Seems like these arrangements were bungled.
Why was it possible not to issue her the shares?

There being no shares issued to the Perthes family,I assume the company
under discussion is a licensee of theirs?

: 9. “On or about 16 March 1998 the company published an edition of the work being
: substantially in the form prepared by the Plaintiff, and has thereby made
: substantial profits. Such publication was without the license of the Plaintiff.

"THE ballroom of Claridge's swelled with Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parma and
other Euro-exotics celebrating the relaunch of Almanach de Gotha - the first
time the stud book of continental grandees has been published since Jerry
overran the East.

"Some months on I learn that its editor, Charlotte Pike, a former toff-tester at
Burke's Peerage, is less than chuffed with its publisher, John Kennedy. She is
taking legal action in a copyright dispute which could rock the almanac.

"Kennedy (formely Gvozdenovic) is intriguing. He was the private secretary to
Prince Michael of Kent, with whom he parted on bad terms.

"He is also a one-time Tory hopeful, who suggested that he was engaged to a
Balkan princess. The princess seemed rather surprised by his bold announcement."

There is more to this story that will no doubt be revealed both about
this suit and Mr Kennedy (the subject of many newspaper articles in the
British press concerning his activities with a Libyan Prince, his arrest,
his involvement with a Yugoslav businessman and a suit for defamation
against the Sunday Times that Kennedy never pursued, etc).

Kennedy, born Gvozdenovic (of Montenegrin Serbian ancestry) was allegedly,
according to some newspaper reports, involved with the charming leadership
of the Republic Srbska - the unrecognized rump led by an indicted war
criminal - and even at one time with Milosevic, although Mr Kennedy has denied
this.

Ms Pike's (the Plaintiff) suit alleges that “upon the formation of the company
equity should be issued and divided as a percentage of 51% to the Plaintiff and
25% to the Defendant, 24% to remain unissued with the purpose that it may be
used to attract future equity investment. The effect of this provision was that
the Plaintiff was entitled to 67.1% of all shares actually issued…..

“On or about 16 Sep 1997 the Defendant became the sole beneficial owner of the
equity capital of the company and was appointed the sole director of the
company. At no time did he arrange the issue or allotment of any shares to the
Plaintiff.

“On or about 16 Sep 1997 the Plaintiff was appointed company secretary of the
company, and on 18 May 1998 the Defendant purported to remove her as company
secretary and to appoint a Mrs Valerie Long as company secretary.

7. “At no time did the Defendant inform the Plaintiff that, notwithstanding the
clear terms of the agreement, no shares had been allotted to the Plaintiff, nor
that she had no right to participate in the direction of the company.

8. “Although the Plaintiff was appointed company secretary, and notwithstanding
the terms of the agreement, the direction of the company was carried out by the
Defendant without her knowledge or participation. In particular decisions have
been taken relating to the ownership of the capital of the company and the
publication of the work without her being consulted.

9. “On or about 16 March 1998 the company published an edition of the work being
substantially in the form prepared by the Plaintiff, and has thereby made
substantial profits. Such publication was without the license of the Plaintiff.

10. “ At no time has the Plaintiff received any benefit from the publication by
the company of the work either directly or by way of remuneration or
distribution from the company. The entire profit and benefit of the said
publication has inured to the benefit of the Defendant by virtue of his
directorship in the company and his ownership of the whole of the issued share
capital in the company.

11. “The Plaintiff avers that had the agreement been properly implemented by the
Defendant she would have been entitled either by way of distribution or profits
or value amounting to the aggregate of 67/1% of the value of the company, such
value to include both actual profits, after costs of production but not
remuneration paid to the Defendant and value attributable to the probability of
future profits including, in particular future profits attributable to the
goodwill arising out of the production of the work.

12. “ …… By virtue of the said failures the Defendant has benefited at the
expense of the Plaintiff.

13. “By reason of the foregoing, the Defendant

(a) is liable, by way of specific performance, to transfer shares amounting to
67.1% of the issued capital in the company to the Plaintiff;
(b) Further or in the alternative, holds his interest in the capital of the
company as to 67.1% as resulting or constructive trustee for the Plaintiff
absolutely;
(c) Is liable to account to the Plaintiff as to 67.1% of all sums received and
to be received by him by way of remuneration and dividends from the company; as
set out in paragraph 11 above.

14. “ The Defendant is in the alternative entitled to damages for breach of
contract in a sum equivalent to the Plaintiff’s loss, being the sum referred to
in paragraph 13 above.

15. “ the Plaintiff further claims to be entitled to general damages for her
loss of opportunity to acquire further profits through having a majority equity
interest in the company.”

These allegations will no doubt be resolved in the eventual court action.

--- J.M.K.

Yes,where he credits Prince Nicholas Romanovsky-Sheremeteff
with a name and title to which he is not entitled,having
o,posed a genealogical absurdity on the text to favor the man.

: The new edition has
: also received raves in aristocratic circles in
: Europe and is a fine improvement on the "Pike"
: edition.  Ms Pike should perhaps better not claim
: anything against anyone considering the details
: that have emerged on her "careers" before Gotha,
: and her continued unprofessional and incorrect
: manner during and after her "work" with the Gotha.
: She is unimportant to the publication and has
: nothing to do with the new edition.

Well,the volume was promoted with leaflets(I have one) that
claimed it was edited by Pike,proofread by Williamson,
overseen by Perthes...and said not a thing about Kennedy.

: As to Mr Sainty, who has used the title of
: Almanach de Gotha (the title belongs to the
: original publishers--Perthes in Germany--who are
: very satisfied with the new Gotha) without right
: as well as information from the 1998 Gotha
: (including some of the errors!) on his websites,
: there is really nothing to be said--he seems to
: say it all himself.  It is obvious why Mr Sainty
: is so interested in promoting this worthless
: information.  Certainly, the Houses listed in the
: Almanach de Gotha are familiar with the attitudes
: of the press and care nothing about this absurd
: subversion of Mr Kennedy, a trusted editor of an
: important work.
: RD

Dag T. Hoelseth

--
Dag T. Hoelseth <dag...@my-dejanews.com>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2122/royalty.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2122/norway.html

We need to be honest and open here about its flaws here, as well
as the good points. Here is what I found, just quickly flipping
through the first 30 pages (Anhalt article and the start of the
Austria article):

In both 1998 and 1999 editions:

   Wrong year of death for Alexandra of Anhalt.
   Her second husband was born 3 Feb 1917, not " ... 1916."
   Archduchess Michaela's second marriage is not mentioned.
   Her brother, Archduke Karl's civil m date is not given.
   Neither Archduke Carl Philip's wives or child are mentioned.
   Civil m dates of sisters Adss Alexandra and Constanza are omitted.
   Wrong date of death for Emperor Karl's brother Archduke Maximilian.
   Wrong date of birth for the above's grandson and namesake. The Gotha
     is assigning to Archduke Maximilian the birthdate of his first cousin,
     Archduke Philipp.
   Year of Archduke Guntram's marriage is wrong.
   For the birth date of Pss. Maria Cristina of the Two Sicilies,
     wife of of Archduke Peter Ferdinand, the Gotha gives a birth
     date which is actually that of her sister, Princess Maria Pia.

On the other hand, I also note these 1999 improvements in the same pages:

   Edda of Anhalt's husband's place and date of birth
     1998 edition: ... 1937;  1999 edition: Darmstadt, 15 Apr 1936
   Archduchess Isabella's 1997 marriage is mentioned.
   Archduchess Anna-Eugenie's 1997 death is mentioned.
   Archduke Ramon's and Archduke Istvan's families were
      brought up to date.
   Archduchess Viridis's birth date is corrected.
   Archduchess Marie des Neiges's birth date is corrected.
   Peter & Lauren von Habsburg's "divorce" (which never happened)
      has been rectified.
   Ashley von Habsburg's year of birth is corrected.
   [Note that none of these items were "Gotha exclusives."]

Don't misunderstand. I am very happy to have a copy of the Gotha,
and I heartily applaud the effort of those who obviously worked
hard on it, and are trying to improve it. However, the lovely paper
and the exquisite typeface does not "cut it" with those who are
buying the book primarily as a reference tool. The new Gotha is
certainly "a source of information," but unless some significant
work is undertaken by somebody, it is premature and somewhat
misleading at this time to acclaim the Gotha "a revitalized and
important source."

This is a very good posting and makes a serious point. The Gotha was
gone for 54 years, if
we had waited for perfection we would probably never have seen it
again, the bulk of the
book is correct and this year sees a lot of improvement and updates,
with original and unique
information, Portugal, Leiningen - these entires in particular, even
Albania!

The reason the Gotha would never have come back if we waited for the
perfect Gotha is the
man power needed, it would never have been economical. It must be
obvious that if we are
all going to go to the effort of finding errors, changes or updates the
most sensible thing to
do is send them to Almanach de Gotha! If it is used as a repository for
information then it
will truly be great.

Members of this forum seem to be being dragged into a commercial take
over dispute and a
Court case Mr Sainty is taking to try and gain ownership of the Gotha,
that is an issue of
little relevance to most of us who can in fact contribute. I notice
those that provided
information this year were acknowledged, so their names will be on
someones book shelves
for the next 200 years.

Your point about families pulling their fingers out is a good one - it
must be difficult if they
do not respond. I have found some original and unique Gotha info in
Austria, including
marriages and deaths, one must assume that if the head of the Imperial
House has seen the
entry and joined the Committee he gave the entry the OK? In any case it
is a completely
different entry to last years and MUCH better.

Many libraries and individuals who had not purchased the Genealogisches
Handbuch des Adels have now purchased the 1998 edition of the Almanach
de Gotha with its numerous errors.  A much smaller number will purchase
the improved 1999 edition.  How is this an improvement?  What was wrong
with the GHdA?

I'm just asking.