really so important to try to preserve all that weaseling. Henq (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-rephrased it by breaking up the run-on sentence into two shorter ones more easily comprehensible. Lil' mouse (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

House name

The name "Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen" is mentioned in parentheses in the new Fundamental Rules. Michael belongs to that House. His grandsons do not, traditionally. I would wager the name cannot be transferred to cognatic line, without the current Hohenzollerns' consent or possibly even requiring their extinction.

Of course, it would be a fine opportunity, already upon succession of Margarita, to choose a new House name. Henq (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The 5 Princesses are Princesses of Hohenzollern only ad personam per the Statute. Obviously they cannot then pass the Hohenzollern title along to their descendants, who will be simply known as "of Romania" (already part of their surname in French - "de Roumanie"), hence the future name of the Royal House (in English, French, and Romanian): "of Romania," "de Roumanie," "de Romania." Lil' mouse (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

International discussion

Some discussion and ponderings, on European Royalty list New Law of the Romanian Royal Family Henq (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite, Henq. From my experience on other similar boards, those like myself still believing in the divine rights of kings and in a monarchy with robust powers such as that of Liechtenstein or Monaco, not decorative ones, are usually judged by other royalists as old fashioned or even stupid. So I have no desire to become the target of ridicule. It all boils down to one's faith in God and, hence, the rights derived from Him by the kings. You either have this faith or you don't; such faith cannot be the topic of negotiations or disputes. Lil' mouse (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambrino/Hohenzollern surname

Carol Lambrino's surname was not "of Romania" in English for the same reason we don't have "Vincent of Gogh", "Charles of Gaulle", "Robert of Niro" or "Claus of Bülow". Carol wasn't "of" anything. The fact that he was given the surname "al României" on his birth certificate means just that. It is a surname. The argument it should be translated on the same basis that "von Hohenzollern" becomes "of Hohenzollern" for the Romanian royals is ridiculous. The Romanian royals belong to the House of Hohenzollern and are princes and princesses of Hohenzollern. Lil' Mouse, please stop your campaign of POV-pushing original research. Charles 14:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Al" in Carol's surname "al Romaniei" is a translatable Romanian word (meaning "of" in English). Romanian sources translate it (see link in my edits). You as a non-Romanian can't set up your own rules for what is/not translatable in the Romanian language; only Romanians can and they do translate it. That's the reason for my reversals and removals of your unwarranted tags. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First, von, de, du, van, etc are all translateable but it is not always done. I don't care what you do in the Romanian language, you cannot translate something into the English language that would not be done. Surnames stay as they are in the language from which they came. That's what we do in English and this is English Wikipedia, not Romanian Wikipedia. Charles 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that only royals' surnames, but not non-royals', are translatable, I'll accept your edits. Otherwise, I'll revert your edits as unreferenced POV's per Wiki rules, especially since I do have a source for my POV and you don't for yours. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

English convention is to not translate things that are only surnames. If it comes with a title, it may be translated. There are plenty of people in the Anglosphere with "de", "von", "van", etc, in their surnames. We don't translate it. It's not my POV, it's English convention, as opposed to what you admit is your POV, a Romanian convention you are imposing on English in a way English does not operate. Trust me, if I had to speak from personal experience without noting English conventions only, I know. I have von in my surname. I never said only royals. Do not state something I did not say and did not point to and expect me to prove it. Charles 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant aristocrats, not royals. If you can find a source proving that only aristocrats have their surnames translated, not non-aristocrats, I'll drop my case. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article “Romanian court recognizes Briton as Carol II's grandson” says Carol Lambrino’s surname is “of Romania”. - dwc lr (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does that source coincide with "King Carol II recognized his firstborn Carol Mircea as a prince"? Because that may have influenced the choice to, or at least the writer's error, in translating a surname which was granted without a title. Question: does "of Hohenzollern" appear on any Hohenzollern birth certificates? What about "of Baden" on Baden birth certificates? This is the exact same thing. There was no birth certificate issued in English with the surname "of Romania". Errors in literal translation do not equate to fact in English. Reliability of sources also comes into question as even esteemed publications can take it a little too far. Charles 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the full text of the Washington Times article? A lot of context is missing from the summary and it can be misleading. Charles 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the search page which retrieved the article. One can pay to have full access beyond this summary:

"Article 1 of 9{FOUNDITEMS:-0}, Article ID: a0633reu0041 Published on October 31, 1995, The Washington Times{PUBLICATION2} Romanian court recognizes Briton as Carol II's grandson Ex-King Michael calls nephew's effort ploy for throne

ALEXANDRIA, Romania - In a story better suited to 18th-century Europe than the late 20th century, a middle-aged Englishman who is the grandson of Romania's philandering King Carol II won the right this month to style himself a prince. "Paul Philip of Hohenzollern . . . also known as Prince Paul of Romania" is how his British passport describes the man who bested his uncle, Romania's ex-King Michael, in a dingy Romanian courtroom here this month in A new prince has been born and lives in Utah. Complete Article, 891 words ( )" Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles, how come you allow the first names to be translated (Margareta -> Margarita, Grigore -> Gregor, etc.), but not surnames? This inconsistency makes me want even more a reference for your claims/POV re: surnames. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually quote the passage about a surname or are we supposed to just believe you? Also, Margarita is a princess, her name appears in English sources (especially English-origin) sources as Margarita. As for Grigore, if I recall correctly I actually changed it at least once back to Grigore. As for claims about surnames, you admitted outright your POV that it's only a Romanian's business. Who has the POV now? I know what English naming practise is. English is my native language. We don't translate surnames, you understand? Charles 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See the replies here. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)