Talk:Michael I of Romania/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Michael I or Michael Hohenzollerin

The Simeon II of Bulgaria page was moved to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as Simeon is a living former monarch of a former monarchy (Bulgaria). Should a similar page movement occur here? as Michael is a living former monarch of a former monarchy (Romania)? GoodDay 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Simeon II was elected prime minister of nation which is not a monarchy and therefore he does not use his title as prime minister. Michael I, however, never abdicated and still uses his royal title. One cannot also apply the name "Hohenzollern" to Michael as if it was a surname. Charles 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see, if Simeon II had never served as Bulgarian Prime Minister, his article would still be Simeon II of Bulgaria. That's cool. GoodDay 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But when Simeon abdicated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 14:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

23 August, today is the occupation day of Soviet Union

23 August, today is the occupation day of Soviet Union —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.17.140.181 (talk) 08:14, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Where in Britain

where in Britain did King Michael live?

Tuva

Tuva's independence was not recognized by the world, only by its Soviet creators (USSR) and another Soviet state (Mongolia). See "Eastern Destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific" By G Patrick March, page 200. Therefore, its leaders do not belong in the list of WWII leaders - only independent states qualify. 68.60.131.225 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

More "WWII" stuff

• Facts: Simeon Sakskoburggotski was Tsar of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1946. This OVERLAPS WORLD WAR II. Yes, he was a minor, but he was a head of state, and it is common knowledge that is still living! He was prime minister of Bulgaria until a few years ago! Therefore, Mihai I is NOT the last surviving head of state from World War II. Sources, even newspapers, can be inaccurate! If you are not willing to allow the truth to be included in the first paragraph, the entire sentence will be removed. —Sesel (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

These are not "facts", just your own statements, based on "common knowledge", whatever that means. Let me remind you, Sesel, of a basic Wikipedia policy, namely, WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have 4 independent, reliable sources asserting one thing, against your word. There is no dispute here -- for that, you'd have to bring some sources, to back up your contentions. Finally, let me remind you of yet another WP guideline: WP:POINT, which says, "If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point." You've been pushing your theory for a long time now; it's time to let go. Turgidson (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but it is a well established fact (any encyclopaedia can prove this, such as the well reputed Britannica), not a matter of opinion, that Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria was head of state during WWII (since 1943 until 1946). He is still alive today, thus Simeon II also qualifies for "surviving head of state from WWII", regardless of what a couple of poorly educated American journalists, even from the New York Times or Fox News, have to say. Between the opinions of New York Times and Fox News media outlets and the facts presented by Encyclopaedia Britannica, there is no question which source is more reliable, since you bring up the issue of reliability... Adversus hereticos (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Abdication

It is not a well-established fact that Michael was blackmailed with the death of 1,000 students to abdicate. There is no independent corroboration aside from his own statement, which, as we see, is contradicted by other media reports (Time, etc.). The wording of the abdication part should reflect this contradiction and lack of a final proof, by saying "apparently". Adversus hereticos (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adversus hereticos: some of the edits and reverts you have recently made are not helpful to the article. Moreover, some of your edit summaries, such as here and here, are not conducive to a productive discussion. Accusing other editors of "vandalism", "POV pushing" and whatnot -- with absolutely no basis in fact -- goes against several Wikipedia core principles and guidelines, such as WP:AG, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Please consider these guidelines more carefully. Turgidson (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You should stop labeling unpalatable info from reliable sources such as Time magazine under "original research," "dubious," etc. There are clear doubts over Michael's version of the abdication story expressed in the Time article. Your edits push obvious pro-Michael POV's here and elsewhere. Please, adhere to WP:NPOV. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Say again, Lil' mouse, how exactly do you arrive at your conclusions, based on my editing? From what I can tell from your edit history, you are interested in a single issue here at WP, namely, the Romanian Royal Family. Fine with me, and I have no idea what your point of view about that subject is (and frankly, I don't really care). Just please don't come here and bring your theories about what my POV is or isn't on the subject, and definitely don't start saying I'm "push[ing] obvious pro-Michael POV's". Not only is this totally off the mark, it also goes against WP:AGF policy, which I strongly urge you to review before continuing this discussion (if we must). While at it, WP:CIVIL would also be worth consulting before brandishing around those POV/NPOVs the way you just did. Turgidson (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lil' mouse, I am afraid you are mistaken. There are no doubts over Michael's version of the abdication story. Nobody denies it, it's just that nobody confirms it either. The reasons for which I would put the story about blackmail inside are:

1.Nobody denies the story happend in such a way.

2.Since Wiki is about verifiability we should mention it, for this info is adequately sourced.

3.king Michael, is considered a trustworthy figure in Romania (he was never caught publicly lying or something like that).

4.The man sent by the soviets for overthrowing Romanian monarchy and installing the communist regime was Andrei Vyshinsky, the notorious prosecutor of Stalin’s 1930s show trials. Who was used to using such methods as extreme blackmail and worse to get people to cooperate.--Fsol (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fsol, I am afraid you are mistaken. There are plenty in Romania who doubt Michael's abdication story. If you actually read the entire Abdication section, you will be struck by the inconsistencies between the conditions of Michael's abdication (lots of money and cars he left Romania with -- all well-referenced) and the alleged blackmail: the financial generosity manifested by the Communists doesn't jive at all with blackmail. Also, there is no independent corroboration from archives of this alleged blackmail: it's all based solely on statements coming from Michael and his immediate entourage. So it is of paramount importance when a report like that from Time is quoted, as it is a reliable, independent source. To smear it with OR and Weasel tags is just too much: it's aggressively pushing pro-Michael POV's. I am eagerly awaiting for Turgidson's proofs for these (mis)labelings. Sadly, though, Turgidson does not even understand what WP:OR entails, since he labels as OR a clear-cut fact, such as Tsar Simeon's status as another surviving head of state from WWII, logically inferred from his regnal years overlapping WWII... Lil' mouse (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lil' mouse, I may be mistaken but I don't know. First for what you call "inconsistencies" in the abdication story, I don't think the fact that he took cars and apparently lots of money with him is inconsistent with him being blackmailed. Communists could have very well said something like: "If you leave we give you this if you don't we do this". So the "financial generosity manifested by the Communists" may jive very well with the blackmail, even more it would be more coherent this way.

Second of all, the fact that the blackmail is based solely on what he says. Of course it's based on what he's saying, it can only be based on what he is saying. When documenting something done by someone, it stands to reason to ask the person itself why they did it. That is all that I'm saying to put into the article: the mention that blackmail was exercised according to the king. This is our case, Michael tells his story which nobody denies. So putting this passage into the article both enhances comprehension of events presented there and is properly sourced.--Fsol (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fsol, that there may well have been some sort of combination of a generous offer and a blackmail, although the latter seems difficult to prove beyond any doubt -- see the "Compression" report from Time, January 12, 1948, whose quotes were apparently obtained from King Michael himself. In these quotes he speaks of future arrests of thousands, not of 1,000 existing student prisoners. This questionable blackmail has surely been combined, though, with a substantial money offer (500,000 Swiss francs, according to both Foreign Office and Soviet sources), which some may call, well, a bribe... Not to mention the Crown paintings (according to the Queen-Mother's daily diary, read and quoted by the King's biographer Ivor Porter) presented to him so as to speed up his departure, which may also be called a bribe... So here you have it: blackmail and bribe together. Lil' mouse (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof of your obvious pro-Michael POV: you deleted the second (anti-Michael) half of the sentence on the reasons for his August 23, 1944 coup, leaving in only the pro-Michael reasons in this edit. Your excuse for doing it is deceiving: there is nothing "weasly" in that half sentence, except for simple paraphrasing of a reputable source, Jurnalul National. Now start adhering to WP:NPOV, please. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One more time: please stop this nonsensical attacks on my good-faith editing. Unless you start by assuming that, again, per WP:AGF, and not read all sorts of conspiracy theories in my edits, there is absolutely nothing I have to say to you. Turgidson (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The proof in my last message above speaks for itself. I will not continue to argue with you anylonger, as you clearly do not understand, nor respect WP:NPOV. Any further attempt to push your obvious pro-Michael POV here or elsewhere will be reported to Wiki administrators for mediation and correction. This is my last warning to you. Lil' mouse (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis, Weasel

Turgidson, please, justify your tags, as per my invite of a couple of days ago. My acceptance of your tags was conditional upon your proving them using the WP rules for these tags. If in three days you don't justify them with arguments here, I will rescind my acceptance and delete your tags. FYI, I am cross posting this on your user Talk page as well. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Fsol's recent work on the article, there is no need for this anylonger. Lil' mouse (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Official Government records of royal artwork

Fsol, the reference speaks of official, not private records. These were the results of a governmental commission that invetoried Peles castle between January and April of 1948 and whose results were published by the Government in its official publication, Monitorul Oficial ("The Official Observer") of June 19, 1948. Here is the relevant quote from the article (in Romanian): «"Bunuri inventariate si evaluate de Comisia expertilor de arta" publicata în Monitorul Oficial din 19 iunie 1948, pp. 5223-5224». Translation: «"Goods inventoried and evaluated by the Commission of art experts," published in Monitorul Oficial of June 19, 1948, pages 5223-5224.» Lil' mouse (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the Government didn't inventory the goods only after it took them over from the royal family? Because if it did, how would anybody know what is in fact missing? Anyway this does show inconsistency with Tariceanu's statements.--Fsol (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference doesn't speak of any thefts by the Communists prior to the inventory, so we must assume that, at least as of June 19, 1948, the official records included everything taken over by the State from the Royal Family. The article author is, in fact, a former member of this governmental commission, speaking very sympathetically of King Michael, Queen-Mother, and the Monarchy in general, against the Communists, so his testimony on any possible Communist thefts is believable. However, later on during their dictatorship, the Communist leaders certainly appropriated some of these goods for their private use and enjoyment. Not yet, though, at the time of the commission's work and official June 1948 report. Lil' mouse (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Modifications

First, I took the reference about the Soviet transcripts of the talks between Groza and Stalin that are mentioned in the text because it had no reference and the link was bad. Besides the fact they are sourcing is already sourced by Lil'mouse's reference from the Foreign Office. Now the source isn't more credible ("Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" is far from being a reliable source) So I propose we take it out since it is both unnecessary and inadequately sourced.

The source is very credible: Rompres is the Romanian national news agency. The fact that the old link died does not make the source any less credible. I found a new link, of a perfectly credible journal, albeit smaller one, which quotes in its entirety the Rompres communique, but this link is not necessary per Wiki rules. I could have simply left the old Rompres reference without any link whatsoever (see the Le Figaro reference at the bottom of the Reference list). Most importantly, though, the Institute which published the Soviet transcripts, "Institutul Naţional pentru Memoria Exilului Românesc" (INMER) is presided by nobody other than ... King Michael himself: "INMER se afla sub Inaltul Patronaj al Majestatii Sale Regele Mihai I." This should ensure the report's credibility for any die-hard King Michael fans, like Turgidson or yourself. Therefore, I am putting back in the Soviet report, since there is no question of reliability of the original source (Rompres) or of the Institute's findings. Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, "Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" is far from being a reliable source. If you get the Rompres link I'm fine with it, but still its only a report of talks, not a KGB report or anything.

Second, even if I were what you call a "die-hard King Michael fan" which I'm not, I fail to see how that would make "Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" a better source.--Fsol (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, delete the Jurnalul link, but the Rompres reference stays as Rompres is reliable, even without a weblink. WP:V does not require a weblink for a source to be reliable. Regardless of whose archives the Institute used -- the KGB or the Soviet (Communist Party) ones --, the WP:V rules say an edit is valid as long as the source (i.e. Rompres) is reliable. So my edit stays, unless you want to rewrite the Wiki rules. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't see the relevance of me wanting or not to change any wiki rule. Second, how do we know what Rompress is saying?--Fsol (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First why don't you prove here your assertion that "Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" is "unreliable," since I disagree with you, and then we'll talk more on this issue, ok?

The idea that he had 500,000 swiss francs is already sourced. I don't see why we need Stalin and Groza's talks to confirm something which is already established in the Time magazine which everybody accepts as a reliable source.--Fsol (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The two sources are not saying the same thing. You insisted below to say that it is not actual money Michael had, but rather "assets" of any nature, according to the BBC (not Time, nota bene). The Soviet archives speak instead of actual money -- two different things. That's why both must be included. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, the sources don't say the same thing. If you source Stalin and Groza's talks correctly I will accept your edits. Otherwise how am I, or you for the matter, suppose to know what Stalin and Groza spoke about.--Fsol (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I sourced correctly the news of their talks being made public and what the historians saw in them, not their actual talks verbatim. You are not supposed to know what's in them, but trust what the historians saw in them. And you must trust their account because the source is reliable (Wiki is not supposed to state the truth of these talks, only reliability/verifiability of the source - see WP:V). Therefore, please, prove that my Jurnalul source is unreliable if you are going to delete this one source. As to the Rompres source, you agree that it is reliable - so you don't need to read its text (again, WP:V does not require the instant visibility of the original source - i.e. no weblinks required). If you want to read what's in it, you can go to their website and pay for the service. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Second, King Michael doesn't style himself. 1)"Prince of Hohenzollern", for it is a title that he has by birth from his family. 2)the Time article that would serve as source for this doesn't say King Michael started styling himself it just calls him "Prince of Hohenzollern". 3)These accounts have no business in the abdication section.

You are mistaken. Nobody in the Romanian Royal Family had used the title of "Prince(ss) of Hohenzollern" after it had been withdrawn from them by the German Hohenzollerns during WWI. Even Carol II did not dare use it during his exile! So you have no proof when saying Michael had the title from birth. Moreover, Time says it was Michael's new title, so he had just started styling himself with it right after the abdication: "This week, as a special train carried the newly styled "Prince of Hohenzollern" (on his way to Switzerland) (...)." (Source) And yes, it does have a business with the abdication, because it proves that Michael did not regard himself as King anylonger right after the abdication and before its denounciation, because otherwise he wouldn't have felt the need to adopt a new title! If he had continued to regard himself as King right after it, he would have continued to use the King title, not adopt a new, lesser title of Prince! Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, unless new evidence is presented, I agree. But put it in a better section than the abdication one.--Fsol (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not put it elsewhere. In fact, I will include the implications of his new self-styling in this section, to make it obvious why it belongs in there, especially since you agreed with them... Lil' mouse (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as I do with everything, as long as they are properly sourced. However how he fancies himself issn't related to abdication. So it must be put in elsewhere.--Fsol (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You just agreed with the implications of his self-styling two messages above, now you're changing your stance. Very unconstructive. The edit stays. Lil' mouse (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop caracterising my statements. I agree with everything that is properly sourced including the self-styling. Where am I changing my stance?--Fsol (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Three statements above you did not split hairs like this and agreed generally, including with the implications. Are you now saying that you do not agree with the implications of his new self-styling (see above)? Lil' mouse (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are not answering my question. You say I am changing stance, my question is: where am I changing stance? I still agree with any sourced information but also that it has to be put in the right place, which is not the abdication section.--Fsol (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to your original question: how is this title issue related to the abdication? It is because only starting with his abdication Michael used the new Prince title instead of the King title (see both Time sources referenced). He went back to using the King title only after denouncing the abdication. I took out the implications thereof, since they are my own personal interpretations, but these facts are related to the abdication, so they must be in here. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Third, the assets that the Foreign Office refers to aren't financial, but just assets. So they could have been the value of the cars he took with him.--Fsol (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It could have been anything. The source doesn't say "financial." I'll take that word out. Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, Time Magazine doesn't allege that it took Michael 2 months to attack the abdication. It quotes a communist that does and afterwards gives the explanation: ""It seems rather peculiar," a Rumanian Communist official murmured suavely in Bucharest, "that it took the ex-King two months to make up his mind that his hand had been forced." Michael's difficulty, however, had not lain in making up his mind, but in finding an opportunity to speak it. He had been negotiating with the Communists for the salvage of some of his Rumanian properties.".--Fsol (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you are mistaken: there are no quotation marks around the He had been... part, so you cannot say for sure whether or not Time quoted a Communist source for it. It is just your speculation based on its vicinity to a prior statement, indeed, made by a Communist. If anything, the "however" adverb suggests an opposition to the Communist's prior statement, lessening the chances of the info on the negociations coming from him. Since you or anybody cannot say with 100% certainty wherefrom Time got the information on the negociations, I find the current form of the edit appropriate. Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not Time's magazine opinion which is stated it's a quotation from a Communist, which we can add to the article. Time's statement is that Michael couldn't condemn the abdication until he finished negociations.--Fsol (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Show me, please, the quotation marks or something like "according to X Y Z" in the He had been... sentence, and I'll believe it's a quotation from a Communist or whomever you want. Otherwise, no. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

""It seems rather peculiar," a Rumanian Communist official murmured suavely in Bucharest, "that it took the ex-King two months to make up his mind that his hand had been forced." Michael's difficulty, however, had not lain in making up his mind, but in finding an opportunity to speak it." Is exactly the quote.--Fsol (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no quotation in the sentence in question He had been... which you have edited out both here and in the article. Do you see any quotation marks in this sentence? I don't, so no Communist's quotation, only what Time alleges. That's why I will revert your change. Lil' mouse (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look again at the article, it states what a Romanian Communist official murmured suavely in Bucharest. Then it goes to say its opinion which is that: "Michael's difficulty, however, had not lain in making up his mind, but in finding an opportunity to speak it".--Fsol (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, the article does not say "according to this Communist official," nor uses any quotes afterwards in the He had been... sentence. It is not explicit that it was this Communist source. It could have been anybody. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what the article says, what the Communist official murmurs.--Fsol (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not: there are no columns after the "murmurs," so you cannot tell if the next couple of sentences come from him or another source. You are making the same mistake I did by putting in things that were not explicitly stated in the abdication article. Since I agreed with you not to put in things not actually said in the abdication article (see History summary), so must you in this one, to be fair and also to adhere to the Encyclopedia guidelines you quoted. No explicit Communist source mentioned in the He had been... sentence, hence it is only what Time alleges. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackmail or negotiations?

This is what historian Mihai Pelin states: "S-a afirmat ca ar fi fost nevoit sa abdice, deoarece comunistii, in caz contrar, erau pregatiti sa ucida 1.000 dintre studentii bucuresteni. Cifra rotunda, nici 999, nici 1001. Dar cine poate sa creada o asemenea aiureala?! La data aceea, comunistii aveau toata tara in mana, armata era sub comanda lor, de Siguranta nu mai vorbim, nu mai exista nici o forta politica capabila sa li se opuna si, intr-o asemenea situatie, cine putea sa-i impiedece sa-l ia pe rege pe sus si sa-l arunce dincolo de frontiera?" ("Intoarcerea de la Londra si abdicarea", Jurnalul National, November 17, 2005) Web link: http://old.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=40670

Translation: "It has been stated that he would have been forced to abdicate because otherwise the Communists were ready to kill 1,000 of the Bucharest university students. A full 1,000, neither 999, nor 1,001. But who can believe such hogwash?! At that moment, the Communists had the entire country in their hands, the army was under their command, not to mention the Siguranta [the Intelligence Agency], there was no political force left capable of opposing them and, in such a situation, who could prevent them from taking the king by storm and from throwing him out of the country?" ("The return from London and the abdication", Jurnalul National, November 17, 2005)

These are the pertinent quotes from The Titoites by Enver Hoxha, The <<Naim Frasheri>> publishing house, Tirana, 1982.

• on the forced nature of the abdication, including the army troops encirclement the royal palace: "After we had dinner with Dej in our new <<residence>>, amongst other things he told us how they had forced King Michael to abdicate." (p. 518) "We racked our brains about why he went out, and we had reasons for this, because he had telephoned the guard, ordering them to arrest us as we left, and his forces, which were surrounding the palace and in the city, were to stage a putsch. However, we had foreseen this,>> said Dej <<and had established an encirclement of the encirclement." (p. 520) "<<When the king returned to the chamber, I signalled to Groza to present him the document for his signature. Then, I began to speak,>> said Dej, <<and in a stern tone I told him that he had to sign the document, for otherwise we would overthrow him by force.<<'You must have no illusions, must issue no orders,' I stressed to the king,>> said Dej. <<'Anything you may attempt will be in vain, since we have taken all measures around the palace and the troops loyal to you.'<<He turned and twisted, but in the end he sat down and signed the abdication. Thus, the monarchy came to an end.>>" (p. 521)

• on the properties and persons with which Michael was allowed to leave Romania: "<<We reached agreement with him about the day of his departure from Rumania,>> continued Dej, <<and we permitted him to take what he wanted of his personal property and some people who served him, including two or three of his mistresses. Before he left, he asked to go to the Sinaia Palace to get some personal property. We permitted this. There he had collected a number of gold watches from which he took the gold cases and the rubies. We sent him by train outside our borders, accompanied by our guards.>>" (p. 521) "Dej's king took the watches but he forgot this." (p. 522)

• on the threat with a pistol by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej rather than by Petru Groza, as Michael (wrongly?) recounts: "That same Dej who at one time had boasted of his <<valiant deeds>> with a pistol in his belt against a king fallen from power." (p. 572)

Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)