Was that fiction or truth ? Where did that information came from ? 
In an earlier post in this thread, I said that the only way that the two Marie Thereses could be held accountable for Henri’s actions was if they’d put a
Prisoner of Zenda scenario into action. My above post was fiction * and was intended to show just how stupid such a scenario was. The two Marie Thereses would never have done anything to hurt Henri.
As I see it, our difference of opinion about Henri hinges upon our different interpretations of free will/personal responsibility. I believe that people are responsible for their actions unless there are extenuating circumstances such as mental illness, severe childhood abuse, duress, and so forth. You seem to believe that people are responsible for their actions if, and only if, certain standards known to yourself are met. I hopped around the boards a bit and found that you’d held Charlotte of Saxe-Meiningen responsible for her actions even though she suffered from mental illness (not porphyria):
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=644.150 I believe that Charlotte was mistreated as a child, which helped trigger her illness. I do not believe that she was entirely responsible for her actions although I must admit that she was a nasty piece of work. Unlike Charlotte, Henri was not mistreated as a child, nor did he suffer from mental illness. In my opinion, that makes him 100% responsible for his actions, including his decision to torpedo his chances at restoration. If you disagree, so be it.
* You asked for my sources.
THE PRISONER OF FROHSDORF was based, in part, on
The Man in the Iron Mask by Victor Hugo;
The Prisoner of Zenda by Anthony Hope; the film
Cast Away; and, for a part that I wound up deleting because I felt that the star-crossed romance aspect did not fit the overall snarky tone,
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte.