Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about Russian History => Imperial Succession and the Throne => Topic started by: Annie on August 21, 2004, 09:29:43 PM

Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on August 21, 2004, 09:29:43 PM
So is no one allowed to call themselves "Romanov" or "Grand Duke/Duchess" other than the Vladimirovichi? That is so very wrong. I hope someone will challenge this injustice, in court if need be. If nothing else they can gain back the name of their blood, the name of their ancestors.

Surfing the web I've been finding a lot of comments about 'a bitterly divided family' and feuding. Is this true, and does it have anything to do with this?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 24, 2004, 11:59:33 PM
Annie:

Here's a rundown of the names you say Kiril used to give his relatives instead of Romanov.; by the way, the people who keep saying the Romanovs have a last name should pay attention to this - because if they did, then morganatic spouses and issue would technically have no need for titles.

Iskander - this had nothing whatever to do with Kiril - this family name was given by Alexander III for the children of Nicholas Constantinovich's children by his wife.

Ilyinsky - this title was requested by Grand Duke Dmitri because he married morganatically.

Romanovsky - often incorrectly used as a surname. It's not a surname when referring to morganatic issue of the Family.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 18, 2004, 11:10:59 AM
Okay, it looks like some family members DID have a problem with it. This is from Flight of the Romanovs, page 345:

In 1961, Prince Nikita Alexandrovich said to Vladimir on his behavior and claim to the throne:

Stop performing this shameful farcial charade!

Romanovs, Nikita argued, had to be called by that name and not Romanovsky, as Vladimir was insisting... the family felt outrage that the Vladimirovichi considered that they were now the only Romanovs, that the family, due to 'improper marriages' had declined dramatically to three...the family believed that they had married no worse than...Kryil and Vladimir themselves.

Nikita also averred that monarchial privileges belonged to all Romanov males as a collectivity. Furthermore, Nikita argued, Vladimir had no right to call his wife and daughter "Grand Duchesses"...Moreover, Vladimir's wife, Leonida, Nikita insisted, had never belonged to a royal family because the Bagration-Mukranaskis had been ordinary subjects of the Russian empire, just like all other noble families.


That's what I thought, and I agree completely with Nikita! If the Bagrations, a deposed house of a country which was now part of the Russian empire, were royalty, then so were the Yussoupovs, who once ruled the Crimea. So why did Irina have to sign away her rights before morgatanically marrying Felix? I am so glad to hear that other Romanovs are upset that their name has been taken away and that the Vladimirovichi claim they are the only ones in the world with the right to the family name!
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 18, 2004, 04:31:32 PM
It comes down to whether or not the surviving members of the family are dynasts or not and what control if any the head of the house has. I agree that a Romanov descendant has the right to use the dynastic name as a surname. I think the RFA believes there are no more dynasts and that they can elect a head of the house with their own succession system. The Vladimirovichi believe they are the remaining dynasts and that they have the right to give the non dynasts names such as Romanovsky.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 18, 2004, 04:52:44 PM
I know, I just posted this viewpoint because I was glad to see someone in the family see it the same as me. I am with Nikita in saying that because there are also questions about Kyril and Vladimir's marriages, everyone's the same. It's a disgrace only a couple of people, what, only one now, is allowed to claim the name of Romanov? Even the lowest, poorest person, even a disowned jailbird uncle, should at least be able to keep the family name. Good for anyone who fights this nonsense.

Isn't the biggest rift in the family over this? Doesn't MV demand they accept their lesser titles and they think that's absurd? What is she going to do if they put Romanov on their driver's license or something, shoot them?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 19, 2004, 04:35:48 AM
Annie-

This follows tradition, and indeed the last pre-Revolutionary word on the subject was issued by Nicholas II himself in 1911.  On June 14, 1911, Vladimir de Freedericksz, Minister of the Imperial Court, conveyed-on the Emperor's orders-the following statement: "Surnames and new coats-of-arms of spouses and issue of Princes of the Imperial Blood who have contracted marriages with persons not of corresponding rank [i.e., morganatic marriages] will be granted in each case by the Sovereign Emperor."(In GARF, F. 601, Op. 1, D. 2143) In plain English, if a dynast married morganatically, their children had no right to the name Romanov, but had to await a new surname, title, and coat-of-arms from the Emperor.

Such is the case with every surviving male member of the family today-all are descended from morganatic unions, save Grand Duke George, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna's son.  Under Nicholas II's decree, none of them would have been entitled to call themselves "Prince X Romanov."  Nor would they be entitled to any style such as "Prince of Russia"-it simply didn't exist.

The idea that Kirill, Vladimir, or Maria somehow "took away" the family name is therefore in error; as moganatic issue, they had no Romanov name to have taken from them.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 19, 2004, 08:45:45 AM
But how was Vladimir's wife any more 'royal' than Felix Yussoupov, both were nobility/former ruling families who had been incorportated into the empire and  become subjects of the Tsar like everyone else. If Irina's marriage was morgatanic, Vladimir's should be too. Also, didn't Tatiana Konstantinovna marry morgatanically to another member of the Bagration house? So why was it different for Vladimir?

But the main thing is, really, since there is no more Imperial line and no throne for them to sit on, all the rules don't matter anymore. It reminds me of a scene from The Stand, where the 4 sent west to meet Flag were stopped along the road by some former cops who asked for their SS#'s and they laughed. It didn't matter anymore, all the old standards were void when the regime fell. But I guess anyone can call themselves anything they want, but that goes for them all.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 19, 2004, 01:37:39 PM
Annie: This rift in the family is of long standing - since at least the 1920's. It does indeed come down to who you do or do not consider to be a dynast, and it appears you feel that there are none left.

Maria V. has inherited this rift and it is decidedly not of her making. She has never threatened anyone that I know of.

I am acquainted with Prince Andrei Romanoff, and he is a naturalized citizen of the United States as, I think, Andrei Romanoff. As an American citizen, he is answerable to US authorities and not his cousin - and no one has tried to stop him from using the dynasty's name as his surname. His sons and granddaughter are all "Romanoffs".

I use the style of Prince with him out of respect for him and his family. Many Americans have or may be referred to by titles (out of respect) which are rather moot here in a republic.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 19, 2004, 06:32:04 PM
Quote
But how was Vladimir's wife any more 'royal' than Felix Yussoupov, both were nobility/former ruling families who had been incorportated into the empire and  become subjects of the Tsar like everyone else. If Irina's marriage was morgatanic, Vladimir's should be too. Also, didn't Tatiana Konstantinovna marry morgatanically to another member of the Bagration house? So why was it different for Vladimir?
l.


Annie-

This is precisely what the argument comes down to-all of the other objections raised concerning the Vladimirs, Kirill's marriage, his role in 1917, etc., have no bearing on the issue.  I don't have time at the moment to post a lengthy reply as I'm on my way out the door, but basically, Nicholas II-when Tatiana Konstantinovna married Prince Konstantin Bagratian-Muhkransky in 1911-made several references that the marriage was not morganatic since the Prince was descended from a once-ruling house-in his diary KR recorded this remark; but Nicholas never formalized the status of the B-M in his empire; he did ask Prince Konstantin to sign the register as "Prince of Georgia" instead of "Prince Konstantin," again indicating that NII held to the view that the B-M were-like other former sovereign houses recognized as being equal for purposes of marriage-a former ruling dynasty.  Several years before he ever met his future wife Leonida, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich was asked by one of the Spanish Infantas to determine if-in his position as head of the exiled Imperial House-the B-M's qualified as a mediatized or former ruling house and were therefore considered equal for purposes of marriage; this he did and determined that, in keeping with what Nicholas II had said about Tatiana Konstantinovna's marriage in 1911, the B-M's were equal for the purpose of marriage.  It was 3-4 years after this that he met Leonida and married her, so the two questions are unrelated.  Vladimir relied on the precedent of 1911 and his own study; he was able to do this because-from the legitimist point of view-he was de jure sovereign.  Tatiana, incidentally, renounced on marrying Konstantin, but did so because, as her father's diaries state, Nicholas II considered that she was marrying a foreign prince, and not contracting a morganatic marriage-hence Nicholas II telling him to sign the register as a foreign prince of Georgia.  I can post complete details and the like later, but this is the basic outline of the argument that Vladimir's marriage to Leonida was equal.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 20, 2004, 08:41:02 AM
What's wrong with marrying a foreign prince? Why would she have to renounce for that? Most of the Romanovs married foreign people, including Nicholas himself.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 20, 2004, 10:18:38 AM
Female dynasts marrying foreign royals were required to renounce succession rights to avoid the (then) highly unlikely scenario that, for example, Grand Duchess X or Princess Y married Crown Prince A, who in time becomes sovereign of his own country.  It was to avoid a William/Mary situation where someone might be sovereign of two different countries, and also because the issue of the union were presumed to not be Romanov dynasts-in this, Russia differed, for example, from Great Britain-where there are something like 200 people in line of succession, many of whom are Mr. X or Miss Y, working ordinary jobs around the world.  The Russian laws were stringent about who was or was not a dynast and therefore eligible to succeed.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 20, 2004, 10:49:48 AM
And Maria V. married a Hohenzollern :o
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 20, 2004, 10:54:52 AM
So what ?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 20, 2004, 09:36:50 PM
Quote
And Maria V. married a Hohenzollern :o


And Queen Elizabeth II married a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.

In legitmist terms, a man marrying an heiress presumptive always renounces his own claims and oaths, as Philip did when he married Elizabeth in 1947, and Maria's husband did when they married.  In these cases, where-let's face it, the woman is the important partner-the husband's background is subjugated to that of his wife.

Had there been legitimate male dynasts capable of fathering children alive at the time of Maria's marriage it might have gone differently for her-but as it was, they were all rather old men, so it was obvious the burden was going to fall on her.  In these cases-like that of Elizabeth II-the woman doesn't renounce anything, but her husband does.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 20, 2004, 09:44:52 PM
It is the same case, I believe, with Denmark & The Netherlands. Perhaps even eventually with Monaco.
So MV was setting no precedent.
Robert
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 21, 2004, 01:47:22 PM
No I was being sarcastic because almost everybody does marry foreign royalty, like Nicholas, like most people. That's why did didn't get the thing that Tatiana K. denounced because she married a 'foreign prince' because that should not take you out of the line like marrying nobility does, (like Felix and Irina)  I also don't see the difference between the Yussoupovs and Bagrations, both former rulers living as subjects of the Tsar.

I admit I'm trying anything I can think of to get rid of Maria V.  ;)
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 21, 2004, 07:51:48 PM
Quote
I admit I'm trying anything I can think of to get rid of Maria V.  ;)


But why?  I mean, seriously, what have you got against her?  Although, as I said, the evidence is less than clear about what Kirill may or may not have done in 1917, even if he was guilty of the worst of it, are you blaming his granddaughter, who wasn't even alive, for his actions?  Do you blame Nicholas II for his grandfather taking a mistress, and hold him responsible?

Maria Vladimirovna didn't start the family feud-it began in the 1920s, but really erupted publicly in 1969.  She had nothing to do with granting titles and styles to morganatic spouses and issue-that was started by Alexander II and followed by Nicholas II.  She's simply trying to follow the tradition by which she's been raised.

Like I said, I used to be VERY anti-Maria, but having studied the issue of the succession carefully for a decade now, I firmly believe that she has the only legitimate claim, then her son.  And I can attest to the fact that personally she is a very nice, friendly, and helpful woman, not at all pretentious.  So again, seriously, I'd ask why you have anything against her, or if your dislike of her simply stems from what her grandfather is supposed to have done.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 21, 2004, 08:11:42 PM
Annie-

About the difference in status between the Yusupovs and Bagrations: There IS a huge difference.  The Bagrations were a sovereign, ruling house from the 9th Century until 1801-making them older than the Romanov Dynasty.  In essence, this made the Bagrations like any other former ruling house that was considered ebenbuertig or equal for purposes of marriage, even though they no longer ruled: the Bourbon-Orleans family (dethroned in 1848-but remember Alexander III wanted Nicholas to marry Princess Helene d'Orleans); the Hanovers; the Nassaus; etc.  All were considered equal for purposes of marriage.

The Yusupovs-and for that matter the Rurikids in Russia (Galitzine, Dolgoruky, etc.) are a different story, as they had not held actual power for hundreds of years.  The Rurikid princes were in essence vassals of the Muscovite Kingdom by the reign of Ivan III, and they never exercised sovereign power over a recognized nation state, as did the Bagrations.  The Yusupovs, in contrast to the Bagrations, also voluntarily agreed to vassal status under the Moscow Throne, renouncing their previous status as Khans.  The Bagrations, though, were forcibly deprived of their sovereign status when Russia illegally annexed Georgia in 1801, in violation of a treaty Catherine II had signed just a few years earlier recognizing Georgia as a sovereign country and the Bagrations as its sovereign ruling house.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference-Rurikids and the Yusupovs were not in the same category as the Bagrations as far as previous sovereign status; as far as ruling a recognized nation; and as far as voluntarily giving up their sovereign status.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 21, 2004, 09:56:27 PM
I'd really rather not get into my personal opinons on the Vladimirovichi  :-X  
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 22, 2004, 12:47:35 AM
But that's the point of this discussion, Annie.  I think you need to explain your positions.

I mean, I know that a great deal of what Bob Massie wrote is pro RFA. I have acquaintances among the membership of the RFA, and I highly respect them. I tend to agree with them that Russia needs time to develop democratic traditions.

I also think the Vladimirovichi claim comes down to George making an equal marriage and siring sons. If he fails to do this, no matter how valid their claims are, with their claim to be the only dynasts, then by their definition, the Romanovs will be extinct. Finito, done, over.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Annie on September 22, 2004, 08:33:03 AM
I mean I don't feel like fighting because some of the things I'd say wouldn't be very nice :-X Really, in all reality, the dynasty is extinct, and while people do remain alive, they are not royalty and have no powers or benefits of it. Even if MV is the legitimate heir, it really doesn't mean anything because people can make claims and fight over it and you never know who's going to win. The histories of Russia, and England, are full of things like that. So I don't see this as a cut and dry case based on rules. Since there is no throne, all the rules are just as invalid as other rules under the Imperial regime which fell in 1917, it's open season, and IF there is to be a restoration, which isn't likely, there should be several possible prospects.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 22, 2004, 10:03:40 AM
Annie, that has been my position all along, for years. It is all academic & totally anachronistic.  The equal marriage bit has gone out the windows everywhere in Europe. As you said: just like all the other Imperial Laws.
Although I tend to think MV would be a "legitimist" heir, there honestly is nothing to be heir of. Other possibilities would only be natural The original Romanovs were elected [of a sort] so it would be expected for any hypothetical new dynasty to be so as well.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Katya04 on September 22, 2004, 12:04:18 PM
Quote
I also think the Vladimirovichi claim comes down to George making an equal marriage and siring sons. If he fails to do this, no matter how valid their claims are, with their are claim to be the only dynasts, then by their definition, the Romanovs will be extinct. Finito, done, over.


What would be considered equal? Does he have to marry into a ruling family or will a deposed one do? Does he have any sweethearts yet?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 22, 2004, 02:44:40 PM
I don't know if GM has a girlfriend or not. If you accept MV as the head of the dynasty, then she would approve any marriages and decide if the bride is equal or not. As I said in another thread, this would be a dynast from a royal house or a non-reigning descendant such as GD Leonida Bragration.

My position on this for many years has been that it is not reasonable to hold the surviving Romanov dynasts to the equal marriage standard. To be blunt, other royals simply were not interested in marrying Romanovs. Nicholas II had 8 surviving nephews - many of marriagable age right after the Revolution - none made royal marriages. It was not for lack of trying. The thing is, they were desirable marriage partners before the Revolution largeley because they were incredibly rich and a ruling dynasty. Take this away, and poof!

Being equally blunt about the Vladimirovichi, Vladimir was only able to make an equal marriage because of some particular circumstances his cousins did not enjoy. For starters, Leonida was a divorcee of a very wealthy American. His money really made this work. Leonida was also not a hot commodity in the royal marriage sweepstakes, no disrespect to her intended. Fact is, the head of the dynasty would not have been able to marry a Bragration.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on September 22, 2004, 11:16:15 PM
It's perhaps true that Vladimir would not have married a Bagration princess had he been a reigning emperor presiding over a country, though if the revolution had not happened, and Nicholas II had formalized what he said in 1911 to KR about recognizing the B-Ms as being equal and of sovereign status, it is always possible.  But as long as Maria Vladimirovna keeps to the former laws and statutes, it all comes down, as Lisa says, to George's pick of a bride.

Greg King
Title: y furthwRe: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 27, 2004, 11:06:20 AM
Clinging to such anachronistic rules only makes them look like insufferable snobs. I cannot see them going any further with it.
I say this as a firm legitimist, for what my opinion may be worth.
As it is extremely unlikely that anyone, least of all a Romanov from either faction, will ever come to any revived "tsarist throne", the whole matter is simply academic, isn't it?
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 11:13:07 AM
I agree with Ralph said in this part of his posting:
Quote
... [in part]...it is extremely unlikely that anyone, least of all a Romanov from either faction, will ever come to any revived "tsarist throne", the whole matter is simply academic, isn't it?
Cheers,
Robert


Here in the USA all you need to do is sign some papers asking the proper legal channels to make it legal for someone to use a name.

There are certain legal reasons a person can not use a name and that is in business so there is only one GAP [a clothes store] or for example the Olympics which just recently won some kind of international right.

AGRBear

Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: AGRBear on October 11, 2004, 04:06:16 PM
Just last week when I spoke with HRH Princess Michael of Kent,  she explained that she does NOT have a last name.  Her name is Marie Christine.  That is it.

So from the royal mouth to me to you ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 11, 2004, 06:20:14 PM
Wonder what it says in her passport...
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: AGRBear on October 11, 2004, 07:04:08 PM
HRH Princess Michael of Kent, I would assume,  since her husband's title is higher than what she carried before her marriage.

However,  I do not know for sure.

AGRBear
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Paul on January 20, 2005, 04:26:13 PM
The Vladimirovicii have no leg to stand on when trying to disqualify the marriages of their Romanov relatives.

The marriages in question did, indeed, qualify under the Romanov marriage rules. The decsendant are entitled to the Romanov name.

"Given the increasing difficulty of enforcing this clause in an ever growing family, under the Emperor Nicholas II an Imperial Ukase no. 1489 dated 11 August, 1911 (24 August, 1911) was issued which modified clause 188 but only for Princes and Princesses of the Imperial House namely great grandchildren and onwards of a reigning Emperor.

This modification allowed Princes and Princesses of the Imperial House to contract marriages with individuals of "good standing" but not necessarily of equal birth. The rule pertaining to Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses and their obligation to contract marriages with individuals of equal birth remained in force.

This Ukase of 1911 was inacted in time for the Princess Tatiana Constantinovna of Russia to marry Constantine Alexandrovich Prince Bagration-Mukhransky who was not of equal rank."


The above was excerpted from:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/suc.html
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Greg_King on January 24, 2005, 09:13:16 AM
I've discussed the erroneous claim that Tatiana Konstantinovna's 1911 marriage was morganatic elsewhere, but as far as morganatic descendants being entitled to the surname of Romanov, this is clearly not the case.

In the summer of 1911, Nicholas II initiated a round of formal enquiries concerning the issue.  The Emperor convened a special meeting of various Grand Dukes to discuss the forthcoming marriage and the question of allowing possible unequal unions, as there was much talk within the Imperial Family that Princess Tatiana’s marriage, if recognized, would set a precedent for morganatic marriages.  In a letter written to the conclave by Baron Vladimir de Freedericksz on the Emperor’s behalf, the Minister of the Imperial Court declared Nicholas II’s decision: Grand Dukes would not be allowed to contract morganatic marriages, but Princes and Princesses of the Imperial Blood, on receiving the Emperor’s permission, would be allowed to do so.  If they elected to enter into a morganatic union, the Emperor would grant new surnames and coats-of-arms to the spouses and to their descendants to signify the change in status.  The Emperor further declared that henceforth there would be only two categories of marriages he allowed: those unions equal for the purposes of dynastic succession, and morganatic unions.  A morganatic union was to be characterized by the granting of a new surname, as happened before the Revolution (i.e., Brassov), and after (Ilinsky, Romanovsky-Krassinsky, etc.)(Letter of Baron Vladimir de Freedericksz on behalf of Nicholas II, June 14, 1911, in GARF, F, 601, Op. 1, D. 2143)  Morganatic descendants, therefore, were not, and are not, technically-by Nicholas II's decree-allowed to use the Romanov name.  I use it with Nicholas Romanov and others because it's the courteous thing to do, but from a technical standpoint they are not entitled to it.

Greg King
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 11, 2005, 03:09:06 PM
Romanov descendants who wish to use the dynastic name as a surname are certainly legally entitled to do so under the laws of the countries in which they reside (or of which they are citizens). That is, providing such use does not violate the laws of that country. American Romanov descendants may generally use this surname (or another of their choosing) provided there is no intention to commit fraud.

You are entirely correct that this use is not correct per the Fundamental Law. However, the government that developed this Law has been out of power for nearly a century.

And, as to morganatic marriages, Maria V realizes that the equal marriage requirement is anachronistic - no one does it any more - at least not too many, that is!

So I think you are correct, Greg, to call Nicholas Romanovich by Nicholas Romanov.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: TampaBay on March 18, 2005, 08:31:08 AM
Quote

Being equally blunt about the Vladimirovichi, Vladimir was only able to make an equal marriage because of some particular circumstances his cousins did not enjoy. For starters, Leonida was a divorcee of a very wealthy American. His money really made this work. Leonida was also not a hot commodity in the royal marriage sweepstakes, no disrespect to her intended. Fact is, the head of the dynasty would not have been able to marry a Bragration.



Fact is, the head of the dynasty would not have been able to marry a Bragration.

What do you mean by this statement.  Are you refering to money or Leonida being a "lesser Royal"

TampaBay
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on February 02, 2010, 12:27:54 AM
I just love the irony of the fact that everybody who could have been (imperial) Romanovs are merely Romanovskys, except Grand Duchess Maria and her son, who, while technically entitled to the dynastic name don't use it, because they are royals and thus don't use surnames! Just as ironic is the fact that love is always victorious: Indiscriminate love might do what the Revolution and the Bolsheviks didn't manage to: Wipe out the whole dynasty!

Although I see that Romanovsky is not automatically the surname of morganatic branches, I'd like to ask a question about it: Since Romanov is such a common name in Russia, is Romanovsky, being a derivation of a surname, more unique? Or could it just as well originally refer to a person from a place called Romanovo, in which case I guess it wouldn't be very unique.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Student of History on February 02, 2010, 02:28:28 AM
I think Queen Margerethe of Denmark summed it up best in an interview with the BBC (?) for the series Royals of Europe when she was asked about the succession to the Russian throne. It went something like this... "It is a family matter".





Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Kalafrana on February 02, 2010, 06:30:52 AM
I think my objection to the Vladimirovichi is that since 1928 they have used their decidedly theoretical powers under the Fundamental Law only to the benefit of themselves!

Ann
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Student of History on February 02, 2010, 07:07:51 PM
Ann,
Don't we all have family members that make us cringe at times? But can we dismiss a child's natural instict to trust and adore their parents and grandparents and hang on their every word, comforted in the (sometimes false) reassurances of 'why would s/he make it up.?' 
The recollections of displaced persons differs widely for a number of reasons: some choose to talk, some feel compelled to talk and some will never talk about their experiences (one only needs to profile returned servicemen from WWII for suitable insights) yet from this reality we,  the following generations have to piece together our own understanding of the past.
Surely, if we can learn anything from the 1917 Revolution, shouldn't it be that children do not deserve to be brutalised because of the shortcomings of their kin?
Kind Regards,
SOH
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: kmerov on February 04, 2010, 06:24:56 PM
I think my objection to the Vladimirovichi is that since 1928 they have used their decidedly theoretical powers under the Fundamental Law only to the benefit of themselves!

Ann

Could you explain how and when they have done this according to you?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: richard_1990 on February 05, 2010, 03:22:13 AM
Quote
I think my objection to the Vladimirovichi is that since 1928 they have used their decidedly theoretical powers under the Fundamental Law only to the benefit of themselves!

Ann
I think 99% of non-reigning royalty using their 'theoretical' powers to benefit themselves...
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Kalafrana on February 05, 2010, 03:31:19 AM
First Vladimir Kirillovich declared himself a Grand Duke (or was declared a Grand Duke by his father - I can't remember which), although he was merely a Prince of the Imperial Blood. Vladimir then declared his own marriage to be - uniquely - within the Pauline Law, although there is room for doubt, to put it no more strongly. He then declared his daughter to be his heir and a Grand Duchess, when, again, she was no more than a Princess of the Imperial Blood. Then there is 'Grand Duke' Georgi Mikhailovich.

Note that there has been no such flexibility in favour of anyone else.

I much prefer the approach taken by King Michael of Romania, who only has daughters and so no direct heir under the Romanian succession law. He has said that nothing can be done to amend the succession laws until the monarchy is restored.

Ann
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: kmerov on February 05, 2010, 05:57:04 PM
I see your objection to the family is mostly because of their use of the Grand Ducal title, or am I wrong? I fail to see how exactly they have "only benefitted themselves" though. Whether you like this branch of the family, past or present, they became head of the Romanov family and remain so today.

Grand Duke Kiril gave his son the title of Grand Duke, as he was the new heir to the throne, albeit in exile. Being born a Prince of the Blood dosn't mean that circumstances can't elevate you to the GD status.  Vladimir declared his marriage equal, because his wife was a member of the former ruling family of Georgia and thus was from an equal family. Being head of the family he could do this. His daughter was his heir, since none of the other Romanovs made equal marriages, thus he made her a Grand Duchess, and she did the same with her son. A coutesy title used by the head of the family and the heir. I honestly don't see the big problem in this.


I fail to see what Romanian succession law has to do with Russia, since it is a completely different situation.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 05, 2010, 06:11:33 PM
I must agree with Kmerov;  all actions taken  by the Valdimirs is completely in line with the fundamental laws. Also, if GD Maria is "benefitting" from her position,  no one seems to know it.  She has not much, if any, money and lives off the kindness of her relatives,  donates most of her time to the church and  put her son through school to earn a living.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Margot on February 06, 2010, 01:32:46 AM
I wander if poor George is going to forced to make a dynastic marriage to a Highness just to satisfy his mother?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Kalafrana on February 06, 2010, 05:36:28 AM
I think it is the arrogance of the 'We are the only real Romanovs,' which gets up my nose, but this is an entirely personal view.

THe relevance of the Romanians is that King Michael is indisputably head of the family - indeed, a deposed monarch - and he takes the view that he cannot change anything.

Just to be provocative here, what is Maria Vladimirovna doing living off her relations? Why doesn't she get a job?

Ann
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 06, 2010, 12:28:20 PM
THe relevance of the Romanians is that King Michael is indisputably head of the family - indeed, a deposed monarch - and he takes the view that he cannot change anything.

Sorry to disappoint, but in December 2007 King Michael did change the Romanian succession laws to allow for the succession of his daughters and their issue to the Headship of the Royal House.

The new Fundamental Rules of the Royal Family of Romania: http://www.familiaregala.ro/uploads/p0002_FundamentalRules.pdf

So it seems that King Michael changed his views about not being able to change anything, yes?  ;)
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Kalafrana on February 06, 2010, 12:29:56 PM
OK, I was out of date.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 06, 2010, 12:53:43 PM
That applies ONLY to the so-called royal house, not the defunct Romanian throne, though. I think the family name remains the same as well.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Kalafrana on February 06, 2010, 02:10:14 PM
Thinking a bit further along the same theme. Michael of Romania is in a rather different position from the Vladimirovichi, since he does not have a large number of male-line collaterals - in fact, apart from the issue of his half-brother Mircea (whose position was the subject of much litigation),  he has none at all. Further, in December 2007 he was 86 in December 2007, and possibly (I don't know) was simply setting out the position unambiguously while he was still able.

Serious question, not a rhetorical one, has Maria Vladimirovna made any attempts to heal the rift?

Ann
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 06, 2010, 04:17:34 PM
That applies ONLY to the so-called royal house, not the defunct Romanian throne, though. I think the family name remains the same as well.

Actually, if you read the Fundamental Rules that King Michael signed, you will see that a specific Line of Succession to the THRONE of Romania is laid out (to the complete exclusion of the the German Hohenzollerns, who would have ended up "succeeding" to the throne under the old laws):

1.HRH Crown Princess Margarita of Romania, Custodian of the Crown of Romania
2.HRH The Princess Helena of Romania
3.Nicholas de Roumanie (who is to receive the title and style of HRH Prince of Romania on his 25th birthday this year)
4.Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie
5.HRH The Princess Irina of Romania
6.Michael de Roumanie Kreuger
7.Angelica de Roumanie Kreuger
8.HRH The Princess Sophie of Romania
9.Elisabeta Marie Biarneix
10.HRH The Princess Marie of Romania
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 06, 2010, 04:44:26 PM
That may very well be true, Benjamin,  however  there is no Romanian crown. So it is purely academic as it would take a change in the Romanian constitution  to restore the throne, which is highly unlikely. And they remain Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen do they not?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 06, 2010, 08:38:58 PM
Of course, Mr Hall. But even if there is no monarchy in Romania, you know as well as I do that certain members of the formerly reigning Royal House of Romania would like for their dynasty to be restored, or at least for it to have some kind of role in the country (Crown Princess Margarita and her husband come to mind). Therefore, to the family of King Michael as well as their supporters, it is perhaps not a purely academic matter.

I do agree with you that the chances of a restoration are more or less nil. Maybe it was a possibility in the 90s, but not now.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 06, 2010, 09:04:36 PM
Serious question, not a rhetorical one, has Maria Vladimirovna made any attempts to heal the rift?

How could she "heal the rift" even if she wanted to? She hardly asked for it, having inherited it from her father.

And, quite honestly, I don't think there is that much of a division in the family anymore. As Nicholas Romanov has gotten older, his attacks in the media on her and her rights have become less frequent. Should he and his brother die before Maria, then the dissenting voices in the family against the Grand Duchess will effectively disappear.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 06, 2010, 09:53:07 PM
I agree with Benjamin; there is not much  have a "rift" about now. That is really old news and getting older as these guys die off. Who really cares anymore?
 As with CP Margarita,  GD Maria devouts her time and efforts to  good work, there is no ploitical ambition.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 07, 2010, 11:44:18 PM
I agree with Benjamin; there is not much  have a "rift" about now. That is really old news and getting older as these guys die off. Who really cares anymore?
 As with CP Margarita,  GD Maria devouts her time and efforts to  good work, there is no ploitical ambition.


Robert,
I think you will find that the Grand Duchess does have ambitions on the restoration of the Monarchy,whether to herself or to her son George.

She has publicly stated that it is up to the Russian people, but organizations do exist throughout the world who are working on her behalf, both within and without Russia. ie the Russian Nobles Assoaciation and sections of the Russian Church.
She is doing charitable work, which is one way for her name to remain in the media, although not as much as CP Aleaxander and his wife CP Katherine.(of Serbia,) mind you, her circle of friends/donors is not as large as the Serbian one!

Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Kalafrana on February 08, 2010, 03:09:20 AM
'How could she "heal the rift" even if she wanted to? She hardly asked for it, having inherited it from her father.'

Clearly she did not start the rift, but it would hardly be unreasonable to ask her to attempt some bridge-building. Has she done any?

Ann
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: richard_1990 on February 08, 2010, 04:42:47 AM
Quote from: Kalafrana
I think it is the arrogance of the 'We are the only real Romanovs,' which gets up my nose, but this is an entirely personal view.
This was the position of Emperor Nicholas II. Only dynasts are Romanovs, non-dynasts are have no right to the name.. re-read Greg_King's posts. However, whether you recognize the existence of dyansts is the key variable in the OP of this thread.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 08, 2010, 10:56:58 AM
Then I nstand corrected, IofJ.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 08, 2010, 08:52:42 PM
Just to be provocative here, what is Maria Vladimirovna doing living off her relations? Why doesn't she get a job?

Maria Vladimirovna does not live off her relations.

For many many years (as in, from the time of Grand Duke Vladimir's marriage to Leonida until sometime in the 1990s), the Romanovs were supported to an extent by the fortune that Leonida's eldest daughter, Helene, inherited from her father, Sumner Moore Kirby. However, Leonida and her two daughters (and grandson) no longer live together as they did in the past, and Helene's money is not being used for the "upkeep" of her younger sister or nephew.

After leaving Oxford, Grand Duchess Maria assisted her mother in a museum on Imperial Russia that they created at Ker Argonid in St Briac. Then, once she married, she worked for designer Nelsy Chelala in Paris. Maria decided to leave that job after she gave birth to her son. Plus, on top of just entering motherhood, her marriage finally collapsed, so she probably had her hands full.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Margot on February 08, 2010, 09:37:03 PM
If hypothetically...George were to rebel and marry a woman for love who happened to be 'God forbid' a commoner...would his mother take away his right to use the Romanov name?

I guess it wouldn't matter really though would it.....as he could always revert to being known as George Prinz von Preussen or however Hohenzollerns are called these days on official documentation couldn't he? I mean do the Hohenzollern family have a surname they use! I remember all that stuff ages ago on another thread about the Hohenzollerns being allowed to use the von Preussen as a technical courtesy to get round thee problem of being Prices and Princess in a Republic that no longer technically recognized such titles as such!

Anyway I do wonder about what MV would do if George did the unspeakable........!
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 08, 2010, 10:08:27 PM
Just because Maria married equally does not necessarily mean that she is going to hold her son to the same high standard (a standard which nearly all European royal families have now abandoned). The Grand Duchess and her son have several times talked about the possibility of relaxing the marriage laws of the dynasty should the Head of the Imperial House (luckily, Maria herself) and the Russian Patriarch agree to it. So, if George falls for a mere mademoiselle instead of a blue blood, I would not be surprised if the aforementioned change takes place, and the marriage is declared dynastic anyways.

But this is all speculation, George may not marry for years, or he might not marry at all. Only time will tell.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Margot on February 08, 2010, 10:44:55 PM
Goodness I had no idea. It does seem rather amazing that one member of a family can have such flexible and singular power to change family laws at will! Even when that member is not even anointed by God!

No wonder so many other members of the family have disputed such chicanery over the decades....in particular the 'equality' of the marriage of MV parents which I, to this day, find still leaves a decidedly unpleasant whiff of hypocrisy in the air!

If George married a commoner perhaps MV should be brave enough to consult the rest of her family! Just to see what sort of response she would get! Especially if it was suggested that any further changes beto the family law be made retroactive! If that happened I would love to see what would happen next!!!!!! We know that such a thing would never happen as it would automatically see MV removed from her present position! But it does feel pleasant to contemplate how she would deal with such a situation without it appearing as though she was making even more of a travesty of the whole marriage laws issue than her immediate predecessors!

 Personally I do not care who George decides to marry, if he marries at all! It is more to do with the principal, which is what I find so difficult to palate. Then again, MV sounds like to she is just following her grand father and father in her interpretation of just how flexible the family laws are and were on the matter of marriages! It sounds more and more as though self appointment and subsequent 'inheritance' by right of said position, has made Kyril V., Vladimir K. and MV laws unto themselves....all of which is quite hollow and meaningless when they wield no tangible power whatsoever.

 
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on February 08, 2010, 11:47:26 PM
Personally I do not care who George decides to marry

In this day and age, when nearly all reigning royalty have thrown Ebenbürtigkeit out of the window (but nevertheless don't contract really romantic commoner marriages, to e.g. cleaning ladies and garbage collectors), and most non-reigning houses are in the process of doing the same (Hohenzollern, Habsburg, Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg etc.) I, for one, am fascinated by George's position. His story is the last Ebenbürtigkeit vs. Love drama! Especially since he is the last nominal member of his dynasty.

Techincally, his bride will be more interesting than Kate Middleton (whose last name I couldn't remember and had to look up now, so unromantic do I think she is.) Of course my opinion doesn't matter at all, but in my opinion he must marry equally or the Imperial House will come to an end, no matter what his mother decides. In a way I hope he marries somebody very un-ebenbürtig and romantic so that the Imperial House finally comes to an end by its own standards and all get closure.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 09, 2010, 12:50:18 AM
Goodness I had no idea. It does seem rather amazing that one member of a family can have such flexible and singular power to change family laws at will!

Welcome to the world of royalty! ;-)

If George married a commoner perhaps MV should be brave enough to consult the rest of her family! Just to see what sort of response she would get!

By the rest of the family, do you mean Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov? Because they are the only members of the "rest of her family" who seem to enjoy whining about the Grand Duchess.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Margot on February 09, 2010, 01:50:13 AM
Are they permitted to call themselves Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov! I thought that only MV and George were permitted to use the surname Romanov?

I would like, should MV feel obliged to move the gate posts again so to speak in order to ensure that her son is 'eligible' to become head of the family, to see how all other male line descendants of the dynasty born out of post 1918 marriages deemed unequal including Xenia A an Alexander M's male line descendants would respond! As well as Prince Nicholas Romanovich and Prince Dimitri Romanovich.

I agree with Roerik anyway....the matter has gone on too long and it was merely a musing of mine as to how MV would deal with it should the matter arise and more to the point how would the other male line branches respond! It is pure speculation....but nonetheless quite an interesting issue to watch unfold! 
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on February 09, 2010, 02:03:26 AM
Are they permitted to call themselves Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov!
Only civilly, i.e. that is the name they are registered under in the countries they are citizens of. Dynastically they are Princes Romanovsky-? (i.e. the specific designation for their morganatic line, as granted by the Head of the House.) I think Romanovsky makes much more sense than Romanov, because they are Romanov-ish, of Romanov stock, but just shades of the Dynasty that once was the Romanovs.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Margot on February 09, 2010, 02:10:32 AM
Roerik, are they technically Princes or were they born sans titles because of their parents' morganatic marriage and because Kyril never deigned to make them Princes through his assumed 'Imperial' prerogative? I only ask, as I wonder if those who support MV really feel that no one who bears the title of Prince or Princess of Russia is qualified to do so as per the Family Laws which MV seems to value so much and consider altering as per her 'right'!
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on February 09, 2010, 03:42:05 AM
Roerik, are they technically Princes or were they born sans titles because of their parents' morganatic marriage and because Kyril never deigned to make them Princes through his assumed 'Imperial' prerogative?
Lol, that's a good question which I'm not sure I can answer. My head is spinning from the legal absurdities of semi-hyopthetical law!
I think we need to hear from the experts whether Kyrill granted their parents' undoubtedly morganatic line a new name.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 09, 2010, 04:21:41 AM
Margot, Romanov is a fairly common name,   99% of the bearers have absolutely nothing to do with the former Imperiall Family. A Communist mayour of Leningrad was named Romanov !
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on February 09, 2010, 04:24:29 AM
Is Romanovsky equally common? I guess it would normally refer to a person from a place called Romanovo?
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: richard_1990 on February 09, 2010, 06:03:24 AM
Quote from: Rœrik
[...]Because they are Romanov-ish, of Romanov stock, but just shades of the Dynasty that once was the Romanovs.
That's a silly thing to say... Nicholas II was just a shade of the first Romanov Tsar, Mikhail Fyodorovich. You could also argue that the difference between Nicholas II and GD Maria Vladimirinova is less than the difference between Nicholas II and Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich - if one were to take genealogy into account.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on February 09, 2010, 06:08:44 AM
I wasn't thinking of the blood, but the dynasticity. I guess it's really ridiculous to argue about the denial of a name that unlike most other dynastical names is extremely common. What is important is of course that the combination Prince+Romanov must never be allowed with regard to non-dynasts. They are Princes Romanovsky even if their surname might be Romanov.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: richard_1990 on February 09, 2010, 06:36:03 AM
I was arguing from the position that GD Maria is the head of the house  ;)
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Seth Leonard on February 09, 2010, 10:26:24 AM
Dynastically they are Princes Romanovsky-? (i.e. the specific designation for their morganatic line, as granted by the Head of the House.) I think Romanovsky makes much more sense than Romanov, because they are Romanov-ish, of Romanov stock, but just shades of the Dynasty that once was the Romanovs.

They have no title. They are plain Misters.

Prince Roman choose not to ask for a title for his morganatic wife and offspring. This unlike Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich, Prince Vsevolod Ivanovich, Prince Gavril Constantinovich, Prince Andrei Alexandrovich, Prince Feodor Alexandrovitch, Prince Nikita Alexandrovitch, Prince Dimitri Alexandrovich, Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich, and Prince Vassili Alexandrovich, who all requested and were granted such princely titles (Ilyinsky, Romanovsky, etc) for their wives and issue by the successive Heads of the Imperial House.

It is amusing how Nicholas Romanov claims to be a republican, yet for whatever reason he and his brother felt the need to assume a princely title that is without foundation.
Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: kmerov on February 09, 2010, 10:57:20 AM
All logic dictates that in these modern days GD George can marry a non-royal without the marriage being morganatic.
When Prince Roman Petrovich made a morganatic marriage times were different. The claims of his son are totally ridiculous, both him being a dynast and head of the family. He is related to the dynasty, not a member.  
What ever you think about GDss Maria and her family they have followed the Pauline laws, which is more then the rest of the dynasts did. If these laws seem autocratic and dictatorial, it's not the fault of GDss Maria.
There are no members of the family to consult with other then her son.

Title: Re: taking away the family name
Post by: Student of History on May 13, 2010, 05:56:31 AM
That applies ONLY to the so-called royal house, not the defunct Romanian throne, though. I think the family name remains the same as well.

Actually, if you read the Fundamental Rules that King Michael signed, you will see that a specific Line of Succession to the THRONE of Romania is laid out (to the complete exclusion of the the German Hohenzollerns, who would have ended up "succeeding" to the throne under the old laws):

1.HRH Crown Princess Margarita of Romania, Custodian of the Crown of Romania
2.HRH The Princess Helena of Romania
3.Nicholas de Roumanie (who is to receive the title and style of HRH Prince of Romania on his 25th birthday this year)
4.Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie
5.HRH The Princess Irina of Romania
6.Michael de Roumanie Kreuger
7.Angelica de Roumanie Kreuger
8.HRH The Princess Sophie of Romania
9.Elisabeta Marie Biarneix
10.HRH The Princess Marie of Romania

An interesting addition, thank you.