Born into an ancient clan of Moldavian boyars, and claiming Montenegrin Balšić descent on his maternal side, he was unable to maintain his economic status, and eventually had to work as a lawyer.

During the interregnum which followed Cuza's toppling by the "monstrous coalition" in February 1866, he joined a separatist caucus in Iași, convincing Nicolae Rosetti-Rosnovanu to claim the Moldavian throne.

Within the newly proclaimed Kingdom of Romania, Boldur-Lățescu was noted as a skeptic of Moldavian regionalism and expressed loyalty toward Carol and his court; he was also involved in debates of Jewish emancipation, supporting full naturalization for only economically useful Jews.

Teodor Boldur-Lățescu was born in 1837;[1] at that stage, Moldavia and Wallachia, the "Danubian Principalities", were ruled under Regulamentul Organic, a constitutional document which shared suzerainty of the countries between the Ottoman Empire and Russia.

[9] Genealogist Elena Monu argues that, whereas his father the Hatman was an avid agriculturist and social activist, who "helped the peasants on his estates in various ways", Teodor more closely resembled his Balș mother, who squandered a fortune in her lifetime.

[15] The text was flattering for the Boldur family, depicting its ancestors as directly engaged in the foundation of Moldavia, which the Chronicle pushed back to the early medieval period; it also induced the political goal of Moldavian distinctiveness, at a time when the two Principalities already seemed to be heading toward union.

In keeping with Cuza's program of educational reforms, as well as with their father's dying wish, young Boldur-Lățescu and his two brothers founded the Costăcească School of Hudești, which they paid for with agricultural revenue from their nearby estate.

[20] Teodor presented himself as a minor candidate in the legislative election of 1860, and was publicly mocked by writer Nicolae Gane for having set up an electoral committee with himself as president, secretary, orator, and only listener.

Appearing in public shortly after the coup had succeeded, he "thought it wise to demean himself"[27] by entering the Iași tribunal hall, where he tore down a Cuza portrait, "took it with him on his sleigh, and went over to Saint Nicholas Church, where he buried it with pomp and circumstance.

The subsequent riots were sparked by outrage over the Lieutenancy's search for a foreign prince to replace Cuza, and their eventual selection of Carol of Hohenzollern; in Moldavia, they turned to open separatism and the proposal to revive a Moldavian monarchy under Nicolae Rosetti-Rosnovanu.

[37] During such panel discussions, held at the Pogor House on 27–28 March, Rosnovanu and Boldur-Lățescu accepted the notion of a foreign prince, but noted that, if none was found in time, the union would need to be reexamined.

[39] On the morning of 3 April, coinciding with Thomas Sunday, Boldur-Lățescu joined a delegation that also included Ceaur-Aslan, Orthodox Metropolitan Calinic Miclescu, and Constantin Moruzi Pecheanu, who visited Rosnovanu's home in Iași.

They were pushed back by a unit of the Romanian Army, which, according to Negruzzi, took its orders from the poet-soldier Nicolai Skelitti—whose father, also a soldier, had joined the rebel camp as one of Rosonovanu's would-be ministers.

[67] From April of the next year, Moldova moderated some of its goals: its nameplate featured mottoes calling for personal union under a foreign prince, with "legislative, administrative, judicial and financial separation" between the Principalities.

This made use of provocative cartoons and lithographs, such as depicting the aurochs of Moldavia and a female figure representing the principality, both being pecked by crows; to these were added drawings which personally attacked Carol.

Reports in Dreptatea newspaper suggest that two Wallachian officers, Paris and Slătineanu, shouted fire in order to stage a panic, then pounced on Boldur-Lățescu, pummeling and possibly stabbing him.

[74] The matter generated a national controversy when it was suspected that the new Prefect, Ștefan Sihleanu, had encouraged the attack, and especially when Crown Prosecutor Ioan Manu asked the Court of Cassation not to try Paris and Slătineanu at Iași.

[75] Many Iași citizens felt obliged to take Boldur-Lățescu's side, and a deputation, comprising landowner Grigore Sturdza alongside lawyer George Țigara, pleaded with Carol that he intervene to ensure due process.

According to Bogdan, Boldur-Lățescu retorted with an unsigned piece in the gazette Convențiunea, which claimed that Carol had cheated his Moldavian subjects, exposing the region and its capital to more severe exploitation.

[114] As early as July 1873, Boldur-Lățescu had complained to Catargiu that Bolgrad was being governed with brute force, including the "arbitrary arrests [of] innocent people"—according to Telegraphul, he was abruptly told not to interfere with this state of affairs.

[106] He was eventually moved to a more central position: between 1 and 30 November 1873,[115] he was the editor in chief of Monitorul Oficial, the Romanian government gazette, while also collecting a salary as director of the State Printing Office.

[106] According to Ghimpele, Lățescu was pushed to resign from these offices by Catargiu, after visiting the provinces and documenting forms of government abuse that he encountered there; Românul "stole the paper" and published it.

România Liberă's Bolgrad correspondent, commenting on these developments, suggested that Lățescu would still continue his trading in Romanian passports, by catering to the mass of Bessarabian Jews who stood ready to emigrate to Romania.

Speaking in front of the Assembly in March 1884, he criticized government for extending naturalization to "Israelite" bancheri și zarafi ("bankers and loan sharks"), instead of prioritizing "scientists and tradesmen" from the same community.

The Jewish community analyzed the three names he had advanced as evidence, concluding that one, Cruceanu, was in fact a Christian; another one, Iosef Simionescu, was a decorated veteran of the 1877 war (and therefore granted naturalization); while a third one, Gherini, seemed not to exist at all.

[147] In mid April 1888, shortly after peasant revolts and the arrival in power of a Conservative–Junimea cabinet, under Theodor Rosetti, Boldur-Lățescu wrote Carol an open letter to complain about alleged administrative abuses.

He contended that the new and "reactionary" Botoșani Prefect, Gheorghe Hermeziu, was oppressing the locals with the full support of Jews ("sworn enemies of the liberal party"), "proletarian" Romanians, and Gypsies.

[148] In November 1890, at Botoșani, Boldur-Lățescu inaugurated another political newspaper, Țara de Sus ("The Upper Land"); it advertised itself as committed to both the National Liberal platform (which was seen as having "created Modern Romania") and the "special interests of Moldavia".

[149] The new decade soon witnessed a rearrangement of the political landscape: Catargiu governed the country at the helm of a Conservative Party, which lost Junimist backing; Maiorescu and his men shifted instead toward a pragmatic alliance with the National Liberals.

[156][159] A defense team, comprising N. Ceaur-Aslan, Alexandru Djuvara, and Barbu Ștefănescu Delavrancea, obtained that she be seen as a person of diminished competence, or "great hysteric"; she was finally sentenced to one year in prison.