Toţi ştim cine este Dieter Stanzeleit (74 de ani; împlineşte 75 la 28 noiembrie 2014): „prim-violonist al Filarmonicii din Dortmund, un prosper om de afaceri” (Cancan), pretins fiu al regelui Mihai I al României şi „Prinţ de Alba Iulia” (sic!): mai exact, un domn care nu poate fi decât suferind de „patologie transgeneraţională”:
„cu cât este mai profund şi mai costisitor emoţional efortul unui clan familial de a exclude un membru sau o amintire, cu atât forţa de regenerare a „fantomei” este mai mare şi mai supărătoare pentru succesori.Readucerea la lumină a secretului familial înseamnă eliberarea unor energii blocate pe lungi perioade de timp.” (Irina Roxana PETRE, Secretele familiale, patologia darului şi alte elemente de psihogenealogie – cf. Elisabeth Horowitz, Les fantômes du passé. Comment les deuils familiaux influencent notre vie).
Povestea începe cu o dramă:
«În realitate, tatăl biologic al subsemnatului este Majestatea Sa Regele Mihai I al României, realitate pe care dintotdeauna am cunoscut-o, fiindu-mi mai apoi confirmată şi de «mama» mea «adoptivă» , respectiv Dna. Irmgard Stanzeleit, ce mi-a destăinuit (de fapt confirmat) că, la începutul anului 1945, copil fiind, am fost lăsat, de către persoane necunoscute, într-o stare fizică extrem de precară (rănit şi sângerând) spre îngrijire doamnei Irmgard Stanzeleit, ce din compasiune a acceptat primirea mea, cu atat mai mult cu cât, în perioada respectivă se îngrijeau de fiul lor, ce îşi trăia ultimele zile (şi care, la scurt timp a şi murit) pe nume Dieter Stanzeleit, pe care, mai apoi, practic l-am «substituit»”.
Tipul a cheltuit mult cu hobby-ul genealogic:
Dieter Stanzeleit susține că a cheltuit până în prezent, peste 150.000 de euro, ca să demonstreze ca este fiul pierdut al Regelui Mihai I al Romaniei. (Unirea)
Oare cu ce afaceri se ocupă? Să vedem pe profilul său de Facebook (deschis la 11 februarie 2011): SC ROYAL CONSULTING SRL Vedeţi datele firmei aici: http://www.listafirme.ro/royal-consulting-srl-8079248/ „PROFIL ROYAL CONSULTING este o societate cu raspundere limitata. Proprietar si presedinte este dl. Dieter Stanzeleit. Incepand din 1997, sediul se afla in strada Polona nr. 15. ROYAL CONSULTING este o companie dinamica cu o experienta de mai multi ani pe piata romaneasca. Seriozitatea si experienta echipei garanteaza succesul nostru.”
ECHIPA Dieter Stanzeleit, President
ex-Minister General Niculae Spiroiu, Consultant – fost Ministru al Apărării Naționale (30 aprilie 1991 – 6 martie 1994), între gen. Victor Atanasie Stănculescu şi Gheorghe Tinca
Ioana Carpinisan, MBA, Project Manager
Olimpia Nicoleta Vadean, MBA, Commercial Operations Manager
Sorina Bunescu, Business Development Manager
Eugenia Carstea, Administrative Manager
Anca Berindei, Financial Manager
Echipa noastra are o experienta de mai multi ani in managementul intreprinderii, elaborarea, asistenta la implementarea proiectelor economice si comerciale la nivel national si international, evaluari, cursuri de perfectionare profesionala, mass-media etc.
CONSULTANŢĂ S.C. ROYAL CONSULTING SRL ofera consultanta specializata in domeniile: – programe nationale/internationale si implementarea lor – planificare economica strategica – identificarea si intermedierea proiectelor de afaceri – finantare internationala – infiintarea de companii si joint-venture – reprezentarea de companii si proiecte – restructurarea intreprinderilor – noi tehnologii pentru comunicatii si servicii – asistenta pentru IMM-uri – cursuri de training – studii de piata
PARTNERI ROYAL CONSULTING este reprezentantul unor lideri pe piata mondiala in: – constructia de conducte si sosele – IT si comunicatii – tehnologii de securitate – smartcarduri si eCard-uri – prezentari digitale pe suport mini-Cd – tehnologii pentru tratarea biologica a deseurilor. Care or fi aceşti parteneri?
PROFIT CONTACT Str. Polona nr. 15 RO-010491 Bucuresti, Sector 1 Tel.: 0040-21-210 17 66, 0040-21-210 17 78 Tel./fax : 0040-21-210 16 73, 0040-21-211 26 32 E-mail: email@example.com
NU ÎNŢELEG CE ÎNSEAMNĂ:
Nu înţeleg nici de ce „Prinţul” e atât de discret pe Facebook (n-are nici măcar poză pe profil!), contrar atâtor apariţii în presă şi a Statului la care aspiră….
Ajunge cu afacerile şi cu viaţa pe ‘net, să cităm din presă:
„Dieter Stanzeleit susţine că şi-a amintit, sub hipnoză, primii cinci ani ai copilăriei, petrecuţi, spune el, în România, la Casa Regală. El susţine în acţiunea depusă în instanţă că s-a născut pe 28 noiembrie 1939 la Mănăstirea Sinaia şi a fost botezat cu numele Nicolae-Vasile la biserica ortodoxă Sf. Ioan Botezătorul din Eforie Sud. „Pe copia certificatului de botez, ce se găseşte în posesia mea, sunt trecuţi ca părinţi Mihai de Alba Iulia şi Nerissa Lyon, care în realitate avea numele de familie Bowes-Lyon, în timp ce drept naşă de botez apărea o anumită Doamnă Colonel Vasile Voinescu”, susţine cetăţeanul german. În versiunea lui Stanzeleit, Regele Mihai I s-ar fi căsătorit în secret cu Nerissa Jane Irene Bowes-Lyon la Azuga, fiind cununaţi de primarul oraşului, în contextul în care Nerissa era fiica lui John Herbert Bowes-Lyon, unchiul actualei Regine a Angliei, Elisabeta a II-a. La ceremonie ar fi fost prezenţi doar câţiva ofiţeri din Garda Regală şi Prinţesa de Aosta, care a fost domnişoara de onoare a miresei. Toate acestea ar reieşi dintr-un raport strict secret al Corpului de Detectivi nr. D/117/13, datat septembrie 1939 şi semnat de colonelul Ion Vasilescu, şeful Corpului de Detectivi.
Presupusa soţie a Regelui, executată de SS În contextul în care România a întors armele împotriva Axei, în 23 august 1944, el şi mama sa ar fi fost arestaţi în Ardeal de către trupele SS, care ar fi executat-o în faţa lui. El ar fi fost lăsat de către persoane necunoscute în grija familiei Stanzeleit, al cărui fiu biologic, Dieter Stanzeleit, era pe moarte. Astfel, presupusul fiu al Regelui Mihai I a ajuns să îl substituie pe acesta din urmă, odată cu moartea sa, preluându-i identitatea. Aceste lucruri i-ar fi fost povestite lui Stanzeleit chiar de către mama sa adoptivă, Irmgard Stanzeleit, care i-a povestit că l-a acceptat din compasiune, deoarece era într-o stare fizică precară, era rănit şi sângera. În finalul solicitării depuse la judecătorie, Stanzeleit cere instanţei ca, „în baza probelor ce se vor administra în cursul cercetării judecătoreşti, să admită acţiunea după cum aceasta a fost formulată şi, în consecinţă, să constate că majestatea Sa Regele Mihai I al României este tatăl biologic al subsemnatului, dispunând facerea cuvenitelor menţiuni în actul de naştere al subsemnatului”. Stanzeleit solicită „în mod deosebit” încuviinţarea efectuării unei expertize medico-legale (genetică, tip ADN), ocazie cu care se va stabili legătura biologică dintre subsemnatul şi Majestatea Sa Regele Mihai I al României”. Dieter Stanzeleit, în vârstă de 73 de ani, a deschis anterior acţiuni cu acelaşi obiect în Germania şi în Elveţia. În 2006, el a publicat o cartea “Regina pierdută”, în care susţine, de asemenea, că este fiul natural al Regelui Mihai.”
“în Germania, s-a constatat că actele pe care foloseşte sunt contrafăcute de către Securitatea română sau cine mai ştie de către cine. Sunt acte care sunt scrise pe hârtie care nu existau pe vremea când actele sunt datate, sunt acte scrise cu pix cu pastă, când nu exista încă pixul cu pastă şi mai există acte de prin anii ’40 sau ’45, scrise cu imprimantă cu cerneală. Astea le-a stabilit un expert german, aceste lucruri sunt definitive şi irevocabile” – Avocatul Majestăţii Sale, Adrian Vasiliu
Diter Stanzeleit (73 de ani) susține că este fiul regelui Mihai dintr-o căsătorie anterioară cu britanica Nerissa Bowes-Lyon, rudă de sânge a reginei Elisabeta a II-a a Marii Britanii. Bărbatul are un certificat de botez ce poartă însemnele Episcopiei Constanța și care ar atesta botezul său la biserica din Carmen Sylva, actualul oraș Eforie. Pentru a-și putea dovedi descendența nobilă, Dieter Stanzeleit ar trebui supus unei probe ADN, însă acesta nu a fost cerut de justiție nici în România și nici în vreo altă țară în care a încercat să își facă dreptate Stanzeleit. Casa Regală, însă, neagă afirmațiile presupusului fiu. Ba chiar i-a trimis acestuia o scrisoare prin care i se mulțumește că se îndreaptă către rege pentru a căuta soluții, însă singurii copii pe care i-a avut vreodata Regele Mihai sunt cele Principesa Moștenitoare Margareta, Principesa Elena, Principesa Irina, Principesa Sofia și Principesa Maria. […] Povestea lui Stanzeleit este foarte lungă și pe alocuri atârnă de fire foarte subțire de ață. Uneori acestea par cusute cu ață foarte albă. „Părinţii mei s-au căsătorit pe 7 septembrie 1939, la Primăria din Azuga. Acestei căsătorii i-a stat la bază un „Acord de Principiu” al Casei Regale române. Cu numărul de document CA/76/31. VII. 1939 şi prevăzut cu observaţia „strict secret”, comisarul regal Ioan Cotuneanu atestă faptul că, în interesul statului, Casa Regală a dat curs rugăminţii lui Mihai, Mare Voievod de Alba Iulia, de a-şi legaliza legătura cu cetăţeana străină Nerissa Jane Irene Bower Lyon , cu rezerva ca nunta să nu aibă loc nici la Bucureşti, nici la Sinaia sau la Săvârşin. Pentru autentificare, ofiţeri ai Casei Regale vor atesta identitatea mirilor, iar nunta nu va fi trecută în registrul oficial. În document, colonelul Ion Vasilescu de la Corpul de Detectivi a fost împuternicit să facă un raport către Casa Regală despre respectarea exactă a acestor condiţii. Din cauza situaţiei politice critice, căsătoria a trebuit ţinută în secret”, scrie Stanzeleit pe site-ul său personal. De ce căsătoria a fost săvârșită într-o așa mare taină și, mai ales, cum a ajuns mama lui Stanzeleit în Germania lui Hitler și de ce au decapitat-o trupele naziste, sunt întrebări la care neamțul răspunde cu poticneli și cu povești interminale. Botezul în stațiunea Carmen Sylva Unul dintre documentele pe care Dieter Stanzeleit le foloseşte pentru a-şi susţine descendenţa regală este un certificat de botez eliberat de Episcopia Constanţa. Conform actului, botezul a fost oficiat în parohia Carmen Sylva, actualmente Eforie, la Biserica Sfântul Ioan Botezătorul, fiind oficiată de preotul Jean Roşescu. Conform aceluiaşi document, pruncul Nicolae Vasile s-a născut la Carmen Sylva, la data de 28 noiembrie 1939, naşterea sa fiind înregistrată la primăria comunei sub „buletinul numărul 14″. Data la care s-a oficiat botezul lipseşte din act, însă numărul documentului este 11, iar anul eliberării este identic cu cel al naşterii: 1939. Naşul nou-născutului este colonelul Vasile Voinescu, din comuna Bucureşti, judeţul Ilfov. Un preot care nu există Biserica unde s-a oficiat botezul, „Naşterea Sf Ioan Botezătorul”, este cea mai veche din Eforie, fiind construită în anul 1935. În 1939, anul oficierii botezului, era singurul lăcaş de cult din Carmen Sylva. Cazul a intrat şi în atenţia Patriarhiei, care le-a cerut preoţilor să caute în arhive şi să elucideze acest mister. Actualul paroh al bisericii este Lucian Costea. A cercetat acest caz din două motive: cererea superiorilor săi ierarhici, dar şi curiozitatea sa de posesor al unui doctorat în istorie: „Am văzut şi eu copia certificatului de botez. Ştampila pare să fie a parohiei, însă indiciile că ar fi original se opresc aici. Este ceva ciudat cu oficiantul botezului. Conform analelor bisericii, parohul de la acea dată se numea însă Mihail Buric. El ar fi trebuit să semneze certificatul. Cel care îl semnează de fapt şi figurează şi ca preot oficiant Jean Roşescu, un fost profesor de religie din Tuzla”, a spus părintele Costea. Martorii lui Stanzeleit sunt fie morți, fie din Serviciile Secrete Dacă îl întrebi pe așa-numitul prinț de ce nu poate aduce alți oameni care să confirme spusele sale, aceștia se află în una dintre cele două situații – fie sunt agenți ai Serviciilor Secrete, caz în care nu pot apărea public, fie sunt morți, caz în care ar putea apărea public în urma unor ședințe de spiritism. Practicile lui Stanzeleit nu sunt, însă, departe de ședințele de spiritsm, având în vedere că cele mai multe informații despre părinții săi au fost obținute de Stanzeleit prin ședințe de hipnoză, după cum mărturisește el însuși.”
(Alina Brebenel, Dieter Stanzeleit: A fi sau a nu fi rege)
Despre Nerissa Jane Irene Bowes-Lyon
„Povestea relatată de Dieter Stanzeleit nu are nicio legătură cu realitatea. Nerissa Jane Irene Bowes-Lyon (18 februarie 1919 – 22 ianuarie 1986) nu a fost niciodată in Romania și nu a fost nici arestată nici omorată de autoritățile germane. Fiică a lui John Herbert Bowes-Lyon și a soției acesteia Fenella Hepburn-Stewart-Forbes-Trefusis, Nerissa era debilă mental, defect de care suferea și sora ei mai mică Katherine. Ele nu erau capabile să vorbească și aveau nivelul de gandire al unor copii de 6 ani. In anul 1940, atat Nerissa cat și sora ei Katherine au fost internate la Royal Earlswood Hospital. Nerissa a decedat peste 46 de ani, fiind inmormantată in cimitirul din Redhill, Surrey.” (wikipedia)
Despre Nerissa şi Katherine (UK Answers – 2008):
As BEC noted, the Queen Mother had two first cousins who were institutionalized–a practice that was once common among British aristocratic families as well as their middle-class counterparts elsewhere in the world. Prince John, the son of George V, who was also an epileptic, was similarly hidden from public view. […] It’s a pity that the Queen Mum and the Queen didn’t admit to having close relatives who suffered from mental retardation, for it would have done much to improve the education of the mentally handicapped. [….] Katherine Bowes-Lyon and Nerissa Jane Irene Bowes-Lyon were the daughters of the Honourable John Herbert Bowes-Lyon, the Queen-Mother’s brother, and the Honourable Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis. In 1941, at the ages of 22 and 15 respectively, the girls were locked away in the Royal Earlswood Hospital in Surrey. Both girls arrived unable to speak and had only reached the mental age of six; however, no one apparently attempted to train them. Their sisters, Anne Ferelith Fenella Bowes-Lyon and Diana Cinderella Mildred Bowes-Lyon, however, went on to lead ordinary lives. Diana Bowes-Lyon, who was also Mrs. Peter Somervell (1923-1986), was a bridesmaid to the Queen. Katherine and Nerissa also had three first cousins (not related to the Queen Mum), who were also institutionalized: Idonea, Etheldreda, and Rosemary Fane. Ironically, the Queen Mother was patron of Mencap, the Royal Society for mentally handicapped children and adults.
Să-i dăm cuvântul lui Dieter Stanzeleit – care pretinde că există două „NERISSE”: una, KERISSA, e „nebuna” (şi n-are legătură cu familia Bowes Lyon), cealaltă, este NERISSA (chipurile, mama lui, a treia fiică a familiei Bowes Lyon)!!!:
THE TRUTH ABOUT NERISSA JANE IRENE BOWES LYON
During my historic research the biggest problem proved to be the question: Who was my mother? Although I remembered pretty well my talks with the foster mother about my father, I only kept my mother in mind of a countess.
Referiri deopotrivă anonime şi celebre:
Eyewitnesses in Romania described her as the close friend of my father, an extra-ordinarily beautiful woman, medium-sized. Nobody knew her name. They all had only vague ideas: Some said, she would have been from France, the others, she would have been from Germany or Sweden, a general’s daughter or – in confusion with the Lady in Waiting of Queen-mother Elena – she would have been called Catargiu. Her function at the court as well wasn’t quite clear. The one mentioned he would have watched, how nicely she had done Queen-mother Elena’s hair. Another had watched the Royal car passing with windows being covered by newspapers. There was a rumour that the girlfriend of the King should have to be kept secret. A former chambermaid from Sinaia heard my mother speaking German and she therefore even concluded that my mother would have been a German spy. When in Paris I met Gheorghe Barbul, then a close collaborator of marshall Antonescu, he could only laugh: “If a spy, then an English one. The King was completely surrounded by English spies.” Ivor Porter too, at those times SOE-agent and later British diplomate, could only smile. He told me: “When in 1944 after the Coup d’Etat I entered one of the royal private rooms in Bucharest, I got aware of plenty of photos all of persons who looked very similar to the British Royal Family.”
I read an outraged report of 1942 by the former German Embassy that the King would have waited for his girlfriend on the road. In detailed work I arduously went through all books about European nobility and couldn’t find any woman in the age of my mother, who could have been in Romania in that period and who had died in Germany in 1944/1945. The trails of my mother appeared to be untraceable. In fact I remembered faintly a certain ,Gräfin von Löwen’ or ,Lain’, but I didn’t know what to do. In my mother’s bible I found a name handwritten on one’s page margin: ,Cujdzgem’. At first it appeared to be part of a location nearby Brussels, but local inspection didn’t take me further besides that I learned that former Empress Zita of Austria had lived on the opposite side for some time. Also her son, Archduke Otto of Habsburg, couldn’t help me. The English noble family ,Cutsem’ appeared to be more interesting. Originally they came from Brabant and had been written in different ways, also ,Cutshem’. And this bible-entry which my second mother never could explain would sound in Flemish pronunciation similar to the name of ,Cutsem’. In fact there was a William Edward, department-director of ,military intelligence’ in 1939/40, he later worked in the Foreign Office. However everything pointed rather into the direction that my mother obviously had made a note of this name for her own memory. As much as I went through all European nobility-registers I didn’t find any person who could have been my mother.
When I began what is part of my work today, governmental and commercial consulting, it happened that in 1995 – grateful for my successful assistance -, an internationally well-known politician let drop a discrete hint leading to the family of the Earls of Strathmore. At first I hesitated. Then I was curious and studied the entries of the family. Soon I discovered irregularities in connection with a certain Nerissa Jane Irene Bowes Lyon. Born in London on 18. February 1919 as a daughter of Lady Fenella, born Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis, and of Sir Herbert Bowes Lyon. Up to 1960 she was registered in ,Burke’s Peerage’ as unmarried and alive, but without address, and during the following years as ,died February 1940’. However in the English and Scottish central registers I couldn’t find any death-entries in the period from 1937 to 1943. Therefore I called the director of ,Debrett’s Peerage’. He asked me: “Haven’t you read about Nerissa in the newspapers?” – “No,” I answered by surprise. “Almost 10 years ago newspapers reported about two mentally handicapped nieces of the Queen-Mum. One of those was Nerissa Bowes Lyon. If you would like, I can send you copies of the reports.” According to the articles between 6th and 10th April 1987 Nerissa Bowes Lyon would have died on 22. January 1986 as an inmate of ,Royal Earlswood’ Redhill, a home for mentally handicapped persons, buried in a poverty grave on Redhill cemetery. One photo showed what had been her grave, a poor heap of thrown up earth with two planks or stone slabs on top forming a ,T’. Only two plastic tags with ,M 11125 Bowes Lyon’ were sticking on them, no pre-name, no date. In the articles it was written that for decades nobody had taken care of Nerissa, no visits, no flowers. Totally forgotten by the outside world she had had a sad, secluded life in Royal Earlswood. Normally all members of the Bowes Lyon-family are buried on the private family-cemetery at Glamis Castle, however she had been forgotten… ,So far, but who would have paid the high costs for the home?’, the journalists asked. ,Well, the costs had been paid regularly’, was the answer from the side of Royal Earlswood. – ,But in that case some-one would have taken care of Nerissa?’ was the logic next question. The answer was shrouded in mystery: ,It might be that someone has come for a visit or that gifts have been sent.’ – ,How often?’ – ,I don’t know, probable once, probable more often.’
Further it was noted that immediately after the birth of the disabled baby Nerissa’s family was so ashamed that the birth hadn’t been announced in ,The Times’ as usual. Afterwards the daughter was kept hidden. Although externally she appeared, being completely normal etc… Nerissa’s youngest sister, Katherine, was mentioned, as well mentally handicapped, and her three direct cousins, daughters of Fenella’s sister Harriet. All five disabled ladies have been admitted to Royal Earlswood in 1941. The reason? During the German Blitz their families wouldn’t have been able to take sufficiently care of them. Experts were cited who indicated that at certain indigestibility within the genes of both parents defects could appear at the children. There was only one problem: Both mothers, the sisters Fenella and Harriet, didn’t have the same male partner. Another miracle yet: Those hereditary defects would come up in male lines, but here the female offspring had been exclusively effected. This raised the question: Why are all sons in good health and why are the daughters disabled? If externally the ladies looked normal, it could have been only manic depression, or? There were miracles without end. Finally someone had the idea – which wasn’t followed up further more – of the pregnant mother’s infection with German measles. And still a new guessing game: In that case only one child would have been effected. This accumulation of handicaps was so strange that I decided to research by myself.
At first I asked the General Register Office for the official copy of Nerissa’s death certificate. It had the 17. February 1919 as birth-date although according to the birth certificate Nerissa was born on 18. February, which might have been a minor error yet. But the person who had announced the death to the public authorities was registered under the term ,qualification’ as ,occupier’. This seemed to be strange in that connection, especially if an occupier of a home for mentally defected would have been in charge for a death of a patient with such kind of family relations. I arranged to meet Mr. Michael Ford, the ,occupier’. He was a friendly person. Upon my question about his qualification and what he is doing in the home, he told me that he is in charge to organize the social gatherings of the patients. The question remained: Why wasn’t the death of such a VIP-patient announced by the regularly administration-staff of that home?
Further more I asked Mr. Ford: “In the newspapers was mentioned that 1941 the five disabled women altogether had been admitted. Is that right?” – “Well, you shouldn’t believe everything in the newspapers”, he answered with a faint smile. It was just amazing when I looked into the central English death register. I couldn’t find ,Nerissa’, but instead ,Kerissa’ who died on the 22. January 1986. When I wrote to the central register office I even got the official confirmation: ,Kerissa’ is the correct name, but not Nerissa.
In London newspapers-archives, while leafing through old editions of ,The Times’, I found already a few days after Nerissa’s birth the announcement on the first page of the 26. February 1919-edition ,on the 18th February at 34 Cadogan Square to Hon. Mrs. John Lyon – a daughter’.
I studied the wills of Nerissa’s parents. Her father, full name John Herbert Bowes Lyon, who had died already in 1930, the mother, who died 19.July 1966. Then I made a sensational discovery: In both documents Nerissa’s name was missing completely! What was especially strange in the father’s will because there I could see even the youngest, mentally disabled sister Katherine as being entitled to inherit. Only one single daughter was missing: Nerissa. In case Nerissa would have been disabled as well as Katherine, why to put the one onto the list and to hide the other? Or have there been further, more important reasons? Had the story with the handicap only been an excuse to hide other, real reasons? In the mother’s will both names were missing, Nerissa as well as Katherine, although according to available information Katharine is living in a home still today.
I had bought an island in the North of Scotland and visited it from time to time. When once in Scotland I asked my lawyer in Inverness: “Tell me please, how is that possible? I can understand that Nerissa isn’t mentioned in her mother’s will of 16. August 1965, but in the father’s will of 28. March 1927 she should have been mentioned together with all the other children?” – “Yes, you are right”, my lawyer admitted and found the solution: “It is almost impossible to manipulate a will in the London central register. But you should see if there are all the signatures in the document. If it is without signatures, then it is a copy edition of the original will where of course the one and the other name could be left.” In fact! The mother’s will was provided with all signatures, however on the father’s there was not a single one. It was a manipulated copy, a manipulation of the original will, where next to the first daughter entitled to inherit, Anne Feredith’, my third daughter Diana Cinderella’ is coming and afterwards ,my forth daughter Catherine’, however the second one, Nerissa, is completely missing. Below the will’s text there are the witnesses’ names in the same typewriting as before: H. Little and Francis P. Miller of the company Rowe & Pitman and the post-script ,Proved 17th April 1930’. My grandfather John Herbert Bowes Lyon died on 7. February 1930. The document has no signatures at all, neither from the grandfather, nor from the witnesses or from whom who examined it on 17. April 1930.
And talking about inheritance I have to explain at least part of the miracle. One of the oldest English noble families is that of the barons of Clinton. Collateral branches even go back to the time of Charlemagne. 1957 died the 21st Baron Clinton without a son. His two daughters, The Hon. Harriet Fane and The Hon. Fenella Bowes Lyon, the latter my grandmother, were his only children. Upon the family-statute, valid for the barons of Clinton, the heritage cannot be divided, but could also be inherited through the female line, however without the right of primogeniture. Either they have to wait until one single line would remain sometime left or – what was also possible – to reach a common agreement with everyone who might be entitled to inherit about one single heir. Within this procedure it was mandatory to ask all living children or grandchildren of Harriet and Fenella. If in case of a common agreement about one single heir the ,College of Arms’ and the legal councilor of the Queen agree to the election, then this succession will be recognized.
After the death of the 21st Baron Clinton the situation was more than complicate. Harriet and Fenella had many children and grandchildren, among them also the mentally handicapped daughters and my mother who had been dead already for a long time, but who was yet registered alive in the English Peerage. Besides that there was also me, her son! The elder daughter, Harriet, married with Major Henry Neville Fane, had three sons and four daughters. From the sons only John Henry Mark was living. From the four daughters three were disabled, Idona, Rosemary and Ethelreda. Harriet’s sister Fenella, married with Hon. John Herbert Bowes Lyon, had no son, only four daughters. Patricia died already as a baby, Anne was married to Lord Anson and after divorce to Prince George of Danmark. The next were Nerissa, my mother, Diana and the disabled Katherine. According to the law of inheritance disabled children were entitled to inherit too, but my mother and me were the biggest problem. Obviously there was a lot of manipulation. Idonea and Rosemary Fane had supposedly died, also Katherine, only Nerissa was really dead. In spite of all, the common family-decision was in favour of Gerard Neville Fane as the heir, the grandson of Harriet. 10. March 1965 he was finally confirmed. I was alive and wasn’t asked at all.
Upon a request from the side of a member of the Bowes Lyon family, NHS in charge for Royal Earlswood confirmed in a letter that Nerissa Bowes Lyon had been admitted to Royal Earlswood on 5. August 1941, the same date as ,her 4 cousins’, and that according to their papers Katherine Bowes Lyon came into Normansfield Hospital on 19. December 1930 and ,probably all 5 cousins would been admitted together’ to Royal Earlswood. This information is incorrect. According to the newspapers there would have been admitted two daughters of Fenella Bowes Lyon and three of her sister Harriet. Therefore Nerissa would have been admitted not with four, but with three cousins. But if after the death of her father her sister Katherine – everything else is speculation – had been admitted in 1930 to Normansfield Hospital then we have to ask: Why wasn’t Nerissa, in case she would have been really disabled, registered at Normanssfield Hospital at the same time? Concerning Nerissa’s registration at Royal Earlswood there are two possible explanations: 1. Obviously visitors and inmates have been registered as well, and maybe the entries of the defected Katherine and the healthy Nerissa had been confused. 2. Nerissa would have made a visit to London in 1941. And during the war her visit as the wife of the Romanian King had been so delicate that because of security-reasons she stayed somewhere at Royal Earlswood and her registration on 5. August 1941 was just a pretence. We shouldn’t forget that the day before, on 4. August 1941, Queen Elizabeth, her aunt, had celebrated her 41st birthday. Probably my mother wanted to stay for a longer period in England? Anyhow in Romania 6 to 7 months before had been a bloody rebellion of the Iron Guards. About the same time the British ambassador together with all British citizens had left Romania and in July 1941 Romanian troops in spite of all Allied warnings had crossed the river Nistru conquering Russian territory. This act was considered a Romanian declaration of war by the British government. Therefore it would have been very reasonable for my mother to stay at an absolute safe place free from German spies and to wait what would happen with Romania in the future.
Always on all her travels my mother took me with her, probably because of security reasons, and I assume that sometimes I had stayed together with her in Royal Earlswood for a while. However completely unsuspecting without knowing anything about these strange stories I visited a violin-repairer in Redhill. On our drive from the railway-station we passed an imposing building which by the sudden appeared very familiar to me. “What is the name of this castle with the beautiful park?”, I asked him eagerly. He laughed: “It’s not a castle but Royal Earlswood, a home for mentally disabled. Two nieces of Queen-Mum should have been there, a big scandal, which was in the press. Didn’t you read about?” At that time I sincerely had to confess: “No, I didn’t. Probably there was nothing written in German newspapers.” Yet confused I asked once more: “But before it had been a castle?” – “No, it always had been a home for disabled.”
On 10.July 1940 German Luftwaffe began their attack on the channel-coast and on England. London was bombed mainly between 24.August and 27.September 1940 and Coventry on 15.November 1940. The last air-attack on London took place during the night of 10. and 11.May 1941. Therefore, almost three months later after the ,Blitz’, it was really no reason at all to bring all the handicapped daughters into Royal Earlswood ,because of bomb-attacks’ as it was printed in the newspapers.
According to another report Nerissa and Katherine should have visited Arniston special school in Hemel Hempstead for two years. Further enquiries were without results. It had been a private school, and not a single document was left.
Some years ago I asked a woman from the legal department of the British Embassy Bucharest to what extent there might have been the possibility to manipulate dates in such hospitals like Royal Earlswood. Her answer: “It depends on the institution. If it is a private one then it might be possible, but in a state-owned one it is almost excluded because of strict public controls.” – “Royal Earlswood had been a private home up to the end of the war. Immediately after the war it became public.” – “You see, before I had been possible.” The legal protection of the private sphere is extremely strict. All data concerning mentally disabled patients are kept secret for 100 years.
According to ,Debrett’s Peerage’ Fenella Bowes Lyon besides her London address had always a second one in Paris, Rue de Longchamp nr. 6, the actual Mexican Embassy. During the war the house was already property of the Mexican State. Because I couldn’t find any registrations of ,Bowes Lyon’ in the census-documents of the Paris Archives I asked at the national prefecture and got the reply that the relevant file is empty. In another file they found only one single registration under a different address, but from around 1920… It seems that my mother during her stays in Paris and working for the resistance and secret Allied missions had used an address, which was under international immunity.
To return yet to the subject German measles I am pretty sure that Fenella Bowes Lyon when being pregnant with little Katherine got somewhere an infection with German measles, which can raise defects at the still unborn baby. I don’t believe that in the case of Fenella and John Herbert Bowes Lyon there hereditary genes had been involved at all.
In spite of all tragic events the more or less manipulation of death-entries is resulting into the odd situation that my mother has two wrong death-dates and a real one while I have three wrong birth-dates and a real one.„