Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about Russian History => Imperial Succession and the Throne => Topic started by: JM on March 06, 2004, 06:13:16 PM

Title: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 06, 2004, 06:13:16 PM
Is the rightful heir really Grand Duke George? I highly doubt his claim but he seems to be the only Romanov interested in the throne. Is there any other claimants? Even though the chances of the monarchy being restored are slim, I would still like to know who the real heir is.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: steve on March 06, 2004, 06:57:09 PM
Russia isn't a monarchy anymore but a republic. To claim a throne you need to have a form of government that supports the monarchy.

If Russia decides to change into a monarchy they can choose whoever they want to sit on the throne.

But the discussion is very hypothetical.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 07, 2004, 02:21:19 PM
Yes...regardless I'm still interested. I do have a Vanity Affair article that mentions Grand Duke George.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 07, 2004, 07:04:06 PM
It really depends on who you talk to. The "heirs" most discussed are George and Nicholas Romanovich.

The later is the head of the RFA, and considers himself head of the family as opposed to the dynasty, which he believes ended with Michael's manifesto in 1917. The RFA has an orderly succession which will eventually go to the sons of Andrei Andreivich, who presently live in Northern California. None of these sons as yet has sons and none lives in Russia or has plans to move there.

George's viability as heir depends on three important factors. First, the strength of his claim depends upon his making an "equal marriage". If he fails to make one or if he does not marry at all, his claim will be pretty worthless. Second, since his claim is the most traditional, he must have sons to have a viable claim because he has no siblings. Third, he must establish a presence in Russia, which I understand he currently cannot afford to do. If George meets these, he has the best chance of everyone.

I personally favor the Ilyinskys. They have been asked back twice by the Russian people. Grand Duke Dmitry was asked back after the Revolution and refused. His son Paul Ilyinsky was asked back in the 1990's and refused. Paul has two sons, neither of whom currently has a son, but the Ilyinsky claim is strong for several reasons.

One, Dmitri Pavlovich (b. 1954) is now the senior male heir of the line of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. Second, there are numerous Ilyinskys, not just one. Third, they are the only branch of the family that has maintained excellent relations with all other branches of the family since the Revolution. They have refused to participate in the family squabbles. Fourth, they are well established in America and do not need to be claimants in order to fill otherwise empty lives.

Just my not so humble opinion!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 07, 2004, 07:53:34 PM
The problem with George may be the fact that his line is excluded entirely because Maria Pavlovna was not orthodox at the time her sons were born. Alexander II gave Vladimir succession rights for marrying outside of Orthodoxy, but said nothing about any children he produced. See my comment in the Kyrill thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1076312290;start=15#15

If this report is true, then this entire line has no "legal" claim to succession. Many people belive this to be correct.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 07, 2004, 08:19:29 PM
Rob: I responded to this contention on another thread. Those who are saying that the line is excluded due to Maria Pavlovna's late conversion are unfamiliar with the Fundamental Law.

All of the Romanovs in exile with the exception of the Nicholievichi recognized Kirill as the legitimate heir once it was certain that Michael, Nicholas, and Alexis were dead. Maria Feodorovna also was apparently unfamiliar with the Law and felt her opinion on this mattered in a legal sense. It didn't.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: BobAtchison on March 08, 2004, 08:42:36 AM
I don't think there is one answer to this question since the evidence is contridictory.  I personally have no firm opinion one way or another.

However, the one thing I do maintain is that it's obvious through their actions that neither Alexander III or Nicholas II, as autocrats, felt themselves restrained by the Pauline Law and made decisions outside of it.  They were supported in this view by jurists of the the time.  No one opposed them.  Their view of law in an autocratic empire 100 years ago is, most likely, different than ours.

After the revolution the dynastic laws were terminated and they have no legal bearing anywhere - so this discussion is theoretical.  I hope everyone can step back and enjoy the discussion.

Bob





Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 08, 2004, 09:29:02 AM
Sorry everybody, it all sounds so ''theoretical'' (to put it politely) for a Russian! Particularly Iliinsky's line.......With all respect  for the Romanov family- there is no serious  support for the restoration at all. Time has gone, full stop.
Galina
PS There have been plans for GD George to join the Nakhimovsky Navy school in St.Petersburg. His family seemed to has been close to the (then) head of the City (Sobchak)
But it did not happen, as far as I know. Can't blame him for preffering quite life in Madrid/Paris. Better to leave things the way they are.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on March 08, 2004, 09:44:17 AM
Lisa, et al..

Would you mind posting the sections and subsections of the fundamental laws which pertain to the succession?  I, too, am under the impression that the heir to the throne must have an orthodox mother at the time of birth.

It does state clearly in the fundamental laws that the heir to the throne cannot marry until his wife has adopted the Orthodox faith, but I presume that this applies only to the Tsarevitch, and not to dynasts in general as Maria Pavlovna was allowed to marry Vladimir withour converting, as were several others.

As per who is actually the heir, it is clear that Nicholas II did not want the throne to pass to the Vladimirovitchi.  He was, of course, completely familiar with the Laws of the Succession, and in his abdication, he chose his brother Michael (who had contracted a morganatic marriage without the permission of the Emperor -- two strikes against him dynastically) rather than his Cousin Kirill, who, if everyone is to be believed, fit all the dynastic rules.

By ignoring the dynastic succession rules here, it seems that Nicholas basically broke them down in favor of strict primogeniture, which leads us back to... Kirill and Vladimir.  If you then ignore morganatic marriages, and only go by primogeniture, you get, as Lisa says, the Illynsky boys.

Interesting question.

nick
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: RobMoshein on March 08, 2004, 10:42:55 AM
There are three pertinant rules here:
Article 184 provided :With the permission of the reigning emperor, members of the Imperial House may enter into marriage both with persons of the Orthodox faith and with persons of other denominations.
This was qualified by Article 185, which addressed marriages of the most senior dynasts:The marriage of a male dynast of the Imperial House who might succeed to the Throne to a person of another faith may not take place until she embraces Orthodoxy.
Article 128 states that the eldest son of the emperor and the eldest son in each generation descending from that eldest son of the emperor are each considered an heir to the throne.
I read the link that Lisa so kindly sent to me on this issue.
http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/russuclw.htm
I find one flaw with the gentleman's otherwise well reasoned arguement.  The issue may not be the fundemantal laws of Succession per se. The question as raised by Spiridovitch, I think, is: could a son born to a woman who was not Orthodox at the time of his birth (precedance aside) actually take the throne as the Supreme Head of the Orthodox Church and the State? I think the answer may have come back from Tchcheglov that the answer was, "he might in line for succession, but must be excluded because his mother was not Orthodox when he was born.". Clearly Article 185 implies that BOTH parents of any son who will succeed to the throne MUST be orthodox at the time of marriage. Why? because any son who takes the throne MUST be born to an Orthodox mother. Sure, the Emperor can approve any marriage he wants to, and give his children all rights, but history never faced the question of what would actually happen IF a son born to a Lutheran mother actually became the inheritor. I dont think Spiridovitch NEEDED to be familiar with the laws of succession, since I am sure the Minister of Justice had plenty of people who were familiar with the laws when he wrote his report.  I do think Spiridovitch truly believed this report existed, and that he belived that Tchcheglov wrote it. The only real answer would be to find the report in GARF if it really is still there. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on March 08, 2004, 11:07:30 AM
Dear All,

Brian's classic argument has been online for quite a long time, and is a rebuttal to a paper I wrote to him in good-natured fun (yes, I am "Mr. X").

While I agree with him on virtually everything except the status of the Bagration-Moukhransky family, I would still like to see the ENTIRE text of the fundamental laws pertaining to the succession.  Lawyers (and most researchers) have a terrible habit of using facts which support their case, while ignoring those which don't.

One of Brian's biggest mistakes is in his assertions that the listing in the court calendar is an order of succession -- it is, in fact, a table of precedence, which is something entirely different.  I have yet to read or see anything to convince me that that is the same thing.

Nick
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Valmont on March 08, 2004, 05:40:10 PM
Ok.. I remember a couple of years ago, running into a post at deja.com, where someone claiming he was George was answering Bob that his Mother and everybody wanted him to be king but he did not want to. (Of Course It doesn't mean it was the real George, it could have been anyone, or maybe it was him, who knows)
Has anyone actually asked George if he wants to be the Emperor of all Russias?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: CarolynnB on March 13, 2004, 07:42:18 PM
I believe that I need to weigh in on Bob's side on this one---it is fun to speculate what might have happened, but history shows that the Romanovs were willing to simply change the laws (or ignore them) to put individuals onto the throne.  Peter I re-wrote the succession laws so that he could chose his successor---then he failed to do so.  His second wife then succeeded him because she had the support of the court and the military.  Their daughter Elizabeth (who was, I believe, born out of wedlock) seized power several years later in a coup.  Catherine II, a German princess, seized power 20 years later in another coup.  Her son Paul, who was extremely put out at his mother, would again re-write the law so that only the oldest male heir could inherit the throne.  I would venture to guess that if there had been an issue over Alexei Nicholaevich not being able to inherit the throne, or if the monarchy could have been restored after 1918, that the Romanovs themselves could have made the decision--or simply returned to the good ol' days when the zemsky sobor elected Michael Romanov in the first place.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Antonio_P.Caballer on March 17, 2004, 01:00:39 PM
I´m Spanish and use to see the grand duchess Maria and his son often in press or television. For me, thinking about George as heir is out of the question. First because there´s no throne at all, and second and foremost, in my opinion, is that Kirill´s attitude during the revolution is completely outrageous. To say only one thing, how could he take the troops and leave Alexandra and the children helpless in Tsarskoe???
What about his Oath of Allegiance?
The only good about this family is their palace, in which rooms, however, we must remember that  Alexandra was openly insulted by Miechen...

Antonio.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: _Rodger_ on March 17, 2004, 01:09:45 PM
A gentle reminder: as decreed by Mikhail Aleksandrovich, it's up to the people of Russia to ultimately decide what form of government they wish to have, and who to run that government.

I understand that all branches of the Romanoff family observe Mikhail's wishes, even the Vladimirivichi, whom have stated it's up to the Russian people.

All that aside, it's also important to note that in light of the recent repudiation of the British and Russian governments' claims regarding the identity of remains unearthed outside of Yekaterinburg, Mikhail Aleksandrovich's remains have never been recovered.

:o
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 18, 2004, 07:16:33 AM
Antonio,
could you tell us more about George and his family. They live in Madrid for a while, don't they? So I assume there might have been something in Spanish press. I have not heard about them for ages.
Thanks
MP had her list of complains about Alexandra, btw.
Galina
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Antonio_P.Caballer on March 18, 2004, 08:07:29 AM
Hello Galina!
I´m afraid i do not know very much. Grand duchess Maria always appears in some charity bazar or any time the imperial russia is mentioned. There was an interview in HELLO in which she was showing her house. They live in La Moraleja, a luxurious urbanization in the outskirts of Madrid, i think. The last i wachted on television was when she was asked if she felt a russian or a spanish, and she told that she did not feel herself spanish at all but russian(she has never lived in Russia however). I´ve always found her unsimpathetic...

Antonio.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 18, 2004, 09:49:20 AM
Thanks, Antonio.
Ye, they do not inspire me to become a monarchist, either.
Galina
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Valmont on March 18, 2004, 12:39:14 PM
Galina,
Your comment takes me to ask you. What is the feeling of the people in Russia toward The Romanov?. Do they care  if the monarchy is stablished again? or they simply do not care at all. Also, is it the same feeling  among the older and younger Russians?
I just read a thread  about it, and  I started to wonder, maybe you can fill in  the blanks.

Best Regards,

Arturo Vega-Llausás
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 20, 2004, 10:04:24 AM
Arturo, thanks for asking! I loved reading how Russian throne is being allocated here.
It was a bit of enthisiam at the very beggining of reforms (around the time when GD Maria's family first visited). But even then, it was SO part of the history and nothing to do with real life today.
I have watched some political talk show on Russian TV recently and there was a group representing some monarhist party (never heard of it before or since). It was such a joke: they did not even bother to learn Romanovs names and titles correctly, remained seated when''God save the Tsar'' was played and have earned many ironic remarks from the audience.
Particularly now, when 70% are happy with the President, no vacancies in this department.
Difficult to speak for the entire nation, but I suspect the average Russian would say ''WHAT?'' if asked about the restoration. Too many other concerns.
Galina
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: BobAtchison on March 20, 2004, 10:31:12 AM
Once in Petersburg I was invited to a small gala dinner with members of the Russian Nobility Association.  It was a Mad Hatter's tea party - on one side I had an aged, decrepit Countess with a wild mop of disheveled gray hair dressed in a wild assortment of mismatching clothes; while on the otherside was a Prince who insisted his family's claim to the throne was equally valid to the Romanovs.  He requested my assistance - indeed, he asked anyone he could grab - to petition the World Court to recognise his rights.  In the lobby of the hotel were waiting the children of the false Siberian Aleksey - who wanted to plead for DNA testing to prove they were real Romanovs and the true heirs.

Bob
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on March 20, 2004, 08:23:42 PM
i have always thought Leonida and 'grand duchess' Maria Vladimirovna to be gold diggers and just in it for the fame, titles, etc. What about the relatives of Kseniya Alexandrovna? it seems even if the monarchy was restored, the Pauline Laws would be ignored anyway.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 20, 2004, 11:27:42 PM
Xenia Alexandrovna still has living grandchildren. Michael Andrievich lives in Australia - he has no children. His brother, Andrei Andreivich, lives in Northern California and has sons and at least one grandchild. Their half sister Olga I believe lives in the UK.

Their cousin Michael Feodorovitch lives in France, Nikita's two sons live in the New York area, and two other of Xenia's granddaughters are also still alive.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on March 21, 2004, 03:35:06 PM
Actually Lisa, Nikita (Nikitovich) still lives in New York, but Alexander Nikitovich died last year.  In NYC we have also Feodor Romanov, and a few of the grandchildren of Prince Vasili, whose daughter Marina married a New Yorker. One of her daughters is still in NYC, and I thik a son.  The rest live (I believe) in Colorado or Montana?

Best,  Nick
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 21, 2004, 06:38:42 PM
Nick: thank you for the update on Alexander Nikitovich. In terms of Princess Marina and her children, I know where one of her daughters lives. I was trying to focus on Xenia's grandchildren with the post but of course her great-great grandchildren are likely of as much interest as her grandchildren.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 22, 2004, 04:25:31 AM
Olga, I would not go that far regarding GD Maria (gold diggers etc). I 'd rather  see them as some sort of hostages of their position. Her father spend his life time as a pretender, it must be difficult to ''pull out'' for her. Anyway, they do not seem to have many political ambitions. I have read someone overheard her complaining  along the lines of ''What I need all that inconvinience for?'' during their grand tour of Russia (early 90s).
Bob your picture is 101% correct, this is a sort of public which is into all those things in Russia.
''Nobility'' and Romanovs  are best left to historians.
Galina
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on March 23, 2004, 07:03:19 PM
When our tour group was in Russia, some of my fellow travelers brought up the subject of reinstalling a tsar to various folks--tour guides, hotel staff, families we spent time with, etc.--and the idea of going back to tsardom seemed bizarre to them all. (And I don't blame them!) Some members of our group also tried promoting the American system, which annoyed me--and no doubt our hosts--given that we were guests.  My own feeling is that among the lessons to be learned from the tragic story of Nicholas and Alexandra is that leadership should not be inherited. It places way too much stress on the unfortunate heirs (i.e., Nicholas), and even royalty themselves (i.e., the two eldest daughters of Queen Victoria, Princess Victoria and Princess Alice--the latter being Alexandra's mother) felt royalty was an outmoded system.  The Romanovs descendants who have my respect are those who (1) become independent individuals who can stand upon their own abilities, thereby honoring the name of Romanov, and then, upon attaining position and/or income, (2) work for the betterment of others rather than themselves.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 23, 2004, 07:44:18 PM
       I don't believe that a Romanov heir could be restored to a full autocrtatic position. If there happend to be a valid heir and that person did ascend the throne, I'm sure that their power would be purely cremonial. The function or practicality of even a figurehead monarch is questionable. However I don't think that the people of Russia have ever felt as united as they did under the Tsars. Such a thing as a leader that would represent a new Russia that has come to terms with her past could only be a good thing for the Russian people.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Reed on March 24, 2004, 10:45:32 AM
Anyway..... ;) back to the succession question....The History Channel again ran the program on Catherine the Great yesterday.  It seems that succession was not always....shall we say "legal."  I have recently read and seen on programs that even some of the Romanov family were working to eliminate Nicolas as Tsar.  Would they have put forth Alexis under a regent?  Were they aware of the health issues with him?  If not him, who would have been the most likely candidate...Michael?  Pure conjecture of course.  :-/
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 24, 2004, 11:42:56 AM
As has been mentioned before, if Nicholas could name anyone his heir, including his daughter, then Maria V. could in theory be heir now. All this is quite hypothetical, as a restoration is as likely as world peace !
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on March 24, 2004, 11:54:42 AM
All of this talk--which I consider highly suspect, to say the least--about Alexandra surviving and her daughters marrying, etc., reminds me that such talk was going on as early as the Toblosk imprisonment. In fact, if memory serves, I recall reading that the family came across an article, in a  newspaper eventually given to them, about Tatiana learning to use a typewriter so she could become her father's secretary . . . this gave them all a good laugh!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: _Rodger_ on March 24, 2004, 10:45:27 PM
Well, the first problem is a really difficult one for someone whom wishes to prove a 'match' with the published Gill - Ivanov results.

If knight et al are correct, then a 'match' with the Gill - Ivanov results doesn't mean a 'match' with the royal family.  :-/

However, a match with their published result for Grand Duchess Elizabeth would be . . . interesting.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 25, 2004, 12:27:38 AM
Rodger - you should be able to register as no one has to divulge their real name or email address. Check with the Forum Administrator.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on March 25, 2004, 09:25:05 AM
Hi there, everyone.

I just have to jump in, finally.

Even if (and it would be nice if it were true) ALL of the Grand Duchesses had survived, unless Alexis had a son with a woman of equal birth, we would still be having the same discussion over succession to the throne.  Since I am quite certain that EVEN if Alexis had survived, and EVEN if he had managed to live to adulthood with Hemophilia, and EVEN f he had managed to live a quiet and undisturbed life somewhere hidden away behind the iron curtain, that I doubt highly someone managed to sneak a Royal Princess out of one of the mediatised german principalities for  him to marry and have children with.

That aside, we are still faced with the Imperial laws of succession and the following: Kirill Vladimirovitch, was the seniormost male agnate after the revolution, and all the living agnates who had reached their majority acknowledged him as such.

Kirill Vladimirovitch married a woman of equal birth.

That woman was Orthodox at the time of the birth of her son, Vladimir.

Vladimir was acknowledged as head of the family by the living male agnates.

Now here's the tricky part;  if you aknowledge that Vladimir succeeded to all Imperial Rights and Privileges, than you must believe the succession laws which grant the Emperor the right to change those laws.

Vladimir decreed that his wife Leonida Georgievna was of Royal birth.  That goes against past precedent, but if you are a monarchist, and a russian one at that, you have no right to question his word on the subject (that is one of the problems with autocracy.).

Those of you who argue with that fact escape the essential truth about the Russian monarchy--laws do not apply to the Emperor.  NIcholas' abdication in favor of his brother was no legal problem.  Michael was certainly next in line to the throne.  His marriage to Countess Brassova would have prevented him from providing HEIRS to the throne, but perhaps Nicholas hoped he would divorce and marry a woman of equal birth someday (which was not out of the question).  As you remember, the Russians are experts at getting "difficult people" out of the way.  I personally think that Michael's abdication which placed power in the hands of a representative democratic government has finally come to pass.  If the Russians ever want a Tsar again, it will be, as Michael wished, up to them to choose.  Remember, they don't even have to choose a Romanov.

I know a lot of people will disagree, but If you want there to be a legitimate Romanov successor to the throne -- unfortunately, Maria and George are the closest thing we have.

Nick
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: CarolynnB on March 25, 2004, 10:03:59 AM
Nick,

Thank you for so eloquently explaining what I tried to say in my late-night post-- historically, whoever was recognized to be "in power" had control over the succession.  I realize that there are lots of people out there who disagree with this, but it holds up under historical scrutiny.  

In addition, your point about the power of the Russian people to chose who or what they want in Russia is also a matter of historical record---if people have doubts about this, they need to look at both recent political events, and at the zemskii sobor that brought the Romanovs to power in the first place.

Just my 2 cents,
Carolynn Burbee
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on March 25, 2004, 01:38:03 PM
Wow, Nick! What a concept! And thank you for taking the time, trouble, common sense, and humor to get us back on track. Maria and George it would undoubtedly be . . . but given both the past and the present, let's hope they just stay International Figures of Mystery!  ;)

The best justification for the study of history--even more than the immersions, reinactments, and fabulous websites such as this one (and thank you, Bob, for your continued work, expertise and devotion)--is learning from our mistakes and avoiding future Holocausts, WWs, 9/11s and 3/11s.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on March 25, 2004, 08:29:31 PM
Jane, beautifully said. And now I'll add my own two cent's worth--actually, more like a dollar's worth.

Jmentanko, I appreciate your message, but I want to add that most of us are not "outraged" because someone has "disregarded" what we have researched and shared on this discussion board. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Many of us, in fact, first became interested in the Romanovs and the Russian Revolution because we were intrigued by the mystery of Anastasia and wanted to believe in the possibility that she might have survived.  

Since that time we have read voraciously on these subjects, consulting books, newspapers, periodicals, websites and other materials that offer a variety of viewpoints and approaches.  We have watched a number of documentaries, as well as quite a few dramatizations.  We are well-versed not only with regards to the personalities involved, but also the way in which they interacted with each other.  And yes, we still will consider alternate outcomes--that's one of the reasons we check out this forum--because we try to be as open-minded as possible.  Sometimes, in fact, our research takes us to places that can be  emotionally/psychologically difficult to deal with, such as the material in the well-researched and well-documented Wilson/King book.

Many of us have made a lifelong study of this period in history.  A few of us have ancestors who lived in Russia at that time, and so we bring that to the mix as well.  Whatever the case, we are immersed in the story of the last Romanovs, and although we were not at the "House of Special Purpose" in July 1918, most of us have come to the carefully considered conclusion that the survival of one Romanov, let alone an entire group of them, would be highly unlikely.

All the same, if one of us came across reliable data pointing to an opposing conclusion, we would present that information with care, realizing that others would quite rightly review our information, detail by detail, not to mention question our source material. We would also understand those challenges, and even some skepticism, because the mystery of Anastasia and, in fact, that of the entire family, has engendered so many conflicting theories and possibilities.  

We care about Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Marie, Anastasia, and Alexei, as well as those who died for them and with them, and we respect their memory.  We also are aware of the many attempts to rewrite--with emotionalism and/or chicanery, rather than with measured rationality--this immensely unfortuate chapter in modern history.  Revisionism is not something we disregard.  But we appreciate a thoughtul sharing of ideas more than a wild-eyed promotion.

Finally, we realize that, just as rumors were spread about Alexandra, her family, and Rasputin, so too can unsubstantiated information cause damage today--perhaps not via this particular website, but certainly in the way we regard and treat each other and thereby, in ways both large and small, shape current world events.

And now, feeling also very exhausted, I bid you a fond goodnight!

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on March 26, 2004, 01:22:52 AM
Quote


Now here's the tricky part;  if you aknowledge that Vladimir succeeded to all Imperial Rights and Privileges, than you must believe the succession laws which grant the Emperor the right to change those laws.

Thank you, Nick, for stating the best argument in favor of HIH Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna.  This aside, however, there are two additional issues that play into the Bagration-Mukhransky marriage debate: I've seen (from Brien) original copies of KR's diary in 1911, when he recorded-on Princess Tatiana's marriage-that Nicholas II himself told him that he considered the B-M family as equal rank-therefore, not a morganatic marriage.  And then, too, 3-4 years before Vladimir married Leonida he also (in his position as de facto Emperor) recognized a similar union with one of them as being equal for the purposes of succession.

I don't find it necessary to argue the details, though-because as you say, if Kirill retained his rights and passed them on to Vladimir as every living male member of the Dynasty agreed up to 1969, then whatever Vladimir did was lawful by virtue of his position as Emperor.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Louise on March 26, 2004, 09:52:21 AM
There is little known about Franz Wilhelm of Prussia and his role in the Romanov Dynasty; other than being the father of George.  Did Franz Wilhelm convert to Orthodoxy before the marriage to Maria?

Does anyone find it ironic that the house of Romanov and Hohenzollern merged to continue the Romanov claim, when it is well known that the majority of Romanov's detested their German relatives?

Louise

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Jane on March 26, 2004, 11:57:32 AM
Hello Louise,

You're quite right about the dearth of information regarding Prince Franz Wilhelm.  I believe he is the great-grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, through the Kaiser's youngest son?  I am just going from memory here--I might be mistaken.  I do know, however, that he did convert to Orthodoxy prior to his marriage to Maria Vladimirovna, and took the name GD Mikhail. He has now resumed the style of Prince of Prussia, since their divorce (the exact year of which, I cannot quite determine--anyone out there have that information?).

Regards,

Jane
Title: seemedSo pRe: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 26, 2004, 12:40:12 PM
Hi Louise,
what makes you think Romanovs detested their German relatives? Apart from Maria Feodorovna all Russian Empresses in the XIX century were Germans and family ties seemed to be quite  strong. I can only think of N&A dislike of Kaiser Wilhelm, due to his personality, not nationality.
(MF complained  that she had to keep her hatered for Germany  to herself all her life till the WWI. So perhaps this was not a popular opinion?)
Galina
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Louise on March 26, 2004, 12:51:43 PM
Detested maybe too hard a word. Let me use the term "not fond of". Not only did the Dowager Empress dislike the Kaiser and his family, so did Alexander III. In Massie's N & A, Tsar Alexander more than shows his contempt for Wilhelm.

GD Ella was not a fan of "Willie." After she rebuffed his advances and married GD Sergei, Wilhelm was less than polite to the Grand Duke.

I can not pinpoint which books I have read about this attitude as there are too many references regarding the Romanov's feelings towards some of the Hohenzollern's.

Louise


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Jane on March 26, 2004, 02:08:45 PM
I think any antipathy felt was focused more towards the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty, which certainly was not peculiar to the Romanovs, due to Prussian foreign policy throughout the nineteenth century .  The Romanovs were essentially German, anyway, as were the majority of European dynasties of the time.  

Jane
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 27, 2004, 02:30:39 PM
I will not mention who said this - beyond its being a grandchild of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrova who said this to me- and I am paraphrasing However "amusing" people may find tales of purported survivors, it is important to remember that there is still a real family involved here - and not cardboard characters:

"This is what they think of my family. That we would somehow turn our backs if one of Uncle Nicky's daughters had managed to survive. That somehow for money or power or anything else they consider to be important, we would say one of Uncle Nicky's daughters was not. But they are wrong. Yes, Uncle Nicky may have been a bad tsar - that's for history and not us to decide. But they have no right when it comes to my grandmother. Whatever quarrels may have existed between adults in the family - and there were many - one thing that Uncle Nicky's children knew beyond question was their Auntie Xenia loved them. And she mourned them every day, for over 40 years. So, if someone tells you that they or a relative was one of these children, you need to ask yourself, would they let their aunt and family continue to mourn them after everything that happened? I can tell you this for sure - those children would never have done this to their Auntie Xenia, never! And the joy she would have felt to have seen any of them again - beyond what you can imagine!

But, this is what the world thinks of my family".
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 27, 2004, 02:52:04 PM
     I think that you made an excellent point!

    Regardless of the divisions within the Romanov family, they were still a family. The only difference between our families and the Romanov's is that their lives were played out for all the world to see. It is extremely hard for me to imagine that they would refuse to recognize or accept N&A or their children had they survived. I have to admit I was almost inclined to believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. This was until I read that GD Olga finally admitted that she did not believe that Anna was her neice. DNA did not convince me as much as GD Olga. I just couldn't see her doing this unless she was certain, and she had nothing to lose or gain.

    Thanks for that post.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 27, 2004, 07:18:18 PM
You're welcome. Over the years, I have heard from dozens of purported survivors or their supporters. What I always say now is - you are asking me to believe that they let their family believe they are dead - which is an insult to the memory of whomever they are supposed to be (or have been) - and/or they never bothered to contact their existing family?

Considering all of this, I am more of the opinion that no one survived.
Title: to Romanovs)Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: 3710 on March 28, 2004, 03:39:12 AM
Oh, please, let's stop here.
Anyone who has ANY idea of what real Family was like would not think for a second that they would sell the survived relative for a bank account or whatever else. I have never met any claimants personally and found it amusing (though predictable) that one would turn up here. I am sure Romanovs have enough common sense not to take all those wild stories to heart, they are part of history, it is inevitable!
It is regrettable that it has caused such a turmoil here. Not the first  and surely not he last survival story, so what?
Galina

No, back to our ''usual business'':

Louise, I have read that Wilhelm has tried to arrange for Ella to leave Moscow after the Revolution via German Embassador (which she refused). Was is not rather nice of him  to care about her after all those years? (Hm, it might be the only appealing thing I have ever read about him in connection with Romanovs)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 28, 2004, 10:16:40 AM
       It is probable that if they do not care about their past, Orthodoxy or Russia, they are not interested in ruling. Even more than it being up to the Russian people to decide if they want a Tsar. It is up to the Romanovs themselves. All of them with the exception of "GD" Maria and her son seem to have gotten on with their lives.

     It's worth noting that "GD" George is a staff aide and personal assistant to Loyola de Palacio, a vice-president of the European Commission.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 28, 2004, 11:29:32 AM
With regard to the Ilyinskys - and I should make it clear I in no way speak for them - I think it unfair to say that they don't care about Russia or their Imperial heritage.

The funeral mentioned was due to the tragic death of Paula Comisar's teenage daughter. I can tell you that Cincinnati, the city where the family lives, is not exactly teeming with Russian Orthodox churches.

Audrey Emery, Paul Ilyinsky's mother, converted to Orthodoxy and Paul's recent funeral was in fact officiated by an Orthodox clergyperson. I honestly don't know if the entire family other than Paula is Orthodox or not, but one funeral does not a non Orthodox family make.

As far as Russia goes, the family has travelled their at their own expense to Russia on several occasions. I cannot imagine what would make any rational person say that they don't care for Russia. Please remember that for most of Paul's life, the Ilyinskys were not welcome there due to a Communist government. Russia became a republic after Paul was over 60 years old!

Yes, the Ilyinskys are now an American family. I know for a fact that Michael Ilyinsky, the youngest of Paul's sons, is very interested in their Imperial heritage, Russia, and Orthodoxy.

The family is aware that Russia is a republic and not interested in a restoration of the monarchy.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Candice on March 28, 2004, 11:51:49 AM
Quote
      It is probable that if they do not care about their past, Orthodoxy or Russia, they are not interested in ruling. Even more than it being up to the Russian people to decide if they want a Tsar. It is up to the Romanovs themselves. All of them with the exception of "GD" Maria and her son seem to have gotten on with their lives.

      It's worth noting that "GD" George is a staff aide and personal assistant to Loyola de Palacio, a vice-president of the European Commission.
   
This is an amazing discussion and that anyone can participate in.  Thank you for allowing me to speak.
I believe it is up to the people to decide if they do want a Tsar.


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 28, 2004, 12:27:01 PM
Quote
      It is probable that if they do not care about their past, Orthodoxy or Russia, they are not interested in ruling. Even more than it being up to the Russian people to decide if they want a Tsar. It is up to the Romanovs themselves. All of them with the exception of "GD" Maria and her son seem to have gotten on with their lives.

      It's worth noting that "GD" George is a staff aide and personal assistant to Loyola de Palacio, a vice-president of the European Commission.




    I just want to reinforce the fact that I was not refering to anybody particular in the statement above. It was just a general opinion regarding how it is up to the Romanovs if they want to rule Russia. It was a reply to Miguel C. de F's statement that discusses the fact that some members of the Romanov clan may not be interested in their heritage, Russia and Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 28, 2004, 02:02:22 PM
Quote



     I just want to reinforce the fact that I was not refering to anybody particular in the statement above. It was just a general opinion regarding how it is up to the Romanovs if they want to rule Russia. It was a reply to Miguel C. de F's statement that discusses the fact that some members of the Romanov clan may not be interested in their heritage, Russia and Orthodoxy.


But, shouldn't your "general opinion" have at least some basis in fact? And shouldn't both you and Miguel be responsible about what you say about the Romanovs (or anyone else, for that matter)?

The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they tend not to be true. I have seen not one shread of evidence that a Romanov descendant is "not interested in their heritage, Russia and Orthodoxy". The person who made this statement cited the Protestant funeral of Miss Comisar as such evidence. I pointed out that this was more likely evidence that the girl died in a place where there are not many Russian Orthodox Churches.

In fact, the young lady in question made the trip in 1998 with her grandfather, Paul Ilyinsky, to attend the belated funeral of Nicholas II. This doesn't tend to support the contention that she or her family don't care about Russia or their Imperial heritage.

My point - please do not assume things to be true when it comes to the Romanov descendants. Please avoid generalizations. I believe they would disagree with your statement that it is "up to them" if they want to rule Russia or not.

The RFA's position is that Russia needs some time to recover from Bolshevism before considering a return to monarchy.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 28, 2004, 02:56:52 PM
Ah, you make a good point.

However, I was basing my comments only on Miguel's post. These were his claims and I added my opinion. Is it so wrong to address the claims that he belives to be true? I did not condone or disagree with anything he said. I simply said that if there were some members of the family that didn't care about Orthodoxy, their history, or Russia, they probhably would not be interested in ruling.

What I wrote was based on Miguel's incorrect assumptions. Perhaps I should have looked deeper into what he said and realized he was wrong. But, I frankly didn't care.

By the way, my "general opinion" ;D still stands. It is up to the Romanovs if they want to rule Russia.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on March 28, 2004, 03:19:09 PM
Maybe I should make my point more clear.

If the Russian people vote overwhelmingly to restore the monarchy and there is a valid heir. Who has the final decision when it comes to having a Tsar? In my opinion, it is the Romanov heir. It comes down to what the Romanovs want.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: _Rodger_ on March 29, 2004, 09:13:13 PM
In case anyone is wondering, it takes only a single nucleotide difference to exclude a relationship.

To have a mtDNA match, every single nucleotide has to match, and there are more than 26,000 of them.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: MMR4th on March 29, 2004, 11:31:54 PM
Rodger.

I respect that your are a geneticist. BUT by your aregument then Kulikovski who has 16169C must not be relaterd to Duke of fife or Xenia sfiri with 16169T.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on March 31, 2004, 08:46:16 AM
Lisa, you raise a good point.
This discussion is NOT about succession. There already exists a thread called "Did any Romanovs Survive" under the Anastasia catagory and I will ask MMR and all others to please move any further discussion on his claims or related issues to survival of the Imperial family after 1918 to that catagory/thread immediately.
Thanks.
FA
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Johnny on April 29, 2004, 04:20:00 PM
It's probably a little too late to pick up on this topic again, since it was being discussed in March. But, I just want to remind all that it is not up to the Romanovs whether they would like to rule Russia or not. It is up to the Russian people, and so far they haven't been very enthusiastic about it ;)
Let's face it! Russia will never be a monarchy again. At least not until Turkey, Austria and Germany have restored their monarchs back on their thrones. Not very likely! Is it? :'( ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Johnny on April 29, 2004, 04:24:10 PM
Oh, by the way, I just want everyone to know that Alexei Nikoloayevich did survive and had a son who eventually became my father. I have my left big toe as the proof. The ressemblance is striking. And don't give me that DNA crap either.  ;D
Sorry, but I had to get it off my chest.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JM on April 29, 2004, 05:05:25 PM
Quote
It's probably a little too late to pick up on this topic again, since it was being discussed in March. But, I just want to remind all that it is not up to the Romanovs whether they would like to rule Russia or not. It is up to the Russian people, and so far they haven't been very enthusiastic about it ;)
Let's face it! Russia will never be a monarchy again. At least not until Turkey, Austria and Germany have restored their monarchs back on their thrones. Not very likely! Is it? :'( ;D


I feel like I have to defend a statement I made weeks ago.

It is up to the people if they want a monarchy. But if there was a Romanov heir that had no interest in ruling. Well, then what? No monarchy, regardless of how the Russian people feel. Don't the Romanovs have a choice?

I know this is obvious to everyone. I just want to make it clear.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: nerdycool on April 29, 2004, 05:18:48 PM
Never fear Johnny, it's never too late to respond to a subject which was brought up weeks, or even months ago. It brings all those posts back up near the top so new people can learn what has been going on here. But yes, JM as well as numerous others on this site have mentioned that it would be up to the Russian people on whether there would be a monarchy again.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on April 29, 2004, 05:58:55 PM
Quote
Oh, by the way, I just want everyone to know that Alexei Nikoloayevich did survive and had a son who eventually became my father. I have my left big toe as the proof. The ressemblance is striking. And don't give me that DNA crap either.  ;D
Sorry, but I had to get it off my chest.


Johnny,
Just to remind you that all those with claims of descent from the Imperial Family are to restrict those claims to the "Imperial Claimants Post Here" Topic thread.
Thanks
FA
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Namarolf on April 29, 2004, 11:25:43 PM
What happens if George Mikhailovich (Maria v.'s son) dies childless or decides to marry a commoner and give up his rights? According to their branch, who would be the next in line? the issue of Maria Kirilovna and Charles of Leiningen?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Johnny on April 30, 2004, 05:45:30 AM
Dear Forum Admin
Sorry, that was a joke!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Douglas on June 08, 2004, 08:56:44 PM
1c) Karl Peter Ulrich, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp; succeeded as PETER III, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias 5 Jan 1762, until he was forced to abdicate by his wife 5 Jul 1762; b.Kiel 21 Feb 1728, murdered at Ropsha 17 Jul 1762; m.St.Petersburg 1 Sep 1745 Sophie Auguste Friederike Pss von Anhalt-Zerbst, who succeeded as CATHERINE II, Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias 9 Jul 1762 (Stettin 2 May 1729-St.Petersburg 17 Nov 1796)


Does  the above genelogy correctly state how the  descending  'Romanov' Tsars of Russia actually were biologically related to the House of Holstein-Gottorp?  

By using this fact we are following the male heirs that lead directly to Nicholas II.

Douglas
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Daniel Briere on June 08, 2004, 09:47:55 PM
Hi Douglas,

The Romanovs were indeed biologically related to the Holstein-Gottorp…at least for a while! Since Peter III, the official name of the dynasty was “Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp” and the “Rodovoi gerb Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva” (His Imperial Majesty’s Family Coat-of-Arms) did include the coat of arms from Slesvig-Holstein and other Foreign Lands (on the right side, left having the Romanov Family coat-of-arms). I remember reading somewhere that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna resented it and tried in vain to have the Almanach de Gotha to change the dynasty’s name for Romanov. (Hopefully someone will refresh my memory about the story…).

Why did I write “at least for a while!”: because when Grand Duke Paul Petrovich (future Paul I) the rumor at Catherine II’s Court was that he really was the son of one of Catherine II’s lover  :o ,  with whom young Paul apparently had an uncanny resemblance (Saltykov if I’m not mistaken) and that 9 months before hs birth, Peter III still hadn’t had sex with his wife. If true, the biological connection with the Romanov would have ceased with Peter III. I guess only DNA tests could tell. Why not dig Peter the Great's remains out of his tomb to compare with Nicholas II's DNA? I’m not sure the Russians would be amused though… :'(
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Douglas on June 08, 2004, 10:25:36 PM
Hi Daniel:

Thank you so much for your very interesting reply.

I bring up this point only out of historical accuracy.  I mean no insult to the memory of Nicholas II, whom I admire.

Daniel: Please reread your post and make more clear your thought in paragraph two.  Is there a line or thought missing.    The grammer of the first sentence is not clear to me.

Gleb Bodkin, the son of  the  Nicholas II's doctor [ Dr. Bodkin] clearly writes in his book," The Real Romanovs", that, yes  indeed, all biological connection with the Romanov family ended with Peter III.

And it was at that point in historical time that the Imperial Family of Russia became the Holstein-Gottorp.

With all  sincere respect  for Nicholas II, the most recent Tsar of Russia and maybe not the last.

Douglas
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rjt on June 09, 2004, 04:28:10 AM
Can yall just imagine the stress "Grand Duchess" Maria must be feeling? Only one son, only one chance to redeem her grandfather's claim. I hate to be rude, but by god, I hope that little Georgie marries a commoner! At least then *everyone* would be on a level playing field! Or, who knows, he may be gay. Plenty of Romanovs were, apparently.

Sorry, I just waded most of this thread and felt myself becoming more amused and uptight at the same time--and kinda thought maybe that's the way Maria is feeling.

Regarding the succession, my personal feeling is that Michael Alexandrovich's desire to have an election should be considered the proper course of action.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on June 09, 2004, 08:24:19 AM
Hi there, just to answer an earlier post;  

Peter III (Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp) inherited the Russian throne after the death of Empress Elizabeth I.  Elizabeth was the daughter of Peter the Great, and had no issue.  As a result, the throne passed to the closest relative: Peter of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, son of Grand Duchess Anna, the sister of Peter the Great.

After the Schleswig-Holstein succession, the family was known as Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. That is how the Almanach de Gotha referred to them until Alexander III complained, and they switched it to "House of Romanov" (Romanov-Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp) in contradiction of their very strict rules.

Best,  Nick
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Charles on June 09, 2004, 08:37:31 AM
Slight correction, Grand Duchess Anna was Peter the Great's daughter not his sister.  Peter III was Elizaveta Petrovna's nephew.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Daniel Briere on June 09, 2004, 11:08:35 PM
Sorry Douglas,

My second paragraph should have read as follows:

“Why did I write “at least for a while!”: because when Grand Duke Paul Petrovich (future Paul I) was born the rumor at Catherine II’s Court was that he really was the son of one of Catherine II’s lover, with whom young Paul apparently had an uncanny resemblance (Saltykov if I’m not mistaken) and that 9 months before hs birth, Peter III still hadn’t had sex with his wife. If true, the biological connection with the Romanov would have ceased with Peter III. I guess only DNA tests could tell. Why not dig Peter the Great out of his tomb to compare with the one from Nicholas II? I’m not sure the Russians would be amused though…”

And I should have written “Elizabeth Petrovna’s Court” not Catherine II’s, as she wasn’t yet empress when she had a son…

I don’t mean any disrespect to anyone either. But rumors and gossip are also part of History – especially when they end up in Diplomatic reports as it was the case in Peter & Catherine’s time. I could add that some historians wrote that, because Grand Duke Peter was apparently unable to have children,  Empress Elizabeth herself might have let it known to Catherine that an Heir was needed at all cost, including the one of taking a lover to father a child. What really happened, we’ll never know. But around the same time Peter was persuaded to have a minor operation so he could at last have sex with his wife (and Saltykov was sent far away from the Capital). Of course there are some who say this operation was hastily arranged after Catherine discovered she was pregnant from someone else…

But does it really matter? And even if Paul Ist was really the son of Peter III (he sure showed the same mental imbalance as Peter did) and then was a “biological” Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, it didn’t make his successors less Russian for having a German family name. Alexander III and Nicholas II certainly viewed themselves and acted as true Russians, even if they had some Foreign blood (mostly German). The present British dynasty’s name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until George V changed its name to "Windsor" during World War I because the name sounded too much German. Today no one would think of him as being German, even less of his grand-daughter Elizabeth II. So, what’s in a name really? Not much, except that for dynasties, it sometimes explain their history, well…at least their official one.

A note about the present Romanovs: some say that, in accordance to genealogical rules, if Maria Vladimirovna’s son George ever becomes Emperor of Russia the name of the dynasty should be Hohenzollern-Romanov…Will history repeats itself?

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Daniel Briere on June 09, 2004, 11:12:39 PM
Nick:

I really hate to disagree with you, but I've just checked the copies of the “Almanach de Gotha” I have: right until 1916 (I don’t think there was one published for 1917), the name they give for the Russian dynasty is “Maison Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp”. So I guess Alexander III might have complained about it, but apparently to no avail. I will try to find where I’ve read Alexandra Feodorovna tried to have the name changed too.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 23, 2004, 07:28:28 PM
Patrilineally, which is how things are done in Europe, the House is Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp through GD Maria Vladimirovna, if you recognize her, or Prince Nicholas Romanovich, if you recognize him. All this regardless of who the biological father of Paul I was, because legally, his father was Peter III. The later never repudiated paternity of Paul.

If you recognize the Vladimirovichi claim, the House will become Romanov-Hohenzollern with the death of Maria, regardless of who George marries, or if he marries at all, and regardless of Maria's ex "becoming" a Romanov upon his marriage.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on June 23, 2004, 07:33:17 PM
Actually, Lisa, if things are done patrilinially, the House is Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov (Peter III being a Holstein-Gottorp with a Romanov mother), and after the death of Maria, it would be Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen-Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.

Alexander III made a big stink with the Gotha because they refused to put "Romanov" first-- Daniel, that is why "Romanov" come first.  It is the only House where this happens.


Best,

Nick
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie on July 12, 2004, 08:31:46 PM
Why is it that the sons of Sandro and Xenia are not considered in the succession? They were after all double Romanov! According to British succession, they would have it. Xenia was the oldest daughter, and would have been in line after the loss of all her brothers and their children. Therefore, Xenia's oldest son, with Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich for a father, looks like a good successor to me! Does he have any living issue?

What about Paul Illynsky, son of Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, and Mayor of Palm Beach, Florida? He is a male decendant of a Grand Duke, he has a good claim! The Tsar of Palm Beach!

If they are going by the old Pauline law, the current claimant is not valid since there was a female in between! I thought the succession could not come through a female?  Besides, wasn't Kyril's wife a divorcee of Alexandra's brother, Ernie? Wouldn't that disqualify that line too?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 13, 2004, 12:09:48 AM
Annie, Paul Illinsky died earlier this year (there is an article presented on the home page of this Discussion Board).

The Laws of Succession were severed (chain of custody) by Michael II, after he renounced the Crown, which Nikolai II passed directly to him in March 1917, following his duel abdication. The Provisional Government and then the Soviet Government intervened, now followed by the present democratic form of Government. Consequentially, the Imperial Laws of Succession do not have any validity under the present Constitution of the Russian Republic.

IMHO there is no rightful heir today.

If there ever becomes a real occassion that the people of the Russian Republic wish to have a new Imperial head of government, it is for them to decide via a referendum. Referenda are necessary to implement where a change in the regime is required, and provides a direct vote for the people on this issue.

If the majority of the population endorses the formation of a new autocratic regime, then the new laws would have to be enacted first to establish the new Crown, concurrently with the new Laws of Succession . The  Romanov families must first formally and conclusively decide as to who is the more rightful person to accept the newly established Crown. Ideally, the new laws would have to specifically clarify the more sticky circumstances which presented difficulties in the Imperial past i.e. divorces and marriage to members outside the immediate monarchal families.
;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie on July 13, 2004, 08:09:11 AM
Oh, I didn't know that. I'm very sorry to hear about Paul Illinsky.  :(

I don't think Russia will ever bring back the monarchy, as interesting as that would be. But I have always doubted Kyril's claim. If there are no rules now, then we have a lot of  possibilities!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on July 13, 2004, 08:51:56 AM
Quote
Why is it that the sons of Sandro and Xenia are not considered in the succession? They were after all double Romanov! According to British succession, they would have it. Xenia was the oldest daughter, and would have been in line after the loss of all her brothers and their children. Therefore, Xenia's oldest son, with Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich for a father, looks like a good successor to me! Does he have any living issue?


The descendants of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich and Grand Duchess Kseniya Alexandrovna

Irina Alexandrovna, Princess Romanova 1895-1970
 -Irina Felixovna, Princess Yusupova 1915-
    -Countess Kseniya Nikolaevna Sheremetieva 1942-

Andrei Alexandrovich, Prince Romanov 1897-1981
 -Kseniya Andreevna, Princess Romanova 1919-
 -Mihail Andreevich, Prince Romanov 1920-
 -Andrei Andreevich, Prince Romanov 1923-
   -Olga Andreevna, Princess Romanova 1950-
      -Nicolas Matthew 1976-
      -Francis-Alexander Matthew 1978-
      -Alexandra Matthew 1981-
      -Thomas Matthew 1987-1989
   -Alexei Andreevich, Prince Romanov 1953-
   -Peter Andreevich, Prince Romanov 1961-
   -Andrei Andreevich, Prince Romanov 1963-
      -Natasha Kathleen, Princess Romanova, 1993-

Fyodor Alexandrovich, Prince Romanov 1898-1968
 -Irina Fyodorovna, Princess Romanova 1923-
 -Mihail Fyodorovich, Prince Romanov 1924-
    -Mikhail Paul Mikhailovich, Prince Romanov 1959-2001
       -Tatiana Mikhailovna Romanova 1986-

Nikita Alexandrovich, Prince Romanov 1900- 1974
 -Nikita Nikitich, Prince Romanov 1923
    -Theodore Nikitich, Prince Romanov 1974-
 -Alexander Nikitich Prince Romanov 1929-

Dmitri Alexandrovich, Prince Romanov 1901-1980
 -Nadezhda Dmitrievna, Princess Romanova 1933-
    -Penelope Allen 1953-
    -Marina Allen 1955 -
    -Alexandra Allen 1958-  

Rostislav Alexandrovich, Prince Romanov 1902-1978
 -Rostislav Rostislavovich, Prince Romanov 1938-1999
    -Stephena Alexandra Rostislavovna, Princess Romanova 1963-
    -Alexandra Rostislavovna, Princess Romanova 1983
    -Rostislav Rostislavovich, Prince Romanov 1985
    -Nikita Rostislavovich, Prince Romanov 1987-
 -Nikolai Rostislavovich, Prince Romanov 1945-
    -Nicholas Christopher, Prince Romanov 1968-
       -Cory Christopher, Prince Romanov 1993-
    -Daniel-Joseph, Prince Romanov 1972-
    -Heather Noel, Princess Romanova 1976-
 
Vasili Alexandrovich, Prince Romanov 1907-1989
 -Marina Vasilievna, Princess Romanova 1940-
    -Tatiana Beadleston 1968
    -Alexandra Beadleston 1970
    -Nicholas Beadleston 1971
    -Nathalie Beadleston 1976



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie on July 13, 2004, 09:07:05 AM
Thank you Olga! I was sure with all those kids there must be a lot of offspring around! It's so good to see the list! Those are a lot of Romanovs! It's a good thing Xenia's family was able to escape on the HMS Marlborough!

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 14, 2004, 12:30:04 AM
Quote
I don't think Russia will ever bring back the monarchy, as interesting as that would be. But I have always doubted Kyril's claim. If there are no rules now, then we have a lot of  possibilities!


I agree with you Annie, the more years which will pass as Russians learn to enjoy a Constitutional Democracy, the less likeky it becomes that a return to some form of autocratic rule will be formally be requested by the people.

Kyril could certainly make his Decree, because there was nothing to preclude his statement. One problem was that not all the Russian community in exile around the world accepted this declaration (including the Dowger Empress Maria Fyodorovna). He was neither elected or selected by the all remaining Romanovs. By extending his claim to include his daughter was a more fanciful move which IMHO bears no validity.

While the Laws of Succession remain silent today, there is no reason why that they could not brought back to life in a modified form. Only when all the specified criteria can be met, can the rightful person be in the position to accept their new role.

If young George wishes to pursue his claim then he must meet all the strict criteria imposed by the New Laws of Succession, and secondly he must be elected and accepted by all the Romanov family branches, and not by just his own family. There must be complete consensus. The other difficulty presented is that Russian nation must also formally recognize the new State by a majority vote.  :)

George's expectations have absolutely no validity at law simply because his mother's Declaration of 1992 could not legally accept the Imperial Laws of Succession as her own. These laws were not only defunct, but the Declaration itself cannot assume laws from another country to be used for her own needs, and especially from a country which no longer exists.

Another important consideration is that assuming that the Imperial Laws of Succession did stand, Maria would never meet the criteria, the first obvious point being that she is a female.

On balance her claim is completely meaningless.
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on July 14, 2004, 08:55:47 AM
It should also be remembered that evidence exists in at least two reliable first hand sources that GD Boris V. went to Minister of Justice Tchcheglovitov with the question of succession rights for the Vladimirs because Maria Pavlovna was not Orthodox when they were born.  The definitive answer was researched and written up as a report, with a copy going to Nicholas II as well as the Vladimirs that the Vladimirs were excluded from right to succession to the throne as the laws required anyone who succeeds to be born to an orthodox mother. Her 1905 conversion to Orthodoxy had no effect on their succession.
SO, Kyril's "claim" was invalid anyway, even under the old laws.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on July 14, 2004, 09:04:03 AM
Like Annie, I prefer the descendants of Alexander Mikhailovich and Kseniya Alexandrovna. The Vladimirovichi always seemed power hungry to me.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie on July 15, 2004, 09:05:59 AM
Thanks Olga and Belochka!  :)

In addition to being not all that qualified, and power hungry, I find the Kyril/Vladimir line not at all likeable or endearing, or even very regal. They seem more like a tabloid story than heirs to a great dynasty. Sorry, that's just how I feel about it.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 15, 2004, 10:07:53 PM
Quote
Thanks Olga and Belochka!  :)

In addition to being not all that qualified, and power hungry, I find the Kyril/Vladimir line not at all likeable or endearing, or even very regal. They seem more like a tabloid story than heirs to a great dynasty. Sorry, that's just how I feel about it.


Annie, well said. These pretenders will do and say anything to justify themselves to those who are willing to accept them, who themselves do not understand the real legal situation. George's mother manipulated the media to create the impression that the Crown belonged to her.  

All their petty excuses in not extending the courtesy of attending the funeral service at the P. P. Fortress in 1998, alongside all the Romanov Family said a great deal don't you think? Their absence at this onetime event warrants attention.

It is a shame that there are some authors today who seem to believe this myth and perpetuate it in their writings.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 16, 2004, 12:08:50 AM
In the highly unlikely event of a monarchial restoration, autocratic or constitutional, there is absolutely no requirement that any candidate even be Romanov.
Presumably the Senate [or Duma] would select from any number of families [Putin even] with the participation of the Church. Then an election by the citizens.  This rather cumbersome process would take so long, no one would remember what the fuss was all about anyway !
After all, it is not 1613 all over again is it?
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 16, 2004, 12:27:38 AM
Robert_Hall, I agree with you completely.

If the Russian Federation wants to revert to a Constitutional autocracy or even an absolute autocracy or shades inbetween, the Crown will be vacant.

There is no fundamental reason why Putin could not start a new dynasty. ;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on July 18, 2004, 05:16:32 AM
Has anybody thought about the Yurievskys? I know the marriage was morganatic and everything, but they are more closely related to a Tsar than Maria Vladimirovna and co.

Georgi Alexandrovich, Prince Yurievsky 1872-1913
  -Alexander Georgievich, Prince Yurievsky 1900-1988
         -Georgi Alexandrovich, Prince Yurievsky 1961-

Olga Alexandrovna, Princess Yurievskaya 1874-1925
   -Alexander Adolf Nikolaus, Count von Merenberg 1896-1897  
   -Georg Michael Alexander, Count von Merenberg 1897-1965
           -Clothilde Elisabeth, Countess von Merenberg 1945-
                  - Alexander von Rintelin 1966-
                  -Georg Nikolaus von Rintelin 1970-
                  -Gregor von Rintelin 1972-  
  -Olga Katharina Anne, Countess von Merenberg 1898-1983
          -Alexander Mihailovich, Count Loris-Melikov 1926-

Boris Alexandrovich, Prince Yurievsky 1876-1876

Ekaterina Alexandrovna, Princess Yurievskaya 1878-1959
  -Andrei Alexandrovich, Prince Baryatinsky 1902-1931
          -Hélène Andrée Jeanne, Princess Baryatinskaya 1927-1988
  -Alexander Alexandrovich, Prince Baryatinsky 1905-1992



Georgi Alexandrovich, Prince Yurievsky 1872-1913
  -Alexander Georgievich, Prince Yurievsky 1900-1988
        -Georgi Alexandrovich, Prince Yurievsky 1961-

Olga Alexandrovna, Princess Yurievskaya 1874-1925
  -Alexander Adolf Nikolaus, Count von Merenberg 1896-1897  
  -Georg Michael Alexander, Count von Merenberg 1897-1965
         -Clothilde Elisabeth, Countess von Merenberg 1945-
                  - Alexander von Rintelin 1966-
                  -Georg Nikolaus von Rintelin 1970-
                  -Gregor von Rintelin 1972-  
  -Olga Katharina Anne, Countess von Merenberg 1898-1983
          -Alexander Mihailovich, Count Loris-Melikov 1926-

Boris Alexandrovich, Prince Yurievsky 1876-1876

Ekaterina Alexandrovna, Princess Yurievskaya 1878-1959
  -Andrei Alexandrovich, Prince Baryatinsky 1902-1931
          -Hélène Andrée Jeanne, Princess Baryatinskaya 1927-1988
  -Alexander Alexandrovich, Prince Baryatinsky 1905-1992



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: CuriousOne on July 18, 2004, 11:07:52 AM
I have too many books and can't find  what Cath. the great wrote about Paul I's natural father being Saltykov in one of her diaries.  Then the author went on to say this probably isn't true, however, because she had taken the throne and needed the backing of the Russians, she needed a son with Russian blood, and Saltykov was Russian.  I don't recall all the possible men listed as the possible father of Paul I.  I think they were all Russian but one.  I don't recall the name but he was listed as one of  Elisabeth II's  "gentlemen of the the bedchamber"....  Bedchamber?  Gosh, is that right?  It was this fellow, who was Prussian, who was Paul I's natural father.  After the deed was done,  the Prussian was sent away and with the help of Frederick "the Great" was placed in prision and held there for a long long time....  It was one of those books that talked about all of the lovers of Cath. the great.  

Probably just a rumor....

CuriousOne
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 18, 2004, 03:51:58 PM
Clarifications:

a) Catherine herself states that Peter was not Paul's father.
b) She had reasons to state this even if Peter did father Paul - it goes to the murder of the parent of your children.
c) It has never been proven who Paul's father was, so making statements such as the natural father being sent away are ridiculous.
d) Peter was Paul's legal father irrespective of all this speculation because Peter did not repudiate paternity of his wife's children - making Paul and all his progeny descendants of Peter, period, under Russian law.
e) The Yurievskys are ineligible for the succession because their parents were not married when they were born - their morganatic status is secondary to this reason.
f) The surviving male Yurievsky had the identical relationship to Alexander II as did the late Prince Paul Ilyinsky - both were/are his great grandsons. So, if you are going for close male line relationships, the Ilyinskys have the superior claim.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on July 26, 2004, 06:01:14 AM
Quote
It should also be remembered that evidence exists in at least two reliable first hand sources that GD Boris V. went to Minister of Justice Tchcheglovitov with the question of succession rights for the Vladimirs because Maria Pavlovna was not Orthodox when they were born.  The definitive answer was researched and written up as a report, with a copy going to Nicholas II as well as the Vladimirs that the Vladimirs were excluded from right to succession to the throne as the laws required anyone who succeeds to be born to an orthodox mother. Her 1905 conversion to Orthodoxy had no effect on their succession.
SO, Kyril's "claim" was invalid anyway, even under the old laws.


I have to interject here.  I wouldn't take the word of Purishkevich to mean much (especially his questionable "diary" which wasn't even written along those lines nor contemporaneously it seems with what he recorded), and Spiridovich-well, I question how much knowledge he had versus what he was told-and we all know gossip thrived at Court.

A more important point, though, concerns the issue of conversion and the idea that one not born of an Orthodox mother had no succession rights.  Conversion was required at the discretion of the reigning Emperor-covering those members not in direct line (for example, the heir).  The wives of Vladimir and Serge Alexandrovich were thus not required to convert.  And the idea that one had to have an Orthodox mother to be in line to the throne is clearly wrong-witness Tatiana Konstantinovna's 1911 renunciation of her succession rights on her marriage (there's another issue attached but I won't bore everyone here).  Tatiana's mother, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Mavrikievna, remained Lutheran after her marriage and did not convert, yet her children HAD succession rights, and Tatiana had to renounce that right.  Were having an Orthodox mother a requirement TK would not have had to renounce.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 26, 2004, 10:59:49 PM
Russia is a constitutional democracy. None of the legislation which in place today provides any authority for an Autocracy to simply takeover.

There is no heir to the throne because the Romanov Dynasty was terminated with the vacancy created by Michael's renunciation of the Crown. Subsequent to that final act, three completely different government regimes followed, each being legally independent entities of each other. It would take considerable legalistic machinery to be put into place before the people of Russia, can first decide by means of a referendum, that a return to some form of autocratic rule may be warranted.

Certainly the present government could indeed revive the now defunct Imperial Laws of Succession and even modifying some of the previously contentious issues to accord with the modern social philosphies.

Realistically would Putin or his successor ever give up the right to govern Russia independently in favor of a less democratic system of Government?

As far as I am aware only one country - Saudi Arabia created out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, by Western powers last century became an absolute monarchy.

Why would the people of Russia today ever want to revert to an autocratic state after tasting a democratic system?
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on July 26, 2004, 11:34:17 PM
Quote
There is no heir to the throne because the Romanov Dynasty was terminated with the vacancy created by Michael's renunciation of the Crown.


Belochka-

One important point, which infused many Russian exiles after the Revolution and continues to this day, is the idea of legitimacy.  For legitimists, the throne is never vacant-as with the pretenders to the non-existent French throne, or the new "Shah" of Iran.  If one is a legitimist, therefore, there is always an heir.  According to this point of view, therefore, and given that Nicholas II's abdication for Alexei was legally questionable, the legitimist position holds that the Tsesarevich was legally emperor until his death, at which time, and immediately, Kirill would have become emperor, and so on.  I realize that this view seems absurd, but it is one that many hold to-hence the question of who the rightful heir is today for them rises above a mere question of historical interest.

Obviously I doubt the Romanovs will return to Russia, but should that ever happen it obviously would not be a return to autocracy, which in any case ended in 1905.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 27, 2004, 01:43:36 AM
Quote

Obviously I doubt the Romanovs will return to Russia, but should that ever happen it obviously would not be a return to autocracy, which in any case ended in 1905.

Greg King


The concept of legitimacy to any Russian throne today can only be an academic issue outside of Russia.

Kirill would have had to return to Bolshevik Russia and dissolve the Soviet Government in order to re-create a new Imperial Russian State, reviving the old Laws of Succession, before his own will altered any rules to suit his familial circumstances. Such a scenario of course would never have come to pass.

So long as he resided in exile, there was never any  legitimacy in trying to use Imperial Laws which were now relegated into legal history in another country. It was delusional to expect that living in exile, by accepting the protection of the laws of his adopted country, he could pass Declarations which relied on regulations which had no force. The was a legal vacuum. While he was alive he may have had more right to make a claim. However, that position can also be challenged. It must be remembered that before he fled Russian, he renounced the legitimacy of the Crown in favor of the Bolshevik movement. By extension it may be argued that his renouncement was declared whilst still standing on Russian soil. From that moment he negated any future considerations in relation to any claim he was ever to make. To reinforce his distance from the Crown he fled Russia, and therefore severed all ties to his country.

It may be suggested that his declarations abroad facilitated the creation of pretenders to the Russian throne. I find it somewhat revealing that such pretenders continue to live outside of Russia rather than establishing some kind of roots in the country which is foreign to them in every way. Anyone pretender can notarize a Declaration, but the real test is its uncontested public recognition.

As far as the Imperial Russian Constitution of April, 1906 is concerned Chapter I, titled The Essence of the Supreme Autocratic Power the following two paragraphs bear significance:

... "4. The All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power. Not only fear and conscience, but God himself, commands obedience to his authority.

... 7. The sovereign emperor exercises power in conjunction with the State Council and the State Duma."

Each of the four Duma's were still accountable to the will of the Emperor, jointly, but not independently from him. There was no separation of powers. The consequence was that if Nikolas did not like something the legislation was set aside.

I appreciate your concept that some exiles hold onto the concept of legitimacy. Such a concept creates order, but it fails on one simple point. It is an academic exercise which ignores the will of the Russian people today.  And after all this time was not the will of the people the problem from the very beginning ....  ;)

 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on July 27, 2004, 02:17:14 AM
I've had to snip for length

Quote

The concept of legitimacy to any Russian throne today can only be an academic issue outside of Russia....So long as he resided in exile, there was never any  legitimacy in trying to use Imperial Laws which were now relegated into legal history in another country....While he was alive he may have had more right to make a claim....He renounced the legitimacy of the Crown in favor of the Bolshevik movement....I find it somewhat revealing that such pretenders continue to live outside of Russia rather than establishing some kind of roots in the country which is foreign to them in every way....As far as the Imperial Russian Constitution of April, 1906 is concerned Chapter I, titled The Essence of the Supreme Autocratic Power the following two paragraphs bear significance: "4. The All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power. Not only fear and conscience, but God himself, commands obedience to his authority. [/i]...I appreciate your concept that some exiles hold onto the concept of legitimacy. Such a concept creates order, but it fails on one simple point. It is an academic exercise which ignores the will of the Russian people today.
  


I agree that the idea of who is rightful heir is academic-but it's still a historically interesting question to me.

A legitimist would argue that Kirill did indeed have full authority vested in him by virtue of his position as soon as Alexei died.  Given that, and the extraordinary circumstances that precluded the usual passage of amendments and ukazes by the Senate, what Kirill therefore issued in exile had the same force and effect as if coupled with the historical precedents (this is the legitimist view)  Of the surviving Romanovs, almost all the males recognized Kirill as emperor, and his son Vladimir as such (I've got the lists here somewhere) until 1969.

I'm not sure what you mean by Kirill renouncing the throne in favor of the Bolsheviks.

As to living outside Russia, only Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has tried (repeatedly) to gain residency status in Russia, but this was always blocked during Yeltsin's tenure.

There was, and still is, a disconnect between how the government perceived the laws of 1906 and how Nicholas II perceived them-there have been hundreds of pages devoted to this contrast in views-where N perceived the Duma as his gift to the people, and that he remained autocrat, while the state contested this interpretation.  In my view, the simple truth is N was no longer an autocrat (even Lenin agreed to this, saying that N could not be charged with any "crimes" committed before 1905), though he deluded himself that he was.

Finally, the legitimist position has never taken into account the concerns of what the Russian people wanted-it never enters the argument from a strictly legal/academic/historical point of view.  But certainly Maria Vladimirovna and others have continually asserted that they recognize that it is up to Russians to decide.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 27, 2004, 07:03:24 AM
Quote
I've had to snip for length

A legitimist would argue that Kirill did indeed have full authority vested in him by virtue of his position as soon as Alexei died.  

Greg King


A legitimist seems to conveniently ignore Nikolai's Manifesto which by his own free will had bestowed the Crown directly to Michael instead of to his own son.

Whether Alexei as a minor should have been bestowed his entitlement by his father is now a matter for theoretical consideration only. Some might argue that Nikolai had no legal right to bypass his son, and indeed should have handed his autocratic powers to Alexei, with Michael as regent.  However as Emperor, I believe that he did have that supreme right, both express and implied to do what ever he wanted. Importantly the declaration was not signed under duress, but made in full knowledge of the consequences which Nikolai believed would flow by his course of action. The consequences were that Michael became the legitimate heir, not Kirill. Had Michael taken up the Crown it would be impossible to speculate who the next heir (if at all) may have been.  

The very absence of all relevant Senatorial Ukazes and decrees etc are the legal sticking points which would negate any extensions to any perceived claim for the Imperial throne after March 1917.  Equally all historic precedents  became void contemporaneously when the Imperial Russia dissolved. Therefore any claims made by claimants after March 3 1917 (O.S.) became a subject of historic interest to some Russians in exile, but in reality carried had no legitimacy.

As for Lenin's view that Nikolai could not be judged by his actions prior to 1905, cannot seriously be given any merit. Such a claim is just that, and without being tested judicially, it becomes meaningless.  

The formation of the first Duma in 1906 and the three subsequent Duma should be seen as appendages of autocratic power. At all times the Duma wassubordinate to the Emperor. By this analogy I cannot agree with your own contention that 1905 was the definitive breaking point which could be interpreted as the dissipation of autocratic rule. Firstly, the Duma had no power over the Department of Police nor the Interior Ministry. Secondly, the State believed that the Duma would lead to a genuine Constitutional monarchy providing a sharing of powers between all branches of government. Unfortunately this opportunity was never fully realized.

The fundamental consideration was that Nikolai still held unfettered powers.

With the fall of the Romanov dynasty, Kirill pleged his support to the Provisional Government, and chose to fly the Bolshevik red flag from his residence. By all these overt actions he IMHO disavowed his connection to the autocracy, and therefore any claim made by him later became meaningless.

In summary, the legitimasts who believe in the power of the autocracy should accept the autocratic decision to abolish the autocracy! This is indeed what happened.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kaatje on July 31, 2004, 05:18:21 PM
In my opinion, Nicholas Romanov should be seen as the rightful heir, at least the head of the family.  I say this because it is stated, I believe in Robert Massie's Romanovs, The Final Chapter, that sat down, the Queen Elizabeth II was introduced once to Nicholas Romanov, and immediately stood up to receive him.  This therefore states that the Queen believed Nicholas Romanov to be of equal status as herself. And she knows who is who!
I believe they meet at a Faberge exhibition.

Although, there is always, Prince Michael of Kent :D , who many believe is interested in the vacant position  ;), having many vested interests in Russia already and is looking for the perfect opportunity to leave England. Though of course I do NOT believe he is the heir!!!

Well just my thoughts,

Katie
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 31, 2004, 06:18:19 PM
I believe HM the Queen is normally standing when she greets anyone.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on July 31, 2004, 06:54:40 PM
Although I am no expert on royal etiquet, I believe that Her Majesty- if seated - only stands to greet those individuals that are of equal rank with herself...and I have read the Prince Nicholas Romanov -a very charming gentleman- is persuaded that a more republican government is preferable...How poor Prince Michael of Kent got tied up in this discussion I do not know. :-/

Really the good people of Russia ought to decide this !

R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 31, 2004, 07:23:46 PM
Well,  HM has made a point of always standing to recieve any guest.  Even at investitures. This "seated, rising,equal" business went out some time ago, I think at the same time as the "Presentation Balls at Court".  As she would never be cought awares of anyone coming in, I doubt very much that she would be seated upon a person's entrance.  I do not think it is any thing about egalitarianism, just simple politeness.
You are welcome to find a picture to disprove me.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on July 31, 2004, 10:40:05 PM
Quote
Really the good people of Russia ought to decide this !

R.


Absolutely, this is my firm belief as well. ;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 31, 2004, 11:09:52 PM
I meant "ciught unaware" back there.
However, I agree. There is no throne to be heir of of make a clain to. IF the subject wre to arise, it would be entirely up to the Russian people to decide the matter. The Romanovs were foreign enough before the revolution, now it is a mute point.
However, Head of the House IS for the family to decide and it looks like  GD MV is not their choice.
Personally, I would vote for her, but as I am neither Russian nor Romanov, it is purely an academic choice for me.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 31, 2004, 11:15:11 PM
Screwed up again. "cought unaware" My typing is atrocious, sorry.
R
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kaatje on August 01, 2004, 08:56:35 AM
Well if I do come across any photographic evidence on the Queen standing-sitting issue,when Nicholas Romanov sought out an introduction I'll let anyone know.  I'm sure anyway, that the Queen does at times like to sit down, as at her age now she cannot be expected to stand and greet everyone, who wishes to be introduced, even if she would like to and remember this was not a puplic appearance by the Queen either.
The meeting is mentioned on p 279, Massie's book (uk edition pb).  

Prince Michael of Kent was included as a kind of joke, though partly serious, but thats just my opinion.

And yes I too believe the Russian people should be the only one's to decide, Though I very much doubt they ever will get the chance, the very thought of Russia restoring its monachy is ridiculous, considering how many people today feel about their own Royal families!

Dag,

Katie
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on August 03, 2004, 11:42:46 AM
Mr. Hall
I didn't mean to be so brusque in my response. No doubt you are right about modern royal policy...people who argue over who will rule Russia next tend to get on my nerves.

R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michelle on August 04, 2004, 09:14:15 PM
I think EVERYONE gets on your nerves, rskkiya!  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ivan Kent Steinke on September 13, 2004, 07:07:55 AM
Many "posters" on this forum have made the statement that Tsarism is merely part of the past, and that the Russian people are no longer interested in any restoration of the monarchy. I believe that to be a very true statement.
    That being said, the lack of interest/care/concern for the ancient Russian monarchy is very sad. The idea and symbol of "the Tsar" had not to do merely with a form of government. It was the whole spiritual soul of the Russian people. Just as Americans find their identity in the constitution, liberty, the flag, God bless America etc., the essence, the warp and woof, of what it meant to be Russian was found in the deep, profound, emotional love for the Tsar [and all he stood for].
    The tragedy of the Revolution is this- not a change of government, but a loss of ancient, sacred national identity.
    When Purishkevich gave his resounding denunciation of Rasputin [before the Duma] in late 1916 he spoke of "the mighty future of Russia, which is tightly bound up with the brightness of the name of the Tsar." He was correct- no Tsar, no Russia [in a traditional sense].
    The time may be past for the actual restoration of the monarchy, but there is a desperate need for revived reverence concerning the idea and the symbol, and the spiritual/patriotic values that it represents.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 13, 2004, 05:50:06 PM
Ivan: I believe you are correct. Many years ago, I went to a Russian Orthodox Church. The belief there was that "bad things will continue to happen to Russia until the Tsar returns". This has nothing to do with a succession, nothing to do with government. The feeling of many people is that the Tsar protects Russia - not them personally - and that without a Tsar, that their nation has no protector. I was thinking about this during the Baslan seige. Doubtless, some will think this again as a result of the terrorist act.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on September 13, 2004, 11:19:46 PM
During Imperial times the Russian Emperor represented national unity. While the people through their unquestioned belief in the Orthodox faith, provided a powerful force of spiritual unity, which was protected by the Emperor.

Perhaps this is what modern Russian is missing today? These important symbols which were so important then, have been eroded over the century.

The new Russia it seems is missing that 'protector' today, while trying to understand its place in the world, and seeking a new identity.



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ashanti01 on September 18, 2004, 05:57:14 PM
I don't think anyone from Kyrills family should have any right what so ever over the title of "heir".

1. He married he first cousin without the Tsars permission and it was against the rules of the church
2. His mother Maria Pavlovna did not convert into the church until he was an adult
3. He was the first to turn on Nicholas

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 19, 2004, 04:55:20 AM
Quote
I don't think anyone from Kyrills family should have any right what so ever over the title of "heir".

1. He married he first cousin without the Tsars permission and it was against the rules of the church
2. His mother Maria Pavlovna did not convert into the church until he was an adult
3. He was the first to turn on Nicholas



1.  Retroactive permission/recognition was granted in July, 1907 by Nicholas II; once this was done, the issue was closed.
2.  Kirill's marriage to Ducky was performed in an Orthodox chapel, by an Orthodox priest, and therefore blessed by the Church; even Father Ioann Yanishev, the Imperial Family's Personal Confessor, told the Empress that there was no real canonical impedement.  The Church didn't just forbid marriage between first cousins, but also among other close degrees-second cousins were technically forbidden (Nicholas I to Charlotte of Prussia; Konstantin Nikolaievich to Alexandra of Saxe-Altenburg; Elena Vladimirovna to Nicholas of Greece; and even Nicholas II to Alix of Hesse) as were first cousins, once removed (Serge Alexandrovich to Ella; Xenia Alexandrovna to Alexander Mikhailovich; George Mikhailovich to Marie of Greece; Paul Alexandrovich to Alexandra of Greece, etc.).  In these cases, the strict cannon was never enforced.  Once Nicholas II, as Supreme Protector of the Russian Orthodox Church, recognized the marriage as valid, the issue was settled.
3.  Grand Duchess's Vladimir's religious affiliations had nothing to do with her children's succession rights-they were all considered dynasts; the fact that her marriage to Vladimir had been approved by Alexander II and that she was not required to convert underlines this.  Witness, for example, Tatiana Konstantinovna's 1911 renunciation of her succession rights-her mother was Lutheran, yet she was still a dynast.  And Nicholas II's ukaze in July of 1907 on the marriage of Kirill and Ducky proclaimed their issue as members of the Imperial House-de facto dynasts (there were only 2 categories involved-members of the Imperial House, who were automatically dynasts, and members of the Dynasty, who were not).
4.  Kirill was scarcely "the first to turn" on Nicholas II; I, too, used to believe the usual stories; but recent research has uncovered a number of accounts that cast the usual story of his alleged "traitorous behavior" into serious question.  In any case-it's irrelevant in terms of his being next in line.

Greg King

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie_Mc on September 19, 2004, 08:20:39 PM
If we are talking about who is the rightful heir and we look at the old Pauline Law as laid down by Paul I then sucession is strictly through the male line only. Sucession through the female line is only tolerated upon the complete extinction of the male line.
In the case of MV there are currently many living male Romanovs with legitimate claims thus making her claim invalid regarless of the questioned legitimacy of Krills claim.
Though I'm sure many will dispute this  :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 20, 2004, 12:50:40 AM
Quote
If we are talking about who is the rightful heir and we look at the old Pauline Law as laid down by Paul I then sucession is strictly through the male line only. Sucession through the female line is only tolerated upon the complete extinction of the male line.
In the case of MV there are currently many living male Romanovs with legitimate claims thus making her claim invalid regarless of the questioned legitimacy of Krills claim.
Though I'm sure many will dispute this  :)


The Family Laws said that females could inherit AFTER all legitimate male dynasts-and no issue from a morganatic marriage was (pre-1917) considered a dynast.  It's not the complete extinction of the male line, but the extinction of the legitimate line of male dynasts.  The only male Romanov alive today not descended from a morganatic marriage is Maria Vladimirovna's son George.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 20, 2004, 10:52:24 AM
I don't know...it seems to me Annie_mc has a point. I just can't fathom the justification of allowing the descendants of Kirill any consideration at all.

OK so Kirill wasn't the 'first' to betray Nicholas. Nevertheless his betrayal was the cause for the Emperial guard to withdraw from the palace leaving the family there naked for attack. He marched around with the Communist flag around town. It is conceivable that if he had been true to Nicholas and stood his ground at the palace maybe the Royal family would have survived.

Consider this...If Nicholas had survived then I believe Kirill and all who betrayed Nicholas would have been executed for treason. His family, therefore would not exist today because Kirill would have been killed by the Tsar's judgement.

Just because 'others' betrayed Nicholas doesn't make Kirill's betrayal any less significant. How people still hold onto Maria and George in any kind of consideration as legitimate pretenders is beyond reason.

I don't wish anyone harm but if all things were correct they should not even be in existence if Kirill had met his rightfull judgement 80 years ago.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 20, 2004, 10:02:38 PM
In the interests of keeping this on the succession-I'll deal only with the point below, though if you want to start a thread on Kirill's actions in 1917 I'm happy to post some of what I've learned.

In discussing Kirill, Vladimir, and Maria's successive claims, I think it's important to point out that nearly every single member of the Romanov Family in exile recognized both Kirill and Vladimir as rightful heirs.  In 1924, for example, the following male members of the family-all dynasts-recognized Kirill as de facto Emperor (in order of succession):

1.  Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich
2.  Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich
3.  Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich
4.  Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich
5.  Prince Vsevelod Ioannovich
6.  Prince Gabriel Konstantinovich
7.  Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
8.  Prince Andrei Alexandrovich
9.  Prince Feodor Alexandrovich
10.  Prince Nikita Alexandrovich
11.  Prince Dimitri Alexandrovich
12.  Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich

Only Grand Dukes Nicholas and Peter Nikolaievich (the latter the grandfather of the present Nicholas Romanov) refused to recognize Kirill.  Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich, who survived, was not consulted since as he had married morganatically he was considered to have removed himself from family matters.  The list does not include minors.

So, aside from the two objecting Nikolaievichii, and Michael Mikhailovich, all male dynasts recognized Kirill's right of succession; even Nicholas Romanov says that Kirill's position as rightful heir and head of the house was a simple fact after 1918 (see his letter to "Point de Vue, May 12 1992, page 17).  Whatever Kirill may or may not have done in 1917 simply didn't matter as far as the succession goes.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie on September 23, 2004, 11:14:44 AM
I didn't know about this!! :o

http://www.times.spb.ru/archive/times/356-357/royalslam.html

Seems George took some kind of oath which outraged other members of the family. They accused him of wanting to be Tsar. They discount his claim due to a 1906 decree by Nicholas barring all Kyril's descendants from the throne! Has anyone else ever heard about this decree? The family must know something!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 23, 2004, 09:23:48 PM
Annie-

I suspect this is mis-reporting of a piece of half-understood information.  There was NO such decree depriving Kirill of succession rights of which I am aware; the closest one comes is that Nicholas II stripped Kirill of his offices and honors, his title as Grand Duke, and deprived him of his incomes.  This was in 1905.  But this was rescinded, and Kirill fully re-instated as before along with Ducky being recognized as his wife and both, and their children, as members of the Imperial House, in Nicholas II's decree of 1907.  The 1907 decree makes it quite clear that Kirill and his wife and children were considered members of the Imperial House (she was granted the title Grand Duchess and style of HIH-something not done with a spouse not within the Imperial House) and that the children had succession rights as members of the Imperial House.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 24, 2004, 08:15:00 AM
To greg.

....And what decree do you think Nicholas would have issued to Kirill after what he did in 1917????

Just because the accuser isn't there doesn't mean the accusation is invalid.

In the U.S. and I'm sure too in Russia when the victim of murder is not around to face his murderer the State authorities would press charges and take the case to court against the murderer.

If a new 'Democratic' Russia were to do this to Kirill, for posterity's sake, and in absentia do you think he and his descendents would still be considered candidates for the Throne? I don't think so!

Greg, with all due respect, you are really reaching desperately. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Dashkova on September 24, 2004, 11:37:24 AM
I agree with Greg.  He is pointing to FACTS.  JonC you're pointing to speculation, "what ifs"

This topic seems very important to you, though!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 24, 2004, 12:26:35 PM
Jon: With all due respect, I think you are mistaken. Greg has carefully studied the Fundamental Law and perhaps you have not. He is not reaching. According to it, Kirill was heir after Nicholas, Alexei, and Michael.

You can make arguments about what laws may or may not apply, but there was no effort made by the surviving dynasts to challenge KV on any legal basis - outside of the Nikolivichi.

He is absolutely not reaching - he's a biographer and historian who has done his homework.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 24, 2004, 12:56:35 PM
Dashkova what are the 'Facts'?

Just because Kirill tried to get away with his treason ( I say 'tried' because I and I am sure many others hold his actions accountable to him ) doesn't excuse him from his actions.

The whole world might forget what he did nevertheless he is still guilty. A thousand years might pass and his hands are still dirty with the treason. These are not 'ifs'.

The real 'if' would be that IF Kirill hadn't been a traitor to his country and to his TSAR then his family could be the next in line to the throne.

Lisa.

Greg King seems to have HIS Kirill/Maria/george CLAIMANTS which have, unfortunately, clouded, like Dr. Knight and all those who have claimant backer researcher-scientists, somehow clouded their reason in order to back their causes...pity. Best regards. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 24, 2004, 01:20:49 PM
JonC!

Please elaborate...What did Kirill Do? What is the treason?

I am so sorry if this is obvoius to everyone else but I'm suddenly lost...

R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 24, 2004, 01:58:06 PM
Quote
.... [in part]

With the fall of the Romanov dynasty, Kirill pleged his support to the Provisional Government, and chose to fly the Bolshevik red flag from his residence. By all these overt actions he IMHO disavowed his connection to the autocracy, and therefore any claim made by him later became meaningless.

In summary, the legitimasts who believe in the power of the autocracy should accept the autocratic decision to abolish the autocracy! This is indeed what happened.


I assume this is the treasoness action mentioned above in Belochka's posting and again in Jon C's posting.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Jane on September 24, 2004, 02:12:01 PM
Quote
Greg King seems to have HIS Kirill/Maria/george CLAIMANTS which have, unfortunately, clouded, like Dr. Knight and all those who have claimant backer researcher-scientists, somehow clouded their reason in order to back their causes...pity.


But, JonC, an academic dicussion as to whether the Vladimirovichi are the rightdul dynasts (such as that offered by the very well respected and esteemed Greg King) is a COMPLETELY different topic than "claimants" of the type who may be supporting scientific studies, etc.  You cannot compare the two.  It's not the same thing at all, and for you to intimate that it is....well, it's illogical.



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 24, 2004, 05:56:58 PM
JonC...

Kirill declared allegiance to the Provisional Government and wore a red ribbon when on parade. That is scarcely treason... Kirill certainly didn't threaten the Tzar --he was already irrelevent--He abdicated ! There was no Tzar-- even Micheal refused the crown!
Kirill did not move against the state -- he swore to obey the Provisional Government.
What treason?

I can certainly understand that many in the Romanov clan may well have had some hard feelings about this - and during all those long nights abroad in exile, the family may have let these emotions fester..such behaviour would be quite reasonable... but I still don't think that its truly treason!

Maybe you would be willing to clarify this point

eager for more information
R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 24, 2004, 07:11:40 PM
Rskkiya.

Kirill was a Romanov who had been castigated severely by Tsar Nicholas prior to 1917 events.

Kirill , it was no secret, felt he should have been Tsar all along instead of Nicholas 2nd.

Kirill was a grand Duke and incharge of the Palace guard. When he, by his own authority, removed the guard from protecting the Palace where Empress Alexandra was with her children and proceeded to profess loyalty not to the provisional government but to the Communists and fought alongside the Reds... that IS TREASON!...against the Monarchy.

In order to understand this concept one must believe that 'Holy Mother Russia' IS made up of ' the Tsar, the Church, and the Land.' That is where our Russian roots lie. That is what we are and that is what Kirill abandoned. That IS TREASON!

Kirill's descendants could never ascend the Throne because of his sin against Russia. It made him illegitimate and it made them illegitimate.

Furthermore Russia will never be holy again until 'a legitimate Tsar, the Church and the Land 'are together again.
Best regards. JonC.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Dashkova on September 24, 2004, 07:39:24 PM
Oh-KAY..... I don't think most Russians living in (or out of) Russia today would agree with you one little bit!

Are you a claimant as well? ;)
Are you wearing a tin foil hat?

Russia is plenty "holy" as it is at this very minute.  The soul is intact and churches are full.  The Russian people don't want nor need something as ridiculous, worthless and archaic as a Tsar.

Cute choice of words:  "In order to understand this concept one must.....blah blah blah"

Don't get your hopes up, I don't think many will be able nor willing to understand your "concept."

Sorry, don't mean to poke fun, but you're kind of lost in wishful thinking, and your views do not represent Russia nor Russians.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Dashkova on September 24, 2004, 07:42:39 PM
Kirill was a grand Duke and incharge of the Palace guard. When he, by his own authority, removed the guard from protecting the Palace where Empress Alexandra was with her children and proceeded to profess loyalty not to the provisional government but to the Communists and fought alongside the Reds... that IS TREASON!...against the Monarchy.

*****Hmmm...seems to me Kyrill was a clever and pragmatic guy, who wanted to make sure he and his children lived through the upheaval.
Smart man!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 24, 2004, 08:07:52 PM
JonC

I am so dissapointed with the whole "Russia will never be holy until the tzar ...blah blah blah!" Thats not a real arguement-- thats just a diatribe.  Belochka's earier remark was far more convincing!

Are you a Metropolitan? A Priest ? A Bishop? Are you even Orthodox? Do tell! As a possible convert to Russian Orthodoxy I am quite curious to know!

R.

PS How many times did you sit through "Excalibur"?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Annie on September 24, 2004, 10:12:24 PM
Quote
Kirill was a grand Duke and incharge of the Palace guard. When he, by his own authority, removed the guard from protecting the Palace where Empress Alexandra was with her children and proceeded to profess loyalty not to the provisional government but to the Communists and fought alongside the Reds... that IS TREASON!...against the Monarchy.





He DID? :o I never knew that. He's much more of a bastard than I had him figured for and I already loathe him. That could have killed them right there, and he probably hoped it would. All those kids laying in there sick, what a creep!
>:(
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 25, 2004, 05:39:33 AM
OK, clearly there are a lot of assumptions and erroneous versions being laid out here, so I will try to clarify what is definite fact versus what is merely rumor as to Kirill’s behavior during the Revolution.  There seem to be two principal assertions: 1) Kirill marched his troops to the Duma and broke his oath of allegiance to Nicholas II; 2) Kirill ordered members of the Garde Equipage to abandon their posts at Tsarskoye Selo.

The first point has to be understood in context.  On March 1/14, Kirill, together with Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich and Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich, wrote a manifesto that they then forwarded to Nicholas II, hoping he would issue it and thus avoid Revolution.  The manifesto announced that a new constitutional ministry would be formed, and the State Council and Duma would be reconvened.  In this way, the three naively hoped that Nicholas would be seen to grant the necessary concessions to halt the Revolution and restore order.  Empress Alexandra knew of this, as Paul told her about it.  In her letter of March 1/14 1917 to Nicholas, she said: “Paul wants to save us by means at once great and foolish.  He has drawn up some stupid manifesto about a constitution.”  Early the next day, before Nicholas had abdicated, Paul wrote to Kirill: “We must be on our guard and do everything that we can to save the throne for Nicky.  If Nicky signs the manifesto that we sanctioned about a constitution, then this will meet all the demands of the Provisional Government.”  Clearly, they believed that in supporting Rodzianko and the Provisional Government, which was already established, they would be somehow able to avert disaster, and hoped that Nicholas II, too, would agree that this was the only way to save his throne.

Petrograd was in chaos; regiments had already gone over to the revolution, soldiers were turning on and killing their officers; and the only legitimate authority in the capital was the Duma and its Provisional Government; it was the only body attempting to maintain control of the situation, and the only body that envisioned a continuation of the Romanov Dynasty.  Remember-at this point no one was insisting on the annihilation of the Dynasty.  As Dominic Lieven writes in “Nicholas II” (page 231), “The fate of the monarchy now depended on the Duma politicians and, above all, on the military commanders.”  He further adds (page 232): “The senior generals were not certain of their troops’ loyalty in the event of clashes with revolutionary soldiers of the Petrograd garrison.  Most of them had lost confidence in Nicholas II’s ability to rule Russia.”  I think it is a mistake to under-estimate the degree to which the city was slipping into catastrophe, and the effect of the various regiments going over to the revolution, which caused complete disruption and threatened any semblance of order.  On this issue, I recommend T. Hasegawa, “The February Revolution,” (1981), which clearly shows how the only thing maintaining the appearance of order were those regiments that pledged loyalty to the new Provisional Government.

In his memoirs, Kirill explained that the Duma was the only authority in the capital.  “No one knew at the time what had become of the Emperor, or where he was.  The absence of stability, of someone at the helm, of at least some semblance of direction was felt by all...It was a time of extravagant rumors and there was a complete lack of reliable news.  During the last days of February the anarchy in the metropolis had become such that the Government issued an appeal to all troops and their commanders to show their allegiance to the Government by marching to the Duma and declaring their loyalty.  This measure had been decreed to re-establish some kind of order amid this intolerable chaos.  The Government hoped that if the troops could be got to carry out its emergency measures in the capital, normal conditions might yet be established and the rule of gangsterdom checked for good and all.  Meanwhile, there was no news from Mogilev, only wild rumors.  No one knew the actual whereabouts of the Emperor, beyond that he was trying to come to Tsarskoye backed by loyal troops, which would help the Imperial train to break through the cordons of disloyal revolutionary contingents.  I was put in a very awkward position by the decree of the Government.  I was the Commander of the Naval Guards, which constituted one of the military contingents of the capital.  The order of the Government, which was the last vestige, even though a sorry one, of authority in St. Petersburg, applied to my men as it did to all other troops, and, further, it applied to me as their commander.  I had to decide, therefore, whether I should obey that order and take my men to the Duma, or else whether to leave my men leaderless in this dangerous situation by resigning, and thus to let them drift on to the rocks of revolution with the rest.  Hitherto I had succeeded in preserving loyalty and good discipline among them.  They were the only loyal and reliable troops left in the capital…My main concern was to do my utmost to re-establish order in the capital by every means available, even with the sacrifice of my personal pride, so that the Emperor might safely return…If the Emperor only returned backed by loyal troops and order could be re-established then all might yet be saved.”(Grand Duke Kirill, “My Life in Russia’s Service,” pages 204-10)

Now, you can argue that Kirill should not have done this, or that his explanation-after the fact-is self-serving, but it is reinforced by the evidence of others.  Louis de Robien remembered: “The Grand Duke Kirill went there at the head of the mounted units of the guards.  The Finland Regiment, which I saw passing, was in relatively good order, but I met some marines who were in a lamentable state of confusion.  Nevertheless, in spite of everything, these troops who have submitted to the authority of the Duma are the only elements of relative order in the face of the gangs of the extremist committee of the Finland Station and the soldiers’ committee of the Peter and Paul Fortress, who continue to snipe in the streets and to search houses on the pretext of looking for police or arms.”(de Robien, “Diary of a Diplomat,” 18)  Kirill was scarcely the only one to do so; another example is Vladimir Bezobrazov, who commanded the Cossack Konvoi Regiment.  In his diary, he noted how officers were being murdered, and that only those regiments taken to the Duma offered any kind of loyalty, and protection for both the government and for the citizens of Petrograd; on March 2/15, Bezobrazov himself led his soldiers to the Duma.(Vladimir Bezobrazov, “Diary,” pages 126-27)

So Kirill led his troops in Petrograd to the Duma and had them swear allegiance to the Provisional Government-a government that, at that time, was in no way calling for an end of the Dynasty.  Stories that Kirill sported a red cockade or held a red flag have now been shown to be complete nonsense, and are contradicted by a number of archival accounts recently published from various Russian archives (see, for example, “Romanovi: Imperatorskii dom,” by Stanislav Dymin, Moscow, 1998, pages 91-96; and Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, “Rossiya v nashem serdtse,” Petersburg, 1995, pages 10-13).

In doing this, did Kirill arguably break his oath of allegiance to the Emperor?  Probably, but I think you have to look at the circumstances, outlined above, and see this in context.  Kirill was not participating in a revolutionary movement to end the dynasty, but pledging his troops, under order of the Government, to that government in an effort to maintain order and preserve their loyalty, so that they would be able to defend the dynasty.  If Kirill broke his oath by thus cooperating with the new authorities, so did Grand Dukes Michael Alexandrovich and Paul Alexandrovich, along with a host of others.  He took a decision, in the midst of an uncertain crisis, to try to preserve order and save the dynasty; it defies logic to believe that Kirill-or any of the other members of the Imperial Family-did this believing that they were ushering in a revolution that would end their family’s rule.

Kirill supposedly returned to his house on Glinka Street and raised a red flag; Paleologue asserts this (page 3:259), as does Sir George Buchanan (2:101).  Again, there is conflicting evidence on this point (see “Romanovi: Imperatorskii dom,” by Stanislav Dymin, Moscow, 1998, pages 93), and Paleologue himself is a less than reliable witness on any number of accounts, though to my mind it matters little whether he did or did not do so.  Any number of people in similar positions likewise attempted to save both their houses and their families from the wrath of a revolutionary mob.  At the time, don’t forget, Kirill had a pregnant wife and two young daughters whose safety he had to consider.  With houses being ransacked, mobs murdering officials, etc., it can easily be seen as a security measure to preserve their lives.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 25, 2004, 05:42:29 AM
On the second issue-that Kirill ordered members of the Garde Equipage away from the Alexander Palace: this is flat-out nonsense, and demonstrably untrue.  Several weeks before the Revolution, Kirill DID withdraw members of the Garde Equipage, with the Empress’s knowledge and permission, from Tsarskoye Selo to the barracks in Petrograd (See Kirill, 206).  These men were replaced with elements drawn from both the Garde Equipage reserves and from infantry regiments.  Kirill had no contact with reserve members of the Garde Equipage at Tsarskoye Selo during the most important days of the Revolution.  On March 2/15-the day on which Nicholas abdicated, Alexandra in fact reported to Nicholas, “Kirill, Xenia, Misha, can’t get out of town.”

In her memoirs, Olga Voronoff, whose husband Paul served in the Garde Equipage, wrote: “At the end of February, the Navy Guards had been called back from the front to re-enforce the Imperial bodyguard at Tsarskoye Selo.  When the revolution broke out, the reserve detachment quartered at Petrograd joined the rebels, and sailors came to Tsarskoye Selo to induce the men of the battalion to do likewise.  Despite the efforts of their officers, the sailors began to desert in groups.  Though threatened by the men, the officers remained at their posts.  The Empress knew of this and was deeply moved by their devotion; but after several days she summoned the officers, and, thanking them, bade them leave Tsarskoye Selo, for she feared the situation might lead to bloodshed if they remained.  To their protests, the Empress replied that she ordered them to leave; and she added that they must not worry because the Temporary Government had taken measures to guard the Imperial family.”

The reserve members of the Garde Equipage at Tsarskoye Selo were commanded not by Grand Duke Kirill, but by Lieutenant-Commander Miasokdov-Ivanov; when they deserted on the night of March 1/14, they were led not by Kirill but by a Lieutenant Kouzmin (see Lili Dehn, page 162).  Kirill was in Petrograd that day, night, and the next day, unable-as Alexandra noted in her letter to Nicholas-to leave the city.  Thus, he could scarcely have led the men stationed at Tsarskoye Selo to the capital.

It is clear that Alexandra, on March 2/15-the day on which Kirill led his Petrograd garrison to the Duma, and the day after the reserve garrison at Tsarskoye Selo had begun to desert-did not hold Kirill responsible-hence in her letter to Nicholas of that same day she only refers to the fact that Kirill could not leave the city.  Later, in this same letter, she wrote to Nicholas of “the pain that the Equipage even left us this night-they understand absolutely nothing.”  There is no mention here of Kirill leading the men away or even sending an order that they should do so-if such had been the case, surely the Empress would have mentioned it.

What we do have is an account left by Lili Dehn, on which this last claim seems to be based in its entirety.  According to Dehn, on the same day that Alexandra wrote the above letter to Nicholas referring only to Kirill not being able to leave the city, and noting that the members of Garde Equipage at Tsarskoye Selo had deserted, she told Lili that the garrison had left because “Grand Duke Kirill has sent for them.”(Dehn, page 162)  Why the difference?  It is possible that the Empress wrote her letter before her conversation with Lili, and in the interval heard that Kirill had ordered the men to the capital, or it is possible that Lili’s account is in error.  But even assuming that the first scenario is true, it goes no further than to show that Alexandra was hearing only rumors, and did not know what was really taking place.  This is not surprising, and is in fact borne out by her letter of March 4/17 to Nicholas, in which she reported as fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II had been killed and that his son Crown Prince Wilhelm had been wounded.  Clearly, then, the Empress-cut off in the Alexander Palace and subject to rumor and wild stories floating about-was in no position to differentiate between what was really taking place beyond the palace walls and what was only gossip.

Alexandra’s only reference to Kirill beyond this is contained in her letter noted above, written on March 4/17, in which she writes: “Am utterly disgusted with Ducky’s husband.”  She makes no mention of why this is so, and presumably it has to do with his pledging his Petrograd garrison to the Duma, not to a supposed order that in reality never existed from Kirill ordering the men from Tsarskoye Selo; I tend to think this is the likely explanation because Alexandra’s contemporary written letters do not make this claim-it only appears in Dehn’s book.  I could, of course, be wrong, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, I think it is the most reasonable explanation.

And, again, whether Alexandra heard a rumor that Kirill had ordered the Tsarskoye Selo reserves to Petrograd or not, the simple truth is that there was no such order.  Later, a forged cable turned up, purporting to be an invitation from Kirill (not an order) for these Tsarskoye Selo troops to pledge their loyalty to the Duma.  On this alleged order, and its fabrication, as well as on the general issue here, see “Romanovi Imperatorskii dom,” by Stanislav Dymin, Moscow, 1998, pages 94-97; and Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, “Rossiya v nashem serdtse,” Petersburg, 1995, pages 12-13.

In short, if what Kirill is to be accused of is ordering the troops from Tsarskoye Selo, the evidence is not only questionable, but it fails miserably through new revelations from the Russian archives.  As I’ve said, I used to believe all of this to be true as well, but having studied the issue for many years, I’ve learned not to accept everything I read at face value.  Before throwing around a lot of gossip and rumor that can be proved untrue regarding Kirill, I think people would do well to study the issue in depth, then reach a conclusion, and not rely simply on the old inaccuracies.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 25, 2004, 07:52:01 AM
Mr. King,

  Thank you for clarifiing this complex and muddled issue. I was under the false impression that the tzar had already abdicated- and I am grateful for your information about the red ribbon "myth".

   I am still a bit confused about why some people outside the immediate Romanov family would see Kirill as a traitor but as I mentioned in a previous post -- long nights abroad in exile may surely make one's memories quite flexible and "blame" can be a convenient salve for injured pride.
   That explains the family perspective, but I am still missing the salient points of JonC 's arguement.

R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 26, 2004, 11:47:51 AM
Greg. You said;

"Petrograd was in chaos; regiments had already gone over to the revolution, soldiers were turning on and killing their officers; and the only legitimate authority in the capital was the Duma and its Provisional Government; it was the only body attempting to maintain control of the situation, and the only body that envisioned a continuation of the Romanov Dynasty.  Remember-at this point no one was insisting on the annihilation of the Dynasty.  As Dominic Lieven writes in “Nicholas II” (page 231), “The fate of the monarchy now depended on the Duma politicians and, above all, on the military commanders.”  He further adds (page 232): “The senior generals were not certain of their troops’ loyalty in the event of clashes with revolutionary soldiers of the Petrograd garrison.  Most of them had lost confidence in Nicholas II’s ability to rule Russia.”  I think it is a mistake to under-estimate the degree to which the city was slipping into catastrophe, and the effect of the various regiments going over to the revolution, which caused complete disruption and threatened any semblance of order.  On this issue, I recommend T. Hasegawa, “The February Revolution,” (1981), which clearly shows how the only thing maintaining the appearance of order were those regiments that pledged loyalty to the new Provisional Government. "


It is clear from what you have written and quoted that because of chaos -

" The fate of the Monarchy depended upon the Duma politicians and the Military commanders."

In order to ingratiate himself to the people and to those 'Duma politicians' Kirill left his post at the Palace!!!

Why did Kirill take 'ALL' the palace guard? These men were totally devoted to protecting the Tsar AND his family. They would have fought to the death! That's why! If I'm not mistaken these soldiers were Chechen and Ingush Cossacks who would have protected the Tsar with the last drop of their blood.

Does he explain that in his memoirs?

They were the only troops who fought on after Nicholas's 'disappearance'.The Grande Imperial Regiment, also Chechens were fierce fighters extremely loyal to Grand Duke Michael.

Stalin, affraid of everyone, saw to it that these Chechen Cossacks would all disappear by ravaging their country and sending the people to Siberia. These actions by Stalin is why these Chechens are at war with Russia today. A bloody sad sorry state of affairs for both sides which has to stop!

Then Kirill sends Navy guards and reservists.

Kirill was technically still in charge! The few officers there were all still under his command!

You dismiss the reports that he paraded around with the Communist symbols choosing to accept reports that don't mention him parading with Red flags/ribbons.etc.,. Remember just because they don't mention him doing so in your chosen reports doesn't negate the reports that do have him parading with those 'Red' symbols. Not every eyewitness has a complete picture!

You Said;
"In his memoirs, Kirill explained that the Duma was the only authority in the capital.  “No one knew at the time what had become of the Emperor, or where he was."

That is a false statement by Kirill. The Tsar was the authority no matter where he was. When the Tsar was travelling/vacationing with his family was the Duma the only authority in Moscow? Ofcourse not!

Kirill, by Emperial command, was the authority in command of the Palace guard and it was his duty to hold his post to protect the integrity of the symbol of authority being the Palace, and its occupants, the Emperial Family!

If Kirill's family was in danger why didn't he bring it to his post. The Palace guard would have protected it. Leaving his post for his family is a cowardly excuse!

"I was put in a very awkward position by the decree of the Government.  I was the Commander of the Naval Guards, which constituted one of the military contingents of the capital.  The order of the Government, which was the last vestige, even though a sorry one, of authority in St. Petersburg, applied to my men as it did to all other troops, and, further, it applied to me as their commander.  I had to decide, therefore, whether I should obey that order and take my men to the Duma, or else whether to leave my men leaderless in this dangerous situation by resigning, and thus to let them drift on to the rocks of revolution with the rest.  Hitherto I had succeeded in preserving loyalty and good discipline among them.  They were the only loyal and reliable troops left in the capital…My main concern was to do my utmost to re-establish order in the capital by every means available, even with the sacrifice of my personal pride, so that the Emperor might safely return…If the Emperor only returned backed by loyal troops and order could be re-established then all might yet be saved.”(Grand Duke Kirill, “My Life in Russia’s Service,” pages 204-10) "

I guess I too can second guess Kirill's actions here. I, though, can't believe he was so spineless. He even considered resigning as commander of his troops in order to get out of his predicament.

He had 'the only Loyal troops in the city' and yet he couldn't decide to stand and hold his ground against the 'Duma politicians'. I tend to believe he couldn't stand his duty against his own political ambitions!

Try as you might to dismiss L. Dehn's report by saying that her report lacked updating from Alexandra. I don't think she wrote her book on the 'same' day the incident happened. I'm sure she had more contact with Alexandra to clarify her mind on Kirill's actions and then wrote her report after 1918.

I'm not trying to be difficult but your beliefs about Kirill's actions are still not supported. One has to dismiss more written evidence AGAINST him than FOR him.

You said;

"In doing this, did Kirill arguably break his oath of allegiance to the Emperor?  Probably, but I think you have to look at the circumstances, outlined above, and see this in context.  Kirill was not participating in a revolutionary movement to end the dynasty, but pledging his troops, under order of the Government, to that government in an effort to maintain order and preserve their loyalty, so that they would be able to defend the dynasty. "

There is no question he'... broke his oath of allegiance to his Emperor'. That's my point!!!!

He had no authority to 'pledge' his troops to anyone but to the Tsar! By pledging his troops to the Government it left the Tsar OUT automatically and left the Palace and the Emperial Family completely vulnerable to the mob.

Kirill couldn't have been so stupid as to not fathom that consequence!!!

You said;

" If Kirill broke his oath by thus cooperating with the new authorities, so did Grand Dukes Michael Alexandrovich and Paul Alexandrovich, along with a host of others. "

Just because 'others' were complicit with his actions doesn't justify his actions. They were all wrong. Kirill's jealouse rage against the Tsar and His family led the pack!

You said;

"...it defies logic to believe that Kirill-or any of the other members of the Imperial Family-did this believing that they were ushering in a revolution that would end their family’s rule. "

I think one can see the logic when we see that Kirill was extremely jealouse of the Tsar's position and never considered the Tsar as his regent. There is nothing ever written that suggests that Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich was in any league with Kirill against his brother the Tsar. Why do you even mention him in the same breath?

So there is the logic for Jirill's treachery. I also think that the deluded conspirators thought that after the revolution the people would have chosen Kirill as the next Tsar they were wrong then and they are all wrong today!

Like some of you I think we will find a ligitimate Tsar soon.

Best Regards.JonC.
Title: Mr. King does not neeRe: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 26, 2004, 12:30:21 PM
JonC
Mr. King does not need me nor anyone else to speak for him, however, you will find that everything he has stated is fully suppoprted by any number of previuos printed works as well as his own exstensive research.
Wheter or not one has any affection towards Krilil, his "cause" or his family is totally irrelevent. The facts are as he stated.
Emotions run high in Romanov circles and memoirs are of themselves by nature tend to be self-serving. Finding a clear picture of what actually happened, to whom, when & where, etc. takes reading from many sources and putting it all together.
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 26, 2004, 02:47:28 PM
JonC

  This discussion seems to me to be a bit like  medieval scholars debating how many angels could dance on a pinhead...interesting... but a bit pointless.
  Using your 'holy' logic (as I understand it) it would appear that Russia suffered as much under a 'holy' tzar as under a "not holy' communist state and under a slightly more liberal parlimentary system - today...HMMM
  Just what is this holy nature? It is scientifically identifiable, like a virus or a cel? It is mere christianity? Is this 'holiness' to be found only in the Romanov DNA or is it in any Orthodox leader? Putin attends church on occasion, is he holy enough?
  Personally, even as I work out my questions about Orthodoxy, I have also have come to the realisation that the people of Russia ought to choose their leader -- a president, a tzar, or something else. I'm willing to trust them.

   By the way JonC- just out of curiousity - using you desire for the holy who should 'rule' America? Another 'christian' or someone we sinners actually elect?

R
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 26, 2004, 06:29:38 PM
JonC:

I think you need to re-read my post.  You will see how Michael Alexandrovich was involved-and believe me, I have not bothered with any of the substantial details about his various plots against his brother.

And your continued reference to Kirill and the troops at the Alexander Palace, despite what I have pointed out to be the error in this, seems to simply underline your own agenda.  You elect to believe one source (Dehn) and ignore a dozen others that contradict it.  So I won't waste my time or anyone else's in trying to correct your erroneous assumptions on the issue.  I've laid out the known facts for anyone interested.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 26, 2004, 11:03:43 PM
It appears a line is being drawn between the pro-Kirill and anti-Kirill.  

I am on the fence on this one.  But, I do have some questions.  The first one that pops into mind is:

Time:  Two weeks before Nicholas II's abdication.

Why would Kirill withdraw troops familiar with Tsarskoye Selo and replace them with troops unfamiliar with Tsarskoye Selo when everything was boiling into what looked like a revolution?

AGRBear



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 27, 2004, 06:57:15 AM
AGRbear:

I don't think any new lines are being drawn; it's the same argument.  For me, as I have said elsewhere, it's an academic exercise, but I have studied this question as an off-shoot of my Romanov research quite seriously for ten years.  If Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna were to be crowned Empress tomorrow, I doubt I'd benefit from it.  But when people post their opinions, prejudices, etc., as FACT, based on contradictory, out-dated, or discredited sources-especially on a forum where a lot of people come at impressionable ages to learn something of the truth-I think it's useful to present factual evidence, so that people can evaluate for themselves, probe further, or at least question what are often long-held but erroneous views.

As to the withdrawal of the Garde Equipage from Tsarskoye Selo (I think this was on February 17 though I would have to check): this was not Kirill's idea, but was done at the request of the Prefect of Police and the Commander of the Military Garrison in Petrograd, who was facing increased strikes, food riots and shortages, and fuel shortages.  Simply, they joined other trusted, reliable troops in the capital to help keep order.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 27, 2004, 09:25:53 AM
Just a thought..but reckoning that the rarefied "gated" community of Tsarkoe Selo was relatively secure as it was, perhaps the Empress & the other authorities felt  it safe enough with "lesser" troops ? After all, this was not done behind her back.
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 10:23:40 AM
 Greg King wrote:
<<So Kirill led his troops in Petrograd to the Duma and had them swear allegiance to the Provisional Government-a government that, at that time, was in no way calling for an end of the Dynasty.>>

Did Kirill do this before or after he knew Nicholas II had abdicated?


AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 27, 2004, 10:35:24 AM
Agrbear

Mr. King goes into great detail in his earier posts (higher on the 'page'...)about this issue. If you scroll up you may find the information that you seek...
Sorry - I still don't have a handle on the quote fuction!

R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 11:52:30 AM
You are right ryskkiya,  I missed the date. King wrote:

<<....on March 2/15-the day on which Kirill led his Petrograd garrison to the Duma, and the day after the reserve garrison at Tsarskoye Selo had begun to desert>>

Nicholas II  first abdicated 2/15 March and gave the throne to  his heir Alexei with GD Michael as Regent.

Nicholas II second abdication a few hours later on 2/15 and gave the throne to his brother GD Michael.

[Subject of which abdication is legal is for another thread.]

The public learned the second abdication on 2/15 March 1917.

I assume this is when Kirill learned of the abdication.

Why didn't  Kirill march his troops to GD Michael's door and give Michael the oath of loyality instead of the Duma?

It was  not until the next day, 3/16 March that the Regent / uncrown Tsar  Michael announced that he'd take the throne  to be Regent/Tsar with some kind of agreement with the Duma.

So,  my next question is:  Should Kirill have marched his troops to GD Michael's door on 2/15 and given him their oath and then on 3/16, with the approval fo GR Michael, then gone to the Duma?

AGRBear

PS  This debate is not new, even though it may be to some, so,   I was referring to the line being drawn on this thread between the three factions:  pro-Kirill,  anti-Kirill and  the "I don't knows".




Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 27, 2004, 12:36:05 PM
Since this is academic, why not?
In my opinion- NO !
GD Michael had accepted nothing, throne nor regency. The only semblance of legitimacy was the provisional gouvernment. It was obvious that at the time, delay tactics like "will of the people", i.e. some sort of plebiscite would only make the situation worse.
Best,
Ralph
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 12:47:24 PM
Quote
Since this is academic, why not?
In my opinion- NO !
GD Michael had accepted nothing, throne nor regency. The only semblance of legitimacy was the provisional gouvernment. It was obvious that at the time, delay tactics like "will of the people", i.e. some sort of plebiscite would only make the situation worse.
Best,
Ralph


We're talking legality under the monarchy which had on 2/15 only gone through the first step of passing the throne to the next person in the line of succession.

Our personal opinions are one thing, but what the process should have been in their time period is what I'm trying to understand.  So, I am trying to discover why there are two factions of which Jon C. and King were discussing.  And, this incorporates Kirill who was in line of succession.    Am I right on this point?  Or wrong?

AGRBear

PS - Just discovered the Kirill a thread when going back to the first postings of this thead:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1076312290;start=15#15


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 27, 2004, 12:58:52 PM
Agrbear

I must agree with Mr. Hall -- Michael was not the Tzar (and some legalists might even argue that Nicholas did not have the right to pass the title to anyone)
At that particular chaotic point in time the Provisional Government (for good or ill) was in charge.

R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 27, 2004, 01:05:15 PM
I'm not sure it's a right or wrong situation. Jon C clearly has an agenda of some sort - enough so he ignores facts if they don't fit into what he's promoting. Greg King is an historian presenting facts and few appear interested in the moment with a factual discussion. Is this right or wrong? It's a shame in my opinion, and until Jon comes out with what his agenda is, I don't care to listen to him.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 01:11:27 PM
This debate about whom we think was ruling Russia on 2/15 March 1917,  the Romanovs or the Provisional Govt. can be discussed over on the thread on Russian Revolution History.  Here, I  thought, we are talking about succession of the monarchy and Kirill's position during this time slot.

Was Kirill loyal to his own family and to himself as a person in line of  succession to the throne on 2/15 March 1917 when he took his troops to the Duma and not to GD Michael the new Regent/Tsar of ALL the Russias who would not  declare his position until 3/16 March, one day later???

AGRBear

PS -  Lisa and I were writing at the same time.  In regards to Jon C. I have no idea what his agenda is or if he even has one, however,  we can be pretty sure how he feels about Kirill.  King is just trying to feed us the facts and keep us up to date with the information he has.  Me,  I'm just trying to understand and sort out the truth from it all. :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 27, 2004, 01:19:51 PM
LisaD!

I agree with you.
   JonC-- from the postings that I have read-- seems to be facinated with the need for Russia to be "Holy" and that that is is somehow related to reestablishing the correct Tzar...(hence his interest in the Stanford research thread.)
    I don't know how often he visits this site so I have no idea when he will next "enlighten" us with more "wisdom".

seems a bit silly, really.

rskkiya
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 27, 2004, 02:04:31 PM
Just what are you so unclear about, AGRBear?
First, there was no "Tsar,Tzar,Csar", whatever-that title was abolished by Peter "the Great" The State of Russia was the throne as personified by the EMPEROR.
As the abdication left that throne vacant, the provisional gov't.  was the acting "State".  Kyril could have taken his oath to Michael as a "cousin" or "family" but not as the legitimate ruler of the Russian State.
As this was a desperate time to save the  STATE, the needs of the Romanov family were obsolete.
Pragmatic, semi-parliamentary law was trying to be salvaged, as it was obvious that it was anybody's guess which way the wind would blow.
I am not waving my red flags here, it is pure historical, political fact.
Best,
Ralph. [since the name Robert is another concept you seem unclear about]

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 02:09:52 PM
I assume this is what Jon C. said and to what Ryskkiya is referring:

<<Furthermore Russia will never be holy again until 'a legitimate Tsar, the Church and the Land 'are together again.
Best regards. JonC.>>

This is HIS opinion.  I see no need to stomp on his opinion.  Please state your follow up to him in words which we all know you are capable:  with intelligence and good information.

Meanwhile,  I noticed something King had said about Kirill which seems to be in indication he might agree with Jon C.'s thought on Kirill's  haste, which Jon C. sees as a treasoness act to the Royal Family and the monarchy,  in giving oath to the Duma:

King wrote:
<<In doing this, did Kirill arguably break his oath of allegiance to the Emperor?  Probably, but I think you have to look at the circumstances....>>

I don't think Jon C. cares much about the "but" nor the circumstances that may give Kirill his personal reasons to have done what he did, to led his troops to the Provisional Govt. .  It appears to me [my opinion only] that Jon C. is reacting to what Kirill was obligated to do because of who he was.  Kirill was a Romanov, and, he was in line of succession behind GD Michael.  And, because he was a Romanov first, he should have gone to GD Michael's door and there sworn his oath to the one who was first in line on 2/15 March 1917.  On the following day,  once the Regent/uncrown Tsar Michael II sent his words to the Duma, then he, with Michael's approval, taken his troops to the Duma.

Is this right?  Or is this wrong?

AGRBear

PS - Robert or Ralph???  Appears you signed Ralph even though you are listed as Robert.  Sorry.  I didn't realize I had given you a new name and you were correcting me.  So,  Robert it is unless you preferr Ralph ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 02:36:29 PM
Quote
...[in part]...
First, there was no "Tsar,Tzar,Csar", whatever-that title was abolished by Peter "the Great" The State of Russia was the throne as personified by the EMPEROR.
As the abdication left that throne vacant, the provisional gov't.  was the acting "State".  Kyril could have taken his oath to Michael as a "cousin" or "family" but not as the legitimate ruler of the Russian State.
As this was a desperate time to save the  STATE, the needs of the Romanov family were obsolete.
Pragmatic, semi-parliamentary law was trying to be salvaged, as it was obvious that it was anybody's guess which way the wind would blow.
I am not waving my red flags here, it is pure historical, political fact.
Best,
Ralph. [since the name Robert is another concept you seem unclear about]



I believe Tsar and Emperor are one in the same.  And, according to Ryskkiya and others,  a Tsar / Emperor is the same as a dictator who could do anything they pleased, so, I assume this is true even in picking their own heir.  Nicholas II picked his heir to be GD Michael.   Therefore, he was the uncrown Tsar/ Emperor of ALL the Russias, which included the Duma / Provisional Govt..

Did Nicholas II sign some kind of document which gave power to the Duma which gave them the power to pick the next ruler of Russia if he abdicated?  If so,  I'd like to be read this document.

So,  if  GD Michael was Regent/ uncrown Tsar or Emperor, then wasn't it Kirill's duty,  as a Romanov, to swear an oath to Michael first?  Then with Michael's permission the next day 3/16 March, Kirill could have gone to the Duma and swear his oath.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 27, 2004, 03:05:45 PM
I think this is correct in terms what he should have done. However, all of this is really beside the point.

Nicholas' abdication was likely illegal under the Fundamental Law. His abdication on behalf of Alexei was unquestionably illegal under the Fundamental Law. I think it's quite possible that Michael understood this and that is why his manifesto is worded the way it was -he had nothing to abdicate from.

It has been falaciously argued that Kiril alone committed treason and was an oathbreaker and that this precludes him and his descendants from the throne. This is simply untrue. Succession rights were inviolable. It is fine for you to argue that he should have been loyal to his cousin. But, that has nothing whatsoever to do with his succession rights.

We can also say that Nicholas should have banished Alexandra in order to save the dynasty and their children. Clearly, this would have been "right" and it probably would have saved them all, but it has nothing to do with who the rightful heir is/was.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 27, 2004, 03:06:55 PM
Agrbear

PLEASE reread my posts --I do not believe that I said  'the Emperor was the same thing as a dictator" and although I did state that some scholars of Russian Monarchic law have suggested that the tzar --being "an annointed one"-- was technically unable to give his title (or this "annointing") away.
   I am not an expert on the intricasies of Archane Imperial Russian Suzeranity -- so I cannot explain other scholar's opinions -I simply remark on them.

Tempest in a teapot

Rskkiya.



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 03:37:50 PM
Quote
I think this is correct in terms what he should have done. However, all of this is really beside the point.
(1)
Nicholas' abdication was likely illegal under the Fundamental Law. His abdication on behalf of Alexei was unquestionably illegal under the Fundamental Law. I think it's quite possible that Michael understood this and that is why his manifesto is worded the way it was -he had nothing to abdicate from.
(2)
It has been falaciously argued that Kiril alone committed treason and was an oathbreaker and that this precludes him and his descendants from the throne. This is simply untrue. Succession rights were inviolable. It is fine for you to argue that he should have been loyal to his cousin. But, that has nothing whatsoever to do with his succession rights.
(3)
We can also say that Nicholas should have banished Alexandra in order to save the dynasty and their children. Clearly, this would have been "right" and it probably would have saved them all, but it has nothing to do with who the rightful heir is/was.


I've added numbers to keep the following comments in order.

(1) Abdication legal?  If it was not then Nicholas II did not abdicate and was Tsar of Russia until his death....
(2)Kirill acts were treasoness?  I don't know.  I am just asking if he should have been loyal to GD Michael on 2/15 March 1917.  Was he?  To me,  he doesn't appear to have been according to Jon C. and King's  "probably" to which was added the "but we should look at the circumstantes" .....?
(3)  Banished Alexandra?  I'm not sure how this question falls into this discussion at this time.  I don't think she was a traitor?  I don't think she was smart in her decisions but banish her,  on what ground? I'd vote: No.

Back to Kirill.  
If Nicholas II was still Tsar and Kirill was aware that the abdication was illegal and he took his troops to the Duma,  would Kirill have been considered a traitor to Nicholas II and a hero  to the revolutionaries?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 27, 2004, 03:44:46 PM
Technically, a "tsar" was of the "Russias", The Emperor was  "of the Russian Empire", encompassing Ukraine, Georgia, et al.
I fully realise that it is a lost cause to change the common usage, as is Charlotte Zeepvat's cause  re" Grand Prince/Grand Duke". Be that as it may, however, as Michael was not the ruler, he indeed had nothing to abdicate from nor was there a legal entity to take an oath to in his person.
The legitimate gov't. was empowered by Nicholas II. Without him it was still legitimate, otherwise to whom did he abdicate? As at the end of any reign, it would be appropriate for ministers, ambassadors, etc. to resign, but the gov't/STATE must still function.
The abdication was handed to the gov't. in power, that speaks for itself.
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 08:47:53 PM
Quote
....[in part]
(1) .....Technically, a "tsar" was of the "Russias", The Emperor was  "of the Russian Empire", encompassing Ukraine, Georgia, et al.
I fully realise that it is a lost cause to change the common usage, as is Charlotte Zeepvat's cause  re" Grand Prince/Grand Duke".
(2) Be that as it may, however, as Michael was not the ruler, he indeed had nothing to abdicate from nor was there a legal entity to take an oath to in his person.
(3) The legitimate gov't. was empowered by Nicholas II. Without him it was still legitimate, otherwise to whom did he abdicate? As at the end of any reign, it would be appropriate for ministers, ambassadors, etc. to resign, but the gov't/STATE must still function.
(4) The abdication was handed to the gov't. in power, that speaks for itself.
Best,
Robert


(1) Tsar vs Emperor -  I'll let Robert have the last word on this and let the technical meaning stand because I admit that I always thought Tsar meant Emperor
(2)  You are right, Michael never was able to rule but that didn't mean he was not the uncrown Tsar/ Emperor.
(3) Nicholas II was Tsar of the Russias and Emperor of Russian Empire AND the Duma / Provisional govt. and was able to abdicate. Surly everyone taking part in the event knew what was legal or not???
(4)  I'm not sure what handing the abdication to the Dumas / Provisional govt. has to do with Michael's right to the throne since document of Nicholas II abdication did name Michael as heir of the throne, which was Michael's  the moment Nicholas II lefted the pen off the document.  Therefore he was the uncrown Tsar / Emperor over the Duma / Provisional govt. and the Russias and the Russian Empire.

Remember,  I am talking about 2/15 March not 3/16 March after Michael sent his document to the Dumas/Provisional govt.

AGRBear

 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 27, 2004, 09:29:26 PM
At the time Kirill went to the Duma, there had been no word yet that Nicholas had abdicated-see my earlier post-Kirill pledged his troops in support of the Provisional Government with the idea that Nicholas would respond to the chaos in the capital by hopefully issuing the manifesto that Kirill, Paul, and Michael Alexandrovich had written for him.  Kirill's pledge of support in no way undermined the dynasty, which he believed would be saved, nor Nicholas II, who he hoped would respond by issuing the above mentioned manifesto.

When we discuss Kirill breaking his oath, I say it is perhaps arguable that he may have done, because in reality I can see how one might interpret it that way, but to me at least I don't read it like that.  He did not recognize the authority of the Duma and Provisional Government OVER the Emperor, nor renounce the Emperor or any other such nonsense as is being claimed.  He simply pledged his troops to the Provisional Government-to follow their orders in attempting to maintain control of the capital.  There was, I repeat, no renunciation involved here of Nicholas II.

As to the issue of Michael-again, at the time, Kirill hoped/believed that Nicholas would issue the manifesto-he did not envision that Nicholas would be forced to abdicate, so there is no reason why he would have given any thought to pledging support to Michael-he still thought of Nicholas as Emperor.  And even if he later learned that Nicholas had abdicated, he would have pledged not to Michael but to Alexei, since there was a change in Nicholas's abdication plans.  This is what Lisa is referring to in mentioning Nicholas's abdication being illegal-not even the Emperor could abdicate on behalf of another person.  According to Article 37 of the Fundamental Laws, only a dynast could himself or herself renounce their rights-this is why people in severe disgrace like Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich, even though banished from the Empire, were still dynasts in the technical sense and were not stripped of their succession rights (although their issue was not in line).  Nicholas II was not legally allowed to abdicate on Alexei's behalf-not while he remained an autocrat and not after 1905 and the new laws of 1906, in which he pledged to follow and maintain the Fundamental Laws.  So I take the view-strictly from the standpoint of this being an academic argument-that Alexei himself was de facto Emperor until 1918, and that Michael was never Emperor, not even for a day, as there could not be two!

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 27, 2004, 10:08:34 PM
Sooooo,  according to the Fundamental Law,  Alexei was Nicholas II's heir,  no question in regard to this.  And,  when he came of age, he would have been the Tsar/Emperor.

How was his  Regent determined?  

Was GD Michael Regent by some law?  Or  was there a chance Kirill could have been named Regent?  

If  GD Michael was automaticaly Alexei's Regent, did he then have the power to deal with the Duma/ Provisional govt.?

I assume if  GD Michael was Regent,  he held no right to abdicate for Alexie.  I, also, assume that GD Michael was Tsarvich Michael and next in line to the throne.

Kirill was still in line after GD Michael.

Kirill should have taken his troops to Alexei and to Alexei  the oath should have been given.  Then after his Regent was chosen and then given permission,  he could have gone to the Duma/ Provisional govt..

Whomever was in charge of protecting Alexei,  should have protected Alexei until the Regent was chosen or had given orders to return to the contol of the revolutionaries/ rioters.

[Empress] Alexandra, his mother,  no longer had power over Alexei who on 2/15 March no longer was under her protection but  the Regent who would help rule till he was of age and  belonged to the people.  And, the Regent, at that point in time,  was in control with anything and everything to do with Alexei.

Since this didn't happen, are you sure that  there was not something in the Fundamental Law which may have allowed Nicholas II to skip Alexei due to health either physically or mentally?  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 27, 2004, 11:33:28 PM
AGRBear-

With respect, I think you're missing the point here.  There was no talk of a regency, because Kirill had no idea Nicholas was going to abdicate-he expected him to remain on the throne.  Kirill didn't find out about Nicholas's abdication for himself and for Alexei until late that night, hours after he had pledged his troops to the Provisional Government, which in this case could have been assumed to have backed whoever was next in line.  So there's nothing that Kirill should have done about a regency since this is not a situation he envisioned.  If Nicholas had not abdicated on behalf of Alexei, things would probably have been different-even the Duma representatives agreed that they expected Alexei to be named Emperor with Michael as regent.  But Kirill didn't know at the time he pledged his troops to the authority of the PG that Nicholas would be abdicating.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 28, 2004, 12:12:38 AM
First of all, Lisa, why do you always think people who don't seem to fit your pattern of thinking must have that famous 'hidden agenda'?

I have no agenda except to wish that Russia be ruled by a legitimate Emperor/Tsar /Czar or whatever the esteemed 'Hall' wants to call him thus excluding the Vladimirovichy for reasons I have already posted. If I am a' persona non grata' ( I hope I spelled it right) because of this then so be it. I believe I have a right to my oppinions.

Secondly;

It seems to me that the written 'facts' concerning Kirill's actions and motives can and are being interpreted and re-interpreted by all of us here.

Greg King has shown us all, at length, the lineage on paper which points to Kirill's family as the next in line to the throne. He definitely is a Romanov and if there were no objections I would agree. He has 'interpreted' Kirill's actions as justifiable and FOR Nicholas's own good- which I don't agree.

But, does his family DESERVE to be the next in line is my question and also questioned by many who are interested in this subject.

AGRBear, thanks for indicating that what I am saying is simply my opinion. I think it is a valid one.

My thinking all boils down to the fact that Kirill had no reason to disobey his orders to defend the palace by leaving the palace with ALL his Cossacks in order to parade around the politicians. Why did he take ALL the 'fierce Cossacks' why couldn't he leave a substantial detatchment behind?

When Kirill pledged his allegiance to the Duma..all the while not knowing if the Tsar was dead, lost or whatever..he automatically sealed the fate of the Tsar and of his family who were left at the mercy of the Mob.

He took the opportunity of the chaos in the city to  plunge the 'knife' into Nicholas's back.

These actions spelled treason. In order for him to ingratiate himself to the Duma politicians and/or to the Communists he pledged allegiance to the Duma.

He hoped that with Nicholas gone that the people who were hailing his treachery in the streets would turn around and declare him tsar.

We all have read how much he hated the Tsar and his family. We have all read how he was extremely jealous of Nicholas because he wanted to be Tsar instead.

What's there to argue about? He clearly didn't deserve to be Tsar then and his family should not be allowed to capitalize on Kirill's treachery now by claiming the throne.

I have 'interpreted' the above facts to show Kirill commited treason against the Monarchy and therefor against Russia and as such no-one in his family today deserve to be regent. Best Regards. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on September 28, 2004, 12:28:33 AM
Quote
At the time Kirill went to the Duma, there had been no word yet that Nicholas had abdicated ... Kirill's pledge of support in no way undermined the dynasty ...

... When we discuss Kirill breaking his oath ... but to me at least I don't read it like that.  He did not recognize the authority of the Duma and Provisional Government OVER the Emperor, nor renounce the Emperor or any other such nonsense as is being claimed.  He simply pledged his troops to the Provisional Government-to follow their orders in attempting to maintain control of the capital.  There was, I repeat, no renunciation involved here of Nicholas II.
Greg King



Greg,

How could Kirill possibly indicate his pledge to the Provisional Government if he was unaware that any abdication had occurred?

Surely the Provisional Government came into power only after the collapse of the monarchy, which was effected by the series of abdications.

How could it not be inferred that by Kirill's overt actions, he did in fact turn his back towards Nikolai and thereby the Crown which Nikolai represented? It was not an act of solidarity, which would have been more appropriate.

Perhaps if all the Grand Dukes showed more unified support, which would have been expected of them at the time when it was needed most, as Imperial members, many of the citizens would not have been so dissmissive in believing that there really was no hope for the continuance of a monarchic system to survive in a more liberal form.

Any image of Kirill marching down the street against what he represented the day before was no doubt confronting for the ordinary citizen.

It was Kirill's defiance against  the Crown on Russian soil which negated his renewed visions when he was safely in exile.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 28, 2004, 01:22:30 AM
Jon C: I assume you have an agenda not because we may (or may not) disagree. I assume you have an agenda because you appear to be totally disregarding facts. If this is not the case, then I would not think that you have an agenda.

All my friends - many of them on this board - know that I don't insist anyone agree with me. Peter Kurth and I are dear friends who disagree completely about Anna Anderson, for example. But, Peter does not disregard facts. We simply interpret them differently.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on September 28, 2004, 01:42:05 AM
Quote
Succession rights were inviolable.


Yes, but that inviolability presumes that there is a continuation of the monarchic system of government.

Following the series of abdications all rights for any succession, through all the various Imperial Statutes immediately became unenforceable. They became defunct.

If Nikolai as the sovereign, believed that he handed the Crown to Michael, then we must accept the legitimacy of his final act as well.

Despite the fact that we are in the comfortable position to argue all the perceived constitutional flaws which may have flowed, the Emperor had every right under the circumstances to act as he saw fit. Such an act accords with his absolute powers. Nikolai, believed that his own supreme powers flowed directly by the 'will of God'. How can anyone then argue against the will of God? :o The Emperor and the people of Russia all believed in this Doctrine of Absolutism and Supremacy.

It is difficult to accept that Alexei could be designated as the de-facto Emperor. Not only does this contention ignore the Emperor's legitimate will, but it also ignores the contents of both Manifestos declared on March 15, and 16 (N.S.)

According to Michael's will, it was for all the citizens, through their Constituent Assembly, to decide on the form of Government to be adopted.

This plea remained, unenforced due to subsequent changes in governments. While the Soviets were entrenched in a distant land, Kirill took it upon himself, in another jurisdiction, that it was upto to him now to become the keeper to a non-existant throne ...
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on September 28, 2004, 02:19:35 AM
Quote

Kirill was a Romanov who had been castigated severely by Tsar Nicholas prior to 1917 events.

Kirill , it was no secret, felt he should have been Tsar all along instead of Nicholas 2nd.

Kirill  proceeded to profess loyalty not to the provisional government but to the Communists and fought alongside the Reds... that IS TREASON!...against the Monarchy.
Best regards. JonC.



With the collapse of the monarchy, the Provisional Government which replaced it became the legitimate power.

When Kirill avowed his allegiance to that new government, it is suggested that there was no act of treason, because Nikolai was no longer the Head of State.

How he acted against Nikolai is another issue entirely, and as Lisa D. correctly argued any perceived violations have nothing to do with the Laws of Succession.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Dashkova on September 28, 2004, 04:29:18 AM
Belochka wrote:
How can anyone then argue against the will of God?

***Quite easily.

And:
"... the people of Russia all believed in this Doctrine of Absolutism and Supremacy.'


***This is a tragic myth believed by monarchists only.


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: starsone on September 28, 2004, 07:54:06 AM
Since there are numerous responses in favor of the Paul Illyinsky, I would like to know who his mother and father were, and his brothers and sisters full names if anyone knows since he is now deceased.   :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 28, 2004, 08:37:22 AM
Quote
How could Kirill possibly indicate his pledge to the Provisional Government if he was unaware that any abdication had occurred?
Surely the Provisional Government came into power only after the collapse of the monarchy, which was effected by the series of abdications.


Belochka-

I've used the terms Duma and Provisional Government one for another here in this thread; Kirill, in his memoirs, says he pledged to the Duma, not the PG.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 28, 2004, 08:49:51 AM
Agrebear!

PLEASE reread Mr. Kings earlier posts regarding Kirill, the guards, Alix &  Nicholas...All of this was concisely explained there... Maybe you ought to print a copy and read it several times !

R
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 28, 2004, 10:48:16 AM
I am looking through various books to freshen my memory on what had occured on 2/15 March and some of the days earlier.

One thing I noticed was on 26 Feb/11 March  [I think I counted back to the 26th correctly]  The Duma refused to obey an imperial decree ordering the Duma dissolution....

Dissolution = desintegrate, terminate, extinction

Under the order of the Tsar  / Emperor Nicholas II,  this group of people known as the Duma no longer exsisted on 26 Feb/ 11 March 1917.

Because the Duma refused to obey Nicholas II's direct and imperial order,   the rebellion began.

But can this be considered the start of the Feb/March Revolution of 1917?

I believe the Duma could be dissoloved at Nicholas II's will because Nicholas II had held his "rule of absolution".  If not, then when did this change?  

When Kirill marched his troops to the Duma, which Nicholas II had declared "dissoluted" on 26 Feb / 11 March, he was showing his defience toward Nicholas II.

I assume defience and treasoness acts are rubbing noses here. ???

Therefore,  if Kirill marched his troops to the Duma this had to occur  four days before Nicholas II abdicated.

The Provisional Govt.  was created on 27 Feb/ 12 March under Prince George Lvov.

Somewhere between 26 Feb/ 11 March and the 27 Feb / 12 March the  Feb/March Revolution begain. 

Up to  this point in time, anyone who had acted in what would fall under "treasoness acts" were, therefore traitors.  Yes?  No?

Nicholas II did not abdicate until 2/15 March.

Have I  gotten this correct?  If not, then please explain why not?

It was 3/16 March when the following occured:

It was at this point,  the ex-Nicholas II declared he had found his son's health too delicate and he that he would  abdicate in favor of "my brother, Mikhail" to the Duma emissaries.

The two emissaries of the Duma, Guchkov and Shulgin agreed.

Ten minute laters,   the ex-Nicholas II handed his "second" abdication to the  "emissaries of the Duma"....

AGRBear

PS  Thanks Ryskkiya for your continued recommendations.



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 28, 2004, 02:17:48 PM
Belochka.

You missed what Greg King wrote and I concur that when Kirill left the palace with ALL the palace guard -

HE DIDN"T KNOW NICHOLAS"S FATE YET!

Thus by giving allegiance to the Duma politicians without even knowing if Nicholas was still in power or not - shows everyone his real intentions of TREASON!!!!

Lisa. Greg King isn't the only one providing 'facts'. He is interpreting them his way. Why can't you accept me doing the same thing???
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 28, 2004, 02:48:17 PM
A Life Long Passion, Nicholas & Alexandera, THEIR OWN STORY by Maylunas and Mironenko pps 546-547 -  can be found Abdication Manifesto of Nicholas II signed 2 March 1917 at 3:05 p.m.

"...Our conscience bids Us to facilitate the closest union of Our subjects and the organisation of all their forces for the speedy attainment of victory.  For that reason We think it right --and the Imperial Duma shares Our view -- to abdicate the crown of the Russian State and resign the supreme power."

He does recognize the Duma at this time.

"As we do no desire to be separated from Our beloved son, We bequeath Our inheritance to Our brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, and give him Our blessing on his accession to the throne."

Looks like he's turned the crown over to Grand Duke Michael.  If there was an earlier abdication, it was destroyed.  It's value can not be found if it not longer exsists.  Therefore,  it is this abdication which stands for history.  Right?  Wrong ?

The abdication manifesto continues:

"We ask him to govern in the closest concert with the representatives of the nation who sit in the legislative assemblies and to pledge them his inviolable oath in the name of the beloved country."

This is a request not a demand.

It continues:
"We appeal to all the loyal sons of Russia and ask them to do their patriotic and sacred duty by obeying their Tsar...."

Why just as Tsar, was he speaking only to Poland...???

Robert did explain the differences between Emperor and Tsar....  At the begining of the Manifesto,  he does refer to himself as Nicholas II, Emperor of all the Russias, Tsar of Poland......

Sorry,  just found that odd.

Anyway.  let's continue:

"...obeying their Tsar at this moment of painful national crisis and to help him and the representataives of the nation to guide the Russian state into the path of prosperity and glory.

May God help Russia!
Nicholas
Witnessed by Minister of the Imperial Court, Adjutant General Count Fredericks
Pskov, 2 March 1917, 3:03  p.m.

Does this reference of the Duma  create an "undisolution" of the Duma or does it request the uncrown Michael  recreate the Duma?

Yes, yes,  I realize King doesn't think Michael was ever the uncrown Emperor/Tsar of Russia.   But,  I think he was according to what I just read and sent in part here for others to read.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 28, 2004, 05:05:06 PM
To AGRBear.

Your thoughts are clear and your reasoning is beyond reproach. I thank you! You made my point again!

I don't really have, apparently, as much information as you do on this subject but after what you've explained I don't know how anyone could possibly NOT understand that Kirill did commit treason.

I don't believe for a second that Kirill cared if Nicholas was still in power or not when he marched his troops to the Duma to swear allegiance to it.

I have a question that's been bothering me about this.

Is it possible that Kirill knew that Nicholas was still in power and nevertheless marched to the Duma, in force with all of the palace guard, in order to make Nicholas abdicate one or two days later as you said.

If Nicholas was told by those generals and politicians around him in the Imperial train that Kirill had taken the ONLY LOYAL TROOPS away from the palace and pledged allegiance to the Duma, then Nicjolas would have to abdicate for sure!

Was it then a conspiracy between Kirill and those generals and politicians around him to force Nicholas to abdicate? Just a thought. Best regards. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on September 28, 2004, 05:22:54 PM
Agrebear...

Once again I should like to point out that speculation about this sort of thing is really a bit like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...rather a pointless exercise.

Oh well here goes...
   Agrebear-- maybe in Nicholas's troubled mind he actually thought that giving the throne to his brother would change something -- but as I have remarked on other posts-- some scholars have argued that he still did not have the right to give the "god given" annointing as an "autocrat" to another person whether a son, brother, best friend or  total stranger. Hence some legal experts have argued that he could not abdicate...even if N. did have the legal right --Michael refused it!
    Anyway-- Nicholas had put himself out on a limb by consistantly refusing to listen to even the most abject petitions from the Duma for a "government of public confidence". As an autocrat-- his first responsibility was supposed to be the care of the Russian people...he had failed in this duty- so even if one wants to try and argue  about legalities- the facts remain that the provisional government and the Petrograd soviet (soviet means council or commitee) were the only bodies attempting  to stop the chaos.
    No doubt Mr. King will be kind enough to correct me if I have made any obvious misinterpritations of the situation.
   
Angels on pinheads--- hmmm... I'd guess 17.

Rskkiya
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 28, 2004, 07:23:14 PM
Jon C - when and where you have interpreted facts differently, I do accept that there is a difference of opinion or interpretations.

However, there have been cases on this thread where you have disagreed (or appeared to disagree) with actual facts presented by Mr. King.

I'm sure you will agree there is a difference.

I am also willing to take you at your word that you have no agenda beyond being a person with a Christian belief system - and I will retain this point of view until or unless I am shown that this is not the case.
Title: Now, regardless of whRe: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 28, 2004, 09:46:57 PM
I may be a god [a silly designation, in my opinion] but I hardly consider myself  "esteemed".
Now, regardless of what Nicholas did and when, it did not take a great deal of imagination to see that Imperial authority had disintegrated.  Loyal troops were obviously need to keep some semblance of order. Kiril hardly left the family to "the mob" and the Empress was aware of his actions in taking the men into the capital.
No one swore any allegience to any "communists". The allegience was to the gov't. to restore law & order, to a peaceful transition from one regime to another- legitimately.
I personally have no particular fondness for Kiril or his post-revolution posturing, but he was the only member of the family to take a stand to try and maintain order.
My clarifying the "tsar" business, btw, was to keep this "holy" aspect out of a purely political situation.  The Emperor was also "tsar" of other realms besides Russia & Poland. About the only time they were ever mentioned I reckon was the coronation proclamation. Like I menioned, I realise that "tsar" is the colloquial term commonly used.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on September 28, 2004, 10:42:51 PM
Quote
Belochka wrote:
"... the people of Russia all believed in this Doctrine of Absolutism and Supremacy.'

***This is a tragic myth believed by monarchists only.
 


Yes that is indeed the correct assumption to make. Much of the Russian population believed in this "tragic myth" as you so eloquently phrased.  Millions of Russian peasants did not question the character of this unified power.

The Emperor's autocratic power was viewed as sacrosanct. According to Wortman (2: p 344, in Scenarios of Power), the coronation procedure was believed to bestow onto the Emperor a sacred position. Nikolai firmly believed that "... he answered for his acts only before his conscience and the Almighty."

The coronation was seen ... to seal the unbroken union of the Russian Autocrat with the Orthodox Church." (2: p 345)

Agreeably, the term 'autocratic' had one meaning for his State officials and many intellectuals, while quite a different interpretation was held by the Emperor - a term which was declared in the Fundamental Laws (1906):

Ch 1. The Essence of the Supreme Autocratic Power

4. The All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power. Not only fear and conscience, but God himself, commands obedience to his authority.

5. The person of the Soveriegn Emperor is sacred and inviolable.


If the F. Laws are accepted in the manner in which they were written, then not only Nikolai believed in that same myth but so did the vast proportion of the Russian nation. It was an important concept which helped to explain Russian identity. ;)
Title: Re: Now, regardless of whRe: Who is the rightful h
Post by: Belochka on September 28, 2004, 11:22:34 PM
Quote
.
No one swore any allegience to any "communists". The allegience was to the gov't. to restore law & order, to a peaceful transition from one regime to another- legitimately.


You are absolutely correct Robert! The communists at that time were never considered to be the prime contenders to provide the new govenment.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 29, 2004, 12:23:44 AM
Quote
....in part....
Was it then a conspiracy between Kirill and those generals and politicians around him to force Nicholas to abdicate? Just a thought. Best regards. JonC.


I assume behind many Romanov doors there were conspiracies since none seem to have run to help Nicholas II or Alexei.

King  gives us a hint/ rumor that GD Michael may have been one of the Romanov conspiring....

Quote
... [ in part]....
You will see how Michael Alexandrovich was involved-and believe me, I have not bothered with any of the substantial details about his various plots against his brother.
Greg King


Meanwhile,  I'm still trying to pull all the facts into some kind of acceptable order in this succession.

Since there isn't a document given to anyone which has Nicholas II's abdication which gave the crown to Alexei, then how do we know one exsisted?

Since all I have seen is Nicholas II's abdication in which he gave the crown to his brother GD Michael,  given to the emisseries of the Duma, how can I believe the first one ever exsisted?

If there is a question as to Nicholas II being unable to abdicate for Alexei,  the question is moot due to Alexei's health and illness.  And it was this reason given and  was accepted by all concern, Nicholas II and the emissaries of the Duma.

Far as I know,  there was never a legal claim placed in any court showing Nicholas II had illegaly passed over Alexei.

(1)  
Let's work through this sceneio first:
We do have the undisputed abdication of Nicholas II giving the crown to GD Michael.

And,  the flow of succession  does not leave the throne vacant.

King has  indicates  earlier that the throne can not be vacant at any time.

When the uncrown Emperor Michael II created his manifesto to the Provisional Govt., he knew he had to word this document correctly to prevent anyone thinking he was abdicating or that he had not accepted the crown.  If he had,  this meant there would have been a "void"  [a vacant throne] which meant the flow of succession continued to the next Romanov in line which was Kirill.

This is what the Crawfords wrote in  MICHAEL AND NATASHA  on p.  313:

"...Michael's manifesto could be seen not as the surrender of the throne to the mob, but as a shrewd holding operation which kept the monarch in being until the election, hopefully of a moderate constituent assemble, and better days."

This would give everyone six months.  This is when the assemble would make their election.

Evidently,  the uncrown Michael II hoped this would  give the  the mob time to grow calm, he assumed he'd be part of the new Russia and if not,  well,  he'd just live as he had been, plus he had his own money and was not dependent on money from anyone and he retreated to Gatchina.

21 Aug 1917 Michael II is placed under arrest and is called "the former GD Michael".

Did this mean the throne was vacant?

Michael II was under the arrest of the govt. he had thought would elect him into power like his namesake, Michael I.  But an arrest didn't declar him as being the "former uncrown Emp.".

On 27 Aug. 1917,  the Provisional Govt.'s  cabinet gave Kerensky the powers of a dictator and the Provisional govt. was no more.

Did this mean the royal throne was vacant?  

The uncrown Michael II had not abdicated  but the moment Kerensky had been elected  this may have meant Michael II had been replaced?  Had  Michael II's  manifesto  given Kerensky the legal ability to replace Michael II and any Romanov who claimed the throne?

It little matters if the Bolsheviks gained control and placed Lenin as their leader, because,  this was merely a revolutionary replacing other revolutionaries.

(2)   King's position:
Unless,  the Romanovs go back to 2/15 March and claim Nicholas II could not have abdicated for Alexei.

Then,  we go through the entire process again, only GD Michael would have been Regent for Alexei.  [This was what was reported by the eye witnesses, however, King voiced he thought no Regent had been discussed....]

GD Michael could not abdicate for Alexei, who remained "de facto Emperor" until his death in 1918.

When Michael was executed,  I don't think anyone claimed to be Alexei's Regent.  I'll let the historians squabble over who was Regent  between 12.13 June 1918  and  16/17 July 1918 when it's reported that . Alexei was said to have been executed with his father, the ex-Tsar Nicholas II, his family and others.

On 8 Aug 1924 Kirill gave himself the title of "Guardian of the Throne".  A month later,  he proclaimed hiself "Emperor of All The Russias".

AGRBear

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 29, 2004, 02:33:20 AM
Snipped for length to salient points

Quote
King  gives us a hint/ rumor that GD Michael may have been one of the Romanov conspiring....
Since there isn't a document given to anyone which has Nicholas II's abdication which gave the crown to Alexei, then how do we know one exsisted?
If there is a question as to Nicholas II being unable to abdicate for Alexei,  the question is mute due to Alexei's health and illness.  And it was this reason given and  was accepted by all concern, Nicholas II and the emissaries of the Duma.
I know,  there was never a legal claim placed in any court showing Nicholas II had illegaly passed over Alexei.


First, I suggest moving a discussion of whether Michael was/was not Emperor, as well as details of the abdication, onto a new thread, to avoid further bogging down this thread.

1.  It is well known that Michael was conspiring in the fall of 1916-winter of 1917; the evidence rests not on any rumor but a mass of documentation.
2.  You know, do you not, that Nicholas first signed his abdication document some 5-6 hours before his final renunciation at 3PM on March 2/15, 1917?  This is the document to which I refer.  We know it existed as it was written-as was Nicholas's final abdication manifesto-by Prince Nicholas de Basily (yes, that's right, Nicholas II didn't write his abdication manifesto).  Basily goes into great depth on the issue in his memoirs.  Two documents existed, the first abdicating in favor of Alexei, the second for himself and Alexei.  Later, Nicholas even tried-when he learned that Nicholas had refused to accept the throne-to revoke his own abdication with another manifesto, but this was never published.
3.  The reason given regarding why Nicholas abdicated for Alexei had nothing to do with his mental or physical health-it said "Not wishing to be parted from our beloved son..."  He did this only because he was warned that Alexei would be unlikely to be able to remain with his father and mother after Nicholas II's abdication.  The only provision allowed under the Fundamental Laws for involuntary removal of a dynast was physical or mental impairment-clearly this was not what happened here.  Thus, again, in my view, Nicholas II-who was bound from his Majority Oath in 1884 to follow inviolate the Fundamental Laws (this has nothing to do with whether he was an autocrat or not-under these laws the autocrat could not simply change these laws)-broke that oath and it was illegal to abdicate for Alexei.  So theoretically you can argue that Nicholas himself committed treason in violating his Majority Oath (the same oath Kirill took), not to mention that people like Michael, Paul, Nikolasha (who begged Nicholas to abdicate), etc., all broke their oaths.  It's a quagmire.  Again-there was no mention of Alexei's health, and neither Shulgin nor Guchkov-the Duma reps, heard anything of the kind.
4.  Finally, who, precisely, would have lodged a complaint on Alexei's behalf, and in what court?  Because it never happened doesn't mean that Nicholas II's abdication for him was not illegal.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on September 29, 2004, 02:41:26 AM
A couple of last points:

JonC: We're just going to disagree on this-so be it.  But why do you continue to write, erroneously, that Kirill pulled his Cossacks from the palace?  Please re-read my post-he took members of the Garde Equipage (sailors, not Cossacks) to Petrograd in February on orders of the Prefect of Police-obeying an order given-several weeks before the revolution.  In no way did Kirill order troops from the Alexander Palace at the time of the revolution, and they were not Cossacks.

And, finally, but more importantly-and back to the original point-no matter what Kirill did or did not do-it DID NOT affect his place in the succession.  Alexander I conspired in the plot to remove his own father who was murdered, yet he became Emperor.  Again-the surviving dynasts with the exception of the Nikolaievichii all recognized Kirill as sovereign in exile.  There is no question involved here of Kirill's alleged behavior or actions, which even if you believe the worst of it pales in comparison to some of the other things done by those who succeeded to the throne.  So it's a moot point.  You may not like Kirill, and you may consider what he did treason (I don't), but it in no way affects his place in the succession.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Dashkova on September 29, 2004, 06:44:46 AM
Someone who doesn't know better wrote:
Yes that is indeed the correct assumption to make. Much of the Russian population believed in this "tragic myth" as you so eloquently phrased.  Millions of Russian peasants did not question the character of this unified power.
********
You are completely and totally wrong and know absolutely nothing about the majority of Russian people, then or now.  You dwell and hold forth in fluffy imperial clouds and have neither the knowledge nor the business to attempt to discuss how the average late tsarist-era Russian felt or what they believed.
Stay on your cloud, and stop insulting the Russian people.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: starsone on September 29, 2004, 09:22:56 AM
I know that there are lots of people who believe that Paul Illyinsky was in line for the throne.  Since his death however, I am interested in knowing who his brother and sisters were and their full names and where they reside.  Also, who was his father and how was he related to the Tsar Nicholas?  There are many people in the United States who would be interested in this information.  
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on September 29, 2004, 09:28:39 AM
All you had to do was go to the Palace mainpage and read:

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/ilyinsky.html
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 29, 2004, 09:55:56 AM
Quote
[...in part....]

First, I suggest moving a discussion of whether Michael was/was not Emperor, as well as details of the abdication, onto a new thread, to avoid further bogging down this thread.

Greg King


I'm sorry King,  I thought this thread was about the succession
???

And,  some  think GD Michael was part of this process and I'm trying  to discover evidence to prove this one way or another in my own mind.

I am perfectly fine with the fact that you believe Kirill  was the heir.

And,  I appreciate all your efforts and patience shown in your information which is trying to keep us accurate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on September 29, 2004, 11:04:27 AM
Quote
Snipped for length to salient points

1.  It is well known that Michael was conspiring in the fall of 1916-winter of 1917; the evidence rests not on any rumor but a mass of documentation.
2.  You know, do you not, that Nicholas first signed his abdication document some 5-6 hours before his final renunciation at 3PM on March 2/15, 1917?  This is the document to which I refer.  We know it existed as it was written-as was Nicholas's final abdication manifesto-by Prince Nicholas de Basily (yes, that's right, Nicholas II didn't write his abdication manifesto).  Basily goes into great depth on the issue in his memoirs.  Two documents existed, the first abdicating in favor of Alexei, the second for himself and Alexei.  Later, Nicholas even tried-when he learned that Nicholas had refused to accept the throne-to revoke his own abdication with another manifesto, but this was never published.
3.  The reason given regarding why Nicholas abdicated for Alexei had nothing to do with his mental or physical health-it said "Not wishing to be parted from our beloved son..."  He did this only because he was warned that Alexei would be unlikely to be able to remain with his father and mother after Nicholas II's abdication.  The only provision allowed under the Fundamental Laws for involuntary removal of a dynast was physical or mental impairment-clearly this was not what happened here.  Thus, again, in my view, Nicholas II-who was bound from his Majority Oath in 1884 to follow inviolate the Fundamental Laws (this has nothing to do with whether he was an autocrat or not-under these laws the autocrat could not simply change these laws)-broke that oath and it was illegal to abdicate for Alexei.  So theoretically you can argue that Nicholas himself committed treason in violating his Majority Oath (the same oath Kirill took), not to mention that people like Michael, Paul, Nikolasha (who begged Nicholas to abdicate), etc., all broke their oaths.  It's a quagmire.  Again-there was no mention of Alexei's health, and neither Shulgin nor Guchkov-the Duma reps, heard anything of the kind.
4.  Finally, who, precisely, would have lodged a complaint on Alexei's behalf, and in what court?  Because it never happened doesn't mean that Nicholas II's abdication for him was not illegal.

Greg King

-----
1.  I have no comment at this time on who committed treason and who did not.   As King as pointed out,  this didn't seem to affect the right of succession in his conclusion of Kirill's rights of sucession  but it does in Jon C. conclusion.  

-----
2.  Yes,  as I've mention in my posting that I knew there was hint/humor that there was an earlier abdication.   And,  I just assumed Nicholas II hadn't written the abdication, however, I'm sure he must have had some kind of input into what he wanted stated in most documents....

King wrote: <<  Basily goes into great depth on the issue in his memoirs. >>

It must be exciting to see all these memoirs.  However,  most of us are not privy to these memoirs or  if it is in a book,  we've not read it.  

So tell me,  who is the Basily?  Was he part of the group in favor of the Duma, the Provisional Govt. or a loyal friend to Nicholas II?  

----------
3.  King wrote<<He did this only because he was warned that Alexei would be unlikely to be able to remain with his father and mother after Nicholas II's abdication. >>

Surly Nicholas II knew this without being told since he nor Alexandra would not be Alexei's Regent  because GD Michael was named to be Regent.

I don't believe I voiced that Nichlas II committed treason in any form nor had I knowingly realize one might think I was,  because I am just tryng to understand all of this sucession stuff  Only you, at this time, on this thread have mentioned:

King wrote:  <<So theoretically you can argue that Nicholas himself committed treason in violating his Majority Oath>>

I for one have not seen evidence that the first abdication ever exsisted.

King wrote: <<It's a quagmire>>

Yep,  I agree.  That is why I'm trying to bring all my questions to this thread about succession and how King and Jon C. have come to their conclusions about Kirill's right and why there apparently is a line drawn between others as well.

King wrote: <<Again-there was no mention of Alexei's health, and neither Shulgin nor Guchkov-the Duma reps, heard anything of the kind.>>

In many books there are indications that Nicholas II did make this statement to Shulgrin and Guchkov.   How do we know this is a statement repeated from rumor or fact?  Many of these rumors/facts are based on "he said"  or "she said" kind of evidence.
What evidence do you have that this is repeated from rumor?  

King wrote:  << The only provision allowed under the Fundamental Laws for involuntary removal of a dynast was physical or mental impairment-clearly this was not what happened here.>>

In reading this,  how am I wrong in thinking that due to Alexei's illness, which is certainly something physical,  that this did give Nicholas II the right to pass over Alexei and give the throne to GD Michael?

Remember,  I'm talking, now, about the lack of evidence of the first abdication and working with the so-called second abdication, which many are still viewing as the only one, and the legal one.  

No one need not try to explain to me, again, why or why not King believe the first one exsisted.  I understand King tells us it did exsist.  

I, also, understand why others are setting this first one aside for lack of proof that it exsisted and are just looking at the abdication Nicholas II gave the Duma.  So, if this is the only one and legal one,  I think Alexei illness gave Nicholas II the right to pass over Alexei and give the crown to GD Michael who is next in line of succession.

My opinion not King's since he believes Nicholas II signed an earlier abdication which gives Alexei the crown...

---------
4.  King wrote:  << Finally, who, precisely, would have lodged a complaint on Alexei's behalf, and in what court?  Because it never happened doesn't mean that Nicholas II's abdication for him was not illega>>

The lawyers out there are going to have to give an answer to this one.  I assume the fall of the Romanov Dyn. and the rise of Lenin and the execution made all this moot as Dashkova and Ryskkiya keep telling us, over and over and over ....  

-----

Despite the rise of communism and the fall of the Romanovs,  we can still debate and have conversations about the Romanovs and the succession because of this great discussion forum.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on September 29, 2004, 09:41:05 PM
Quote
I for one have not seen evidence that the first abdication ever exsisted.


Nikolai Alexandrovich first abdicated in favour of Alexei Nikolaevich. He then changed when he was told that that would probably be parted.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on September 29, 2004, 11:52:40 PM
There is perhaps another way to look at the idea of whether Kirill and his men performed an act of treason against the Sovereign.  My understanding is that the Imperial Oath of Allegiance could only be given to favor the Head of State, in this case the reigning Emperor.

The act performed by Kirill and his men presented no disloyalty against the Emperor, nor against the monarchy itself, because Kirill still believed that the Emperor was in power.  

To give any vows to a legislative body in this case the Duma, must be considered as a symbolic act only, because the Duma was still an intrinsic part of Sovereign power, and not the Government acting in its own right. In reality any affirmations which were uttered did not supersede any previous vows.  

IMHO such symbolism could not be considered treasonable.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on September 30, 2004, 09:12:46 AM
Greg.

You are right I do not like what Kirill did. I don't believe that he should have listened to any 'orders' from any city official nor from the Duma to abandon his post from the palace. Even though Alexandra knew of his actions there is no record that she gave him permission to go.

His orders, from his commision to protect the Royal Family and the Palace, were commissioned by the Tsar.

These actions I call Treason! You call them beneficial to calm the 'Mob'. Same facts..different interpretation of them. So we agree to disagree. C'est la vie!

I thought the family of Illynsky were next in line?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 30, 2004, 01:07:51 PM
Regarding the Ilyinskys:

Prince Paul Ilyinsky (1928-2004) had no siblings. He is survived by two sons, Prince Dmitri Pavlovich, and Prince Michael Pavlovich. Neither of his sons has sired a son.

The Ilyinskys were not considered in line for the Russian Succession because GD Dmitri's marriage was morganatic - meaning his descendants would not have succession rights.

The Ilyinskys are the senior heirs in the House of Oldenburg - Romanov - Holstein line.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on October 01, 2004, 04:58:58 PM
Did Kirill or any other GD ever give their oath to the uncrown Emp. Michael after they learn Nicholas II had passed over Alexei and given Michael the imperial crown?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 01, 2004, 05:01:18 PM
No one could have, because Michael never TOOK the crown nor acknowledged himself as Emperor.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 01, 2004, 05:02:47 PM
Not to my knowledge. There wasn't much time for them to do so, for one thing. Then there was the matter that the abdication on behalf of Alexei was illegal. I am relatively certain the Grand Dukes would have pledged their loyalty to Alexei - their actual loyalty would have remained a question, because we know nearly all broke their oaths to Nicholas.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on October 01, 2004, 08:34:13 PM
Quote
No one could have, because Michael never TOOK the crown nor acknowledged himself as Emperor.



But Michael did and signed his manifesto with the imperial MICHAEL which he sent to the Provisional Govt. .  If he had not accepted the crown, since the throne can never be vacant,  than at that point in time GD Kirill became Emp. .

True,  the uncrown Michael II never ruled.  He had given the Provisional Govt. six months which was when the elections were to have taken place and  Michael thought they would elect him.  They did not.  The Prov. Govt. elected Kerensky and he became the next ruler as provided through the uncrown Michael II's manifesto.

As for the crown being Alexei,  I believe Nicholas II probably did sign a first abdication giving his son the throne.  However,  it did not survive nor was it sent to the Duma but the abdication which gave the crown to GD Michael was.

If there is the document known as the first abdication in exsistence and can be shown to us,  I'll accept it, because I think this is binding.  Once Nicholas II signed it, if he did,  then he held no power to change his mind.

From that point forward, if there really is a first abdication, then Alexei was to be Emp. and GD Michael was his Regent.  And, GD Michael could not abdicate for Alexei.

Complex but simple if that first abdication can be shown.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 02, 2004, 10:15:13 PM
Quote
 The reason given regarding why Nicholas abdicated for Alexei had nothing to do with his mental or physical health-it said "Not wishing to be parted from our beloved son..."  He did this only because he was warned that Alexei would be unlikely to be able to remain with his father and mother after Nicholas II's abdication.  
Greg King


I have been concerned by the statement quoted above until I came across the following statement provided by Sir Peter Bark, who was Minister of Finance and was able to provide an eyewitness account of the events at Army Headquarters in Pskov.

[Ref: The Russian Revolution of 1917, Contemporary Accounts. Ed. D. Von Mohrenschildt, 1971 @ p 80]

His account relates to the abdication manifesto which Nikolai signed, before Shulgin and Guchkov arrived that same evening bearing their own draft of the abdication:

... Thus, the army abandoned its chief. The Emperor had no choice but to sign the abdication act which had been imposed upon him.

He conferred at length with the court physician, Fedorov, who was treating the heir, and asked him to state sincerely what he thought of his son's health. Fedorov told the Emperor that hemophilia was incurable. It was possible that with much care the Grand Duke might live a relatively long time, but he could never be cured. The Emperor thanked Fedorov and thereupon abdicated for himself and his son, passing the crown of Russia to his brother, Grand Duke Michael."


The essence of this account was repeated by Figes in A People's Tragedy @ p 343.

IMHO the actual words used to bypass Alexei ... " As we do not wish to separate from our beloved son ..." was the formal pretext used so that Russia would not learn the real reason about Alexei's condition. Few members outside the immediate famaily were aware that he was seriously ill, let alone the nature of his condition.

Rather than read the expressed words of the Manifesto I believe it is important to appreciate why they were written in the manner they were.

A secondary consideration was that Nikolai was hoping to retire to either to the Crimea or travel to England. If Alexei was bestowed the Crown, then the fear of physical separation from his sick son would have been too much to bare emotionally. It becomes apparent that the family inter-relationships far outweighed Nikolai's duty to Russia. It was a dreadful position to be in.  

I agree that despite the the presence of the Laws of Succession which dictated that Alexei must succeed his father, the harsh reality is one that Nikolai committed an illegal act against the Crown which he represented. As Figes noted, the Crown ... was not his personal property to dispose of according to his will (p 344).

I also agree with Greg, that Nikolai violated his 1884 Oath of Alliegance - a plea which he faithfully avowed to ... affirm the solidarity of a son with his father, the I. F., the top ranks of the court, the military and State. (Wortman, p 2: 101)

Alexei was still too young as the Naslednik Tsesarevich to avow his own Oath, which presents an interesting legal conundrum. Since Alexei did not vow to preserve the Crown etc., when he attained the age of sixteen, then did Alexei 'possess' the legal capacity to pass the Crown? With this consideration in mind, I think perhaps not.

Under this presumption, it is suggested that perhaps Nikolai did consider (or was advised) about this sticky point, and therefore believed that he could bypass his son in favor of his brother, who had given his own Alliegance to the Crown, in the capacity of a Grand Duke at the age of twenty (Wortman p 2: 170).

Fundamentally Nikolai should never abdicated, no matter what advice he had received. That act alone was invalid, a legal violation against the Crown. Nikolai betrayed all his allegiences. Whether this amounts to an act of Treason against the State can only be judged against the prevailing Imperial laws as they existed, and not by any modern meaning of the term today.

IMHO, all those other legal consequences which flowed from the initial decision to abdicate all become less material. It all snowballed thereafter and gave contemporary Constitutional lawyers and historians something more to argue and write books about! ;)

 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on October 03, 2004, 09:31:49 AM
Good point Bella Belochka...This the legal tangle that I was discussing earlier.
R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 03, 2004, 09:45:20 PM
Thanks rskkiya,

Whatever one feels about my contention, I am now convinced that it was Nikolai, and Nikolai only who was responsible for the collapse of the monarchy. Quite a supreme act!

A while ago I was pointing accusatory fingers at only Michael for this final dead, but I am now believe that Michael had the opportunity, perhaps remote, to allow the pheonix to emerge in a genuine attempt to restore his own family's Imperial rights to govern. He could have sought a more liberal constitutional monarchic system, more atune to those which prevailed in the West.

Had he accepted the Crown then it would have been his prerogative to remedy any perceived legal issues which arose with Nikolai's abdication.

To invite another form of Government (a de-facto Republic) to initiate Michael's 'will' in the future was a complete nonsense.  ;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 03, 2004, 10:48:10 PM
Nicholas and Alexandra's own actions helped to create the coup that toppled them from power. They refused to listed to anyone - particularly Alexandra.

Nicholas had no right to disinherit Alexei and besides this was illegal. The illegality made Michael's position all the more difficult. And, no one was offering him any support. No one.

Nicholas knew that his brother wanted greater democratization - so there was no guarantee Michael would take the throne when offered it.

Nicholas should never have left his capital. Alexei had a very slim chance of garnering support, but we never got a chance to test this and of course his mother would never have allowed it.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 03, 2004, 11:13:48 PM
Quote
Nicholas should never have left his capital.



Hi Lisa,

Are you suggesting that it was wrong for Nikolai and his family to permanently move into the Alexander Palace? ;)  I believe that it was a huge tactical error for the Emperor to be secluded in a pleasant rural setting away from the capital city. Nikolai and especially Alexandra would have been more aware what SPB was experiencing.  

The fact that Ministers and military personnel etc were forced to travel 26 kilometers one way to Tsarskoe Selo, to have their regular audience with the Emperor was certainly an impediment for the machinery of government to function more efficiently.  ::)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on October 04, 2004, 12:53:50 AM
Quote


Hi Lisa,

Are you suggesting that it was wrong for Nikolai and his family to permanently move into the Alexander Palace? ;)  I believe that it was a huge tactical error for the Emperor to be secluded in a pleasant rural setting away from the capital city. Nikolai and especially Alexandra would have been more aware what SPB was experiencing.  

The fact that Ministers and military personnel etc were forced to travel 26 kilometers one way to Tsarskoe Selo, to have their regular audience with the Emperor was certainly an impediment for the machinery of government to function more efficiently.  ::)


Sorry for replying, since I'm not Lisa, but I suspect she meant Nicholas II suddenly leaving for Stavka in February, 1917.  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do think there is enough conflicting evidence out there to suggest that this move-which came from others-initiated a plot to remove him.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on October 04, 2004, 11:38:10 AM
Quote
.... [in part]

Sorry for replying, since I'm not Lisa, but I suspect she meant Nicholas II suddenly leaving for Stavka in February, 1917.  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I do think there is enough conflicting evidence out there to suggest that this move-which came from others-initiated a plot to remove him.

Greg King


When no one from his own family rushes to give Nicholas II help, then,  there does appear to be  conspiracy/conspiracies at work at this time.

If Nicholas II was alone in the middle of conspirators than who can we believe in the various report of his willingness to have  signed either abdications?

If Nicholas II was coersed than both abdication may be invalid.

And,  Nicholas II was the last Emp/Tsar of Russia and the sucession continues after is death.

Perhaps, Nicholas II, whom so many historians believe as being stupid,  outfoxed his conspirators in the legal sense.  As for commiting a treasonness act,  he probably could prove he had been coersed into signing either abdications.

Trouble was,  he never gained the position to make any challenges.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on October 04, 2004, 05:07:55 PM
Conspirators?  HMMM?

Well -- maybe you have a point.... but this sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

the cat rskkiya
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 04, 2004, 06:42:32 PM
Greg replied correctly for me - which is no surprise. I am sorry I was not clearer.

However, I also happen to agree that once the Imperiald Family moved out of the capital, the die (or dye?) was cast for the end of the dynasty as the family lost touch with its people to too great a degree.

I was referring as Greg correctly states, to the fact that the Revolution likely would not have happened had Nicholas not left Tsarskoe Selo. However, he would have still had a tough row to hoe. None of the grand dukes supported him or were loyal to him. This did not help the situation as the dynasty was toppling.

This is the reason I was amazed at the venom against Kiril. Compared to what some of the others did, what KV did was rather mild and I saw no reason for him to be singled out.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on October 04, 2004, 08:35:02 PM
LisaD :D

Brilliant point!
In the end it would appear that the Romanovs--- at least many of those in power--- had lost a vital connection with the needs and desires of the people.

the cat R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 04, 2004, 09:38:24 PM
In my humble opinion, the revolution would have come no matter where Nicholas happened to be. Perhaps even sooner and with more violence if he had remained in the capital. I do not feel he was capable enough to give the proper orders to retain loyalty, and too reactionary to instigate meanigful changes. Also the war was a lost cause for Russia, effort was needed at home, not on a rapidly disentegrating front.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 04, 2004, 09:39:23 PM
Rsskiya: It is lovely to hear from a cat on the day we lost our dear Lacy, our 15 yr old Bichon Frisse. May she RIP.

Thank you for the lovely compliment.....
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Dashkova on October 04, 2004, 09:56:12 PM
Quote
In my humble opinion, the revolution would have come no matter where Nicholas happened to be. Perhaps even sooner and with more violence if he had remained in the capital. I do not feel he was capable enough to give the proper orders to retain loyalty, and too reactionary to instigate meanigful changes. Also the war was a lost cause for Russia, effort was needed at home, not on a rapidly disentegrating front.
Cheers,
Robert


I agree with you, Robert, and my dear "R the Cat" I do not disagree with you, but I just don't think the Romanovs ever were really in touch with what the people needed and wanted. That goes for all of them. I don't think any of them were malicious about it, they simply lived in a very different world and understanding was not possible.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 05, 2004, 02:17:11 AM
In the ensuing days after Nikolai abdicated, Generals, such as Alekseev and Ruzsky each played their part to enable the formation of the Provisional Government.

While it may be said that the Provisional Government appeared as 'toothless tiger' equally unable nor enthusiastic enough to prevent revolutionary ferment which spread in the army ranks, on the battlefield and by the revolutionaries on the streets.

As Katkov stated in Russia 1917 @ p 458:

... Many people must have accepted the revolution because of the act of abdication: once the Tsar himself had come to accept the need for a change, what could be done by those who were ready to oppose it?...

A change was inevitable yes, but judging by all consequences which flowed after the abdications, it could hardly be considered that a more acceptable alternative for Russia was achieved. The deliberate rampant extermination or incarceration of high ranking officers, administrators and the nobility gave the murderers no credit. Such was the populist wrath of the masses. :-/  

Lisa D,

I am truely sorry for your loss. My 17 year old silver poodle passed away recently so I can understand what you might be feeling now. :'(
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on October 05, 2004, 08:18:27 AM
Dear Dashkova

In an ideal world the rulers of nations would attempt to understand the real needs of the people...constantly changing as such "needs" may be. I do think that the Romanov dynasty was trying to govern Russia with techniques more in tune with the 17th rather than the 20th century and while I imagine that a constitutional monarchy might have worked in Russia this would have required the cooperation of both the rulers and the ruled... ;D

back on topic...
Some people here have cheerfully suggested the "Illinsky boys" as fantasy candidates for the role of Russian pretender. But I thought that as American citizens they would have had to deny all such forienge ( :Psp) titles... Sorry I really don't know too much about them.

( ;) I don't mean "pretender" in a perjorative manner...Sorry to upset anyone-- I have been told that my posts are too "mean cruel and academic!" LOL)

My heart goes out to those here who have recently lost pets! PAX

love
the cat R


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 05, 2004, 08:45:49 AM
Quote
back on topic...
Some people here have cheerfully suggested the "Illinsky boys" as fantasy candidates for the role of Russian pretender. But I thought that as American citizens they would have had to deny all such forienge ( :Psp) titles... Sorry I really don't know too much about them.

( ;) I don't mean "pretender" in a perjorative manner...Sorry to upset anyone-- I have been told that my posts are too "mean cruel and academic!" LOL)


"IF" Russia wanted a Tsar again, and "IF" the Ilynsky line were offered the throne, they would, obviously have to renounce US citizenship and take Russian citizenship, but then, such would be true of ANY "possible" Romanov descendant since virtually none of them are Russian citizens today.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on October 05, 2004, 09:15:00 AM
FA

Very good point!

cat R.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 05, 2004, 10:44:17 PM
Just a point of clarification to the FA and my feline friend: Sovereign rulers are not citizens of the countries they rule. This is another "how it is" for rulers in addition to not having surnames.

So, the Ilyinskys - if they accepted the throne (there have been many offers for them to return), they would have to renounce their American citizenship and depending on how the new Imperial House is set up, likely to become Russian sovereign or dynasts - but not citizens.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Jane on October 06, 2004, 11:00:13 AM
Quote
...the Ilyinskys - if they accepted the throne (there have been many offers for them to return)...


Lisa, can you please clarify for me, from where or whom have the "offers to return" originated?  The Ilyinsky family or a monarchist faction inside Russia?

Franky, in the very unlikely event that the Russian Republic elected to return to a monarchical system and chose to restore the Romanovs and further decided on the Ilyinskys, I would be very disturbed, if I were a Russian, at the idea of some Americans coming over to reign over me.  Nyet!  

The Illyinskys, bless 'em, are Americans now, albeit of Russian extraction, and I would think they are too far removed from the experiences of modern Russians living in Russia today.  
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 06, 2004, 11:30:09 AM
Jane,
Please see my short bio of the late Paul Ilynsky. A delegation of private Russian citizens actually went to Palm Beach to ask him to come to Russia and claim the throne right after the fall of Communism.

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/ilyinsky.html
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Jane on October 06, 2004, 12:48:39 PM
Thanks, FA.  I recall reading that when it was first posted.  Very well-written, by the way.

So, this was not an official delegation on behalf of any governing entity in Russia, just a group of private citizens?

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 06, 2004, 03:11:28 PM

That is correct - it was not the government.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on October 07, 2004, 06:38:37 PM
To FA / Lisa.

Thank you for the link to the Ilyinsky write up. I was surprised to read that there are people in Russia serious enough about re-establishing the Throne that they would come all the way to Florida to ask Ilyinski to take up the throne.

I had gotten the wrong idea, I guess, from reading the views against this concept on this site.

Could you tell me just who these people were? i.e. where they politically connected, movers and shakers or just a bunch of wackos. I would like to know because I too have come to believe that the Monarchy should be reinstated...as you can deduce from my previous posts.
Best regards. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on October 07, 2004, 10:59:28 PM
I want to reply to JonC, but I shall desist.  :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: daveK on October 13, 2004, 08:45:45 PM
Does anyone know any example in which democratic republic amended their constitution to accommodate constitutional monarchy? There is a case that autocratic dictator chose royal family as successor (General Franco chose Prince Carlos in 1975), but I don't think of any example, at least in modern Western world. I wonder why, considering more than half EU nations positively maintain a royal family as a head of state.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 13, 2004, 09:25:30 PM
Yes. Admittedly traumatic national examples, but Cambodia & Afghanistan are 2 cases.
Japan, in writing a new constitution ammended the monarchy to suit a new national situation.
France, 2 Empires, 2 monarchial restorations under constitutional terms.
The British Commonwealth, in writing new constituions upon independance retained the monarch as Head of State in many cases.
This is pushing it, but the previous Iranian constitution was rewritten to placate a demand for restraints on absolute power and "rights of man" agendae.
Thailand, Uganda, the Balkan monarchies, Italy come to mind.
Iraq [a horrible mistake].
Probably a few more.
Cheers,
Robert
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 13, 2004, 09:29:33 PM
p.s. In the above examples I am referring to countries that wrote constitutions based on the Western frameworks. Particularly Asia & the Middle East.
Cheers, again,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bonde on October 17, 2004, 06:17:07 AM
The only real Head of The Imperial Dynasty of Russia (Romanov) and as such the rightful heir to the Imperial Throne is the Grand Duchess MARIA of Russia!!! She is the only one still left of the original Dynasty because she is born out of a Dynastic marriage between Grand Duke Wladimir of Russia and Princess Leonida Bagration of Muchrani. All other Romanov etc are not born out of a Dynastic marriage and are therefore not members of The Imperial Dynasty of Russia and as such are not lawfull heirs to the Imperial throne of Russia.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on October 17, 2004, 03:11:44 PM
Here we go again! Bonde. This statement of YOURS has been discussed at length. Some agree and some deffinitely don't!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on October 17, 2004, 04:29:48 PM
Why don't we take this step by step.

Without going through the debate if Tsarvich Alexei was or was not heir,   let's make that a given.   On 3 March 1917 let us just say Alexei was a minor and succeded his father and would  become acting Tsar/ Emp. when he became 16.

The next in line on 3 March 1917 was:
Regent/Tsarvich Michael  [Nicholas II's brother]

When both Tsar/Emp. Alexei and his Regent Tsarvich Michael both vanished in in the summer of 1918, since the throne could not be vacant,  next in line for the throne was:

GD Kirill [Cirill] [Romanov]

Is this correct thus far?  

Apparently there is a problem as described in the following post:
Quote
Spiridovitch reports ("Les Dernieres Annees de la Cour de Tzarskoie Selo" Vol 1 Ch. 14) the fact that Maria Pavlovna was very worried about the fact that she was not Orthodox at the time her children were born created a serious legal obstacle to their succession to the throne. Alexander II gave his SON his succession rights in writing when Vladimir married the Lutheran Maria P., but said nothing about the rights of any children they had. So there was a legitimate question of succession.

According to Spiridovitch, everyone knew that when Maria P. converted to Orthodoxy in 1908, it was only to try to prevent the issue from coming up. One of her sons (Spiridovitch did not name him, probably because he was still alive at the time) went to the Minister of Justice, Chtcheglov, for a legal report on the question.  The report concluded that her late conversion to Orthodoxy could not retroactively change the fact that they were born to a non-Orthodox mother and were thus excluded from succession to the throne.   A copy of the report was actually submitted to the Emperor and so everyone knew they had no succession rights. This of course, only made Empress Alexandra even colder towards her than she already was. After the death of Vladimir, a copy of the report was brought to Maria Pavlovna and her sons.  While they had no succession rights (from being born to a non Orthodox mother), they still had precedance rights, as grandsons of an Emperor (thanks Nick!), which would explain why they were still listed in the Court Almanach and Calendar....

This could explain a lot of things. Like why Marie Feodrovna never recognized Kyrill's rights. Or even why Kyrill turned on Nicholas II so quickly... perhaps even why the Bolsheviks did not kill them when they wiped out the rest of the family.  I would LOVE to know if a copy of the report could be found in GARF. (unless maybe Maria made a deal to have it destroyed when she met Yeltsin??)


If the religious demands  had not been made then  Kirill could have been Tsar/Emp. but his children could not be part of the lineage just as  Regent/Tsarvich Michael's son, Georg, could not have been.

Is this correct so far, if all above is true?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 17, 2004, 09:08:29 PM
No, this is incorrect - all of it.

At the time of Nicholas' abdication, the succession was as follows:

1. Tsesarevich and Grand Duke Alexei Nicholievich
2. GD Michael Alexandrovich (son - George Mikhailovich - no succession rights, born out of wedlock)
3. GD Kiril Vladimirovich (no sons)
4. GD Boris Vladimirovich

After July 17, 1918, the succession was as follows:

(#1 and #2 above are presumed deceased, though their remains have never been found):

1. GD Kiril Vladimirovich
2. GD Vladimir Kirilovich (born in an equal and legal marriage)
3. GD Boris Vladimirovich (no legal issue)
4. GD Andrei Vladimirovich (only son born out of wedlock)
5. GD Dmitri Pavlovich (only son was born of a morganatic marriage)

I don't think anyone has ever argued that George Mikhailovich had succession rights. Children born out of wedlock are excluded from such inheritance - generally.

All of the surviving grand dukes with the exception of the Nikolievichi recognized Kiril as the Heir, so I'm not sure what you mean about a religious problem. If you are referring to his mother's keeping her religion, this was approved by her father in law. And, (this is important), her parents would never have allowed her marriage to Vladimir if the union was to be a morganatic one and their children excluded from the Russian Succession.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on October 17, 2004, 10:43:48 PM
Quote
... [in part]...

At the time of Nicholas' abdication, the succession was as follows:

1. Tsesarevich and Grand Duke Alexei Nicholievich
2. GD Michael Alexandrovich (son - George Mikhailovich - no succession rights, born out of wedlock)
3. GD Kiril Vladimirovich (no sons)
4. GD Boris Vladimirovich

After July 17, 1918, the succession was as follows:

(#1 and #2 above are presumed deceased, though their remains have never been found):

1. GD Kiril Vladimirovich
2. GD Vladimir Kirilovich (born in an equal and legal marriage)
3. GD Boris Vladimirovich (no legal issue)
4. GD Andrei Vladimirovich (only son born out of wedlock)
5. GD Dmitri Pavlovich (only son was born of a morganatic marriage)

I don't think anyone has ever argued that George Mikhailovich had succession rights. Children born out of wedlock are excluded from such inheritance - generally.

All of the surviving grand dukes with the exception of the Nikolievichi recognized Kiril as the Heir, so I'm not sure what you mean about a religious problem. If you are referring to his mother's keeping her religion, this was approved by her father in law. And, (this is important), her parents would never have allowed her marriage to Vladimir if the union was to be a morganatic one and their children excluded from the Russian Succession.


The religious information was not mine.  It was suggested:

>>The report concluded that her late conversion to Orthodoxy could not retroactively change the fact that they were born to a non-Orthodox mother and were thus excluded from succession to the throne.   A copy of the report was actually submitted to the Emperor and so everyone knew they had no succession rights.<<

When did Kirill's wife turn to Orthodoxy?  Was it before or after Vladimir was born in 1917.

Is this part of the debate of those who oppose Kirill and then his son's, Vladimir's rights?

I'm not taking any sides.  I'm  just trying to figure this out.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 18, 2004, 12:04:15 AM
Kiril's wife was Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh. She married Grand Duke Ernst of Hesse, Alexandra's brother, in 1894. It was at their wedding that Nicholas and Alexandra became engaged. The marriage did not work out and they were divorced after Queen Victoria's death.

Victoria Melita, known in the family as Ducky, married another first cousin, Kiril Vladimirovich, in 1905. Victoria Melita's conversion to Orthodoxy happened some time after that but before 1910. She was definitely Orthodox by the time their son Vladimir was born.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bonde on October 18, 2004, 07:35:21 AM
Grand Duke KIRILL of Russia married at Tegernsee 08.10.1905 to Princess Victoria Melita of Great Britain and Ireland! Her father was Prince ALFRED Ernest Albert of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Edinburgh and Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: AGRBear on October 19, 2004, 11:02:05 AM
Does anyone disagree with the following list of succession after the deaths/disapearance of  Alexei and Michael?  If so, please give your reason.

1. GD Kiril Vladimirovich
2. GD Vladimir Kirilovich (born in an equal and legal marriage)
3. GD Boris Vladimirovich (no legal issue)
4. GD Andrei Vladimirovich (only son born out of wedlock)
5. GD Dmitri Pavlovich (only son was born of a morganatic marriage)

Since GD Dmitri Pavlovich's son could not become the Tsarvich, who does?  Why?

Reason for asking is because I'm trying to discover where there is the debate or fracture which occured between the families belonging to the House of Romanov.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on October 20, 2004, 12:36:05 AM
Quote
Does anyone disagree with the following list of succession after the deaths/disapearance of  Alexei and Michael?  If so, please give your reason.

1. GD Kiril Vladimirovich
2. GD Vladimir Kirilovich (born in an equal and legal marriage)
3. GD Boris Vladimirovich (no legal issue)
4. GD Andrei Vladimirovich (only son born out of wedlock)
5. GD Dmitri Pavlovich (only son was born of a morganatic marriage)

Since GD Dmitri Pavlovich's son could not become the Tsarvich, who does?  Why?

Reason for asking is because I'm trying to discover where there is the debate or fracture which occured between the families belonging to the House of Romanov.

AGRBear


This is correct.  From here on, the line of succession:
1. Prince Vsevelod Ioannovich (recognized Grand Duke Kirill and successors as Dynastic Head)
2.  Prince Gabriel Konstantinovich (recognized Grand Dukes Kirill and Vladimir as successive Dynastic Heads)
3.  Prince George Konstantinovich (died in 1938)
4.  Prince Roman Petrovich (followed the lead of his father Grand Duke Peter Nikolaievich in opposing the Vladimirovichii claims)
5.  Prince Andrew Alexandrovich (recognized Grand Duke Kirill and his successors as Dynastic Heads)
6.  Prince Feodor Alexandrovich (recognized Grand Duke Kirill and successors as Dynastic Heads)
7.  Prince Nikita Alexandrovich (recognized Grand Duke Kirill and successors as Dynastic Heads)
8.  Prince Dimitri Alexandrovich (recognized Grand Duke Kirill and successors as Dynastic Heads)
9.  Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich (recognized Grand Duke Kirill and successors as Dynastic Heads)
10.  Prince Vassily Alexandrovich (too young to recognize Grand Duke Kirill in 1924, later recognized Vladimir as Dynastic Head)

Aside from Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaievich and his brother Peter, the other surviving male dynasts all recognized Kirill and his son Vladimir.  Of the above two lists, only Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich contracted an equal marriage and thus passed dynastic rights to his daughter, who in turn married equally and passed dynastic rights to her son, Grand Duke George.

There wasn't any outcry (excepting the Nikolaievichii) about any of this until 1969 when Vladimir, realizing that no one on the above list (those still alive in 1969 were all elderly) was going to contract an equal marriage and provide a legitimate dynast.  So in 1969 Vladimir decreed his daughter Maria Vladimirovna "Curiatrix" for the Throne, a sort of provisional declaration that still allowed for the possibility that a male dynast would marry and have legitimate dynastic issue.  When none did, Vladimir decreed Maria Vladimirovna-as the only legitimate surviving dynast-would thus inherit full headship of the Imperial House.  That's when the family fued, which had previously been kept rather quiet, erupted publicly.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bonde on October 20, 2004, 06:23:59 AM
Prince Nicholas Romanov is according to Almanach de Gotha the Head of the Romanov family and not Princess Maria Romanov. There one can read that both mothers where of the same rank. So in other words according to Almanach de Gotha both the countly family Cheremetev and the Princely family Bagration of Muchrani are of the same rank and that they both belong to the Russian nobility. Therefore it states that Maria is not born out of a Dynastic marriage and can by that in no means be the head of the Imperial Dynasty of Russia. Since I saw this I trusted this work but today I think this book is not objectiv and runs for a person that dosn't even belong to the original Dynasty. I have tried to explain to them in London that Grand Duchess Maria of Russia is real Head of the Imperial Dynasty but they still continue to say this false statement of theirs.

In my opinion Bagration of Muchrani is a dethroned sovereign Dynasty from Georgia. So what do You think is Bagration and Sheremetev of the same level. Is they both belonging to the Russian Nobility or is Bagration a detroned House from Georgia?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 20, 2004, 05:50:20 PM
Bonde, I agree that the mothers of MV and NR were of the same rank.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Aliard on October 20, 2004, 05:54:24 PM
In my mind, Maria Vladimirovna should become Empress assuming the monarchy were restored, simply on the merit that she's done quite a bit for the present monarchist movement. I don't see why Nicholas Romanovitch continues to contest her when he has no wish to be Emperor.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 20, 2004, 07:33:33 PM
This issue will come down to what George Mikhailovich does or does not do. If he marries and has male issue of an equal marriage, the Vladimirovichi line will continue and will have its adherents. If he fails to marry, or fails to marry equally, or fails to have any legitimate male offspring, it will become essential for the Vladimirovichi to meet with the RFA and come up with a compromise as to the Imperial house. I would actually hope that option #2 happens anyway, becuase I think it looks bad to not have at least the appearence of family unity.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bonde on October 21, 2004, 03:55:24 PM
 :o

If the Oldest Dynasty in the Orthodox world (Bagration), is as Lisa Davidson states, of the same rank as the Russian Countly family Sheremetev, we have a big problem. If this would be the case there would not be anyone alive today that were born out of a Dynastic marriage and therefore we would not have others than morganatic Romanovs. :'(

Morganatic Romanovs can't according to the House Rules be members of The Imperial Romanov Dynasty. This is a win for Prince Nicholas Romanov who has by the other morganatic members been elected as the Head of the (Morganatic) RFA.

I know that Bagration has become a member of the Russian Nobility but in my opinion Bagration is only detroned (like Romanov, Mecklenburg, Hessen, Oldenburg....). Therefore I now ask why The Ducal House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin or the The Ducal House of Oldenburg is seen as detroned Sovereign Houses in Europe but not the much much older dethroned Sovereign Dukes and Princes of the Blood (batonishvili) Bagration of Muchrani?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 21, 2004, 11:08:41 PM
Well, Bonde, others agree with you about the Bragrations. And, more importantly, Vladimir Kirilovich, who was head of the house, agrees with you. He said the Bragrations were a house equal to the Romanovs serveral years before he married the former Mrs. Kirby.

The reason I disagree with you is, if you are going to allow one formerly ruling family in the pen, so to speak, you should allow them all. And, that's not how Vladimir applied the law, which I believe is incorrect. The problem with the Fundamental Law is that it's almost 100 years since anyone has amended it. The conditions under which it made sense no longer exist. It is, in the full sense of the word, an anachronism. So, it seems to me to be utterly ridiculous, not to mention, illogical, to try to amend something now that no longer makes sense.

What does make sense to me is for all the Romanov descendants to resolve their differences. It would be good for their family, good for the dynasty, and possibly even good for Russia.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bonde on October 22, 2004, 06:32:31 AM
What do you mean by saying that "should allow them all"  Wich families do you think of? ???

And secondly, as Head of the Imperial Dynasty, Grand Duchess Maria of Russia can change the fundamental Law if she sees that as a good thing to do.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on October 22, 2004, 07:17:42 AM
Quote
In my mind, Maria Vladimirovna should become Empress assuming the monarchy were restored, simply on the merit that she's done quite a bit for the present monarchist movement.


The Russian Empire no longer exists. Maria Vladimirovna would become Tsaritsa, if anything.

Am I correct in thinking if Vladimir Kirillovich did not proclaim himself Imperator, then Georgi Mikhailovich should only be titled Prince?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Jane on October 22, 2004, 10:37:07 AM
I suspect if  Vladimir Kirillovich had not made such a proclamation, then Maria's son would be entitled only to call himself a prince of the House of Hohenzollern.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ISteinke on October 23, 2004, 03:50:59 PM
Something important to remember in this whole debate-

A good many of the "noble" families of imperial Russia were branches of the Rurik family [just as the Romanovs were], therefore making them Russia royalty.  

Now, a thought-

It seems that a good way to [at least] narrow down this "throne debate" would be to [do some research and] discern which Romanovs had mothers/grandmothers whose "noble-not royal" families were of "Rurikian" descent. After all this was Michael Romanov's claim to the throne in the first place.

OR maybe it doesn't matter whether the new Tsar is to be a Romanov at all. Maybe they could do like the English have done so many times in their history. Pick a different branch of Rurik's descendants.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 23, 2004, 04:09:09 PM
This has been my contention all along: that any "restoration" of a Russian throne does not necessarily preclude a "Romanov" restoration as well.
The precedent is elective in that ANY Russian [Rurik ?] family would be acceptable. Indeed, the Romanovs have lost any trace of Russian-ness to endear them anyway [with the possible exception of Maria herself].
The argument over "who is head of the family" has nothing to do with any possible claim to a Russian throne. It is strictly a domestic matter that seems to be of little or no consequence to anyone else.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 23, 2004, 11:39:06 PM
Who the head of the Romanov Family is one issue, quite separate from the second issue, which questions who outside of Russia believes they are contender to a non existent throne.

No one can state categorically that they have more rights over Russia over another noble family, who do live in Russia today.

If this question was ever brought before the citizens of Russia, which is doubtful, it is not unrealistic to believe that a different family may be more welcome. Especially if they had Russian blood coursing through their veins, spoke Russian and understood the Russian soul. Surely a few lessons from the past ::) have been learnt by now?

If ascendancy to a new Russian throne became reality, then as Head of State, their relevance at the government level will affect other nations - even if only at a ceremonial level only. Hopefully they will remain separate from the legislature.

History claims that the Rurikovich dynasty faded in the last few years of the 16th century. :o
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ISteinke on October 25, 2004, 08:04:02 AM
Here is a thought regarding GD Maria and GD Georgie-
    As I had read through accounts of Russia and the Romanov family, from just prior to the Revolution, it seems to me that the Valdmirovichi were up to their necks in the kind of corruption, intrigue, and selfishness [amongst the ruling classes] which helped to end the dynasty.
    When I read articles and viewpoints written from the perspective of the [other] branches of the Romanov family, it seems that all of them have really learned from the catastrophic mistakes and attitudes of the past. The surviving Vladmirovichi [i.e. Maria and Georgie] don't seem to have learned anything at all. Their attitudes seem to reflect the incorrigible selfishness of 1917. In other words these Romanovs have changed little from the progenitors in their clan.
     Here is good justification [if the new Tsar is to be a Romanov] for rejecting the claims of the descendants of Kyril. They want to return to the Old Russia, particularly as it regards their own prerogatives. The other Romanovs, [if the monarchy were to be restored] would like to bring the best of the Imperial tradition into a new progressive Russia.
    Why would anyone want to return to the attitudes of Vladimir, Marie Pavlovna, and Kyril?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2004, 11:07:22 PM
Excellent points ISteinke!

Another question should also be considered. How can Maria and George possibly understand what Russia needs, when they do not even choose to live there? ;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on October 26, 2004, 02:14:54 AM
Quote
Excellent points ISteinke!

Another question should also be considered. How can Maria and George possibly understand what Russia needs, when they do not even choose to live there? ;)


This isn't exactly fair or true-Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has proposed, on a number of occasions, that she and her son be allowed to live in Russia.  Between 1997-87 there were a number of negotiations about this with Yeltsin's Government, which was set to grant her wish, until Dimitri Likhachev stepped in and began a very public campaign against her; having Yeltsin's ear, he managed to have the offer quashed.  I believe she has since proposed a return and partial residency in Petersburg, but these are issues that are being worked out with Government officials.  So it wouldn't be accurate to characterize this as her decision not to live in Russia, but rather the Government interferring in her wish or outright denying it as happened in 1998.

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 26, 2004, 08:39:43 PM
With respect Greg,

Do not those "issues" concern her status in Russia?

The late Dmitri Likhachev IMHO correctly compelled the Russian government to stop the nonsense.

I would be surprised if Putin would prevent her living in Russia as a private citizen, but respectfully that is not what this is all about ...  ;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ISteinke on October 27, 2004, 07:34:38 AM
I do not know why everyone seems to insist on slavish devotion to the Law of Succession of 1797, as if it were a document of scripture, or a sacred text, or something like that. It was a silly, obcessive law, enacted by an insane ruler, as Paul is universally acknowledged to be [the mad tsar]. It was enacted due to his own selfish obcessions, not for any moral or politically sound reason
    Think of his reasoning:

No woman- I hate my mother.

Has to be Orthodox at time of marriage- My mother was Lutheran. I hate my mother

Has to be of an equal house- My mother was from the minor house of Anhalt-Zerbst, and I hate my mother.

    The entire set of laws was promulgated because Paul hated his mother. What does Paul's psychological problem have to do, whatsoever, with what is good for Russia today?

    In reality, Russia should set aside this silliness [about the 1797 law]and simply follow the rules that any other royal house would follow.  Michael's son George was the last male descendant of Alexander III, and Xenia's family are the senior branch. The oldest son of the oldest son of GD Xenia should be tsar. PERIOD



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Greg_King on October 27, 2004, 07:38:13 AM
Quote
With respect Greg,

Do not those "issues" concern her status in Russia?

The late Dmitri Likhachev IMHO correctly compelled the Russian government to stop the nonsense.

I would be surprised if Putin would prevent her living in Russia as a private citizen, but respectfully that is not what this is all about ...  ;)


Hey B-

Most of the "issues" didn't concern status at all but place of residence and passports.  I'd agree with your point were it not for the fact that Likhachev was a blatant partisan for Nicholas Romanov, promoting his "claim" at every turn and indeed using his involvement in the 1998 funeral to deliberately thrust NR into the national spotlight while using it as a platform to publicly humiliate the Grand Duchess.

As far as I know, the Grand Duchess has never asked for or insisted on any government recognition of her status during the talks about taking up residence there (I could be wrong, but nothing I have seen has indicated this).

Greg King
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 27, 2004, 09:29:12 PM
Quote
Most of the "issues" didn't concern status at all but place of residence and passports.  I'd agree with your point were it not for the fact that Likhachev was a blatant partisan for Nicholas Romanov, promoting his "claim" at every turn and indeed using his involvement in the 1998 funeral to deliberately thrust NR into the national spotlight while using it as a platform to publicly humiliate the Grand Duchess.

As far as I know, the Grand Duchess has never asked for or insisted on any government recognition of her status during the talks about taking up residence there (I could be wrong, but nothing I have seen has indicated this).

Greg King


Hi Greg,

But status must have been points of contention.

Was she not seeking a special passport which expressly acknowledged her purported title? A Russian Senora does not look quite right on paper ...

As for the second issue concerning a suitable residence - was she expecting the Russian government to give her one without any financial consideration?

Surely these two issues go right to the core of her status in Russia?

One must also consider that Russia's formal recognition of this person would open compensation issues at a later date - for loss of family property etc.

The door which she proposes to open is narrow today ... but one must view it from the other side.  Likhachev was wise enough to understand this and therefore he closed the door for her.

Respectfully, it is unfair to assert that Likhachev had acted blatantly. He was a historian and an intellectual of the highest order.

Marie IMHO publicly humiliated herself. It was she who thrust her pretensions soon after Soviet Russia dissolved. Russia did not invite her as far as I am aware.  ;)


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ISteinke on October 28, 2004, 11:17:05 AM
As far as "the Russian government giving her suitable residence," there shouldn't have to be any financial consideration on Maria's part. If she returns to Russia, by simple standards of deceny and restitution it seems to me that the Russian government would be obligated to return the home of Kyril and Ducky to her. It rightfully belongs to her [as far as I know she and George are the last living Vladmirovich descendants- correct me if I'm wrong]. Regardless of what anyone thinks of her as a person, or of her claim to the throne, she should be able to live in her own house [in St. Petersburg] if she wants to.

By the way, what is the present status and condition of Kyril's house?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 31, 2004, 10:16:36 PM
To give Maria one residence or three ... would only open the floodgates for others in a similar predicament to demand the same!





Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ISteinke on November 01, 2004, 07:00:27 AM
Belochka made the very astute comment about "opening up the floodgates" to others in a similar predicament. I will go on record as saying that I believe the floodgates must be opened!

In my opinion, the descendants of every exiled noble family should have their ancestral home returned to them. Now, before anyone gets their dander up, let me explain what I mean.

I do not mean that vast estates, 125 miles long, should be returned to people. I am of the conviction that the house itself [if still standing] should be returned to each family of descendants.

What I mean is this. A house, an ancestral family home, is something dear and precious to people, whether a humble peasants' cottage, or a mansion. It's almost a spiritual thing. The Russian government has no vested interest in a building that contains the sacred family memories and history of a unique family. Those old, generational mansions should go back to those to whom they are precious.

If a family of Russian nobles has the money to maintain their ancestral mansion in Petersburg or Moscow, or wherever, they should be allowed to re-occupy it.

I also think that there should be a restitution of family heirlooms. Heirlooms now residing in museums [i.e. paintings of people's ancestors, confiscated after the revolution], should be returned. Why should some man's great-grandmother be hanging on the wall in the Hermitage instead of being shown to his children?

After the German revolution of 1918 the government and the Hohenzollerns settled the property dispute very maturely and amiably. Potsdam Palace went to the government. Hohenzollern Castle remained in the possession of the family. I believe there were a number of other German [imperial] residences divided up this way also.

Not only Maria and George, but the descendants of every noble family ought to be able to "go home."
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 01, 2004, 10:29:16 AM
Hi,
Can I ask what the return of pre-revolutionary property (which has its own thread elsewhere) has to do with "Who is the Rightful Heir'?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: ISteinke on November 01, 2004, 11:42:17 AM
The reason why I brought up that subject [return of pre-revolutionary property] is because it has [in my opinion] direct bearing the issue of Grand Duchess Maria and Grand Duke George returning to Russia- the return of their ancestral family home would settle the question, "Where are they going to live?"

I brought up the larger issue because of Belochka's comment that it would "open a floodgate." My response was that it should open a floodgate, for Maria and all of the other white Russians.

Sorry if I miscommunicated.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 01, 2004, 07:42:44 PM
Quote
Hi,
Can I ask what the return of pre-revolutionary property (which has its own thread elsewhere) has to do with "Who is the Rightful Heir'?


The possible return of pre-revolutionary property goes right to the core of the issue we are discussing here. It goes some way to explain why the present claimant may be having personal difficulty having her status acknowledged by the Russian government.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on November 02, 2004, 02:09:58 AM
I've just done a turnaround. I now support Maria Vladimirovna.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bonde on November 02, 2004, 04:37:39 AM
That's glad to hear!  :D

What have changed Your mind to support the one and only REAL head of the Imperial Dynasty of Russia (Romanov) and not the illegitimate Prince Nicholas Romanov?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on November 02, 2004, 04:45:46 AM
Well, Nikolai Romanovich isn't exactly illegitimate. Art has persuaded me to (insert slightly less stronger word than) support Maria Vladimirovna.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Huffstutler on November 06, 2004, 09:19:19 PM
Setting GD Maria aside, "if" Prince Nicholas Romanovich Romanov is supposed to be the rightful male heir to the Imperial house... if he dies, who is his successor?  Would it be his brother Dimitri who is also aged or someone else since neither have male children?

Eric
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on November 06, 2004, 10:02:36 PM
It would go to Dmitri Romanovich, but as he has no children, then to the Mikhailovichi, and Andrei Alexandrovich.

OR

One of Nikolai Romanovich's daughters (Natalya, Yelizaveta and Tatiana), if we don't want to be sexist and we disregard the succession laws.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 07, 2004, 12:00:50 AM
The Romanov Family Association (RFA) has an established succession after Nicholas Romanovich:

- Dmitri Romanovich (b. 1926)
- Michael Andreivich (b.1920)
- Andrei Andreivich (b. 1923)
- Alexis Andreivich (b. 1953)
- Peter Andreivich (b. 1961)
- Andrei Andreivich (b. 1963)
- Michael Feodorovich (b. 1924)
- Nikita Nikitavich (b. 1923)
- Feodor Nikitavich  (b. 1974)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on November 08, 2004, 09:08:02 PM
Please forgive but I can't find the thread where we all were talking about Dr. Knight's associate 'Sokolovsky'.

Can anyone tell me just why he is important to Dr. Knight's team? Thanks. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on November 09, 2004, 04:27:51 AM
On one of the Anna Anderson threads?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on November 10, 2004, 06:01:28 PM
Can anyone tell me who is 'Sokolovsky' on Dr. Knight's team? I found his name somewhere else and I am thinking he is the same person. Thanks JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 10, 2004, 06:07:28 PM
The recent "Knight" team is: Lev Zhivotosvksy, David Kass, the infamous Daryl Litwin, Lance Green, P. Scott White

No one named Sokolovsky that I see anywhere in the paper. Are you sure you don't maybe mean Sokolov who did the original 1918 investigations?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 10, 2004, 08:03:01 PM
and last but not least on Knight's team: J. Mountain
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on November 11, 2004, 12:14:30 AM
Thanks FA.

No, the name I seek is 'Sokolovsky'. OK, back to the drawing board. JonC
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 11, 2004, 12:45:16 AM
JonC,

There is no Sokolovsky listed in Knight's paper, however he did refer to: Judge N. Sokolov.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on November 11, 2004, 07:24:26 PM
Question!

Was 'Sokolov' of the 1918 period ever called 'Sokolovsky'?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on November 11, 2004, 07:34:19 PM
FA, those letters I found at the NY Public Library, written in Russian can I be allowed to put them on the AP site for everyone to translate. I have no idea what they contain. I have a suspicion they were written by a Russian officer who was in close contact with the Tsar because there are numerous photos of the Tsar and navy ships. There is also a group picture of a coal ship crew on their coal ship. Thanks, JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 11, 2004, 08:15:41 PM
Quote
Question!

Was 'Sokolov' of the 1918 period ever called 'Sokolovsky'?


Sokolov and Sokolovsky are two different surnames. Sokolovsky is a Polish surname.

Do you know what the person's first name was?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 12, 2004, 09:18:53 AM
Jon
Your best bet is to start a NEW thread here and put the letters up so people can see and translate and perhaps correct each other. Depends on how many you are talking about.
Email me and let me know how big a project this is.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on November 15, 2004, 03:10:23 PM
Thanks, FA.

That sounds like the best thing to do. Boy I never thought I could start my own thread. I will send you all the info necessary. I have a friend from the Orthodox church in Nyack NY who will, hopefully, translate one of the letters. As soon as he returns my package I will see if its not better to just post it on my new thread. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 15, 2004, 03:43:02 PM
To get back to heirs/claimants:
The RFA is just that- a family association. They can choose anyone they like to head it, by election, popularity, heredity, etc.
GD Maria V. represents Imperial DYNASTIC claims, which in itself is a complicated, outdated mess anyway anyone looks at it.
Which begs the following: I understand MV was named the curious title "CURATRIX" of the throne. My guess this is pretty much based upon  the infamous Regent Sophia & her tenure.  If so, one would assume that  her [MV] "office" would end with the coming-of-age of her son, GD Georgi. As he is now 22-23 [?] perhaps one entitlement has ended and another begun ?
Hypothetically, he then may change the dynastic laws at his own will.
It is all academic anyway, so
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 15, 2004, 06:56:56 PM
Quote
Hypothetically, he then may change the dynastic laws at his own will.
It is all academic anyway, so
Cheers,
Robert


George can formulate and sign what ever documents he wishes.

Those papers will have no validity in Russian Statute books. ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 15, 2004, 07:15:39 PM
Which is why I said "hypothetically".
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 15, 2004, 08:02:54 PM
Yes Robert, you did say "hypothetically"

Perhaps we could also add that it might be wishful thinking on his mother's behalf? ::)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 15, 2004, 08:08:05 PM
Well, there are a LOT of things that COULD be said, but respect is due.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on November 15, 2004, 08:25:48 PM
Respect is due to the Russian people to be left alone to decide their own future. ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 16, 2004, 12:20:35 AM
Quote
To get back to heirs/claimants:
The RFA is just that- a family association. They can choose anyone they like to head it, by election, popularity, heredity, etc.
GD Maria V. represents Imperial DYNASTIC claims, which in itself is a complicated, outdated mess anyway anyone looks at it.
Which begs the following: I understand MV was named the curious title "CURATRIX" of the throne. My guess this is pretty much based upon  the infamous Regent Sophia & her tenure.  If so, one would assume that  her [MV] "office" would end with the coming-of-age of her son, GD Georgi. As he is now 22-23 [?] perhaps one entitlement has ended and another begun ?
Hypothetically, he then may change the dynastic laws at his own will.
It is all academic anyway, so
Cheers,
Robert


Maria was named Curatrix for much the same reason that Princess Elizabeth was named Heiress Presumptive rather than Princess of Wales in 1936. The reason for both titles - the birth of a legitimate male from Elizabeth's father in QEII's situation or a legitimate male from an equal marriage in MV's - is that such a birth would have displaced them from their place in the succession. Both QEII's father recognized a male heir most  unlikely, and Vladimir K also saw the chance for a male heir highly improbable, hence the strange titles.

Maria is no longer Curatrix. She is the de jure Empress of Russia and uses the Grand Duchess title as is customary for the claimant to a throne who has never ruled.

I think the only likely change in dynastic law would be an end to the anachronistic practice of equal marriage. As I've said before, I think it more likely that GM will make the change as opposed to MV, so it may not occur in her lifetime.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: bluetoria on March 24, 2005, 09:51:20 AM
Dear Alekseevich,
I have read nearly all your posts, I think, on nearly all the threads (especially on those of the Empress Alexandra) and they are always very respectful and polite.
It seems that you are trying very hard to discover the truth about your background and you father whom, you say, was believed by some people to be the Tsarevich Alexei. (Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.)
I REALLY hope you will not mind my writing this, as I do so only because I am afraid that you are opening yourself to a wide variety of responses some of which may be offensive to you - and since you always write so respectfully to others, I should hate to see that happen.
Perhaps, if you really believe your claim to be true it would be better if you were to find out who exactly the people are who telephone you and say you are the Tsar. Perhaps they have evidence or something. Alternatively perhaps they are not very kind to you.
Would it be better perhaps, too, if you were to try to establish exactly who your father was (ie. where he lived, when he met your mother, where he worked) before continuing to question whether or not he was the Tsarevich?
I write this very respectfully and hope you understand my motives for doing so.  
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on April 05, 2005, 07:32:43 PM
Quote


I think the only likely change in dynastic law would be an end to the anachronistic practice of equal marriage. As I've said before, I think it more likely that GM will make the change as opposed to MV, so it may not occur in her lifetime.



There is a web site devoted to Russian  succession laws. A group of people have written a list of new succesions laws thet they believe should be adpoted.  

They also offer an excellent compromise to end the so called "feud" between GD Maria and the Romanov Family Assosication.

One of the laws makes the heir apparent to the throne  the first born child of the soverign regardless of sex-like Sweeden.

These "new" Russian succession laws allows for the Heir and/or crowned Soverign to/of the Russian Throne to marry anyone he/she wants with permission of a select group people (who these people are is quite detailed but two are the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of the Russian Church Abroad at the time of the requested engagement).

It is a very good read but took me three hours due to the poor layout of the site.  If you love the Romanovs it is difintely worth the effort.

The new laws and proposed Romanov Family compromise make excellent sense for the mordern world.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 06, 2005, 04:03:44 PM
Care to share the address with us?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on April 07, 2005, 11:09:17 AM
Quote
Care to share the address with us?



I will try and find it.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on April 07, 2005, 11:22:43 AM
Meyer, Klaus J.  “The Quest for a Czar:  The Law and Politic of the Disputed Succession to the Headship of the Imperial Russian Family and The Romanov Agenda 2000 -- A Plan of Reconciliation.”  http://homes.line.ru/royalty/meyer/quest.html (April 12,
1999).

This is the first of the three articles.  I am still looking for the other two.  Please be patient.

TampaBay

Here is another one

http://macedonsky.narod.ru/meyer/quest.html#VIII

TampaBay

I am still lookig for address of the third article.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Krissilas on April 09, 2005, 02:18:05 PM
The rightful heir is none other than HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her son Grand Duke George.His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and all Russia approves of them.They are the only respectable Romanov Family suitable for restoring the Russian Monarchy.All the Books in english,in russian, in french recognise them as the rightful heirs.Those who are informed they know that their claims are well founded.They look and act every bit Imperial,most dignified and respectable,they love Russia and the Russian People and they have devoted their lives for the good of Russia and the Russian People.With Grand Duchess Leonida the mother of Grand Duchess Maria they are such a beautiful and lovely and good family.President Putin with the Patriarch Alexei II should recognise them officially and prepare the way for the restoration of the Russian Monarchy.Russia must reconnect ties with her great Imperial History and gain the respect and admiration from the World.Russia needs a woman Head of State like Catherine the Great and Isee none other than Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.Long live Russia! Long live the Empress of Russia Grand Duchess Maria and her son Grand Duke George,and long live the Empress Mother of Russia Grand Duchess Leonida!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: lovebird on April 11, 2005, 06:09:17 AM
maria in spain is nothing but a  gold digging BITCH
and her son would  not be welcomed in RUSSIA.
HER father grandfather whatever did not help  Nicholas  wife  and children when  needed  help but took troops away; his agenda was to make sure they were all killed.

ROYALTY  is a cover up for criminals and they get away with it , but not in
GOD'S  eyes they will be vindicated.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: rskkiya on April 11, 2005, 08:17:28 AM

???                            ???                       ???
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on April 12, 2005, 04:53:39 AM
If the equal marriage law is taken into account would the Heir not be the Serbian Royal Family or the Kents of England?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Macedonsky on April 12, 2005, 09:04:10 AM
Quote
If the equal marriage law is taken into account would the Heir not be the Serbian Royal Family or the Kents of England?

If the all succession laws are taken into account then the Head of the House would be GDss Maria Vladimirovna.

If you prefer to exclude her as issue of non equal marriage (Bagration) then look amongst Leiningen issue of GDss Maria Kirillovna.

If you prefer to exclude them as issue of non equal marriage (merely mediatized House) then look amongst Prussian issue of GDss Kira Kirillovna. Nobody can say Prussians are not equal  ;)

And only if you prefer to exclude the whole issue of Cyril Vladimirovich (married without approval or something like), then came Greek issue of his sister GDss Helena Vladimirovna.

Look for the order at http://macedonsky.narod.ru/cognates.html
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Krissilas on April 15, 2005, 12:34:12 PM
Grand Duke George is the son of Grand Duchess Maria who was the daughter of Grand Duke Vladimir who was the son of Grand Duke Kyril first cousin of Nicolas II.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 12:39:49 PM
Thankyou for that history lesson. I'm sure we're all a lot smarter now.  ::)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Krissilas on April 15, 2005, 12:48:00 PM
Once and for all:I want the Russian Monarchy restored.The only one among the Romanovs that want the Monarchy restored is Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.Grand Duke Nicolas Romanov does not want the Monarchy restored,so he is out of the question.Grand Duchess Maria is the daughter of the late Grand Duke Vladimir who was recognised by all as the Head of the Imperial Family in exile,and he decreed that his daughter Maria would succed him.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 15, 2005, 01:20:25 PM
Although Grand Duchess Maria is indeed Dyanstic claimant, she has NEVER expressed any interest in the restoration of the monarchy. She has only expressed the desire to have her family return to serve the Russian people- in whatever role the RUSSIAN people choose for them. This has been limited to religous and cultural events. Not to any political involvement. She is pragmatic enough to accept that any restoration of the monarchy in  Russia is unrealistic
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 10:40:12 PM
Quote
Once and for all:I want the Russian Monarchy restored.


And people care what you think because........?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 15, 2005, 11:42:07 PM
Grand Duke Nicolas ? Remind me, please.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Olga on April 16, 2005, 06:02:22 AM
I assume he means Nikolai Romanovich, Rostya.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Georgiy on April 17, 2005, 06:47:42 PM
Quote
after the fall of the communist regime. I was asked what i thought should be done with Ipatiev house, after i asked a few questions i thought it was standing as a monument to murder and said i would chose to tear it down. Six weeks later it was destroyed.


That's interesting. But, the house was actually demolished in the 1970s, by order of Boris Yeltsin, years before the fall of communism...
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 18, 2005, 11:01:21 PM
Nicholas Romanovich is not opposed to the restoration of the monarchy. I believe his opinion is that he supports the Russian public and thinks that democratic traditions must take precedence over any particular form of government. Once these are estabalished, then the Russian people can decide what form of government they want.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: dracona on April 25, 2005, 09:29:23 PM
I'm sure this has been asked before. . . .
  what if the Revolution had never happened, Alex and Nick never had another son, and Alexi died before he could take the throne, could Olga rule on her own? or would the power go to her husband?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 25, 2005, 10:07:26 PM
Quote
I'm sure this has been asked before. . . .
   what if the Revolution had never happened, Alex and Nick never had another son, and Alexi died before he could take the throne, could Olga rule on her own? or would the power go to her husband?


Neither Olga nor her husband (unless she married a dynast in his own right) would have been able to succeed because Russia had a semi-Salic succession law. As of 1917, the order of succession to Nicholas was:

1. HIH The Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolievich
2. HIH Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich
3. HIH Grand Duke Kiril Vladimirovich
4. HIH Prince Vladimir Kirilovich (b. 1917)
5. HIH Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich
6. HIH Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich
7. HIH Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Macedonsky on April 26, 2005, 08:34:57 AM
Quote
As of 1917, the order of succession to Nicholas was:
4. HIH Prince Vladimir Kirilovich (b. 1917)

HH
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on June 17, 2005, 11:32:57 AM
Quote
HH


Mr. Macedonsky,

When did Vladimir become and H.I.H.  ???  Is Grand Duke George and H.I.H. ???

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 18, 2005, 12:07:03 AM
When Vladimir Kyrilovich was born, he was simply one of many great grandsons of Emperor Aleksander II, entitled to the style of Highness and the title of Prince of the Imperial Blood.

After Nicholas II, Aleksei and Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich were executed the following year Vladimir's status changed from Prince of the Imperial Blood to Heir of the Head of the Imperial Russian House. In acknowledgement of this change of stautus,Vladimir's father HIH Grand Duke Kyril Vladimirovich of Russia (de jure Emperor of Russia) granted him the style of Imperial Highness and the title of Grand Duke.

Upon the death of Grand Duke Kyril, Grand Duke Vladimir became the Head of the Imperial House of Russia, a status which was recognised by many if not most of the pre-1917 members of the Imperial Family including GD Boris, GD Andrew, GD Dimitri Pavlovich and other Imperial and Royal Houses.

Grand Duke Vladimir granted the style of Imperial Highness and title of Grand Duchess to his only child Maria Vladimirovna. When it was quite apparent that there would be no more male Romanov children produced from equal marriages as required by the Fundemental Law, Grand Duke Vladimir appointed his daughter the caretaker of the Throne.

HIH GD Maria Vladimirovna of course made an equal marriage with a Hohenzollern prince and has issue, one son, HIH Grand Duke George.

DAP
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: QueenEna1887 on July 26, 2005, 11:23:24 PM
I don't believe for one second that all of Nicholas & Alexandra's children died in the Ipatiev House. Nicholas and Alexandra died their for sure but I don't believe all of their children died. If I could only prove it without others thinking I'm crazy!! I think the rightful heir should be a descendant of Nicholas II through his heir Alexei or through OTMA, but prefably Alexei who was the heir to the Imperial throne!!! Maria Vladimirovna or any other Member of the Romanov family should not be able to claim that throne!!! It should be restricted to them and reserved for only Nicholas II's descendants in which I know there are some out there!! Laugh at me and call me crazy all you want, their is a possibility and there is hope!! I know Nicholas II has a grandson who should be the next TSAR!!! I' am studying all Romanov claimants and hopefully I can find the truth and find out who the real Alexei, Anastasia, and the other Imperial children really are!!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Matjlav on August 08, 2005, 09:27:01 PM
Quote
When Vladimir Kyrilovich was born, he was simply one of many great grandsons of Emperor Aleksander II, entitled to the style of Highness and the title of Prince of the Imperial Blood.

After Nicholas II, Aleksei and Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich were executed the following year Vladimir's status changed from Prince of the Imperial Blood to Heir of the Head of the Imperial Russian House. In acknowledgement of this change of stautus,Vladimir's father HIH Grand Duke Kyril Vladimirovich of Russia (de jure Emperor of Russia) granted him the style of Imperial Highness and the title of Grand Duke.

Upon the death of Grand Duke Kyril, Grand Duke Vladimir became the Head of the Imperial House of Russia, a status which was recognised by many if not most of the pre-1917 members of the Imperial Family including GD Boris, GD Andrew, GD Dimitri Pavlovich and other Imperial and Royal Houses.

Grand Duke Vladimir granted the style of Imperial Highness and title of Grand Duchess to his only child Maria Vladimirovna. When it was quite apparent that there would be no more male Romanov children produced from equal marriages as required by the Fundemental Law, Grand Duke Vladimir appointed his daughter the caretaker of the Throne.

HIH GD Maria Vladimirovna of course made an equal marriage with a Hohenzollern prince and has issue, one son, HIH Grand Duke George.

DAP


Grand Duke Vladimir didn't "appoint" Maria as heiress; she was the rightful heir according to the Fundamental law, which states that in the extinction of the male line, the closest female relative to the last Tsar (in the current case, the last Head of the House) will inherit the throne.

However, you didn't mention that Grand Duke Vladimir's marriage to Her Illustrious Highness Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhransky is considered morganatic by many, which would disqualify Maria from the throne. If one considers Vladimir's marriage morganatic, the rightful heir would be His Serene Highness Fürst Andreas zu Leiningen, the grandson of Maria's aunt. But, no one seems to ever mention him, because most people who consider the marriage morganatic are supporters of Nicholas Romanov. I'm personally a supporter of Maria, because though Vladimir's marriage was blatantly morganatic, he was the Head at the time and he approved the marriage.

Quote

Neither Olga nor her husband (unless she married a dynast in his own right) would have been able to succeed because Russia had a semi-Salic succession law. As of 1917, the order of succession to Nicholas was:

1. HIH The Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolievich
2. HIH Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich
3. HIH Grand Duke Kiril Vladimirovich
4. HIH Prince Vladimir Kirilovich (b. 1917)
5. HIH Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich
6. HIH Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich
7. HIH Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich


Well, Olga could have succeeded, it just wouldn't be very likely. If all the above people died childless before Nicholas II, and Olga was still living, she would succeed as Empress.

However, let's say that Grand Duke Kirill were to ascend. Because the rule is the closest female relative to the last Tsar, not the most senior female relative, Olga would be knocked much further down in the order of succession because there were many female relatives closer to Kirill than Olga.

I will show the succession lists including the "hidden" part during the theoretical reign (in 1917) of Nicholas II.

Nicholas II (or Alexei if you remove #1)

1. HIH The Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolievich
2. HIH Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich
3. HIH Grand Duke Kiril Vladimirovich
4. HIH Prince Vladimir Kirilovich
5. HIH Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich
6. HIH Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich
7. HIH Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich
8. HIH Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna

Kirill (or Vladimir if you remove #1)

(Nicholas II)
(Alexei)
1. HIH Prince Vladimir Kirilovich
2. HIH Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich
3. HIH Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich
4. HIH Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich
5. HIH Grand Duchess Maria Kirillovna
6. HIH Grand Duchess Kira Kirillovna
7. HIH Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna
8. HIH Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna
9. HIH Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna
10. HIH Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna

Notice that Olga drops from 8-10. But what looks more significant is that with no new births, five people are placed in front of Olga on the line of succession!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: David_Pritchard on August 08, 2005, 10:50:30 PM
Quote

However, you didn't mention that Grand Duke Vladimir's marriage to Her Illustrious Highness Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhransky is considered morganatic by many, which would disqualify Maria from the throne. If one considers Vladimir's marriage morganatic, the rightful heir would be His Serene Highness Fürst Andreas zu Leiningen, the grandson of Maria's aunt. But, no one seems to ever mention him, because most people who consider the marriage morganatic are supporters of Nicholas Romanov. I'm personally a supporter of Maria, because though Vladimir's marriage was blatantly morganatic, he was the Head at the time and he approved the marriage.
quote]

What many may say about the marriage of GD Vladimir and GDss Leonida has no bearing on the equality of the marriage as they were not the Head of the Imperial House in 1948. The Fundemental Laws do not specify that the Head of the Imperial House must make an equal marriage while he is the Head of the Imperial House. GD Vladimir became the Head of the House in 1938 and married in 1948.

The present line of succession is:

1. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia
2. Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich of Russia
3. Fürst Andreas zu Leiningen
4. Prince Ferdinand Heinrich zu Leiningen
5. Prince Hermann Ernst zu Leiningen
6. Prince Boris zu Leiningen
(if eqaul marriage is not required then insert the two sons of Prince Boris, Nicholas and Karl, here.)
7. Prince Hermann Fredrick zu Leiningen

David

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Matjlav on August 09, 2005, 10:40:56 AM
Quote

What many may say about the marriage of GD Vladimir and GDss Leonida has no bearing on the equality of the marriage as they were not the Head of the Imperial House in 1948. The Fundemental Laws do not specify that the Head of the Imperial House must make an equal marriage while he is the Head of the Imperial House.


Though a Head of the House can make a morganatic marriage and remain Head, no children from that marriage have rights to succession. Regardless, he did approve the marriage and the Head's word is final. However, one can't help but wonder if he would have made the same decision if he had a group of ministers advising him to do otherwise.

Quote
1. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia
2. Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich of Russia
3. Fürst Andreas zu Leiningen
4. Prince Ferdinand Heinrich zu Leiningen
5. Prince Hermann Ernst zu Leiningen
6. Prince Boris zu Leiningen
(if eqaul marriage is not required then insert the two sons of Prince Boris, Nicholas and Karl, here.)
7. Prince Hermann Fredrick zu Leiningen


Technically, the only person in the line of succession is Grand Duke George. But if you include the rest, then you would include the sons of Prince Karl Boris. When the Throne must be inherited in the female line, any marriages considered morganatic by the former house of the heir are treated morganatically by the succession, and the opposite also applies. If this rule were not true, you wouldn't include Karl Boris in the line at all.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Angwen on August 13, 2005, 12:52:10 PM
1.Do the Russian people want a monarchy?

2.Who is this George?What does he do for a living?Why does he want the throne?

3.In your opinion do you think the various military and political factions would like a monarchy?I say no.

I haven't read all 13 pages yet.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?.
Post by: Matjlav on August 13, 2005, 08:11:16 PM
Quote
1.Do the Russian people want a monarchy?


The majority of them don't.

Quote
2.Who is this George?What does he do for a living?Why does he want the throne?


George is the heir-apparent to Maria Vladimirovna, a claimant to the Russian throne. I don't know what he does for a living. He wants the throne because he believes that he (and his mother) are the rightful heirs.

Quote
3.In your opinion do you think the various military and political factions would like a monarchy?I say no.


No, just like the rest of Russia.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 19, 2007, 01:09:57 AM
This is just my opinion, but anyone descended from the Grand Duke Kyril is no heir to anything as far as I'm concerned. He betrayed Nicholas in support of the Revolution. This automatically disqualifies him, according to the laws of succession. Marie Feodrovna never would recognize him and was outraged at him declaring himself 'Tsar in exile'. It's funny to see how while in exile he showed great remorse for Nicky and his family. I don't recall who said it, but I agree with whoever said, "If the Tsar were alive, they would do their best to kill him again."
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TheAce1918 on May 19, 2007, 05:47:43 PM
"If the Tsar were alive, they would do their best to kill him again."

True.  But the Tsarist form of government hasn't been around in over 70 years.  Many Russians are still trying to acclimate from the Soviet ways of life.
Isn't it also true that if Stalin or the rest of the Soviet government were still around in Moscow, they would do their best to disobey them again, as well?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on June 25, 2007, 03:04:19 PM
I'm sorry to recuperate such an old thread, but, after reading the 21 previous pages and doing some kind of research, I must confess I'm absolutely lost about the situation right now in the order of succession. So, if it's not too much, can anyone give me a biref glimpse of who is the heir now?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 26, 2007, 01:08:05 AM
I'm sorry to recuperate such an old thread, but, after reading the 21 previous pages and doing some kind of research, I must confess I'm absolutely lost about the situation right now in the order of succession. So, if it's not too much, can anyone give me a biref glimpse of who is the heir now?

Thanks in advance.

The issue of the Russian succession is really not one which can be discussed with any brevity. However, I will try to give you a brief sketch:

1. No Heir: there are many who believe the throne died with Nicholas II and that the monarchy is no more, there is no heir, no dynasty, only a Romanov family.

2. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna: many believe that the Fundamental Law in place in 1917 is still in effect for the dynasty and that with the extinction of the male dynastic line in the 1990's, that Vladimir Kirilovich's daughter, Maria (b. 1953) is heir. MV has a son, George Michaelovich, which in the short term, ensures the continuation of the line.

3. Romanov Family Association: according to the RFA, the dynasty is no more, but the family association has an order of succession, and they promote various charitable projects in Russia. The current head of the RFA is Prince Nicholas Romanovich. The majority of the descendants of Nicholas I belong to the RFA.

These three comprise the majority of support for "an heir". However, there is at least one more.

By male primogeniture, the heir of the Romanovs is a gentleman from Connecticut by the name of Tim Ilyinsky. In late 1916, Tim's grandfather, the Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, reportedly participated in the murder of Rasputin. Disgusted by his actions, the Tsar banished his young cousin, thus saving his life during the Revolution which followed mere weeks later.

As all of Dmitri's male cousins were killed off or died, he married in the 1920's and fathered one child, a son, Prince Paul Ilyinsky. A few years before his father's death, the grand duke sent his son to the US and hopefully safety. Paul Ilyinsky lived in the US the rest of his life, until his death a few years ago - he had become the Furst of the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov upon the death of his cousin, Prince Vladimir Kirilovich, in the early 1990's. With Prince Paul's death, his oldest son, Tim (Dmitri), became the Furst and is thus regarded as the best heir.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on June 26, 2007, 02:48:12 AM
Thank you very much, Lisa!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: sydguy71 on July 09, 2007, 06:39:31 AM
Lisa,
Thanks. You have simplified it amazingly well for me to.
Brett
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: umigon on July 09, 2007, 07:14:12 AM
I'm not sure if Vladimir's marriage to Leonida was as "blatantly" morganatic as some state. I know not all the Courts and Royal and Imperial Houses had the same rules whenever it came to deciding whether a marriage was morganatic in Spain or not. But Spanish infanta María de las Mercedes (1911-1953) married Irakly Bagration, Leonida's brother, and the marriage was considered equal.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 12, 2007, 01:20:36 AM
I'm not sure if Vladimir's marriage to Leonida was as "blatantly" morganatic as some state. I know not all the Courts and Royal and Imperial Houses had the same rules whenever it came to deciding whether a marriage was morganatic in Spain or not. But Spanish infanta María de las Mercedes (1911-1953) married Irakly Bagration, Leonida's brother, and the marriage was considered equal.

As pertains to the Romanovs, the ruling of the head of the house (albiet on the subject of his own marriage!) is the only opinion that matters, if one considers the Fundamental Law still valid.

I, for one, do not. The FL was part of the "package" of being a royal in the Imperial House. One was expected to promote the arts, pursue a military career, help the tsar, and marry a member of a ruling house. In exchange for meeting these expectations, the royal received a handsome income, properties, and the prestige associated with being a Romanov dynast.

Since the rest of the "package" is pretty much unavailable, I fail to see why current descendants should be so proscribed in who they should marry today. Almost all must earn their own living, there being no appenage payments any more.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Tsarfan on August 10, 2007, 12:56:06 PM
I find this whole debate about the succession laws to be no more than a mind puzzle useful only for entertainment, with no applicability to the real world.

I took the following quote from the "official" website of Maria Vladimirovna:

"Emperor Paul I, the Son of Peter III, issued the Decree on Succession on 5 April 1797, which determined the order of succession to the Throne as well as membership of the Russian IMPERIAL House. This Decree was amended on 29 March 1820 by Emperor Alexander I who issued a Manifesto, stipulating, “if any person in the Imperial Family enters into a marriage with a person of a status unequal to His, that is, not belonging to any Royal or Ruling House, in such a case the person in the Imperial Family cannot pass on to the other person the rights which belong to Members of the Imperial Family, and the children issuing from such a marriage have no right of succession to the Throne.

"Russian dynastic law, which was based upon the Decree on Succession, belongs to what is known as the Austrian system of succession, which is based on male primogeniture. In Russia, succession passed through the female line only after the extinction of all male branches. Similar to the succession laws governing other monarchies, the articles pertaining to the succession to the Throne (Articles 25-39 of the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire) are inviolable, that is, not susceptible to abolition or modification even by the Sovereign Emperor."  [my emphasis]

So, while stressing that the succession law could not be amended even by a tsar, she points out that Alexander I amended it.

All this hollow fury around the succession laws is no more than playing at dress-up and dollhouses.  It has about as much real application to figuring out how to run a country in the mess Russia is in as a tea party in a doll house has to raising and educating a family.

Lisa is right.  The world in which any of this made even a modicum of sense is long and irretrievably gone.

The succesion law that now matters is the one Putin will write.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: dmitri on August 10, 2007, 08:43:15 PM
Yes I cannot imagine the Romanovs ever coming back into power unless somebody like Putin was responsible. He will no doubt choose his own successor. He is all powerful. 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 11, 2007, 05:01:54 AM
Yes I cannot imagine the Romanovs ever coming back into power unless somebody like Putin was responsible. He will no doubt choose his own successor. He is all powerful. 

Something similar took place in Spain. Franco did choose who was going to replace him. He took away Juan de Barcelona out of the way and put his son Juan Carlos in his place. "Take this or nothing", so to speak, in a quite broad way.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on August 11, 2007, 06:27:44 AM
Yes I cannot imagine the Romanovs ever coming back into power unless somebody like Putin was responsible. He will no doubt choose his own successor. He is all powerful. 

Something similar took place in Spain. Franco did choose who was going to replace him. He took away Juan de Barcelona out of the way and put his son Juan Carlos in his place. "Take this or nothing", so to speak, in a quite broad way.

Well Franco made the right choice for spain as Juan Carlos is an excellent monarch.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Tsarfan on August 11, 2007, 08:31:53 AM
I agree with you that Nicholas II has a grandson, but he cannot be the next Tsar because his mother was not royal. I agree with you that Alexsei survived the Revolution, grew up and got married. But the lady he married was not royal, so their children would find it difficult to claim the throne.

But if their eldest son married a lady of Royal status, of equal status, then their son has the greatest claim to the throne of Russia and should "in theory" be the next Tsar.

When Aleksei died he was "in theory" the Tsar. But you know how it is,  - The Tsar is dead, long live the Tsar -

The new Tsar is Aleksei 's grandson, "in theory".

Proof once again that no topic relating to dynastic matters can be discussed seriously on this forum without some hare-brained survival theory cropping up . . . .  Oh, well.  Play tea parties in dusty little dollhouses.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on August 11, 2007, 08:51:19 AM
I agree with you that Nicholas II has a grandson, but he cannot be the next Tsar because his mother was not royal. I agree with you that Alexsei survived the Revolution, grew up and got married. But the lady he married was not royal, so their children would find it difficult to claim the throne.

But if their eldest son married a lady of Royal status, of equal status, then their son has the greatest claim to the throne of Russia and should "in theory" be the next Tsar.

When Aleksei died he was "in theory" the Tsar. But you know how it is,  - The Tsar is dead, long live the Tsar -

The new Tsar is Aleksei 's grandson, "in theory".




Proof once again that no topic relating to dynastic matters can be discussed seriously on this forum without some hare-brained survival theory cropping up . . . .  Oh, well.  Play tea parties in dusty little dollhouses.


Tsarfan,

Quite true, but  you must admit it does provide a degree of comic releif!  ;D ;D ;D

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: dmitri on August 11, 2007, 10:21:57 AM
Yes how blatantly absurd the poster must have been about a grandchild of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna. It is hard to have a grandchild when all the children are murdered before they have had any children themselves.  As for an heir it is all academic as it is highly doubtful that there will ever be a restoration of the monarchy in Russia. 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 12, 2007, 02:50:40 AM
Yes how blatantly absurd the poster must have been about a grandchild of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna. It is hard to have a grandchild when all the children are murdered before they have had any children themselves.

I fully and absolutely agree with you here, Dmitri.

As for an heir it is all academic as it is highly doubtful that there will ever be a restoration of the monarchy in Russia. 

But it's so funny to go all over the issue over and over... ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 12, 2007, 10:45:13 PM
As amusing as some posters may find it (and anything on which Kurt Steiner and dmitri agree is worthy of note). "ex Princess Lisa" is hereby admonished to not post survivor claims on this thread. There are places on the Forum where this may be discussed - but the Russian History section is not one of them,
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Kurt Steiner on August 18, 2007, 12:21:29 PM
(and anything on which Kurt Steiner and dmitri agree is worthy of note).

Indeed. I see it... (if you allow me a little joke).

Kurt Steiner (walking while surrounded by a deep fog) and Dmitri walking side by side

Kurt Steiner: Dmitri, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Excuse me for this silly moment of madness, I couldn't resist.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 21, 2007, 06:50:38 PM
Levity, any levity is most welcome. At least with me it is. Too many of us (myself included) get our panties in a bunch over trivial matters.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on August 21, 2007, 07:48:29 PM
Levity, any levity is most welcome. At least with me it is. Too many of us (myself included) get our panties in a bunch over trivial matters.

Mine are just fine!

Margarita
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on October 20, 2007, 07:52:00 AM
An aquaintance of mine is frineds with Prince  Michael Andrievich who live in Sydney.Aside from what I have heard from him about the Prince,and that is all complimentary, I cannot find anything else on him apart that he is Xenia's grandson.Can some one please share some info or point me in the right direction?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: dmitri on October 25, 2007, 09:21:57 AM
I must admit I found it entirely curious that Xenia and her husband Alexander's children were not more senior in the succession. After all she was the eldest daughter of Alexander III and he was a Russian Grand Duke and they had so many sons and only one daughter. For the throne to go sideways after Nicholas, Alexis and Michael seemed completely absurd. Nicholas II of course was too weak to do anything basically therefore the completely archaic succession laws established by the Mother hating Paul I stayed in place. I wonder what Alexander III would have done if he had lived and known about Alexis and his incurable illness.   
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 25, 2007, 03:35:25 PM
I must admit I found it entirely curious that Xenia and her husband Alexander's children were not more senior in the succession. After all she was the eldest daughter of Alexander III and he was a Russian Grand Duke and they had so many sons and only one daughter. For the throne to go sideways after Nicholas, Alexis and Michael seemed completely absurd. Nicholas II of course was too weak to do anything basically therefore the completely archaic succession laws established by the Mother hating Paul I stayed in place. I wonder what Alexander III would have done if he had lived and known about Alexis and his incurable illness.   

I don't know that it is entirely fair to heap all of the blame about the succession on the shoulders of Nicholas II.

Nicholas I also had to deal with succession issues, and there was a modest little revolution then, the Decemberist Uprising, as a result. Once he had a family, there were more dynasts to help him in the business of running a large empire, lead by his heir, Alexander Nicholievich. Once  he succeeded his father, Alexander II had uncles and eventually his own sons to help him.

Alexander III had a multitude of family and the succession really did not seem to be an issue, but unlike Nicholas I, he did nothing to train his heir. By the time Nicholas II succeeded the throne, he had a tubercular brother and one too young to help him. He had a multitude of uncles who were often more trouble than they were worth. In short, there was little bench strength for much of his reign.

Add on top of that the dynasty's failure to marry off Michael A. at a suitable age and the next generation's failure to take their duties seriously, and you have succession issues of a great magnitude with a hemopheliac tsesarevich.

Nicholas II did consider alternatives to the Fundamental Law. However, the war and his inherent conservatism delayed effective action until it was too late for him.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: dmitri on October 27, 2007, 07:24:16 PM
A touch rich to blame Alexander III for the multitude of bungles that Nicholas II caused by his sheer incompetence. Nicholas II was responsible not his father. The dead cannot be held accountable for the failings of the living.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 27, 2007, 09:11:07 PM
The succession law stood, Nicholas did not change it. Kyril was the legitmate heir, so be it.  For Xenia to succeed, every legitimate male heir would have to have died! GD  GD Alexander was a bit further up the legitimate succession line, being a male, but still way behind others.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on October 28, 2007, 05:46:20 AM
Better to be a King maker rather than a King?
What does Putin think of all this?
Any inside gossip?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: dmitri on October 29, 2007, 07:11:59 AM
Not much I would think.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 29, 2007, 08:01:29 AM
What does Putin think of all this?
Any inside gossip?

Think of what exactly?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on October 29, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
The Tsarist restoration issue. He seems to be very keen on restoring the Glory of Russia, will he restore the Monarchy?, has he contemplated it?
With 80 percent approval in the Russian polls, he could do just  about anything!!!
ie, Restore a constituitional Monarchy, and become Prime Minister
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 29, 2007, 05:41:02 PM
I would doubt that he would entertain the idea during his present term of office.

Margarita
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: lexi4 on November 30, 2007, 02:28:48 PM
The Tsarist restoration issue. He seems to be very keen on restoring the Glory of Russia, will he restore the Monarchy?, has he contemplated it?
With 80 percent approval in the Russian polls, he could do just  about anything!!!
ie, Restore a constituitional Monarchy, and become Prime Minister

I doubt that he has given restoring the monarchy a sustained thought.
Title: Head of House of Holstein-Gottorp
Post by: miller99 on March 16, 2008, 07:50:26 AM
Of course Dmitri Pavlovich ( born 1954) is a Head of House of Holstein-Gottorp.

Look:

Sovereign families
What follows is a summary of the provisions regarding equal marriages among the 35 dynasties of the German Confederation.  Note that the phrase "equality required" means that legitimate birth from an equal marriage was a necessary condition to be able to succeed to the throne (Successionsfähigkeit).  For the complete texts, see my page on German succession laws...
 Holstein  :
State Constitution -  No
House law  - No


Holstein.
Christian Adolf von Holstein-Sonderburg was obliged to cede his territory of Sonderburg to the king of Denmark to pay off his debts and settled in Franzhagen, in Lauenburg.  His son Ludwig Carl zu Holstein-Franzhagen (1684-1708) married on 20 Dec 1705 Anna [alias Barbara] Dorothea von Winterfeld (1670-1739); they had two children who died both in infancy. [Pütter 229]

Friderich zu Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (1652-92) married in 1692 Anna Christina Bereuter, daughter of a barber of Kiel; he died the same year at the battle of Enghien (3 Aug 1692) without issue. [Pütter 159-60.]

Ernst August zu Augustenburg (1660-1731) married in 1695 Marie Therese (Freyin according to some) von Velbrück, daughter of the Master of the Horse of the Elector Palatine; they had no issue.  He converted to Catholicism and obtained a position as canon in Cologne, but later returned to Protestantism. {Pütter 170]

Ernst Casimir zu Beck (1668-95) married in 1693 Maria Christina, daughter of Wolfgang Ehrenreich Graf von Prösing; she died in March 1696 without issue. [Pütter 177]



Look:
Holstein.
Case Holstein-Plön/Eichelberg (1702).

This case arose in a branch of the Oldenburg family, more precisely among the descendants of Johann (d. 1622), 4th son of king Christian III of Denmark (d. 1559). This line of Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön (see a genealogical table here) split at the next generation into the lines of Sonderburg (itself further splitting into many lines of Franzhagen, Beck, Augustenburg, Wiesenburg), Norburg, Glücksburg, and Plön. The line of Plön itself split at the next generation between Johann-Adolf of Holstein-Plön, August of Holstein-Norburg (or Nordborg), and Joachim Ernst of Holstein-Rethwisch.
August of Holstein-Norburg died in 1699 leaving two sons, Joachim Friedrich (1668-1722) and Christian Carl (1674-1706).  On Feb. 20, 1702 the younger brother Christian Carl married Dorothea Christine von Eichelberg(alias Aichelburg).  Her father Johann Franz had served as captain in an Austrian cavalry regiment, and later as Hofmeister at the court fof Plön.  Later that year, a contract (24 Nov 1702) was concluded between Christian Carl and his elder brother Joachim Friedrich.  The text explained Christian Carl's intention to conserve the house of Norburg and avoid the division of its estates among many children.  It stipulated a 40,000 Thaler lump-sum payment to Christian Carl's widow and suspension of the rights of the issue of that marriage to any of the family fiefs until extinction of the (male) line of Joachim Friedrich.  The king of Denmark approved the contract on 5 Dec 1702 and granted to the issue of that marriage the name of von Carlstein and a specific coat of arms.


Christian Carl died on 23 May 1706 leaving a son (Friedrich Carl von Carlstein, b. posthumously on 4 Aug 1706) and a daughter.  Later the same year, on 4 Nov, the Holstein-Plön line died out and Joachim Friedrich inherited the imperial fief of Plön.  The tutors of young Carlstein, appointed by the king of Denmark, made claims but were rebuffed in 1710 and 1714 in imperial courts.

On 25 Jan 1722 Friedrich Joachim died, leaving only daughters and a pregnant wife who gave birth to a daughter.  The next male-line heir, after Carlstein, was Johann Ernst Ferdinand duke of Holstein-Rethwisch, whose father had entered Spanish service and converted to Catholicism; he immediately claimed the Norburg-Plön succession in Imperial and Danish courts.  But, on Dec. 12, 1722, in exchange for a significant share of the disputed estates, the king of Denmark, Frederik IV (4th cousin of the brothers) declared Carlstein his kinsman and a duke of Holstein, and militarily took possession of Plön on his behalf.  The duke of Holstein-Rethwisch sued, Carlstein counter-sued, and the matter dragged on for years (in part because imperial courts refused to countenance young Carlstein's self-style as "duke of Holstein") until past the death without male heirs of the duke of Holstein-Rethwisch in 1729, whereupon Carlstein inherited Rethwisch as well.  In July 1730, he married Christine Ermegaard Reventlow, niece of Frederik IV's 3d and morganatic wife Anna Sophie Reventlow (they left no male issue).

Finally, On Sep. 11, 1731 the German emperor decided that the marriage should be considered as "ein ordentliches und Fürstliches rechtmäßges Matrimonium," that the son born of that marriage was entitled to the name, rank, and dignity of a duke of Holstein, and to inherit all rights and prerogatives of the Holsteins as princes of the Empire, and in particular in the imperial lands of the Holstein-Plön succession, and to be considered a full agnate of the house of Holstein.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 16, 2008, 09:35:50 PM
While Dmitri Ilyinsky is without doubt Furst of the Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp line, he is nonetheless dynastically ineligible to be part of the Imperial House of Romanov. His grandfather's morganatic marriage created this situation, although his own marriage is also morganatic. I would like to point out that Tim Ilyinsky is to my knowledge not interested in being Tsar of Russia, and Russia is not interested in having the monarchy restored.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: DanlScott on April 18, 2008, 08:55:40 PM
Forgive me for wading in so late - I just recently joined the forum.  But, I've been a Romanovphile since '83, and I've read through some of these posts over the years (but admit I haven't read them all - this thread is soooo long!).  Forgive me if I'm reiterating what others' have said.

I keep reading references to the Fundamental Laws, and arguments that they do not allow the Russian throne to remain vacant; the minute one one tsar dies or steps down, the next in line immediately takes his place (that seemed to be Kyrril's argument).  The Fundamental Laws proscribe who is a member of the imperial family, and their place in the succession.  And I've read the argument that the Laws themselves contain a law stating they couldn't be changed.  But this argument is false, and negatees all other arguments along these lines.  The tsars were autocrats, and even after 1905 Nicholas II was characterized as (and thought of himself as such) an autocrat.  They themselves, if they had the backbone, made the law and could change the law.  Just by virtue of being autocrat.  Did not Paul I change the laws to introduce primogeniture?  Grand Duke Constantine Paulovitch passed up the throne in favor of his younger brother Nicholas I.  There is anecdotal evidence that Alexander II was considering making his children from his second wife (a non-royal) members of the imperial family.  Alexander III changed the laws to determine who was a Grand Duke, and who was a mere prince.  I've even read that the Fundamental Laws did not give the tsar the right to deprive the next in line the right to succession, yet Nicholas II ignored this when he bypassed his son in favor of his brother Michael (who was married to a commoner!).  According to the laws, Michael was then the autocrat.  In 1613 the Muscovites gave the throne to Michael I; three hundred years later, as the new autocrat, his namesake had the right to give it back.  Thus ending the Romanov occupation of said throne.  Even if one argues that the constituent assembly never met and voted on a form of government as Michael expressly wished, the Russian people today have (somewhat) free elections; by largely ignoring the monarchist parties that have sprung up, they have in fact voted on what they want.  The Fundamental Laws no longer exist.

But ultimately, all this is academic.  It's fun to argue, but it is not real.  There was a revolution!  Russia ceased to be a monarchy, there is no dynasty - only a family nameed Romanov.  No more fundamental laws.  No "rightful" heirs.  And no one can decide who is a member and who isn't based on a a so-called un-even match (even the current reigning families don't subscribe to that anymore!).
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperialruss on April 19, 2008, 04:56:50 AM
Greetings,

l reply to this Anglo Saxon/ Celt view f things Russian, l enclose a  pdf file of a full report of the recent tour of HIH GD Maria of Russia, please note the title refered to HIH in letters and on the memorial stone, l dont think the Russian Community wastes money on putting inncorrect names on expensive things. The Governments of Russia came by intially from a war insurrection not by voting, the interim Govrnment was not voted out as you know.

Have a good look at what is in this file has in its conent and see if  a lot of Russian think its all gone, your out of step with a lot of us actually, l feel sorry for millions of Russian whom perished in Gulags under Stalin really called Cobar , what about the men pushed to the front with out even a weapon in their hand by political commissars to straight death, this includes my relatives, its easy to say things on a forum , its a lot harder in real life.

http://russianwelfare.org.au/pdf/imperial.pdf,     in this pdf file you see the Russian Ambassador and first Secretary accepting the Order of St Anna 2nd and third class respectively, what do you say about that, also another Order of the Grand Duchess is accepted in the Military as well in Russia.

http://www.riuo.org/SUCCESSION_ENGLISH.pdf


www.russianimperial.com.au

www.imperialhouse.ru

   www.riuo.org
   
   http://private.peterlink.ru/asorokin

   www.russianball.com.au
www.nobility.ru


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperialruss on April 19, 2008, 07:25:28 AM
http://www.monarhist.ru/club.htm


here is a whole lot of news all at once
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 19, 2008, 04:08:37 PM
Greetings,

l reply to this Anglo Saxon/ Celt view f things Russian, l enclose a  pdf file of a full report of the recent tour of HIH GD Maria of Russia, please note the title refered to HIH in letters and on the memorial stone, l dont think the Russian Community wastes money on putting inncorrect names on expensive things. The Governments of Russia came by intially from a war insurrection not by voting, the interim Govrnment was not voted out as you know.

Have a good look at what is in this file has in its conent and see if  a lot of Russian think its all gone, your out of step with a lot of us actually, l feel sorry for millions of Russian whom perished in Gulags under Stalin really called Cobar , what about the men pushed to the front with out even a weapon in their hand by political commissars to straight death, this includes my relatives, its easy to say things on a forum , its a lot harder in real life.

http://russianwelfare.org.au/pdf/imperial.pdf,     in this pdf file you see the Russian Ambassador and first Secretary accepting the Order of St Anna 2nd and third class respectively, what do you say about that, also another Order of the Grand Duchess is accepted in the Military as well in Russia.

http://www.riuo.org/SUCCESSION_ENGLISH.pdf


www.russianimperial.com.au

www.imperialhouse.ru

   www.riuo.org
   
   http://private.peterlink.ru/asorokin

   www.russianball.com.au
www.nobility.ru




I think you are mistaken to characterize the opinions here as Anglo Saxon Celt. We have posters here from throughout the world, including many Russians and expatriate Russians. The fact of the matter is that many Russians are of the opinion that the monarchy is finished. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of Russians feel this way.

And, as this is a Forum, non Russians have as much a right as anyone to express their views.

Finally, kindly do not assume that your family was the only one to suffer under Stalin, or indeed to suffer at all in the 20th century. On the contrary, many of us have experienced this in our families. Unfortunately, cruelty to others is far too common in our world.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperialruss on April 20, 2008, 01:35:47 AM

Now Lisa,

Dont get  over strung on it, l clearly didnt say that any other opinions were not valid, so you have taken it to heart to much, l didnt say any one else had not suffered either, can you tell me where l said that ?, there is a shift and a slow shift, but it requires education and it to appear in academic books, which has been slow to manifest, if several generations were not made aware via history classes other than vague references to an alternative government the the possibility of other forms eg consitutional monarchy will be slow to gell in peoples minds,

The Socialists say you didnt have socialism in Russia after Trotski --- l cannot remember  his real name as in Stalin all used false names , got booted, their  point is that it got hi jacked to what they call State Capitalism or terror, odious figures like Beria,  wrote  false books used in their education system about Cobar [Stalin]  with invented tripe, lets say if you put the free thinkers, intellectuals in prison-- never to return your social history gets corrupted , we all know they eventually got Trotski in Mexico, so it takes time, what we can say all the OLD SYMBOLISM is there, the Imperial eagle is every where on the police military and other organisations, have you seen the uniforms of the Kremlin Guards, their dress uniforms are so Imperial it couldnt be any more obvious, remember the  Provisional Government of Kerensky had dumped the crown above the eagle  altogether , now its back with avengence , so what could this all lead yo in the future who knows ?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 24, 2008, 06:03:50 PM

Now Lisa,

Dont get  over strung on it, l clearly didnt say that any other opinions were not valid, so you have taken it to heart to much, l didnt say any one else had not suffered either, can you tell me where l said that ?, there is a shift and a slow shift, but it requires education and it to appear in academic books, which has been slow to manifest, if several generations were not made aware via history classes other than vague references to an alternative government the the possibility of other forms eg consitutional monarchy will be slow to gell in peoples minds,

The Socialists say you didnt have socialism in Russia after Trotski --- l cannot remember  his real name as in Stalin all used false names , got booted, their  point is that it got hi jacked to what they call State Capitalism or terror, odious figures like Beria,  wrote  false books used in their education system about Cobar [Stalin]  with invented tripe, lets say if you put the free thinkers, intellectuals in prison-- never to return your social history gets corrupted , we all know they eventually got Trotski in Mexico, so it takes time, what we can say all the OLD SYMBOLISM is there, the Imperial eagle is every where on the police military and other organisations, have you seen the uniforms of the Kremlin Guards, their dress uniforms are so Imperial it couldnt be any more obvious, remember the  Provisional Government of Kerensky had dumped the crown above the eagle  altogether , now its back with avengence , so what could this all lead yo in the future who knows ?

I am not strung on this. We just have a difference of opinion. Trotsky's real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Of course monarchy could come back to Russia, it is just my opinion that it's unlikely.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 24, 2008, 06:50:52 PM
They are, more correctly, the Ceremonial  Presidential Guards. The uniforms are modeled after those during Alexander I reign.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/Markhall/Russia2006215.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/Markhall/Russia2006216.jpg)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperialruss on April 25, 2008, 08:27:40 PM
 Well what can l say, don't the look grand, who wouldn't want them standing outside your front door, this is a vast improvement on those  soviet  ridiculous hats they used to wear , the ones with the pointed peaks , like a one horn on top , what were they called budonaka l think, any way the Soldiers look grand , do you have more photo"s ?.


I am looking for more information on Kerensky in particular his Australian wife and his life in Australia, can any one help ?

Thanks

Stepan
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 04, 2008, 07:50:30 PM
Hullo,
I would just like to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
As far as I can ascertain, the closest living relative of the Tsar is Prince Michael of Russia. He is the 88 year old grandson of Grand Duchess Xenia.
I am not entering in to the debate regarding house rules, just who is the most senior Romanov, and as he is the most senior living descendant, I would say that he is the closest to the throne..
Anyone know that he grew up in Windsor castle and played with the then Princess' Elizabeth and Margaret as kids?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 05, 2008, 01:32:42 AM
Hullo,
I would just like to throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
As far as I can ascertain, the closest living relative of the Tsar is Prince Michael of Russia. He is the 88 year old grandson of Grand Duchess Xenia.
I am not entering in to the debate regarding house rules, just who is the most senior Romanov, and as he is the most senior living descendant, I would say that he is the closest to the throne..
Anyone know that he grew up in Windsor castle and played with the then Princess' Elizabeth and Margaret as kids?


The situatiion with the Windsor cousins wasn't nearly so cozy. Prince Andrew told me he saw Elizabeth on occasion while out playing and she apparently would tell her parents - and he would then be told to stay away from wherever he had encountered her. Not exactly a friendly place for a poor Russian cousin. As far as I know, he did not tend to encounter Margaret, nor do I know if Michael encountered either of them. They did not grow up at Windsor Castle, by the way. Their grandmother had grace and favor homes but never lived in WC.

As to being heir, I don't know anyone who considers Michael Andreivich to be the senior Romanov. If you consider descendants using male primogeniture, then the heir is Prince Dmitri Pavlovich Ilyinsky, one of a handful of great-great-great grandsons of Alexander II. As the family itself reckons it, Prince Nicholas Romanovich is considered the senior male heir. 

Because of the scarcity of male Romanov heirs, the senior male according to the majority of the descendants will eventually be from the Xenia/Sandro line. The Romanovich line will become extinct within this generation.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 05, 2008, 06:35:41 AM
"Because of the scarcity of male Romanov heirs, the senior male according to the majority of the descendants will eventually be from the Xenia/Sandro line. The Romanovich line will become extinct within this generation."

Seeing then that Prince Michael is the eldest son and his sister renounced her right to the throne before  marrying Felix, (i believe), if there were no house rules about male primogeniture and morgonomatic marriages, he would then be "heir". And as for the Andreevich line, I gather his brothers have sons and grandsons?
I believe that they had grace and favour homes at Windsor and then moved to Hampton Court.
:)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 05, 2008, 01:51:29 PM
"Because of the scarcity of male Romanov heirs, the senior male according to the majority of the descendants will eventually be from the Xenia/Sandro line. The Romanovich line will become extinct within this generation."

Seeing then that Prince Michael is the eldest son and his sister renounced her right to the throne before  marrying Felix, (i believe), if there were no house rules about male primogeniture and morgonomatic marriages, he would then be "heir". And as for the Andreevich line, I gather his brothers have sons and grandsons?
I believe that they had grace and favour homes at Windsor and then moved to Hampton Court.
:)

John, I think you have your generations mixed up and you also are not clear about how you are reckoning the whole "heir" business.

Irina Alexandrovna was Xenia's only daughter and she married Prince Felix Yussoupov. Her brothers were Andrei, Feodor, Nikita, Dmitri, Rostislav, and Vasilli. Her oldest brother, Andrei, had two sons, Michael and Andrei (Andrew). Prince Michael Andreivich is who you are referring to, and he is not the senior male in line. This has been explained to you, but I will try again.

"If there were no house rules about male primogeniture and morganatic marriages, he would then be heir". And, how do you reckon that? Every European ruling house (up until recently) has followed some form of male primogeniture. Absent that, they have to have a defined system which clearly identifies the heir. You haven't explained how you have determined that MA is the heir and why those who are identified as heirs are excluded by you.

The last tsar, Nicholas, had no surviving male issue. His predecessor, Alexander III, had only one grandson in the male line, Count George Brasov to survive the Revolution. Even if he was not excluded by being a morganatic  heir, he died without issue. Upon his death, the direct male line from Alexander III became extinct. Alexander III's predecessor, Alexander II, had sons Nicholas (Nixa, who died without issue) Alexander III (male line extinct after death of George Brasov), Vladimir, Alexei, Serge (who died without issue), and Paul. Of the four younger surviving sons: Alexei's only son was murdered by Stalin  and Serge had no issue. Vladimir had three sons, but of these, they had a total of two sons: Andrei's son Vova died with no issue, and Kiril's son Vladimir had no male issue. That leaves Grand Duke Paul, who fathered 2 sons. Of these, Prince Vladimir Paley was murdered by Lenin, and Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich survived and had one son, Paul.

Paul's two sons, Dmitri and Michael, are all that is left of the legitimate male line of Alexander II, and they take precedence over the one surviving male in Alexander II's morganatic line and the 11 remaining male line survivors who are in the line of Nicholas I.

So, if you study the geneology of the Romanovs in the male line, you will quickly see that the future (if there is one) of this line lies with the great grand children of Irina's brother, Rostislav. Of the 13 male line descendants alive at this moment, not one has a son. Of these, 9 seem to have had their children and no boy children have survived. The remaining 4 are all in the line of Prince Rostislav.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 05, 2008, 04:58:13 PM
Thanks Lisa,
I wasn't presuming he was the heir, I was just asking!

He would appear to me to be the closest male relative to the last surviving Tsar and I am working on the theory that all House Rules on Morganomatic Marriages and primogeniture became void and extint at the time of the revolution.
Irrespective, MA has no issue and is 88.
The family does appreciate his closeness to Nicholas, as he has been Vice Chairman of the RF Association for quite some time, but I am led to believe that due to age and no children they have all agreed that his "claim", is not the one the family would ever pursue.
Anyway, thanks for the info, and it's Ilias, John's my dad!
:)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 05, 2008, 06:02:27 PM
Thanks Lisa,
I wasn't presuming he was the heir, I was just asking!

He would appear to me to be the closest male relative to the last surviving Tsar and I am working on the theory that all House Rules on Morganomatic Marriages and primogeniture became void and extint at the time of the revolution.
Irrespective, MA has no issue and is 88.
The family does appreciate his closeness to Nicholas, as he has been Vice Chairman of the RF Association for quite some time, but I am led to believe that due to age and no children they have all agreed that his "claim", is not the one the family would ever pursue.
Anyway, thanks for the info, and it's Ilias, John's my dad!
:)

My mistake, and I realize I messed up your name Ilias, and my apologies to you.

Male primogeniture has only been thrown out the window recently in Europe, so my guess is that you are advocating a subjective system with kindship to Nicholas II as the primary criteria? Morganatic (not morganomatic) marriages do seem passe to me, as well. Plus, my argument has always been, if you don't provide dynasts with income and housing as they received under the Imperial period, why should they have to choose their mates solely out of the Gotha?

I do think, however, you should at least consider respecting the system that the family itself (or rather most of the family, that is) has developed. They (the RFA) look to Prince Nicholas Romanovich as their leader with a system of succession that will eventually go to the descendants of Xenia and Sando.

By the way, the statistics I gave you eariler exclude Nicholas R. I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that, but my point stands. Those who support the dynasty have only George Mikhailovich who thus far has neither married nor fathered sons - and if he does not do both, they will either have to reconcile with the rest of the family or go extinct as so many of the branches of the family has done. Even the RFA faces extinction as it currently exists unless the Rostislav branch gets on the stick and some sons are born. It has been a full 20 years since a son has been born and survived (Prince Cory Christopher Romanov was born in the 1990's but lived only some 3 years).

My point - whomever people think "the heir" is - there is a true shortage of male line Romanovs and unless the family re-establishes itself in Russia, they are very likely to continue their rioad to obscurity.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 05, 2008, 10:43:24 PM
I cant believe I spelt morganatic as morganomatic. Silly boy!
Anyway, I figure that the closest line of decent would be....
Grand Duchess Xenia A, as the only surviving sibling with issue,
then....

1.Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia (July 15, 1895 - 26 February 1970) , unfortunately she waived her rights when she married Felix          thus her children are not eligible,..through to  her brother,

2. Prince Andrei Alexandrovich of Russia (24 January 1897 - 8 May 1981) then his eldest child and only daughter,
 
3. HSH Princess Xenia Andreevna of Russia (1919-2001), I do not believe she ever had children, hence our Sydney sider Prince
4. HH Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia (b. 1920), then on to his brother,
5. HSH Prince Andrew Andreevich of Russia (b. 1923),then on to his son,
6. HH Prince Alexis Andreevich Romanov (born 1957), I do not know if this gentleman has children.

Irrespective of what I think though, it is the Russian peoples decision.


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 06, 2008, 01:39:26 AM
I cant believe I spelt morganatic as morganomatic. Silly boy!
Anyway, I figure that the closest line of decent would be....
Grand Duchess Xenia A, as the only surviving sibling with issue,
then....

1.Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia (July 15, 1895 - 26 February 1970) , unfortunately she waived her rights when she married Felix          thus her children are not eligible,..through to  her brother,

2. Prince Andrei Alexandrovich of Russia (24 January 1897 - 8 May 1981) then his eldest child and only daughter,
 
3. HSH Princess Xenia Andreevna of Russia (1919-2001), I do not believe she ever had children, hence our Sydney sider Prince
4. HH Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia (b. 1920), then on to his brother,
5. HSH Prince Andrew Andreevich of Russia (b. 1923),then on to his son,
6. HH Prince Alexis Andreevich Romanov (born 1957), I do not know if this gentleman has children.

Irrespective of what I think though, it is the Russian peoples decision.




Would you include the Yurievskys? What about Olga Alexandrovna's issue?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 06, 2008, 03:15:12 AM
Without a doubt the Yurievsky issue are in the direct line of succession (irrespective of house rules and marriages).
Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna's family are however, much closer solely because they are direct relatives of  Nicholas II. I understand their immeadiate ancestor was a commoner and hence the two boys were not given royal titles, but for the purposes of my theory of house rules etc, they would be the next in line after Xenia and Sandro's line!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on May 11, 2008, 08:55:29 AM
Are there not several sons in the Prince Dmitri Pavlovich Ilyinsky line?  Are the Ilyinsky Boys considered dynasts????

I know they have no desire or pretense to the non existant Russian throne as they 100% Americanized but are they in the line of succession or did non eqaul marriages give them the "boot" so to speak?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 11, 2008, 09:47:22 PM
Are there not several sons in the Prince Dmitri Pavlovich Ilyinsky line?  Are the Ilyinsky Boys considered dynasts????

I know they have no desire or pretense to the non existant Russian throne as they 100% Americanized but are they in the line of succession or did non eqaul marriages give them the "boot" so to speak?

TampaBay

The late Prince Paul Dmitrivich Ilyinsky was the only child of Grand Duke Dmitri of Russia. He had two sons, Dmitri and Michael, neither of whom has sons and neither of them are considered dynasts by the House of Romanov. Their two sisters each have sons but thus far neither Ilyinsky has addressed the issue of their own succession, so my presumption is their line will pass as outlined below.

However, they are the sole surviving great great grandsons in the legitimate male line from the Tsar Liberator, Alexander II. As such, Dmitri is the heir of line for the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov under house rules for the House of Oldenburg.

The marriage that made them ineligible to be dynasts under the Romanov house rules was Dmitri Pavlovich's to heiress Audrey Emery. He was required to make an equal marriage. These same house rules allowed Dmitri's son and his sons to marry women of good character.

Unless one of them has a son, upon their deaths, the Ilyinsky line will be extinct and the heir of line will likely be in the Mikhailovich line.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 12, 2008, 04:56:14 AM
"HH Prince Alexis Andreevich Romanov (born 1957), I do not know if this gentleman has children."


1.Does he have children?
2.Was it not an Ilyinsky who was a USAF Colonel? A Colonel Paul Ilyinsky I think?

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 12, 2008, 04:20:44 PM
"HH Prince Alexis Andreevich Romanov (born 1957), I do not know if this gentleman has children."


1.Does he have children?
2.Was it not an Ilyinsky who was a USAF Colonel? A Colonel Paul Ilyinsky I think?



This branch is private citizens. As of now, Prince Alexis has not reported having any children.

Ilyinsky was indeed Colonel Ilyinsky, although he was a Marine, not a member of the Air Force.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperialruss on May 24, 2008, 07:54:26 AM
29 февраля 2008 г.Царский Дом Грузии обрел нового Главу

New Head of the Georgian Royal House


http://www.monarhist.ru/news2008/news_2008-02-29.htm
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperialruss on May 24, 2008, 08:00:23 AM
Bagrations'

Concern and Grief of the Repose of the head of the Georgian Royal House by HIH GD Maria of Russia

lots of other current news of the head of the Russian Royal House


http://www.monarhist.ru/club.htm
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 26, 2008, 12:11:47 PM
Thanks for the links and information. It's unfortunate that they are not available in any language but Russian.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on July 27, 2008, 12:43:14 AM
"Ilyinsky was indeed Colonel Ilyinsky, although he was a Marine, not a member of the Air Force."


Oh well, at least he wasnt in the Navy!  LOL


 "I know they have no desire or pretense to the non existant Russian throne as they 100% Americanized but are they in the line of succession"

Have the Ilyinsky's retained their Russianess and Orhtodoxy at all?



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 28, 2008, 02:22:15 AM
"Ilyinsky was indeed Colonel Ilyinsky, although he was a Marine, not a member of the Air Force."


Oh well, at least he wasnt in the Navy!  LOL


 "I know they have no desire or pretense to the non existant Russian throne as they 100% Americanized but are they in the line of succession"

Have the Ilyinsky's retained their Russianess and Orhtodoxy at all?



They are not in the line of succession under the current house laws. I don't know their religion (s) but I believe they are proud of their Russian heritage.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 21, 2008, 04:00:14 AM
For those of you with a facebook account, it is my humble honour to present you with a photo of His Royal Highness Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia with some friends! (lol)


He is the one with the medals!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=822556&op=1&view=all&subj=1150716936&id=635552692
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 21, 2008, 12:45:07 PM
For those of you with a facebook account, it is my humble honour to present you with a photo of His Royal Highness Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia with some friends! (lol)


He is the one with the medals!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=822556&op=1&view=all&subj=1150716936&id=635552692

I could not get the facebook page to come up. But who is HRH Prince Michael Andreivich of Russia? The Imperial House never used the HRH, they were primarily HIH, and the current princes of Russia use HSH. Also, the only Andrei I know is Andrei Andreivich (b 1923), whose sons are Alexis, Peter, and Andrew. He has to my knowledge no son named Michael.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 21, 2008, 04:57:51 PM
 I meant the Prince Michael who lives in Sydney,sorry for the mix up, I will see if I cn post the photo somehow!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 21, 2008, 06:38:41 PM
Hopefully this will work,
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=ee7893c691&view=att&th=11be780973e81f7d&disp=imgs
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 26, 2008, 03:45:56 PM
I meant the Prince Michael who lives in Sydney,sorry for the mix up, I will see if I cn post the photo somehow!

Sorry, cannot see the photo.

Michael Andreivich has never used HRH. It would properly be HSH. Some Romanovs use HIH. The Romanovs were an Imperial, rather than a Royal, house.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on August 27, 2008, 04:58:14 AM

I personally favor the Ilyinskys. They have been asked back twice by the Russian people. Grand Duke Dmitry was asked back after the Revolution and refused. His son Paul Ilyinsky was asked back in the 1990's and refused. Paul has two sons, neither of whom currently has a son, but the Ilyinsky claim is strong for several reasons.

One, Dmitri Pavlovich (b. 1954) is now the senior male heir of the line of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. Second, there are numerous Ilyinskys, not just one. Third, they are the only branch of the family that has maintained excellent relations with all other branches of the family since the Revolution. They have refused to participate in the family squabbles. Fourth, they are well established in America and do not need to be claimants in order to fill otherwise empty lives.

Just my not so humble opinion!


Did not Paul say something rather "cheeky" along the lines of "I am so so sorry but I already have a job to which I have been elected.  I am the Mayor!"  True Class!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 27, 2008, 05:59:36 AM
If they have retained their orthodoxy, they are better claimants than our friends in Spain, solely due to their "closeness" to the throne.
Yes, he was too busy being Mayor, but his comment was probably made due to the fact that the invitation was not from "the Kremlin", just from the city of St.Petersburg, and there were no guarantees!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 27, 2008, 12:26:58 PM

I personally favor the Ilyinskys. They have been asked back twice by the Russian people. Grand Duke Dmitry was asked back after the Revolution and refused. His son Paul Ilyinsky was asked back in the 1990's and refused. Paul has two sons, neither of whom currently has a son, but the Ilyinsky claim is strong for several reasons.

One, Dmitri Pavlovich (b. 1954) is now the senior male heir of the line of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. Second, there are numerous Ilyinskys, not just one. Third, they are the only branch of the family that has maintained excellent relations with all other branches of the family since the Revolution. They have refused to participate in the family squabbles. Fourth, they are well established in America and do not need to be claimants in order to fill otherwise empty lives.

Just my not so humble opinion!


Did not Paul say something rather "cheeky" along the lines of "I am so so sorry but I already have a job to which I have been elected.  I am the Mayor!"  True Class!

TampaBay

Although I never had the pleasure of meeting the late Prince Paul Ilyiinsky in person, I am given to undersrtand he was a consumate gentleman. He kindly received the Russian delegation that wanted him to come to Russia, and he did fulfill his duties for which he was elected.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 27, 2008, 01:55:03 PM
Personally, I do not believe their IS a 'legitimate", as their is nothing to be an heir to.  If by a very long shot, the Russian monarchy were to be restored, the Russian people would decide, who would occupy the throne. Just as they did in 1613. It would not even have to be a Romanov at all.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 27, 2008, 03:53:30 PM
Personally, I do not believe their IS a 'legitimate", as their is nothing to be an heir to.  If by a very long shot, the Russian monarchy were to be restored, the Russian people would decide, who would occupy the throne. Just as they did in 1613. It would not even have to be a Romanov at all.

True enough, but our topic is "Is Grand Duke George the rightful heir?". You are welcome to discuss if there should be a future for a monarchy in Russia on another topic. (Although an occasional comment such as yours is most welcome.)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 27, 2008, 04:08:44 PM
Well, Lisa, I was addressing the  title of this thread- who is the rightful heir.  It mentions nothing about Georgi or Dimitry or anyone else, for that matter.  If forced to say, however,  I would say Georgi is the "legitimate" if not de facto heir. But that is only by the old house rules, certainly not a populist choice.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 27, 2008, 06:20:49 PM
I do not believe in the existence of a legitimate heir to the Romanov Throne.
IMHO however, the closest to the throne are the descendants of Xenia.
Princess Maria Vlad, although a very nice person (who has made tremendous efforts in furthering her sons claim) is more distantly related to Tsar Nicholas than his sisters children and grandchildren.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 27, 2008, 06:41:29 PM
I did say- by the old family laws, that is  Orthodox and equal marriages. There is contention  about these terribly out-dated  rules.  Being closest to the last Emperor does not count, according to the  laws of sucession, as laid out by Paul. Why anyone would pay attention to these antiqauted mandates is beyond me. Yet we are bith on the same page, so to speak, there is nothing to be heir to. No throne, no family fortune. The Romanovs are not even Russian any more.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 27, 2008, 08:39:05 PM
Unfortunately, you are right on most of your points.
There are some Romanov's though who do consider themselves Russian and if anything, they would be the ones to be"closest to the throne".
Some have even aplied for Russian citizenship and passports, but unfortunately their applications have been rejected.
They will however apply again.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 27, 2008, 10:28:00 PM
Anyone with a Russian heritage  may consider themselves "Russian"  I suppose I could, but it would go a long way back! And getting Russian citizenship/passports seems rather arbitrary- residency, marriage and  whims of the ever-changing rules, to be  kind about it. Just being a Romanov would not cut it.  THey have not married  Russian citizens and are , in most cases 2nd or 3rd or even 4th generations of the countries they were born in.  Heritage is one thing,  but it does not qualify for  a passport, in most cases. So, Maria and the others remain citizens and passport holders of the countries they were born in. Why not? We do the same in  most countries.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 28, 2008, 03:28:45 AM
Ofcourse Rob, I was merely stating a fact!
:)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Paul on August 28, 2008, 08:00:07 AM
This may be a stupid idea, but it does occur to me occasionally. We're all speculating here, so why not?

Assume that Russia DID decide to restore the monarchy. Assume that the Powers That Be had had enough of the Romanovs & bypassed that family entirely. Assume that the Powers That Be decided to dust off some family charts, searching farther back for a candidate.

Do any Russian noble families exist that have provable, legitimate, male line descent from the pre-Romanov Rurikiev<sp> dynasty? I know that some noble families descend from the old Lithuanian ruling house, so Russian counterparts are possible.

Any ideas?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 28, 2008, 10:27:09 AM
Yes, Paul, there are Rurikinds  still around, most are actually in Russia as far as I know. And there are descendants of the old boyars from families  far older than the Romanovs.
 I once knew  a grand daughter of the GD Alexander [I think it was him, this  was about 30 years ago] She was interested in her Romanov heritage, as she  was told basically nothing by her family. But not so much in Russia itself. In those days, of course, a restoration of the monarchy was unthinkable but she would not have been interested anyway, no matter how close her family was to the throne.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 28, 2008, 04:24:12 PM
I did say- by the old family laws, that is  Orthodox and equal marriages. There is contention  about these terribly out-dated  rules.  Being closest to the last Emperor does not count, according to the  laws of sucession, as laid out by Paul. Why anyone would pay attention to these antiqauted mandates is beyond me. Yet we are bith on the same page, so to speak, there is nothing to be heir to. No throne, no family fortune. The Romanovs are not even Russian any more.

I actually agree with you that the Fundamental Law is not something that would apply any more.

You are incorrect, however, about the Romanovs "not even being Russian any more". What have you been doing, Robert? Hanging out with Commies? :) Seriously, though, this is an accusation lobbed at the family all the time, and apparently goes unchallenged so much that we now accept this falsehood as fact.

The majority of the descendants of Nicholas I through the male line alive today are descended from the marriage of Xenia Alexandrovna and Alexander Mikhailovich, two Russians. Many of their descendants are considered "morganauts" due to their "unequal marriages" - to Russian expatriate families. For instance, Prince Andrei Andreivich's mother was Russian, and his father obviously was. Princess Marina Vasilovna's mother - also Russian. Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich - Russian mother. I could go on and on, but that would unfortunately disillusion everyone about how "unRussian" the Romanovs are.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 28, 2008, 04:58:14 PM
"Commies" have nothing to do with it, Lisa. It is fact.  There have no Russian Romanovs since Peter the Great.  They are all descended from Germans. And a Danish Empress consort. They have adopted Russian heritage, but that does not make them "Russian" per se. Even Nicholas pretended to be a Slav, he was not. His mother was a Dane, his grandmother a German. He married a German/English  woman. Todays generation would more likely call themselves 'Russian-American" or wherever they were born and raised. If even that.
 That oppressive rule about equal marriage was the cause of foreign wives.  Since Paul,  but even Catherine the Great and Peter III were both Germans.
 My view may be contentious among Romanov fans, but it is a fact and I am not the only one who feels this way.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 28, 2008, 05:57:37 PM
"Commies" have nothing to do with it, Lisa. It is fact.  There have no Russian Romanovs since Peter the Great.  They are all descended from Germans. And a Danish Empress consort. They have adopted Russian heritage, but that does not make them "Russian" per se. Even Nicholas pretended to be a Slav, he was not. His mother was a Dane, his grandmother a German. He married a German/English  woman. Todays generation would more likely call themselves 'Russian-American" or wherever they were born and raised. If even that.
 That oppressive rule about equal marriage was the cause of foreign wives.  Since Paul,  but even Catherine the Great and Peter III were both Germans.
 My view may be contentious among Romanov fans, but it is a fact and I am not the only one who feels this way.

I am scarcely a "fan". I did say that I agreed with you about equal marriages, but I suppose that got lost in the shuffle.

I shall try to refrain from any attempts at humor when addressing you, Robert. The remark about Commies was obviously that. My point, and I think I made it, was that a common criticism of the family was that they were not Russian. If you accept (without DNA proof) that PTG's line died out, you still cannot say that there were no Russian Romanovs after Peter. Peter's initial successors were all (with the exception of his wife Catherine I) his descendants! CTG's husband was also a descendant.

So, Paul's equal marriage requirement did dilute the "Russian-ness" of the family, but since they all lived in Russia, spoke Russian, and were Orthodox, I think to deny the offspring of these marriages their Russian-ness is bigoted at best.

The fact remains that even if the Romanov line was not "Russian" under a narrow definition, the current day descendants I mentioned (and others) would undoubtedly qualify - as their non Romanov parents were clearly Russian, as much as revolutionaries may desire they be otherwise.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 28, 2008, 07:31:35 PM
I am not saying that they may not consider themselves  Russian by heritage, Lisa, just that, genealogically, they are not. Peter IIIs father was German.  If he was indeed Paul's son, that would make him 3/4 German. And up until the end, the line kept diluting.  When Xenia married Sandro,  he had German mother and Grandmother, as did all the grand dukes and duchesses.
 I am not trying to denigrate the Romanovs, the same can be [and has] said about the Windsors. I think the only dynasties that can truely say they are native to their nationalites are indeed the Germans, as, for the most oart, they tended to marry other Germans, of equal birth, of course. Just look at the charts.
 When and if Giorrgi  decides to  marry, I think he will be hard pressed to find a wife "equal" status and Orthodox. That would put and end to the ridiclous Fundamental Laws and everyone may move beyond them.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 28, 2008, 10:34:12 PM
The fundamental law was extinguished on the night of the murders, if not, when Nicky abdicated for himself and for his son.
I do not believe he had the right to abdicate for Alexei, and also he was under duress!
The commies did very well to destroy the dynasty, or else we would not even be having this conversation.
Hence my arguement that those"closest to the throne"out of sheer blood relationship with the last Tsar and or his father are the most eligible for the title of 'head of the House".Princess Maria Vlad, is certainly not this, NOR is her son. And I do not believe there even exists an "orthodox woman of equal status".
The Russianess of the family plays no bearing to this issue as they were Orhtodox and all identified as Russians, just like in the cases of  the King of the Greeks and the Queen of England.
If any restoration does occur, it will be made by the political party in office wanting to restore the Throne as a constituitional Monarchy.
That leaves the decision solely in hte hands of the Duma and men like Putin.They can appoint whomever they like, whether a Romanov or not is up to them.
This individual will have to have heirs and be seen to be politically acceptable to the majority of the Russian people.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 29, 2008, 12:25:13 AM
I will agree with you on some points, Islias of John.  Namely  the Emperor had no right to abdicate for his son, as he did NOT change the laws of succession. It is purely an academic exercises now, as the question has no bearing on current reality.  GD Maria is relying on those old laws, which, personally I find silly. But, legitimately,  her father and grandfather were indeed  the real heirs after Michael. Popularity not with standing.
 And your example of the Greek royal family just illustrates my point[ they are not Greek, they are mainly Danish.  They were imported by the so-called  mafor powers of the time and imposed.  The same is true of the Bulgarians and the Romanians.
  As for  Britain, there is no "Queen of England"  She is Queen of the UK of GB & NI, etc. Narry a mention of England.  But that is being pedantic. Until the late QM, they had no British blood in the line of succession, and now, because of the  Late Diana, Princess of Wales, they barely had any English blood.
 Back to the Russians, however. Yest it would be up to the powers that be in Russia to becide who, and probably the Russian citizens via a referndunm to restore a monarchy at all.  It is purely hypothetcical, as the chance of such are remote at best.
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on August 29, 2008, 07:20:58 AM
That must have been a really good scotch!
:)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 29, 2008, 10:37:16 AM
I do not drink scotch, as a matter-of-fact, can't stand the stuff.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on August 29, 2008, 10:47:06 AM
I agree with all Robert has said. I always think of the manifesto of Michael when he declined the throne and transferred imperial power to the Duma and brought an end to the dynasty and the imperial laws probably forever. It is for the Russian people alone to decide if and who and I am not at all sure they would choose the Vad's anyway. Good luck to George to find a wife of equal marriage and Orthodox - glass slipper comes to mind at this point or of course poison challis.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 29, 2008, 01:32:02 PM
I have said on numerous other posts that the future of the Fundamental Law rests with George and his marriage. If he doesn't marry, or marries unequally, the FL will be rendered moot. If he marries equally and has no children, same thing. The FL will only remain viable to a few if he marries equally and has issue.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on September 07, 2008, 08:55:30 PM
Isn't it about time George got married?  ::) ::) ::)

Is he dating anyone?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Seth Leonard on September 07, 2008, 10:30:02 PM
Isn't it about time George got married?  ::) ::) ::)
Well, his father was thirty-three when he married Maria. George is only twenty-seven.  ;)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 07, 2008, 10:38:43 PM
Isn't it about time George got married?  ::) ::) ::)
Well, his father was thirty-three when he married Maria. George is only twenty-seven.  ;)

I don't know the particulars of his situation, but I would imagine the Kirby monies will not last forever. George thus has to worry about earning a living in addition to possibily contemplating a dynastic marriage, a family of his own, and whatever political career he envisions. If it takes more time than 27 or even 33, I should not wonder.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 07, 2008, 11:34:40 PM
Who really cares?  It is his life and may decide not to marry at all.  It is nobody's business  other than his, after all.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 08, 2008, 06:51:29 PM
Who really cares?  It is his life and may decide not to marry at all.  It is nobody's business other than his, after all.

Well, obviously, many people do or we would not be discussing it. I entirely agree with you when it comes to members of the family who have chosen to live as private citizens. And that would be a majority of the surviving family members today.

However, George and his mother are a different situation all together. As much as you and many others want to dismiss them as irrelevant, they are nonetheless political people and their lives are to an extent, a matter of public interest and discussion. In a nutshell, because he is considered to be a dynast, George and his marriage are fair game, while the marital plans, of say, Vassili's daughter's family, who are all private citizens, are not.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 08, 2008, 07:57:01 PM
A dynast to what, Lisa?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 09, 2008, 01:17:04 AM
A dynast to what, Lisa?

Not to what, but a member of the House of Romanov. Those who consider such things believe Leonida, Maria, and George are the sole members of this dynasty.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on September 09, 2008, 02:09:32 AM
With respect poppycock, as we say here. There are a whole number of reasons why many people do not consider them, Maria et all, to be dynasts above everyone else from the Romanov family. Her parents marriage is a start right back to Cyril and his traitors acts in 1917 perhaps ruling out his entire line. But a more basic fact is that it is a matter for the Russian people who if anyone from the Romanov family ever wears the crown and not for a one branch that is a squabbling family in Spain. Maria can say what she likes but the fundamental laws have not existed since GD Michael ended the throne, imperial power and laws by his signature to the refusal to accept the throne and transferring all powers to the Duma. His act was lawful and he brought the dynasty to and end until the people and the Duma voted on who, how etc. If they vote for Maria or George (who is seen more of a German prince) then so be it and good luck to her, as he has worked very hard over the years for that to happen but they might vote for someone else entirely. Maria cannot force her will on Russia and I do not think the Russians would accept it for one second. Whilst I would like to see the throne restored I believe GD Micheal's of wish of 1917 is paramount as is that of the Russian people rather than having laws that went out of use in 1917 and Maria shoved down their necks and no choice in the matter.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: StevenL on September 09, 2008, 06:38:52 AM
A dynast to what, Lisa?

One is not a dynast "to" anything. A dynast is a member of of current or formerly reigning family
who, by the traditions of the dynasty, would not be barred from succession should their turn come
either through moving up in the royal succession or through restoration of the former monarchy.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 09, 2008, 07:14:20 AM
My turn to throw my 2 cents in! :)
There is no rightful heir....,period.
Princess Maria is only accepted by a small part of Russian Royalists, and an even smaller percentage of the Russian people.
The decision if any, will be made by the powerful ones in Moscow, ala Putin et all.
Members of the church aknoweledge Maria solely for the fact that she is the only one who seems to want the job,let alone retained her Russianess and Orthodoxy, unlike her Americanized relatives.
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: StevenL on September 09, 2008, 09:20:47 AM
My turn to throw my 2 cents in! :)   There is no rightful heir....,period.

I tend to agree that "rightful heir" is a very poor term. By what right?

That's why I like the term dynast, which is connected more to the rights and privileges
associated with tradition or the former monarchy. As a term, it does not necessarily imply
rights that any country or government is bound to today.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on September 09, 2008, 11:25:44 AM
Don't get me wrong, Lisa. Actually I believe Maria and George are the legitimate "heir" if there something to be heir to. But I can go along with dynast as well.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 10, 2008, 08:03:45 PM
Don't get me wrong, Lisa. Actually I believe Maria and George are the legitimate "heir" if there something to be heir to. But I can go along with dynast as well.

Me, too. And like you (I believe) I am a citizen of a democracy. Dynast is a more neutral term. And, one the Romanovs themselves can almost agree on. Members of the RFA believe there are no more dynasts, while Maria V and her supporters tend to believe there are only the three dynasts.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 13, 2008, 06:09:18 PM
Last Saturday 6th of September 2008 Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia suffered a heart attack at his home in Sydney Australia.
As a result of the fall the 89 year old suffered two broken ribs and has been admitted to St. Vincents Hospital.
Due to his advanced age and prior kidney problems,and the development of pneumonia, Fr.Michael Protopov administered Holy Communion and heard his confession on Wednesday.
His sister and cousins have been informed, as has Patriarch Alexi and the Russian goverment.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 14, 2008, 01:22:58 AM
Last Saturday 6th of September 2008 Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia suffered a heart attack at his home in Sydney Australia.
As a result of the fall the 89 year old suffered two broken ribs and has been admitted to St. Vincents Hospital.
Due to his advanced age and prior kidney problems,and the development of pneumonia, Fr.Michael Protopov administered Holy Communion and heard his confession on Wednesday.
His sister and cousins have been informed, as has Patriarch Alexi and the Russian goverment.



How sad. Thank you for letting us know.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on September 14, 2008, 03:57:57 AM
How dreadful. I hope he recovers.


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 17, 2008, 02:22:13 AM
At 1330 hours this afternon,(17th September 2008) HRH Prince Michael of Russia was moved in to a paliative care unit of a private hospital in Sydney.
Please pray for him.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: V_Corona on September 18, 2008, 03:28:36 PM
Thank you for the information Ilias of John, I hope you keep us informed, We hope that the prince Michael will recover soon
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 19, 2008, 01:07:40 AM
At 1330 hours this afternon,(17th September 2008) HRH Prince Michael of Russia was moved in to a paliative care unit of a private hospital in Sydney.
Please pray for him.

Ilias - does this mean as we use in the US the term "hospice care" - in that the illness cannot be reversed and recovery not possible, but keeping him comfortable?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 19, 2008, 04:36:26 AM
Yes Lisa, I'm afraid it does.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Macedonsky on September 20, 2008, 05:07:46 AM
HRH Prince Michael of Russia
You mean eldest son of HH Prince Andrew? Interesting to note that his syle (HRH) is higher than that of his father despite his morganality.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 20, 2008, 06:07:24 AM
No, that's my fault, I address him as HRH so I am used to calling him that.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 21, 2008, 08:05:20 AM
Under current circumstances, as I sit here and ponder, I would like to share some anecdotes with you.
Prince Michael was only recently asked about Prince Felix Yusupov, and the murder of Rasputin, and if his uncle ever mentioned the events of that fateful night?
His reply remains a classic

"my boy, thats ALL he EVER talked about".
others,
Getting caught smoking behind the haystack at Windsor Castle by Uncle George. Uncle George just happened to be George V.

Deciding to stay in Australia after WW2 and sleeping rough a couple of nights on a park bench.

Not telling his friends his true identity, and one day walking in to a pub where his buddies where and a documentary coming on pay tv talking about his family. Apparently his best friend turned around to him and said,  "Mick, you haven't been telling us the whole truth, have you?"

I only spoke to him last week on the phone, and although unwell, he was coherent and able to communicate.
Tonight however the news is grim, and his wife Princess Gulia was called in the early hours of the morning to attend him immeadiately.
88 is a good innings!


Ilias

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on September 21, 2008, 10:13:16 PM
What does 88 is a good innings mean?

I'm sorry, Ilias, this must be difficult for you. You can be glad to know him. Is his brother Andrei coming to see him?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on September 22, 2008, 04:19:56 AM
It means Lisa that 88 is a good age.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 22, 2008, 04:46:22 AM
To all our friends.


It is my unfortunate honour to inform you that HH Prince Michael Andreevich of Russia passed away this mornig at 0205hrs Australian Eastern Standard time.
He was the grand nephew of a Tsar, great grandson of another.
May God rest his soul, and give him the peace that he craved and deserved.
Funeral arrangements are being made as we speak, to be conducted on Monday the 29th of September 2008.
By order of his family, all are invited to attend.
He was a true gentleman.


Ilias
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on September 22, 2008, 06:24:08 AM
I am so terribly sorry to hear this sad news.

May he now be with his family and in God's care.

Michael
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on September 22, 2008, 03:43:46 PM
ACM Home


HH Prince Michael Andreevich Romanov 
Written by Professor David Flint AM     
Monday, 22 September 2008 


[ Sotirios Mourtzas, the President of the Pan Maniot Union of Australia, Lou Bougias, Nick Triantafillou, HH Prince Michael of Russia - Royal Protector and Sovereign Grand Prior of the Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of Saint John of Jerusalem , Peter Stefanidis and George Bougias at an Investiture Dinner in Melbourne, 2008. ]

 

HH Prince Michael Andreevich Romanov of Russia, who lived in Sydney, passed away on Sunday, 21 September, 2008.

Prince Michael served in the Royal Navy in the Second World War, including a period in Australia with the Fleet Air Arm.

On the conclusion of the war he settled permanently in Australia and became an aviation engineer. A member of the Russian Imperial Family, and Vice President of the Romanov Family Association, Prince Michael was born on the 15th of July, 1920 in Versailles.

The second child and eldest son of Prince Andrei Alexandrovich of Russia and Donna Elisabetha Ruffo, he was the  grandson of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich and Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna of Russia and a great nephew of Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia.

Prince Michael lived with his parents and his grandmother Grand Duchess Xenia in exile at Frogmore Cottage on the grounds of Windsor Castle and later at Wilderness House.




....Russia finally reconciled......




He was the Royal protector and Sovereign Grand Prior of the Orthodox Order of Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem, formerly under the protection of his father Prince Andrei and uncle Prince Vasili.

Earlier this year, Prince Michael presided at the Investiture of new Knights and Dames into the Order. The picture above was taken at the dinner following the Investiture.

On 28 September 2006, in scenes recalling the splendour of Imperial Russia, Prince Michael was an honoured guest at the interment of the Danish born mother of the last Tsar of Russia, Her Imperial Majesty, The Tsaritsa Maria Feodorovna, in the sombre Fortress of St. Peter and St. Paul in the  great imperial city of Peter the Great, St. Petersburg.

This was in many ways a final reconciliation of Russia to the terrible wrongs visited upon the Romanov Family and the Russian people for the evils of Boshevism. Their promise of paradise on earth had, as Fyodor Dostoevsky long ago predicted, resulted in a time of madness.

And it was a madness portrayed not as the monstrosity it was, but as something beautiful.

The Prince would have been deeply moved  when , just as they did when  she had first come to Russia as a young Princess,  cannon from the Fortress boomed out in a solemn imperial salute in honour of the Empress as she made her final journey home to her beloved Russia.






...tributes pour in.....




 Prince Michael was a dignified and reserved man, with a strong sense of duty, as evidenced by his enlistment in the Royal Navy.

Tributes are pouring in from those who are mourning a great man.

He will be greatly missed.

Mr Bryan Stertern-Gill, the Deputy Bailiff Prior of the OOSJ, Chairman of the Australian Monarchist League (Victoria) and ACM supporter, said:

"HH Prince Michael will be very, very sadly missed. He was our Royal Protector and Sovereign Grand Prior, a committed Orthodox Christian and Constitutional Monarchist. He was a person of great strength, support and love.

" Personally, he was like a mentor to me and a very close and personal family friend. Every time he visited Melbourne he stayed with us and we considered him part of our family. His loss will be greatly felt by all who knew him." 

George Bougias ,OOSJ, International Convenor of ACM and member of the AML  said:

 "HH Prince Michael was one of those rare individuals that reminded us it is possible – and indeed necessary – to live the great ideals in the modern age.

"He was a man of deep faith, tradition and honour but also gracious and joyful. He was always willing to spend time with people and help those in need. His love for both Australia and Russia was immense.

"I consider myself extremely fortunate to have known him and will miss him greatly. OOSJ members and all Monarchists will always remember him, through both our prayers and actions."

The Prince is survived by his widow, Princess Michael, to whom we offer our most sincere sympathy.

It is anticipated, subject to confirmation,  that the funeral will be held at 430pm on Monday, 29 September, 2008 at St. Vladimir's Russian Orthodox Church,  31 Robertson Road Centennial Park NSW 2121 Russian Orthodox Church. 

 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on October 31, 2008, 12:31:27 PM
For sake of argument and discussion purpose let's all agree/assume that GD George is the rightful heir.  If George does not marry and produce an heir, who would be the heir under the "Old Laws".  It is my understanding Maria and George stake their claim to the nonexistent Russian throne on the "Old Laws"

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on October 31, 2008, 01:24:46 PM
Sorry I cannot agree with you as teh Vlad's fail on a number of points in many peoples view
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on October 31, 2008, 01:57:41 PM
Sorry I cannot agree with you as teh Vlad's fail on a number of points in many peoples view


I understand and agree with you that there are problems with GD George being the rightful heir but I was asking a hypothetical questions for discussion purposes only.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 31, 2008, 02:17:38 PM
Whether or not people agree with the legitimists views,  it is the only "legal" option under the so-called "Old Laws". Also, there are no other so-called claims to the "throne", Head of the house is another matter, but basically, that has nothing to do with the Romanov succession.
 TB, as I understand it,  George must marry "equally" and produce an  heir, according to those old laws you mention. {the Fundamental Laws}.
 If that does not happen, IMO the legitimist line is therefore extinct. I am only going by the pragmatic, strictly leagl view, no emotions, no romanticism.
 Lisa probably knows more about this than I, and my usual  source on Imperial Law is unavailable at this time.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 31, 2008, 02:30:21 PM
For sake of argument and discussion purpose let's all agree/assume that GD George is the rightful heir.  If George does not marry and produce an heir, who would be the heir under the "Old Laws".  It is my understanding Maria and George stake their claim to the nonexistent Russian throne on the "Old Laws"

TampaBay

Arguably, the dynasty continues even though it is no longer connected with the headship of state of Russia. Upon the death of the last dynast, Grand Duke Vladmir Kirilovich, in 1992, the heir should have been the closest female dynast to the last tsar. At that point, it becomes complicated (or should I say more complicated?).

If the last tsar was Nicholas II, then the closest female dynast was his sister Xenia, who was by then also deceased. Her male heir of line was Prince Michael Andreivich, because he was the eldest son of her eldest son, and after his recent death, her heir of line is now Prince Andrei Andreivich of Inverness, CA, USA. The problem with this line with some Russian monarchists is that both MA and AA did not contract dynastic marriages.

However, Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich married into one of the oldest princely families, the Galitzines. So, many consider his surviving sons to be the most logical heirs.

If the last tsar was Grand Duke Vladimir (dynasties out of power traditionally do not formally assume titles beyond that of the heir), then the closest female dynast was his daughter, Maria, and her male heir of line is Grand Duke George Mikhailovich.

Should his line fail, the closest female dynast would be Grand Duchess Maria Kirilovna, who is also deceased, but has qualified heirs.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 31, 2008, 02:50:17 PM
Thanks, Lisa, I had forgotten about Maria K.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on November 01, 2008, 03:21:28 AM
The Vlad's? I wold rather marinate my toe nails and have a salad with them
 :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 01, 2008, 05:53:35 AM
From wiki,


"During the February Revolution of 1917, upon the abdication of the tsar, Cyril came with his regiment to swear allegiance to the provisional government, wearing a red revolutionary band on his uniform.[6][1] This caused grave offence in the Imperial Family and led to many members shunning him as legitimate heir to the Throne."

Solely for this reason, irrespective that Princess Maria is a very nice person,the true claimants are the decendants of GD Xenia.




Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 01, 2008, 07:16:07 AM
From wiki,


"During the February Revolution of 1917, upon the abdication of the tsar, Cyril came with his regiment to swear allegiance to the provisional government, wearing a red revolutionary band on his uniform.[6][1] This caused grave offence in the Imperial Family and led to many members shunning him as legitimate heir to the Throne."

Solely for this reason, irrespective that Princess Maria is a very nice person,the true claimants are the decendants of GD Xenia.



I know Irina did not marry equally.  How many of Xenia's sons married equally or made approved dynastic matches?

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 01, 2008, 02:22:35 PM
None.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 01, 2008, 06:55:16 PM
Then under the "old Laws" none of Xenia's are eligible for the succession if there still was a succession, correct?

It is staring to look like the King of Greece may be Tsar under the "Old Laws"!  LOL! LOL!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 01, 2008, 07:03:24 PM
A great many people take their claim very seriously indeed.  Maria Vladimirovna is recognized by the Patriarch as the "Head of the Former Imperial Family" and both Yeltsin and Putin have recieved and acknowledged her.

There are several reasons that people object to her claim;

1. The fact that her great-Grandmother Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna the Elder was a Lutheran at the time of her son Kirill's birth. The heir to the throne must, by law, be born of an Orthodox mother.  Maria Pavlovna converted to Othodoxy late, just so that her son would be eligible to take the Throne. It has been written that Nicholas and the Dowager Empress were clear that Kirill was not eligible for the throne.  After the assassination, the Dowager Empress refused to recognize Kirill's claim for this reason.

2. That Kirill married his first cousin, Victoria Melita, an act prohibited by the Orthodox Church. This is moot, because as Head of the Church, Nicholas II recognized this marriage, so it should be ignored.

3. That Maria's father Grand Duke Vladimir contracted a marriage of unequal birth with Princess Leonida Bagration-Moukhranskaya, a member of the formal Royal family of Georgia.  Before the revolution, a marriage contracted with a Bagration would have been considered morganatic because of the absorbtion of Georgia into the Russian Empire.  After the revolution, however, the Royal Family of Georgia has the same status as any deposed royal family: France, Russia, etc.
Also, if you believe that GD Vladimir was heir to "all Imperial Rights and Privileges" than if he says that a Bagration is of Royal status, than a Bagration IS of Royal status.

4. That Georgii Mikhailovitch is a Hohenzollern, and not a Romanov.  Georgii's father, a Royal Prince of the House of Prussia, converted to Russian Orthodoxy and took the name of Mikhail.  He was accepted into the House of Romanov, and signed papers renouncing his and his son's rights to Hohenzollern names, titles, and privileges.  You have to ignore that one too.

That's the basic rundown.  What it really comes down to is that if you adhere strictly to the rules as they existed before the revolution, there is not one living Romanov descendant who has a faultless claim to the throne.  The oldest living Male in the senior branch of the family is Prince Nicholas Romanov, who only has daughters.  In terms of the most royal blood, it is without doubt Maria Vladimirovna, who is related to the British Royal family, the House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Royal House of Georgia, and the Russian Imperial House.

So, in summation, its really up for grabs.  If you really want someone on the throne of Russia, my money's on Maria-she's the only member of the family who wants it, and she has worked very hard indeed to establish herself as "Curatrix of the Throne."  You have to admire her sense of duty, if not her extreme laquered hairdo.

Best,

Nick

Found this qoute on another thread.  Thought it very interesting.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 01, 2008, 10:23:46 PM
Because of the extinction of the actual Ruling Family, in circumstances that were never envisioned by the creators of the old house laws, the door is wide open for any and all claimants.
However, as I have said before, those closest in blood to the last Tsar and Alexei, are, in my opinion, the closest and most authoritive claimants.
The late Prince Michael Aandreevich and I both discussed this issue at some length,and although HH Prince Michael was very diplomatic in his responses and comments,I can assure you that most Royal Families in Europe and beyond,and all senior Romanov's today,believe that Princess Maria's claims are inappropriate and almost comical.
However, alot of the senior Romanov's don' want the job, some are not even Russian speakers, and God forbid, some are not even Orthodox.
A shame really.
So, I do reiiterate, the door is wide open,but we do need to remember that it is up to the Russian people and their politicians.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 01, 2008, 11:05:37 PM
Yes, IF a monarchy were to ever be restored, is need not necessarily be Romanov.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 02, 2008, 05:41:02 AM

So, I do reiterate, the door is wide open, but we do need to remember that it is up to the Russian people and their politicians.


I find the above part of your post very interesting because it is identical to the position that Impress Marie took and also to some degree that of the Romanov Family Association from what I have read.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 02, 2008, 09:30:51 AM
Not exactly, TB. The Dowager Empress maitained until her death that NII was still alive.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 02, 2008, 02:31:18 PM
Not exactly, TB. The Dowager Empress maintained until her death that NII was still alive.

Who basically said ( and I am paraphrasing), The Russian people have a right to choose who they want as a monarch and if the want a Romanov they have a right to choose any Romanov they want"?  I read where someone said this, or a slightly different variation, and it was said before WWII.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 02, 2008, 10:12:21 PM
From wiki,


"During the February Revolution of 1917, upon the abdication of the tsar, Cyril came with his regiment to swear allegiance to the provisional government, wearing a red revolutionary band on his uniform.[6][1] This caused grave offence in the Imperial Family and led to many members shunning him as legitimate heir to the Throne."

Solely for this reason, irrespective that Princess Maria is a very nice person,the true claimants are the decendants of GD Xenia.



I know Irina did not marry equally.  How many of Xenia's sons married equally or made approved dynastic matches?

TampaBay

None. Andrei married an Italian/Russian widow of the nobility while they were still in the Crimea. Next son Feodor married his cousin Irene Paley (daughter of GD Paul) in 1923,  Niikita married Princess Maria Vorontsov-Dashkov in 1922, and their brother Dmitri also married a Russian noblewoman. All of the foregoing princes and Irena lived their lives in Europe. In contrast, Prince Rostislav and his youngest brother Vasili made their way to the United States. However, just like their brothers, they married Russian noblewomen , many of them daughters of the friends of their parents. Rostislav married Princess Alexandra Galitzine, while Vasili married Princess Marina Galitzine.

Junior branch dynasts were not required to marry equally under the Fundamental Law. However, due to the decimation of the family during the Revolution, many think they needed to in order to have their children be included in the succession.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on November 03, 2008, 01:58:20 PM
Yes, Lisa.  Exactly.  That is why Nicholas of the RFA asserts his own claim, though he doesn't press it.  Nicholas' father as a russian prince of the imperial blood was not required to marry with the emperor's permission.  As his parents were not required by house law to contract a marriage of equal birth, his own union does not need to be with someone of equal birth.  (Though it should be acknowleged that as his mother was a Cheremeteff, his is still a member of the highest Russian nobility, and his wife is a Della Gherardesca, a member of a Florentine noble family far older than either the Romanovs or the Cheremeteffs.  In fact, some would say Nicholas married up!

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 03, 2008, 03:44:29 PM
Yes, Lisa.  Exactly.  That is why Nicholas of the RFA asserts his own claim, though he doesn't press it.  Nicholas' father as a russian prince of the imperial blood was not required to marry with the emperor's permission.  As his parents were not required by house law to contract a marriage of equal birth, his own union does not need to be with someone of equal birth.  (Though it should be acknowleged that as his mother was a Cheremeteff, his is still a member of the highest Russian nobility, and his wife is a Della Gherardesca, a member of a Florentine noble family far older than either the Romanovs or the Cheremeteffs.  In fact, some would say Nicholas married up!


Thank you, Nick! Yes, many of the families that the Mikhailovichi married into are actually older and arguably more distinguished than the Romanovs. And, the Mikhailovichi can also claim to be more Russian than the pre-Revolutionary grand dukes! Prince Andrei points out his paternal grandparents were both Romanovs, and his mother was also Russian, and his first wife was Russian.

My own argument about the equal marriage requirement is that it was something that included a provision for government supported income - something that obviously is not available to the present day family members.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on November 03, 2008, 06:44:53 PM
Lisa, I would pleasantly argue that the equal birth was a requirement for membership in the Imperial family and status of dynast, from which an imperial stipend would come.  Also, the monies paid came from the private purses of the Imperial family, not from the russian civil government.  Unlike Britain, where the Royal family are paid from the "Privy Purse" which includes tax monies, the members of the Imperial family were supported by the Tsar.   Tax monies went to support civil programs, like the salaries for the duma, etc.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 04, 2008, 03:36:19 AM
Nick, nice of you to join us.
Remember that unlike the British Royal Family, the Imperial Family of Russia owned most of Russia, hence not requiring subsidies from the Privy Purse, they owned the Privy purse!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 04, 2008, 12:46:04 PM
Nick, nice of you to join us.
Remember that unlike the British Royal Family, the Imperial Family of Russia owned most of Russia, hence not requiring subsidies from the Privy Purse, they owned the Privy purse!

It all gets rather muddy. That was my understanding from Prince Andrei.

At any rate, housing and money were provided to dynasts who toed the line under the old system.

None now. And, personally, I would far rather see a system where dynasts are admonished to marry persons of good character than simply because of someone's ancestors. Some of the "equals" were of good character, some were not.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 04, 2008, 01:48:40 PM
I never thought about until now but it does seem that Vladimir kinda sorta married equally as both he and his wife were both from deposed royal houses.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 05, 2008, 05:02:38 AM
yeah and.........?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on November 05, 2008, 07:24:24 AM

I had always been interested the the Vladimir marriage and the concern that Princess Leonida Bagration-Moukhranskaya was not from a ruling house. Then it hit me like a bolt of thunder that Vladimir himself was no longer of a ruling house.  Before the 1917 the marriage may be viewed as "Unequal" but after 1917 it seems very "Equal" to me.  Dethroned royalty marrying dethrone royalty.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: imperial angel on November 05, 2008, 01:06:01 PM
I've always thought that too. They were both royalty once. It wasn't like he was marrying nobility. I'd agree a system where marrying just because of ancestry isn't as good as marrying someone for their character- good point.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on November 23, 2008, 11:29:23 PM
I have read every argument, and have spoken to so many experts, it seems to me that the only thing on which Maria Vladimirovna's claim hinges is the interpretation of the law that the Tsar must have an Orthodox mother.  In Russian (and English) it is unclear if the heir to the throne must be born of an Orthodox, or if the heir's mother must be Orthodox at the time of the ascension.  I can't find a single instance where a Tsar was born of a non-convert. 

If the law adheres to the former, Kirill, Vladimir, and Maria are out (and Nicholas and Maria Feodorovna's opinion would make sense here).  If the latter, there is no question.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on November 27, 2008, 08:38:34 AM

I've always been less bothered about the Orthodox arguements than any others. Prior to 1917 all of Grand Duke Kyril's family were regarded as Dynasts despite the late conversion of Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna - the fact that the all bore the appropriate styles and titles and that Kyril was certainly regarded as a dynast when he married Victoria Melita suggests that although Marie Pavlovna hadn't converted at that point it wasn't regarded as being an impediment to her children's rights whatever the Pauline Laws might have said. The marriage of Prince/Grand Duke Vladimir is different and whatever has been written and argued about since there is little doubt that the marriage wouldn't have been regarded as equal before 1917.  A deposed dynasty converted into Russian Prince's was not the same as a member of the House of Holstein Gottorp Romanov - their rights might have been guaranteed by treaty but they do not seem to have enjoyed the same semi imperial status enjoyed by the Leuchtenbergs or the Oldenburgs. The Bagrations don't appear to have enjoyed any special status anymore than the princely houses who were descended from the Rurikid rulers of the varying Russian states prior to the unification of Russia.
Kyril and Vladimir were in my view undoubtedly the next two in line following the revolution - however Kyril and Vladimir's insistance on maintaining the family rules (as de facto Emperors - they could have done what other deposed Royal Houses have done and ammended their own house rules with the agreements of other senior family members - the Fundamental Laws were effectively dead - with the revolution - on an anticipated restoration new laws could enacted) put Vladimir in the position of defending his marriage whilst denigrating the marriages of his relations (many of whom had married into the Russian aristocracy) - had he had a son it might not have been such a problem for him. But his continuing insistance that his marriage was equal and secondly that with the deaths of his cousins he was the last male dynast split the family and left them where they are today. Given that any modern restoration would almost certainly do what the surviving European monarchies have done and see an ammendment to the rules regarding female succession etc then you could make arguements that the nearest relatives of the last reigning Czar (the descendants of Xenia Alexandrovna) would have the greater claim, or that Maria Vladimirovna being the senior surviving male line descendant has the greatest rights.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on November 29, 2008, 02:35:52 PM

I've always been less bothered about the Orthodox arguements than any others. Prior to 1917 all of Grand Duke Kyril's family were regarded as Dynasts despite the late conversion of Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna - the fact that the all bore the appropriate styles and titles and that Kyril was certainly regarded as a dynast when he married Victoria Melita suggests that although Marie Pavlovna hadn't converted at that point it wasn't regarded as being an impediment to her children's rights whatever the Pauline Laws might have said. The marriage of Prince/Grand Duke Vladimir is different and whatever has been written and argued about since there is little doubt that the marriage wouldn't have been regarded as equal before 1917.  A deposed dynasty converted into Russian Prince's was not the same as a member of the House of Holstein Gottorp Romanov - their rights might have been guaranteed by treaty but they do not seem to have enjoyed the same semi imperial status enjoyed by the Leuchtenbergs or the Oldenburgs. The Bagrations don't appear to have enjoyed any special status anymore than the princely houses who were descended from the Rurikid rulers of the varying Russian states prior to the unification of Russia.
Kyril and Vladimir were in my view undoubtedly the next two in line following the revolution - however Kyril and Vladimir's insistance on maintaining the family rules (as de facto Emperors - they could have done what other deposed Royal Houses have done and ammended their own house rules with the agreements of other senior family members - the Fundamental Laws were effectively dead - with the revolution - on an anticipated restoration new laws could enacted) put Vladimir in the position of defending his marriage whilst denigrating the marriages of his relations (many of whom had married into the Russian aristocracy) - had he had a son it might not have been such a problem for him. But his continuing insistance that his marriage was equal and secondly that with the deaths of his cousins he was the last male dynast split the family and left them where they are today. Given that any modern restoration would almost certainly do what the surviving European monarchies have done and see an ammendment to the rules regarding female succession etc then you could make arguements that the nearest relatives of the last reigning Czar (the descendants of Xenia Alexandrovna) would have the greater claim, or that Maria Vladimirovna being the senior surviving male line descendant has the greatest rights.

While I agree with you on the fact that Kyrill was a dynast, (as a grandson of an Emperor and the product of a marriage of equal birth), that is separate from his status in the succession.  Remember that initially, there was Nicholas and his brothers George and Michael, followed by All of Alexander's brothers.  At Kirill's birth, it was inimportant for him to be born of an Orthodox mother, as his claim to the throne was remote.  Maria Pavlovna the Elder's late conversion to orthodoxy was entirely due to her realization that Kirill was soon to be in line.  This was a first occurrence of this situation, and so the question of whether or not Kirill could succeed was real indeed, which is why so many supported Grand Duke Nicholas.

Also, if you start using the Morganatic marriages, then I would argue the Yourievskys or Ilyinskys have a greater claim as direct descendants of Alexander II.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 30, 2008, 02:17:55 AM
As I have said many times before, and the greatest majority of living Romanovs believe, those closest to the throne/heirs   are the decendants of GD Xenia.
However,  this entire conversation is irrelevant, as it is up to the Russian people to decide if they even want a Monarch,  and then it is up to the Duma to appoint one.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Multiverse on January 18, 2009, 09:22:15 PM
As I have said many times before, and the greatest majority of living Romanovs believe, those closest to the throne/heirs   are the decendants of GD Xenia.
However,  this entire conversation is irrelevant, as it is up to the Russian people to decide if they even want a Monarch,  and then it is up to the Duma to appoint one.


Excuse me, but I think the conversation is relevant. When that time comes, and I believe it will come and probably sooner than later, you know whoever is appointed or becomes Tsar isn't going to be the equivelant of John Doe average Russian. Common sense tells me it will be a Romanov, and common sense also tells me it will probably be a descendent of Grand Duchess Xenia.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 18, 2009, 10:59:59 PM
In an ideal world,Multiverse,I would agree with you wholeheartedly and unequivacally.
The issue is that the Duma, Church, Prime Minister and President of Russia appear to aknoweledge Princess Maria's claim as being the more legitimate of the Romanov's.
Xenia's decendants are either all heirless or have married way below their rank,some even two or three times.
As I have said on many numerous occassions, I believe that Xenia's grandsons,Michael and Andrew are those closest to the throne, now that HIH Prince Michael has passed,his brother HIH Prince Andrew is "heir", BUT I  CANNOT SEE HIM AS BEING AN ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATE.
Perhaps, Xenia in Greece and or her daughters?, but they are more Greek than Russian now.
Anyway, it is all up to the Russian State and her President!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Multiverse on January 19, 2009, 12:26:26 AM
That being the case Ilias of John, then I guess it would most likely be Princess Maria or more likely her son.

All I know is that I believe The Russian Monarchy will be restored, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that it will be with a Romanov on The Imperial Russian Throne as Tsar.

A dream one had 29 years ago may seem a strange thing on which to base such a belief, but as I have said, I believe what I do about the restoration because of a dream I had in January 1980 in which I saw the restoration of The Russian Monarchy and of The Romanov Dynasty.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 19, 2009, 02:56:56 AM
Dreams are the windows to the soul, or is that eyes?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on January 19, 2009, 06:37:41 AM
  Eyes.      Kind regards,  AP
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Multiverse on January 19, 2009, 08:50:02 AM
Dreams are the windows to the soul, or is that eyes?


I have always wondered what that saying meant. I also wonder if those two dreams I had 29 years ago were prophetic. Often over the years I thought I was seeing the future and if so just what form it will take. I suppose as they say, only time will tell. I just know what I dreamed years ago and what I feel about it.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on January 19, 2009, 03:12:04 PM
Last night I dreamt I was eating a giant marshmellow.
I woke up this morning and I cant find my pillow!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on January 20, 2009, 11:02:21 PM
Back to topic, please.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on January 30, 2009, 08:08:20 AM
Somewhere on the forum there was a picture of GD George taken when he accepted a job. 

I cannot find it. 

Does anyone know which thread it was posted on.

Thanks!

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TampaBay on February 03, 2009, 10:51:25 AM
(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7375/file0147ki7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

I found it on another thread! 

GD George is starting to look more "European Russian" as opposed to "Georgian" as he gets older IMO.

TampaBay
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: amcbelladonna on June 20, 2009, 07:08:40 AM
it should be a vote from all the noble  houses or russia who should be tsar there are several decended from the house of rurik like trubetskoy ,Shuvalov,Obolensky,Kurakin,Galitzine that prob have a more stronger claiment to the title of tsar
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: amcbelladonna on June 20, 2009, 07:26:24 AM
there are other noble families that could be the next tsar one Pr Aleksander, *Brussels 27.12.1975  of the house of czetwertynski direct descent from the house of rurik or other possibiliey

the house of galtizine
I1. Pr Dmitri, *Munich 7.9.1947; m.New York 9.5.1976 Gabrielle Mary O'Neil Donnelon (*Dublin 5.10.1948)
J1. Pr Philip, *New York 3.12.1979
J2. Pss Catherine, *New York 28.1.1982
I2. Pr Piotr, *Mendoza, Argentina 25.3.1955; m.(civ) Brussels 24.11.1981 (rel) Uccle 25.11.1981 Maria Anna of Austria (*19.3.1954)
J1. Pss Xenia, *Summit 23.5.1983
J2. Pss Tatiana, *Santa Clara 16.8.1984
J3. Pss Alexandra, *San Jose 7.8.1986
J4. Pss Maria, *Luxembourg 11.5.1988
J5. Pr Dmitri, *Luxembourg 11.6.1990
J6. Pr Teimuraz, *Luxembourg 27.5.1992
the house of obolensky
D3. Michel, *Brive-la-Gaillarde 6.6.1943; 1m: Paris 28.6.1968 (div 1972) Fran?ise Labadie (*Paris 23.8.1944; m.Higham, nr Colchester 8.5.1982 Jennifer Jane Goodchild (*Rushmere, nr Ipswich 17.7.1955)
E1. Kyra, *Paris 4.11.1983
E2. Anatole, *Paris 3.8.1985
E3. Xenia, *Paris 26.4.1989
the house of trubetskoy
J2. Pr Alexander, *Montlucon 29.5.1944; m.Brasilia 26.8.1977 Marie-Pierre Eliane Ansselin (*Rouen 19.11.1946)
K1. Pr Pyotr, *Brasilia 6.2.1978
K2. Pss Yelizaveta, *Brasilia 21.9.1981

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 20, 2009, 10:15:33 AM
Heir to what ? There is NO throne of Russia. Head of the house of Romanov is what is in dispute. There has not been a "Tsar" since 1725.  Peter the Great abolished the title.  There is NO empire to claim by anyone.
 Simply an exercise in futility and fantasy of things long past......
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on June 24, 2009, 04:56:25 AM
How true
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ausmanov on July 01, 2009, 05:25:14 PM
I agree, Tsardom is a thing of the past, there is always a chance that it could come back and i would love it if it did but they are extremely slim odd's. I think it is important though to have a head of the Romanov house though.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 10, 2009, 05:11:57 PM
Are there Rurikid claimants to the Russian throne ?

There are Rurikid descendants in the female line. I don't know about any official claimants because the line has been extinct in the male line for many centuries so there are probably many heirs.

Interestingly, some think the line of Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich is particularly viable because Rosti's mother was Princess Alexandra Galitzine, a Rurikid descendant. Rosti's oldest son is presently living in Russia from what I hear.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 11, 2009, 10:41:36 PM
What can you say about Archduke Valery Kubarev and August and Sovereign Royal Household Rurikovich ?

See http://www.casarealrurikovich.com/

I can say it looks phony to me. there is no sovereign royal house called Rurikovich!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on October 16, 2009, 06:46:39 AM
Quote
So, What is in the name Romanov? Yussupov? Kubarev? Mos-cow? Moskva?
Centuries worth of history will tell you what's in those names. The website seems fake and devoid of facts - or any evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 16, 2009, 10:51:01 AM
So, What is in the name Romanov? Yussupov? Kubarev? Mos-cow? Moskva?

Gee, I'd have thought you would know this stuff! Moscow is a large city in Russia. Moskva is the Russian rendition of Moscow.

Yussupov is the name of a princely house in the Imperial period. Felix sounds like he was a terrific queen, although not of the royal variety.

No idea who Kubarev is, will it be on the test?

Romanov, or properly Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp, was the dynastic name of the Russian Imperial house through 1917.

However, none of this has anything to do with the fact that "Rurikovich" is not a city, a princely house, or a dynastic name. Or are you using the Chewbaca defense (from South Park)?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on October 17, 2009, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: Saka
The direct male line of the Romanov dynasty ended with the death of  Peter II, the only son of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, the son of Peter I of Russia by his 1st wife Eudoxia Lopukhina, and Holstein-Gottorp House took over, adding the Romanov name to theirs.
Anna Petrovna was a female line descendant of Peter the Great. What's this line of questioning related to? are you trying to imply the house of "Rurikovich" is legitimate?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on October 17, 2009, 10:44:49 PM
Quote from: Wikipedia
Anatoly Fomenko is a supporter of drastically revising chronological history. He has created his own revision called New Chronology, based on statistical correlations, dating of zodiacs, and by examining the mathematics and astronomy involved in chronology. Fomenko claims that he has discovered that many historical events do not correspond mathematically with the dates they are supposed to have occurred on. He asserts from this that all of ancient history (including the history of Greece, Rome, and Egypt) is just a reflection of events that occurred in the Middle Ages and that all of Chinese and Arab history are fabrications of 17th and 18th century Jesuits. He also claims that Jesus lived in the 12th century A.D. and was crucified on Joshua's Hill; that the Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event; and that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians. As well as disputing written chronologies, Fomenko also disputes more objective dating techniques such as dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating (see here for an examination of the latter criticism). His historical books include Empirico-statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and Its Applications and History: Fiction or Science?. Most Russian scientists considered Fomenko's historical works to be pseudoscientific
The Mongols were Russians? What?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on October 18, 2009, 11:23:55 AM
From the Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich Romanov' own hand, we remember this release: (English translation)

A heavy burden has fallen upon me by my brother's decision to transfer the Russian imperial throne at a time of unprecedented war and unrest among the population.
Inspired by the thought across the nation and the welfare of our country, which must be above all, I made the difficult decision to accept the supreme power only in the event that such is the will of our great people, that the constituent assembly of representatives of the people establish a new form of government and that a new fundamental laws are established for the Russian state.

Therefore, I appeal to God's blessing, I ask all citizens of the Russian state to obey the provisional government was formed and has been vested with full power on the initiative of the State Duma, until a Constituent Assembly to be held in the shortest possible vote on the general, direct, and secret equitable, expressing the will of the people in its decision on a form of government.

Mikhail.

At the time, the GD placed upon the Russian people, the responsibility and willingness for the return of the Monarchy in Russia, thus he declined to accept the throne until approved by a constitutional assembly. With the way that things stack up at this moment in time, I agree with Lisa, and those that favor the Ilyinskys, who represent the eldest male son with Dmitri Pavlovich.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on October 18, 2009, 11:48:48 PM
Quote from: Toscany
With the way that things stack up at this moment in time, I agree with Lisa, and those that favor the Ilyinskys, who represent the eldest male son with Dmitri Pavlovich.
Those that follow this line of thinking (GD Maria = illegitimate) concede that there are no legitimate Romanov dynasts, hence the dynasty ceased to exist with the death of GD Vladimir in 1992.

This makes good reading for those who don't consider Maria the Head of the Imperial House, or that the Dynasty is dead: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/6517/indexmaingsainty.html
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on October 19, 2009, 03:27:58 PM
A note worthy article, and so are the links that go along with it.  You can read more by referencing, HSH Princess Vera Ivanovna of Russia, who was 92 (living in New York) at the time of the article.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 19, 2009, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: Toscany
With the way that things stack up at this moment in time, I agree with Lisa, and those that favor the Ilyinskys, who represent the eldest male son with Dmitri Pavlovich.
Those that follow this line of thinking (GD Maria = illegitimate) concede that there are no legitimate Romanov dynasts, hence the dynasty ceased to exist with the death of GD Vladimir in 1992.

This makes good reading for those who don't consider Maria the Head of the Imperial House, or that the Dynasty is dead: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/6517/indexmaingsainty.html

To be clear, my own views are a bit more complex.

If there is to be a Romanov claimant, the divisions within the family need to be repaired, at least publically, regardless of who emerges as "the one".

If George Mikhailovich is it, he would need to marry equally and produce children, in addition to living in Russia.

If he cannot do this, the legitimist cause is dead, and an heir will need to be found among the Mikhailovichi.

I agree that HSH Prince Dmitri Ilyinsky would be a good choice, as he is the heir by primogeniture and has produced children, albeit daughters. I'm not sure that Tim Ilyinsky is interested in this royalty business, but he would be a good choice.

So would HSH Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich, an intelligent young man currently living in Russia.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on October 19, 2009, 10:46:58 PM
Quote from: Lisa Davidson
I agree that HSH Prince Dmitri Ilyinsky would be a good choice, as he is the heir by primogeniture and has produced children, albeit daughters. I'm not sure that Tim Ilyinsky is interested in this royalty business, but he would be a good choice.
Even though this is all hypothetical, the idea of the Russian people accepting an American-Russian claimant is really beyond this world. It would never happen.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on October 19, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
Hi,

There's a small mixup in the names and relations of Vsevolod's sister -
Her name was Catherine Ivanovna and she lived in Montevedeo, Uruguay and died last year, I think....

Vera Constantinovna was Vsevolod's aunt and lived in New York City and died in 2001.

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 19, 2009, 11:44:30 PM
Quote from: Lisa Davidson
I agree that HSH Prince Dmitri Ilyinsky would be a good choice, as he is the heir by primogeniture and has produced children, albeit daughters. I'm not sure that Tim Ilyinsky is interested in this royalty business, but he would be a good choice.
Even though this is all hypothetical, the idea of the Russian people accepting an American-Russian claimant is really beyond this world. It would never happen.

Agreed!

Russian citizens by and large have absolutely no interest in foreign citizens who might or have expressed interest about their internal political affairs relating to the restitution of the monarchy.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 20, 2009, 02:05:43 AM
Every time I see these assemblage of names, I walk into my study and gaze on a remarkable  "document" that hangs suitably framed and away from direct sunlight.  The story is this:  When the body of the Empress Marie Feodorovna was brought back for burial in the vaults of the Imperial Church of Sts Peter and Paul, a learned gentleman (who speaks/reads and lives in Russia for a portion of each year-----indeed was instrumental in translating the Emperess Marie's diaries Danish/Russian) with whom I have had serveral contacts by telephone and mail was invited and was in attendance at the burial ceremonies in Saint Petersburg, 2006 (and NO, while he said that he heard the noise and subsequent commotion of the "Danish" diplomat, slipping and falling into the prepared waiting/open grave of Maria Feorodorvna, he did not actually wittness it due to the crowd in the church, but there exist good  photos of this mishap).  After the service, there was a luncheon held at a nearby church hall, where most of the prominent guests attended, including my acquaintance.  A several page memorial booklet containing a "Hymn" created in 1890, by a Milli Balak ( but not published at that time) had now been finally published and was presented to the VIP guests at the afternoon luncheon, following the ceremonies. Dedicated to the late Enpress and bearing her likeness on the from cover and was printed in both Russian and Danish with the date 2006. ( A separate menu of the luncheon was also placed at each dining position.) My acquaintance gathered at least two of the "Hymn" booklets and proceeded to politely and ethically move among the more prominent guests with highly pertitent Russian historical connections in this situation.  He asked if they would autograph, (as a momento of the occasion) a couple of copies each on the inside title page?  And WHAT an assemblage of names did he gather! Somewhat later he put up for sale ONE copy of the Hymn and one copy of the luncheon memu (unsigned).  Learning of his willingness to sell one copy of each, I immediately entered into a contest with several others desirious of such an historical assemblage of names.  My top competitor turned out to be a "Texas University of Russian History professor," but I was able to become the purchaser of BOTH the items.  I have absolutely NO DOUBT that these are authentic signed-on the-spot by the people so named.  The signatories on the inside front right page are as follows: ""Prince Nicholas Romanoff (simply signed "Nicholas"; Prince Dimitri Romanoff, (signed "Dimitri Romanoff"; "Princess Olga Romanova"( signed "Olga Romanova"); "George Yurievsky" (great-grandson of the Emperor Alexander II); "Princess Angelica Ilyinsky;" "Dimitri R. Ilyinsky;" and " Anna Ilyinsky;" ( daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich); and Princess Xenia Yusupova Sifiri ( daughter of Prince Felix Yusupov and the Grand Duchess Irina Alexandrovna).  This was an unrepeated chance for me to have all these interrelated and intertwined representatives of this era assembled on one page and I happily paid the price!  The question arises:  Where was the Grand Duchess Maria V. ?  I understand that she left early, thus no representative signature of herself.  The acquisition of signatures settled on the Russian individuals, not on such other relations as the Michael Kents, who were there.   The booklet is twelve pages, in Russian and Danish, 6" x 8.5."  I apologize in advance in spelling/s as it was the first time I have had it down from the wall since framing in early 2007!  I have seen nothing like it before, or since.    AP.














Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on October 20, 2009, 03:58:40 AM
Quote
The question arises:  Where was the Grand Duchess Maria V.
I can't even see anyone else besides her in the reburial photos.
(http://www.russianimperial.com.au/assets/albums/qdig-files/converted-images/images/Reburial%20HIM%20Maria%20Fyodorovna%202006/med_0044.jpg)
(http://www.russianimperial.com.au/assets/albums/qdig-files/converted-images/images/Reburial%20HIM%20Maria%20Fyodorovna%202006/med_0049.jpg)
(http://www.russianimperial.com.au/assets/albums/qdig-files/converted-images/images/Reburial%20HIM%20Maria%20Fyodorovna%202006/med_0050.jpg)
(http://www.russianimperial.com.au/assets/albums/qdig-files/converted-images/images/Reburial%20HIM%20Maria%20Fyodorovna%202006/med_0051.jpg)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 20, 2009, 04:51:25 AM
.... A several page memorial booklet containing a "Hymn" created in 1890, by a Milli Balak ( but not published at that time) had now been finally published and was presented to the VIP guests at the afternoon luncheon, following the ceremonies. Dedicated to the late Enpress and bearing her likeness on the from cover and was printed in both Russian and Danish with the date 2006. ( A separate menu of the luncheon was also placed at each dining position.) My acquaintance gathered at least two of the "Hymn" booklets and proceeded to politely and ethically move among the more prominent guests with highly pertitent Russian historical connections in this situation.  He asked if they would autograph, (as a momento of the occasion) a couple of copies each on the inside title page?  And WHAT an assemblage of names did he gather! Somewhat later he put up for sale ONE copy of the Hymn and one copy of the luncheon memu (unsigned).  Learning of his willingness to sell one copy of each, I immediately entered into a contest with several others desirious of such an historical assemblage of names.  My top competitor turned out to be a "Texas University of Russian History professor," but I was able to become the purchaser of BOTH the items.  I have absolutely NO DOUBT that these are authentic signed-on the-spot by the people so named.  The signatories on the inside front right page are as follows: ""Prince Nicholas Romanoff (simply signed "Nicholas"; Prince Dimitri Romanoff, (signed "Dimitri Romanoff"; "Princess Olga Romanova"( signed "Olga Romanova"); "George Yurievsky" (great-grandson of the Emperor Alexander II); "Princess Angelica Ilyinsky;" "Dimitri R. Ilyinsky;" and " Anna Ilyinsky;" ( daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich); and Princess Xenia Yusupova Sifiri ( daughter of Prince Felix Yusupov and the Grand Duchess Irina Alexandrovna).  ... I have seen nothing like it before, or since.    AP.

Congratulations on your good fortune Aleksandr Pavlovich!

Certainly something to treasure.

Margarita











Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 20, 2009, 09:20:04 AM
Many thanks, "Belochka."  It is good to hear from you again!   Kind regards,  AP
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on October 21, 2009, 03:50:01 AM
Interested in selling?
 :)



No,  I didnt think so.........
 ;D
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on October 21, 2009, 08:19:20 PM
Many thanks, "Belochka."  It is good to hear from you again!   Kind regards,  AP

Many thanks for your warm welcome. I am delighted to be here again.

BTW, I checked my Russian language copy of M. F.'s diary.  In the Vagrius edition I read that O. N. Dudochkina-Krog and A. N. Chekanskii (CR, 2005) are credited as the translators.

Could it be more likely that the person you mentioned was actually translating Nikolai II's diaries?

Margarita
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 21, 2009, 10:02:34 PM
Thank you for your kind reply, Margarita!  I feel certain that my conversation with the gentleman, indicated that he helped with the translation of the Empress Marie F.'s diaries.  I do not know ithe date, but it could be some years back and I believe that now he is /or is near, his retirement years..  Since it was a business transaction, I am not certain that I can give his name without his permission (he may be a member here), but I will pm you a message. As always, many thanks for your comment/s.  With best regards,  AP
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 21, 2009, 10:11:38 PM
Ah, "Ilias_of_ John", you are perceptive!  You are correct, as I intend to keep it for a goodly bit.  Where else, can one readily find an itermingling by signature of such representatives  of notable families of the era, both then and now?  With kind regards,  AP
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on November 05, 2009, 02:32:58 AM
It is with such documents that history is made.

 ;)

And that diplomat, who was NOT Danish, had the loudest screams you ever heard!
Acoording to some friends.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 03, 2010, 04:31:37 PM
If the Vladimirovichi were excluded because:
1. Grand Duke Vladimir Kyrillovich's marriage is deemed unequal
2. Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna was Lutheran at the time of her children's birth (see new evidence provided by the FA in this thread (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=14686.msg427033#msg427033)) - thus also excluding her female-line Leiningen and Hohenzollern descendants.
... who would then be the current pretender/claimant/heir/head of the house, according to the traditional interpretation of the Pauline Law?
Is it the Greek Royal Family, descended from Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinovna? If so, since Crown Prince Pavlos has married unequally, according to the Pauline Laws, who would be next in line after him?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kmerov on March 03, 2010, 04:52:08 PM
The Greek RF sounds right. And if so, the next in line would be Pavlos brother, Prince Nikolaos.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on March 03, 2010, 04:54:39 PM
and he is about to marry below his rank, which then leaves young Phillipos,
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 03, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
and he is about to marry below his rank, which then leaves young Phillipos,
And what if he doesn't marry according to the Pauline Law? Are there any other male (and if not, female) lines in the Greek RF today that is the product of strictly equal marriages? Even the children of his royal Spanish cousins are not Russian dynasts according to the Pauline laws.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on March 03, 2010, 05:13:22 PM
To the best of my knoweledge, and I have been wrong before, there is no one in the world who is a Russian dynast according to the Pauline laws.
However, it doesent matter, as V. Putin(or his successors) will appoint whomsoever they wish, if they ever do..
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 03, 2010, 05:34:54 PM
Pretty difficult one to even try and contemplate because of the orthodox issue!

I suppose now that Prince Nicholas of Greece is getting hitched to another commoner that leaves King Constantine, Prince Philippos and Princess Theodora as impeccable line descended 'heirs'. If the latter they should marry equally and in Philippos' case to an Orthodox Princess, then they would appear to be the most eligible heirs fulfilling both criteria that I can find under the Pauline and later ukases etc! Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark comes fourth. After these four I had real trouble finding possible heirs born out of Orthodox mothers from marriages of equal standing! I got a bit stumped to be honest with you! You have the present King of Romania of cause but none of his daughters have married equally so that ends that line so to speak also I don't know if Marie of Romania ever converted to Orthodoxy did she? Then you have Ileana's line which appears to be Catholic now! Alexandra's line is the same as none are orthodox! The same would apply to the Schaumburg Lippes descended from Grand Duchess Vera Constantinovna and the Dutch Royals from Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna on religious grounds! Gosh it is very difficult to actually get away from the fact that the Greeks look like hands down unimpeachable candidates under the myriad laws and rules of Orthodox mother and equal marriages! What a fascinating and complex issue to even ponder let alone study!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on March 03, 2010, 05:42:28 PM
stpo it,
you're giving me a headache!
And besides, find an Orthodox Princess for Phillipos to marry!


 ???
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 03, 2010, 05:45:36 PM
Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark was born out of an equal marriage but whether his mother was orthodox at the time I do not know! Anyway neither of his daughters would be eligible anyway as they were born out of an unequal marriage!

Having looked a bit further and if we do disregard the orthodoxy issue for a moment which would then leave MV and George as acknowledged heirs the only other heirs of equal marriages that I could find were Kira's daughter Marie Cecilie and her children, Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark and her sisters! With regards to the Spanish, none have married equally and QMII married unequally so her sons would be discounted, this leave Benedikte who seemed to have married equally and has an unmarried son too! But her mother in law was a commoner so that would leave a rather untidy question mark over the eligibility of Benedikte's children as issue of questionable 'equal' marriage in the Pauline and later Ukase sense. Therefore we are still back to King Constantine and his wife Queen Anne Marie and their unmarried children!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 03, 2010, 05:49:47 PM
Having looked a bit further and if we do disregard the orthodoxy issue for a moment which would then leave MV and George as acknowledged heirs the only other heirs of equal marriages that I could find were Kira's children, Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark and her sisters! With regards to the Spanish, none have married equally and QMII married unequally so her sons would be discounted, this leave Benedikte who seemed to have married equally and has an unmarried son too!

How could Margrethe II, Benedikte and Anne-Marie be dynasts? None of their ancestors were Romanovs, were they?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 03, 2010, 05:53:35 PM
Margarethe's grandmother Queen Alexandrine was a daughter of Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna of Russia and Frederick Franz III Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin! So technically yes the Queen Margarethe and her sisters are potential dynasts through the Female line! Orthodoxy issues not taken into account!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 03, 2010, 06:11:21 PM
Sadly of Kira's progeny the only one who has not married unequally thus far appears to be her grand daughter the 'glamour puss' Duchess Rixa of Oldenburg! If she was to marry a nice impeccably bred Prince then she could make a splendid candidate!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 03, 2010, 06:21:02 PM
Margarethe's grandmother Queen Alexandrine was a daughter of Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna of Russia and Frederick Franz III Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin! So technically yes the Queen Margarethe and her sisters are potential dynasts through the Female line! Orthodoxy issues not taken into account!

Mighty Mecklenburg, I didn't think of that! Through Anne-Marie it's good for the Greek "claim" too, then, which really has a lot going for itself besides the technical Pauline claim: Orthodoxy, Oldenburg (as in Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov) descent, another princely Slavic line (i.e. the originally Wendish Mecklenburgs) and perhaps the ancient Viking Kings of Denmark also were related to Rurik? If only some of Anne-Marie's children would marry equally! I am crossing my fingers for Princess Theodora marrying Grand Duke George!!! (Better that than Prince Philippos marrying the 16 years older Duchess Rixa of Oldenburg!)


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 03, 2010, 06:23:05 PM
I would also have liked to include Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia as an heir. But his maternal's grandmother's status leaves a whopping shadow over the pedigree critireria which is a shame as Alexander married a proper Princess too! Then there is Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia the Elder and his children born out of two impeccable equal marriages as far as I can tell! Prince Alexander is a Romanov though his mother Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on March 03, 2010, 06:26:00 PM
Something tells me neither the Greek nor Serbian Royal Family's are interested!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 03, 2010, 06:36:03 PM
I would also have liked to include Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia as an heir. But his maternal's grandmother's status leaves a whopping shadow over the pedigree critireria which is a shame as Alexander married a proper Princess too!
Actually, I don't think that matters. Unlike the Habsburg House Laws, the Pauline Laws don't demand showing that all 16 or 32 or whatever great grandparents were noble. (And as we know Aspasia Manos's blood was quite noble.) Otherwise Emperor Paul would find it hard to explain his own right to the throne with regard to his own great grandmother Ekaterina I née Marta Skowrońska!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 03, 2010, 06:42:42 PM
I was woking under the strict rationale that marriages had to be equal! Aspasia and King Alexander's marriage was never deemed as equal thus with Pauline law this proves an issue of some doubt! Regardless of Catherine I's background I thought we were only considering pedigrees that would stand up under scrutiny? Otherwise Prince Nicholas R and Prince Dimitri R would have been my first candidates to the immediate relegation of the ghastly MV and her son down the pecking order!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 03, 2010, 06:59:17 PM
I was woking under the strict rationale that marriages had to be equal! Aspasia and King Alexander's marriage was never deemed as equal thus with Pauline law this proves an issue of some doubt! Regardless of Catherine I's background I thought we were only considering pedigrees that would stand up under scrutiny? Otherwise Prince Nicholas R and Prince Dimitri R would have been my first candidates!
If the only demand is that spouses have to be from "reigning families", their mothers might be peasants as long as their fathers are reigning or dynasts, the marriage isn't morganatic and the offspring is fully recognized as Princes and Princesses of the respective monarchy. For example all the current young princes and princesses in Scandinavia would be accepted as ebenbürtige matches in the traditional sense, despite their mothers (and some of their grandparents) being commoners, because they are from actually reigning families.

"Reigning" trumps everything. It's only when you go into the deposed and mediatized sections 2 and 3 of the Gotha that you have to watch your quarterings!

I do now see your point about Princess Alexandra of Greece and Denmark, who despite her title and style of HRH was a kind of morganaut and married a sort of exiled king. Had Peter II actually reigned at the time and publicly made her his queen I don't think there could have been any doubt.


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 06, 2010, 04:35:44 AM
For all its hypotheticality, I do enjoy musing who is "the right heir". Contrary to most people, I guess, I started out as a Maria Vladimirovna supporter and now find myself leaning towards Prince Nicholas Romanovich! Even though I don't take any humane considerations into account (OK, except that I do very much like that his mother was born a Countess Sheremeteva; though Italian countesses like his wife seem to be a dime a dozen) I have started to question why the Pauline Laws should apply when the dynasty isn't reigning/imperial. I think the most benevolent position is that there are no more true dynasts and they're all just Hohenzollerns and Princes Romanovsky.

BTW how lovely ironic isn't it that although no longer Russian dynasts, they all are Holstein-Gottorps (the ducal Oldenburgs had no house laws - thus several spouses were mere countesses!) and heirs of their pretender title: Наследник Норвежский - Heir to Norway! :-)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Grand Duchess Valeria on March 06, 2010, 04:45:29 AM
Interesting point I find that also Georgi Yuryeski (greatgrandson of Alexander II and Ekaterina Dolgorukaya) is in discussion. Though his grandfather was born illegimate he has more russian blood in him than some of the romanovs today and before. Think about, that the tsars do not marry a russian woman since Peter III. who himself was just halfblood russian (besides the theory that Paul was not his son). S
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 06, 2010, 04:49:53 AM
Quote
Interesting point I find that also Georgi Yuryeski (greatgrandson of Alexander II and Ekaterina Dolgorukaya) is in discussion. Though his grandfather was born illegimate he has more russian blood in him than some of the romanovs today and before. Think about, that the tsars do not marry a russian woman since Peter III. who himself was just halfblood russian (besides the theory that Paul was not his son). S
If you're gonna bring up Russian blood then you have to forget all the Romanov's then.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Grand Duchess Valeria on March 06, 2010, 05:11:27 AM
That might be. I just said that he is in discussion by many russians and - I saw an interview with him a few years ago - claim himself the right heir to Alexander II (not to the throne!).
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 06, 2010, 05:33:16 AM
That might be. I just said that he is in discussion by many russians and - I saw an interview with him a few years ago - claim himself the right heir to Alexander II (not to the throne!).
Lol, that is a bit like saying you are the true heir of the Pope, isn't it?

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!
I think 99% of non-reigning royalty using their 'theoretical' powers to benefit themselves...
Lol! Following that train of thought: Has anybody ever voiced the suggestion that when Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich vouched for the Ebenbürtigkeit of the Bagrations to the Spanish RF two years prior to his own Bagration marriage (and got to know his future wife through the process) he did it with the ulterior motive that a Bagration could provide a handy, obtainable, Orthodox spouse for an exiled pretender like himself?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Grand Duchess Valeria on March 06, 2010, 05:43:48 AM
That might be. I just said that he is in discussion by many russians and - I saw an interview with him a few years ago - claim himself the right heir to Alexander II (not to the throne!).
Lol, that is a bit like saying you are the true heir of the Pope, isn't it?

Yes, it is ;) Besides that he is nearly fifty, unmarried and childless...not a good precondition for getting tsar, is it? :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Seth Leonard on March 06, 2010, 02:42:19 PM
Actually, Prince George Yurievsky has been married since 2003 to Katharina Verhagen. But, they are indeed childless.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Grand Duchess Valeria on March 06, 2010, 02:47:05 PM
Than I missed that. Thank you, Benjamin!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 06, 2010, 06:50:50 PM
Quote
That might be. I just said that he is in discussion by many russians and - I saw an interview with him a few years ago - claim himself the right heir to Alexander II (not to the throne!).
Actually I think the consensus of most Russian Monarchists organizations seem to be by far in favour of Grand Duchess Maria V and her son.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on March 08, 2010, 05:38:31 PM
Reference some of this discussion:

The demand is for a spouse of a reigning family (whether their ancestry would be morganatic is irrelevant if they are regarded as of Royal birth in their own country)
For example the montenegrin princesses who married into the Russian Imperial house were regarded as being equal even though their family had only recently become reigning.
Incidentally much has been made of the Orthodox mother (that rule only applied to the wife of the heir) and whether or not your mother was or wasn't Orthodox didn't affect your membership of the dynasty.

So in strict order - the female dynastic descendants based on a Russian Succession up to Grand Duke Kyril (therefore his daugthers and sisters before the daughters of his uncle the Emperor Alexander III)

this ignore religion and divorces however i have excluded those in line who would not be regarded as members of a reigning or former reigning family.

Grand Duchess Marie Kyrillovna d 1951

Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
HSH Princess Cécilia of Leiningen (b 1988), daughter of Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
Theresa Prinzessin zu Leiningen (b 1992), daughter of Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
HSH The Prince of Leiningen (Andreas, b 1955), brother of Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
HSH The Hereditary Prince of Leiningen (Ferdinand, b 1982), son of Prince Andreas of Leiningen
HSH Prince Hermann of Leiningen (b 1987), son of Prince Andreas of Leiningen
HSH Princess Olga of Leiningen (b 1984), daughter of Prince Andreas of Leiningen
HSH Princess Melita of Leiningen (b 1951), sister of Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
HSH Princess Stephanie of Leiningen (b 1958), sister of Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen
HSH Prince Boris of Leiningen (b 1960), first-cousin of Prince Andreas of Leiningen
HSH Prince Nicholas of Leiningen (b 1991), son of Prince Boris of Leiningen
HSH Prince Karl Heinrich of Leiningen (b 2001), son of Prince Boris of Leiningen
HSH Princess Juliana of Leiningen (b 2003), daughter of Prince Boris of Leiningen
HSH Prince Hermann Friedrich of Leiningen (b 1963), brother of Prince Boris of Leiningen
HSH Princess Tatiana of Leiningen (b 1989), daughter of Prince Hermann of Leiningen
HSH Princess Nadia of Leiningen (b 1991), daughter of Prince Hermann of Leiningen
HSH Princess Alexandra of Leiningen (b 1997), daughter of Prince Hermann of Leiningen
HSH Karl Friedrich, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern (b 1952), first cousin of Prince Andreas of Leiningen
HSH Prince Alexander of Hohenzollern (b 1987), son of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern
HSH Princess Philippa of Hohenzollern (b 1988), daughter of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern
HSH Princess Flaminia of Hohenzollern (b 1992), daughter of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern
HSH Princess Antonia of Hohenzollern (b 1995), daughter of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern
HSH Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern (b 1954), brother of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern
HSH Princess Josephine of Hohenzollern (b 2002), daughter of Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern
HRH Princess Eugenia of Hohenzollern (b 2005), daughter of Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern
HSH Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern (b 1960), brother of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern
HSH Prince Aloys of Hohenzollern (b 1999), son of Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern
HSH Prince Fidelis of Hohenzollern (b 2001), son of Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern
HSH Princess Victoria of Hohenzollern (b 2004), daughter of Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern

Descendants of Grand Duchess Kira Kirilovna of Russia

HRH Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia (b 1939), son of Grand Duchess Kira Kirillovna of Russia
HRH Prince Michael of Prussia (b 1940), brother of Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
HI&RH The Prince of Prussia (Georg Friedrich, b 1976), nephew of Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
HRH Princess Cornelie-Cecile of Prussia (b 1978), sister of Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia
HRH Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia (b 1946), brother of Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
HRH Prince Christian Ludwig of Prussia (b 1986), son of Prince Christian Sigismund of Prussia
HRH Princess Irina of Prussia (b 1988), daughter of Prince Christian Sigismund of Prussia
HRH Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia (b 1942), sister of Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia
HH Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg (b 1969), son of Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia
HH Duke Kirill of Oldenburg (b 2002), son of Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg
HH Duke Carlos of Oldenburg (b 2004), son of Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg
HH Duke Paul of Oldenburg (b 2005), son of Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg
HH Duchess Maria Assunta of Oldenburg (b 2007), daughter of Duke Paul Wladimir of Oldenburg
HH Duchess Rixa of Oldenburg (b 1970), daughter of Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on March 08, 2010, 05:39:21 PM
Descendants of Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia

Descendants of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark

Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (b. 1924), son of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark
Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia (b. 1958), son of Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
Prince Michael of Yugoslavia (b 1958), son of Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
Prince Sergius of Yugoslavia (b 1963), son of Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
Prince Dushan of Yugoslavia (b 1977), son of Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
Princess Helene of Yugoslavia (b 1963), daughter of Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia (b 1936), daughter of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark

Descendants of Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark
Hans Veit, Count of Toerring-Jettenbach (*1935), m.1964 Princess Henriette of Hohenlohe-Bartenstein (*1938)
Countess Clarissa of Toerring-Jettenbach (*1965), m.1999 Prince Tassilo of Ratibor and Corvey (*1965)
.Princess Charlotte of Ratibor and Corvey (*2000)
Prince Gregor of Ratibor and Corvey (*2002)
Prince Vitus of Ratibor and Corvey (*2004)
Hereditary Count Ignatius of Toerring-Jettenbach (*1966), m.2004 Robinia Mentasti-Granelli (*1967)
Countess Floriana of Toerring-Jettenbach (*2005)
Countess Georgiana of Toerring-Jettenbach (*2006)
Countess Elisabeth of Toerring-Jettenbach (*2008)
Count Carl Theodor of Toerring-Jettenbach (*1969)
Countess Helene of Toerring-Jettenbach (*1937) m.1956 Archduke Ferdinand of Austria (1918-2004)
Archduchess Elisabeth of Austria (1957-1983), m.1982 James Litchfield (*1956)
Archduchess Sophie of Austria (*1959), m.1990 Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz (*1955)
Prince Maximilian of Windisch-Graetz (*1990)
Prince Alexis of Windisch-Graetz (*1991)
Princess Larissa of Windisch-Graetz (*1996)
Archduke Maximilian of Austria (*1961), m.2005 Maya al-Askari (*1977)
Archduke Nicholas of Austria (*2005)

Descendants of Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark
HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward; b 1935), son of Prince George, Duke of Kent
George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (George Windsor, b 1962), son of the Duke of Kent
Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick (Edward Windsor, b 1988), son of George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews
Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor (b 1992), daughter of George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews
Lady Amelia Windsor (b 1995), daughter of George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews
Lord Nicholas Windsor (b 1970), son of the Duke of Kent
Albert Windsor (b 2007), son of Lord Nicholas Windsor
Leopold Windsor (b 2009), son of Lord Nicholas Windsor
Lady Helen Taylor (b 1964), daughter of the Duke of Kent
HRH Prince Michael of Kent (b 1942), brother of the Duke of Kent
Lord Frederick Windsor B (b 1979), son of Prince Michael of Kent
Lady Gabriella Windsor (b 1981), daughter of Prince Michael of Kent
HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (b 1936), sister of the Duke of Kent

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on March 08, 2010, 05:41:04 PM
Descendants of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna (none of her descendants are married equally under a very strict reading of the Fundamental laws however here they are.
Prince Andrew Andreievich Romanov
Prince Alexis Romanov
Prince Peter Romanov
Prince Andrew Romanov
Princess Natasha Kathleen Romanov
Princess Olga, Mrs Mathew
Princess Irene, Mrs Soulas
Penelope, Princess Galitzine
Prince Rostislav Romanov
Prince Nikita Romanov
Princess Stephena, Mrs Boggs
Prince Nicholas Christopher Romanov
Princess Karlyn Romanov
Princess Heather, Mrs Munao
Princess Marina Vasilievna, Mrs Beadleston

Descendants of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (not eligible)

Descendants of Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna (daughter of Grand Duke Paul - not eligible as not regarded as part of the Swedish Royal Family due her son's morganatic marriage)

Descendants of Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna of Russia Duchess of Saxe Coburg Gotha.

Descendants of Marie of Edinburgh

King Michael of Roumania
HRH Princess Margarita of Romania (b 1949), daughter of King Michael of Romania
HRH Princess Elena of Romania (b 1950), daughter of King Michael of Romania
Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth-Mills (b 1985), son of Princess Elena of Romania
Karina de Roumanie Medforth-Mills (b 1989), daughter of Princess Elena of Romania
HRH Princess Irina of Romania (b 1953), daughter of King Michael of Romania
Michael de Roumanie Kreuger (b 1985), son of Princess Irina of Romania
HRH Princess Sofia of Romania (b 1957), daughter of King Michael of Romania
Princess Maria of Romania R (b 1964), daughter of King Michael of Romania
HRH The Crown Prince of Yugoslavia (b 1945), grandson of Princess Maria of Romania through her son King Peter II of Yugoslavia
HRH The Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia R (b 1980), son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Philip of Yugoslavia (b 1982), son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (b 1982), son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Nikolas of Yugoslavia (b 1958), grandson of Princess Maria of Romania through her son Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia
HRH Princess Maria of Yugoslavia (b 1993), daughter of Prince Nikolas of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince George of Yugoslavia (b 1984), brother of Prince Nikolas of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Michael of Yugoslavia (b 1985), brother of Prince Nikolas of Yugoslavia
HRH Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia (b 1959), sister of Prince Nikolas of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Karl Wladimir of Yugoslavia (b 1964), grandson of Princess Maria of Romania through her son Prince Andrej of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia (b 1965), brother of Prince Karl Wladimir of Yugoslavia
Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1957), grandson of Princess Ileana of Romania through her son Archduke Stefan of Austria
Count Stefan von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1990), son of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
Countess Saygan von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1987), daughter of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
Countess Maria Antonia von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1997), daughter of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
 Count Peter von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1959), brother of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
Count Anton von Habsburg-Lothringen R XP (b 1964), brother of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
Ileana Snyder (b 1958), sister of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
Constanza Bain R XP (b 1960), sister of Count Christopher von Habsburg-Lothringen
HI&RH Archduke Dominic of Austria (b 1937), son of Princess Ileana of Romania
Count Sandor von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1965), son of Archduke Dominic of Austria
Count Constantin von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 2000), son of Count Sandor von Habsburg-Lothringen
Count Gregor von Habsburg-Lothringen (b 1968), son of Archduke Dominic of Austria
Countess Alexandra of Baillou (b 1933), sister of Archduke Dominic of Austria
Baroness Maria Magdalena von Holzhausen (b 1939), sister of Archduke Dominic of Austria
Baron Johann von Holzhausen (b 1960), son of Baroness Maria Magdalena von Holzhausen
Baron Georg von Holzhausen (b 1962), son of Baroness Maria Magdalena von Holzhausen
Baron Alexander von Holzhausen (b 1994), son of Baron Georg von Holzhausen
Baron Tassilo von Holzhausen (b 1997), son of Baron Georg von Holzhausen
Baron Clemens von Holzhausen (b 2003), son of Baron Georg von Holzhausen

Descendants of Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh listed above
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on March 08, 2010, 05:41:58 PM

Descendants of Princess Alexandra of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

HSH The Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (Philip, b 1970), grandson of Gottfried, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH The Hereditary Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (Max Leopold, b 2005), son of the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH Prince Gustav of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (b 2007), son of the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH Princess Cecile of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Countess Cyril de Commarque (b 1967), sister of the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
Princess Xenia of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (b 1972), sister of the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH Prince Andreas of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (b 1938), son of Gottfried, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH Princess Katharina of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 1972), daughter of Prince Andreas of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH Princess Laetitia of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2003), daughter of Princess Katharina of Waldeck and Pyrmont
HSH Princess Alexia of Waldeck and Pyrmont (b 2006), daughter of Princess Katharina of Waldeck und Pyrmont
HSH Princess Tatiana-Louise of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (b 1975), daughter of Prince Andreas of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HSH Prince Ludwig of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (b 1976), nephew of Prince Andreas of Hohenlohe-Langenburg
HH The Prince of Schleswig-Holstein (Christoph, b 1949), son of Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH The Hereditary Prince of Schleswig-Holstein (Friedrich Ferdinand, b 1985), son of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH Prince Constantin of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1986), son of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH Prince Leopold of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1991), son of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH Princess Sophie of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1983), daughter of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH Prince Alexander of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1953), brother of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH Prince Julian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1997), son of Prince Alexander of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
HH Princess Helena of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1995), daughter of Prince Alexander of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
Baroness Marita von Plotho (b 1948), sister of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg
Baron Christoph von Plotho (b 1976), son of Baroness Marita von Plotho
Baroness Irina von Plotho (b 1978), daughter of Baroness Marita von Plotho
HH Princess Ingeborg of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (b 1956), sister of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg

Descendants of Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh

Don Alfonso d'Orléans y Ferrara Pignatelli, Duke of Galliera (b 1968), grandson of Don Alvaro d'Orléans, 4th Duke of Galliera
Don Alonso d'Orléans y Goeders (b 1994), son of the Duke of Galliera
Don Alvaro d'Orléans y Ferrara Pignatelli (b 1969), brother of the Duke of Galliera
Don Alvaro d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino (b 1947), uncle of the Duke of Galliera
Don Andrea d'Orléans (b 1976), son of Don Alvaro d'Orléans
Don Alois d'Orléans (b 1979), son of Don Alvaro d'Orléans
Doña Maria del Pilar d'Orléans (b 1975), daughter of Don Alvaro d'Orléans
Doña Gerarda d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino (b 1939), sister of Don Alvaro d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino
Doña Beatriz d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino (b 1943), sister of Don Alvaro d'Orléans y Parodi Delfino

Descendants of Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna Queen of Greece
HRH The Crown Prince of Yugoslavia (b 1945), son of Alexandra of Greece Queen of Yugoslavia
HRH The Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia (b 1980), son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Philip of Yugoslavia (b 1982), son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
HRH Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (b 1982), son of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia
HM King Constantine of Greece
HRH The Crown Prince of Greece (b 1967),
HRH Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark (b 1998), son of Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece
HRH Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark (b 2000), son of Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece
HRH Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark (b 2004), son of Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece
HRH Prince Aristide Stavros of Greece and Denmark (b 2008), son of Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece
HRH Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark (b 1996), daughter of Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece
HRH Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark (b 1969), son of King Constantine of Greece
HRH Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (b 1986), son of King Constantine of Greece
Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark (b 1965), daughter of King Constantine of Greece
HRH Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark (b 1983), daughter of King Constantine of Greece
HM Queen Sophia of Spain (b1938)
HRH The Prince of Asturias (Felipe, b 1968), son of the Queen of Spain
HRH Infanta Leonor of Spain (b 2005), daughter of the Prince of Asturias
HRH Infanta Sofia of Spain (b 2007), daughter of the Prince of Asturias
HRH The Duchess of Lugo (Elena, b 1963), daughter of the Queen of Spain
HE Don Felipe Juan Froilán de Marichalar y de Borbón (b 1998), son of Infanta Elena of Spain
HE Doña Victoria Federica de Marichalar y de Borbón (b 2000), daughter of Infanta Elena of Spain
HRH The Duchess of Palma de Mallorca (Cristina, b 1965), daughter of the Queen of Spain
HE Don Juan Valentín Urdangarín y de Borbón (b 1999), son of Infanta Cristina of Spain
HE Don Pablo Nicolás Urdangarín y de Borbón (b 2000), son of Infanta Cristina of Spain
HE Don Miguel Urdangarín y de Borbón (b 2002), son of Infanta Cristina of Spain
HE Doña Irene Urdangarín y de Borbón (b 2005), daughter of Infanta Cristina of Spain
HRH Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark (b 1942), sister of King Constantine of Greece

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on March 08, 2010, 05:42:16 PM
Descendants of Princess Helen of Greece Queen of Romania (listed above)

Descendants of Prince George of Greece
Princess Tatiana Radziwiłł (b. 28 August 1939)
Prince Carlo Alessandro, Duke of Castel Duino (b. 10 February 1952
Dimitri (b. 1977)
Maximilian (b. 1979)
Constanza (b. 1989)

Descendants of Prince Nicholas of Greece (listed above through his wife Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna)
Descendants of Prince Andrew of Greece
Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (b 1921)
HRH The Prince of Wales B (The Prince Charles; b 1948),
HRH Prince William of Wales B (b 1982), son of The Prince of Wales
HRH Prince Henry of Wales B (b 1984), son of The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duke of York B (The Prince Andrew; b 1960),
HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988), daughter of The Duke of York
HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990), daughter of The Duke of York
HRH The Earl of Wessex (The Prince Edward; b 1964),
James, Viscount Severn (b 2007), son of The Earl of Wessex
Lady Louise Windsor  (b 2003), daughter of The Earl of Wessex
HRH The Princess Royal (The Princess Anne; b 1950), 
Peter Phillips (b 1977), son of The Princess Royal
Zara Phillips (b 1981), daughter of The Princess Royal

Descendants of Princess Margarita of Greece and Denmark *(listed above through descent from Marie Alexandrovna Duchess of Saxe Coburg Gotha.

HRH Maximilian, Margrave of Baden (b 1933),
HRH Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden (b 1970), son of the Margrave of Baden
HGDH Prince Leopold Bernhard of Baden (b 2002), son of the Hereditary Prince of Baden
HGDH Prince Friedrich of Baden (b 2004), son of the Hereditary Prince of Baden
HGDH Prince Karl-Wilhelm of Baden (b 2006), son of the Hereditary Prince of Baden
HGDH Prince Leopold Max of Baden (b 1971), son of the Margrave of Baden
HGDH Prince Michael of Baden (b 1976), son of the Margrave of Baden
Marie Louise Baker (b 1969), daughter of the Margrave of Baden
 HGDH Prince Ludwig of Baden (b 1937), brother of the Margrave of Baden
HGDH Prince Berthold of Baden (b 1976), son of Prince Ludwig of Baden
HGDH Princess Sophie of Baden (b 1975), sister of Prince Berthold of Baden
HGDH Princess Aglaë of Baden (b 1981), sister of Prince Berthold of Baden
HGDH Princess Margarita of Baden (b 1932), sister of the Margrave of Baden

Descendants of Princess Sophie of Greece (those descsendants who rank higher are not mentioned)
HH Prince Karl of Hesse (b 1937),
HH Prince Christoph of Hesse (b 1969), son of Prince Karl of Hesse
HH Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau (b 1971), daughter of Prince Karl of Hesse
Count Maxiumus of Schönburg-Glauchau (b 2003), son of Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau
Count Valentin of Schönburg-Glauchau (b 2005), son of Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau
Cuntess Maria-Laetitia of Schönburg-Glauchau (b 2001), daughter of Irina, Countess of Schönburg-Glauchau
HH Prince Rainer of Hesse (b 1939), brother of Prince Karl of Hesse
HH Princess Christina of Hesse (b 1933), sister of Prince Karl of Hesse
 HH Princess Dorothea of Windisch-Grätz (b 1934), sister of Prince Karl of Hesse
Marina Jakabffy (b 1960), daughter of Princess Dorothea of Windisch-Grätz
HH Princess Clarissa of Hesse (b 1944), sister of Princess Dorothea of Windisch-Grätz
HH Prince Georg Paul of Hanover (b 1949),
HRH Princess Vera, Mrs. Manuel Dmoch (b 1976), daughter of Prince Georg Paul of Hanover
HRH Princess Nora, Mrs. Christian Falk (b 1979), daughter of Prince Georg Paul of Hanover
HRH Princess Friederike, Mrs. Jerry Cyr (b 1954), sister of Prince Georg Paul of Hanover
HRH Princess Saskia, Mrs. Edward Hooper (b 1970),
 
Descendants of Princess Irene of Greece Duchess of Aosta

Prince Amedeo of Savoy, Duke of Aosta, (b1943)
Princess Bianca of Savoy (b 1966)
Prince Aimone Duke of Apulia (b.1967)
Prince Umberto of Savoy (b 2009)
Princess Mafalda of Savoy (b 1969)

Descendants of Princess Alexandra of Greece (listed above not eligible)

Descendants of Princess Marie of Greece (not eligible)

After that your left with the desendants in order of the following:
Descendants of Grand Duchess Vera Constantinovna
Descendants of Princess Marina Petrovna (not eligible)
Descendans of Princess Nadejda Petrovna (not eligible)
Descendants of Princess Irina Alexandrovna (not eligible)
Descendants of Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna
Descendants of Garand Duchess Marie Nikolaevna Duchess of Leuchtenburg
Descendants of Grand Duchess Catherine Mikhailovna of Russia
Descendants of Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna of Russia
Descendants of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia
Descendants of Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna of Russia
Descendants of Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna of Russia



Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Margot on March 08, 2010, 05:44:28 PM
I should re-write the following after re-reading your original introduction...sorry ignore the following! It is irrelevant! Previously we were discussing the rightful heir who fulfilled the criteria of Pauline and Family rules hence the exclusion of MV! I see you have realigned the goal posts so to speak! I do beg your pardon!

But Marina's children contracted what would have certainly constituted unequal marriages and Elizabeth's marriage would surely have been deemed as unequal under Pauline and Family rules?

Only the Yugoslavs would qualify wouldn't they? Barring the children of Princess Elizabeth though she herself would qualify!

OMG you added more before I realized! If we are going to forget the aspect of equal marriages than I see your point! But if we are seeking heirs who have the credentials passe as per the Pauline rules etc then surely only the Greeks absolutely fit the criteria on pedigree and religious grounds! The Yugoslavs likewise! The rest are all out of unequal marriages so to speak excepting the Margerethe II of Denmark and her sisters and the three Kent siblings as far as I can tell and Duchess Rixa of Oldenburg!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 09, 2010, 04:59:28 AM
I'm confused Margot, what are you talking about? I think the debate over who is the rightful heir has largely finished, the general consensus in of Russia aswell as other European monarchists/chivalry organisations seems to be that Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her son's claims are valid - making them the only dynasts. There are plenty of high quality arguements that support this - from GD Maria's lawyer(lawyers?) aswell as scholars in general. Even the new (albeit not as authoritative as old) Almanach de Gotha lists her as heir. Most arguements to the contraty seem to rely on emotion (dislike of GD Maria) or misinterpretation of the Pauline Laws.

http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id112.html
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 09, 2010, 08:16:12 PM
I'm confused Margot, what are you talking about? I think the debate over who is the rightful heir has largely finished, the general consensus in of Russia aswell as other European monarchists/chivalry organisations seems to be that Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her son's claims are valid - making them the only dynasts. There are plenty of high quality arguements that support this - from GD Maria's lawyer(lawyers?) aswell as scholars in general. Even the new (albeit not as authoritative as old) Almanach de Gotha lists her as heir. Most arguements to the contraty seem to rely on emotion (dislike of GD Maria) or misinterpretation of the Pauline Laws.

http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id112.html

Not entirely true.

There are many Russian immigrants in other lands who support a democratic Russia without a monarchy. Many of these people believe none of the surviving Romanovs are "rightful heirs" for various (and many non emotional) reasons. This group includes, I might add, the majority of the living descendants of Emperor Nicholas I, who comprise the organization "RFA" or Romanov Family Association. Instead of restoring the monarchy, they are primarily interested in helping Russia deal with her current problems. That's rather refreshing, don't you think?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 10, 2010, 01:26:46 AM
Quote from: LisaDavidson
There are many Russian immigrants in other lands who support a democratic Russia without a monarchy.
I don't think I mentioned anything in relation to this. I don't think anybody seriously believes that there is an actual chance of a Romanov restoration in Russia.
Quote
Many of these people believe none of the surviving Romanovs are "rightful heirs" for various (and many non emotional) reasons.
Do you have any links to pieces that present these arguments? Is GD Maria Vladimirovna less of a Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov than Nicholas II and his forefathers were?
Quote
This group includes, I might add, the majority of the living descendants of Emperor Nicholas I, who comprise the organization "RFA" or Romanov Family Association. Instead of restoring the monarchy, they are primarily interested in helping Russia deal with her current problems. That's rather refreshing, don't you think?
The OP in this thread asks who is the rightful heir. That's what we're discussing. The Romanov Family Association holds that there are no Romanov dynasts. It ended, so they say, with Grand Duke Vladimior Kirilovich - his designated heir GD Maria Vladimirovna is the product of a morgantic marriage with Grand Duchess Leonida... There are plenty of sound arguments that reject this claim, I'm sure you're aware of them. You disagree?

I mean, the whole term of 'rightful heir' is slightly ambiguous. Is rightful according the Pauline Laws? Or were the pre-1917 Romanov's gifted with some divine right which the present descendants don't posses? Just look at the succession of monarchs and their relationship with one another. I think alot of people feel that because Nicholas II's children died (his direct heirs) that the whole dynasty/family ended and that's that. What about Empress Anna? During that succession crisis she was chosen simply because she was the niece of Peter the Great. Look at Ivan VI... The Romanov succession throughout history its history is very messy - from killing for the throne, or in the case of Grand Duke Constantine refusing to accept it and deferring it to his brother who would become Emperor Nicholas I. Perhaps if they ever decide to restore a constituional Romanov monarch they'll convene a Zemsky Sobor - will that make them a right ruler?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kmerov on March 11, 2010, 09:12:21 AM
I think the who is the "rightful heir" question was according to the Pauline Laws. Anything else does not matter on the issue of who is the Head of the Romanov family, and thus the Romanov heir to the throne.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on March 11, 2010, 10:48:28 AM
I agree with kmerov: This debate is not about who is the most eligible candidate in the unlikely scenario that the Russian people wanted to elect a new emperor, but who is the legal Romanov heir.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 11, 2010, 12:44:40 PM
Quote from: LisaDavidson
There are many Russian immigrants in other lands who support a democratic Russia without a monarchy.
I don't think I mentioned anything in relation to this. I don't think anybody seriously believes that there is an actual chance of a Romanov restoration in Russia.
Quote
Many of these people believe none of the surviving Romanovs are "rightful heirs" for various (and many non emotional) reasons.
Do you have any links to pieces that present these arguments? Is GD Maria Vladimirovna less of a Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov than Nicholas II and his forefathers were?
Quote
This group includes, I might add, the majority of the living descendants of Emperor Nicholas I, who comprise the organization "RFA" or Romanov Family Association. Instead of restoring the monarchy, they are primarily interested in helping Russia deal with her current problems. That's rather refreshing, don't you think?
The OP in this thread asks who is the rightful heir. That's what we're discussing. The Romanov Family Association holds that there are no Romanov dynasts. It ended, so they say, with Grand Duke Vladimior Kirilovich - his designated heir GD Maria Vladimirovna is the product of a morgantic marriage with Grand Duchess Leonida... There are plenty of sound arguments that reject this claim, I'm sure you're aware of them. You disagree?

I mean, the whole term of 'rightful heir' is slightly ambiguous. Is rightful according the Pauline Laws? Or were the pre-1917 Romanov's gifted with some divine right which the present descendants don't posses? Just look at the succession of monarchs and their relationship with one another. I think alot of people feel that because Nicholas II's children died (his direct heirs) that the whole dynasty/family ended and that's that. What about Empress Anna? During that succession crisis she was chosen simply because she was the niece of Peter the Great. Look at Ivan VI... The Romanov succession throughout history its history is very messy - from killing for the throne, or in the case of Grand Duke Constantine refusing to accept it and deferring it to his brother who would become Emperor Nicholas I. Perhaps if they ever decide to restore a constituional Romanov monarch they'll convene a Zemsky Sobor - will that make them a right ruler?

These questions can be tough to answer. I believe that if you're looking at the Fundamental Law that unquestionably Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has the best claim. However, as a family, the Romanovs have tended to be rather paternalistic, and that, combined with the generations long feud between the Nicholievichi and the Vladamirovichi gave rise to the current situation which pits the Grand Duchess and the RFA against one another. So, my own view has become - the future of the dynasty rests with George M and his ability to marry the right wife and beget more male children. Without this, the legitimist argument will quite literally become extinct.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on March 15, 2010, 01:34:24 PM
I saw a link on one of the board on this site, sorry, I don't remember where, it was termed ' God, the Tsar and Russia.' Well it was quite an amazing revelation to me to find out how afraid this group was of Democracy and Nato. There was a part where a young boy, maybe 12 or 13 yrs old who was very scared that the Americans along with Nato were going to attack Russia and destroy his world. He and others portrayed there wanted the Tsar to be restored.
Its obvious that if non of the Romanovs are going to be selected to be the next Tsar is it possible for anyone else to simply make his own rules and become the new Tsar? i.e. If the Romanovs are not there to enforce their rules what's to stop someone else to get selected by the people and stipulate his own requirements? By the impression I got from the above film it seems that some Russians are eagerly waiting for it to happen. I know the Cossacks are. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 16, 2010, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: LisaDavidson
These questions can be tough to answer. I believe that if you're looking at the Fundamental Law that unquestionably Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has the best claim. However, as a family, the Romanovs have tended to be rather paternalistic, and that, combined with the generations long feud between the Nicholievichi and the Vladamirovichi gave rise to the current situation which pits the Grand Duchess and the RFA against one another. So, my own view has become - the future of the dynasty rests with George M and his ability to marry the right wife and beget more male children. Without this, the legitimist argument will quite literally become extinct.
Agreed.
Quote from: JonC
You're right that it doesn't have to be a Romanov Czar. In fact, in the early 90's when the monarchy debate was slightly more active than it is now ( Romanov legitimists vs others) Russian Nationalists groups wanted the descendants of the Soviet Field Marshal Zhukov to be the new ruling dynasty of Russia - I don't know if people are still advocating that today, but it's certain that a lot of Russian Nationalists movements want to see someone with Russian blood on the throne and not a German or any other nationality.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on March 16, 2010, 11:59:55 AM
Richard, I agree with what you say here but that's not my quote. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 17, 2010, 04:47:09 AM
Yeah I said it. I quoted myself by accident haha.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on March 17, 2010, 09:58:06 AM
.... So, my own view has become - the future of the dynasty rests with George M and his ability to marry the right wife and beget more male children. Without this, the legitimist argument will quite literally become extinct.

Lisa, you can't have it both ways. George and his mother are products of morganatic marriages. His line is totally not valid as per the secessionist ideal, and then you say that he must ' marry the right wife '. How could his new line with his new ' legitimate wife ' then produce ' legitimate children ' when he isn't ' legitimate ' to begin with? The people of Russia might as well go down the street and simply pick someone and that will be it.

As far as Democracy is concerned most Russians I've come into contact with and what I've read about think that Democracy is of the Devil because of all the individual freedoms that come with it which has already caused, within the cities, a marked increase in crime and a breakdown of the family structure.

The ' Stalin ' that they are looking for is not that murderer, known historically, responsible for killing millions of his own people, but a strong leader who will rule, by the grace of God, with an iron scepter base on justice and loving kindness for his people and the land. Where is such a person? I believe God will provide him in His good time. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kmerov on March 17, 2010, 05:10:27 PM

Lisa, you can't have it both ways. George and his mother are products of morganatic marriages. His line is totally not valid as per the secessionist ideal, and then you say that he must ' marry the right wife '. How could his new line with his new ' legitimate wife ' then produce ' legitimate children ' when he isn't ' legitimate ' to begin with? The people of Russia might as well go down the street and simply pick someone and that will be it.


George and his mother are not products of morganatic marriages. The people of Russia can choose anyone they wish, regardless of George's status.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on March 17, 2010, 06:58:29 PM
Quote
Lisa, you can't have it both ways. George and his mother are products of morganatic marriages.
There are plenty of arguments that argue against this notion with great rigor and I agree with them. Where are the arguements declaring GD Maria the product of a morganatic marriage? Or is it just based off statements from Nicholas Romanov?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Constantinople on April 10, 2010, 12:22:52 AM
Nicholas Romanovich seems to be the choice of most members of the Romanoff family that I know.  The view about Maria Vladimirovich is that she seems to be overly ambitious and overly self promoting.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Belochka on April 10, 2010, 01:09:52 AM
Nicholas Romanovich seems to be the choice of most members of the Romanoff family that I know.  The view about Maria Vladimirovich is that she seems to be overly ambitious and overly self promoting.

All the Imperial laws that supported the former Russian monarchy were extinguished in March, 1917 and replaced by the laws enacted by the Provisional Government before the Soviets implemented their own body of law to cement their unfettered authority.

The laws of the Russian Federation do not provide for a monarchy. Therefore any thoughts that there is some kind of "rightful heir" can only be described as an absolute folly.

Margarita
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Constantinople on April 10, 2010, 07:00:40 AM
That is quite obvious.  Most of the Romanoffs except for Maria Vlad recognize that but laws are malleable and can be changed.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on April 27, 2010, 08:21:06 AM
Nicholas Romanovich seems to be the choice of most members of the Romanoff family that I know.  The view about Maria Vladimirovich is that she seems to be overly ambitious and overly self promoting.

All the Imperial laws that supported the former Russian monarchy were extinguished in March, 1917 and replaced by the laws enacted by the Provisional Government before the Soviets implemented their own body of law to cement their unfettered authority.

The laws of the Russian Federation do not provide for a monarchy. Therefore any thoughts that there is some kind of "rightful heir" can only be described as an absolute folly.

Margarita


Right you are, Margarita!

HMB
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on April 27, 2010, 09:15:14 AM
Quote
Many of these people believe none of the surviving Romanov's are "rightful heirs" for various (and many non emotional) reasons.
Do you have any links to pieces that present these arguments? Is GD Maria Vladimirovna less of a Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov than Nicholas II and his forefathers were?
Quote

Dear Richard,

You may GOOGLE many arguments on this subject.  Two web sites that come to mind would be the Romanoff Family Association web page, and the several web sites that were created by Princess Maria Vladimirovna.

Romanoff Family Association

http://romanovfundforrussia.org/family/


Princess Maria Vladimirovna

http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/index.html

http://riuo.org/

The RIUO implies that there is a movement in Russia to have a monarchy that shares the country's history, however, it does not state who or what family.

One might think that the most popular person in Russia may become "Czar" of Russia someday, however it appears that it will only be for the people of Russia to decide.  There are many "monarchist" people all over the world that would like to see this happen, however, they are not Russian!

The second question that you ask, is of course, asking one to take sides in restoring a monarchy that was removed.  Lisa Davidson described this quite well, when she said,
 "However, as a family, the Romanovs have tended to be rather paternalistic, and that, combined with the generations long feud between the Nicholievichi and the Vladamirovichi gave rise to the current situation which pits the Grand Duchess and the RFA against one another". ( Posted on: March 15, 2010, 10:11:41 PMPosted by: richard_1990).

I personally do not support Princess Maria Vladimirovna, nor her son Georgiy Mikhailovich, Prinz of Preussen. Some basis of reason are:

*Princess Maria Vladimirovna, is not a Romanov.
*Princess Maria's parents were not supported by Czar Nicholas II in their marriage
*Princess Maria's marriage to, Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia, ended in divorce, because she could not deal with his gay life style.

The President of The RFA, at the time of Georgiy's birth,  stated this,

"The Romanov Family Association hereby declares that the joyful event in the Prussian Royal House does not concern the Romanov Family Association since the newborn prince is not a member of either the Russian Imperial House or of the Romanov family".  ( I do have a copy of the original letter sent to Princess Maria, signed by the RAF in complete agreement with their concern).

The fact is, there are Romanov's alive and well!  And, yes, some are products of morganatic marriages.  However, some are not!

HMB


Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on May 01, 2010, 11:37:57 AM
Nicholas Romanovich seems to be the choice of most members of the Romanoff family that I know.  The view about Maria Vladimirovich is that she seems to be overly ambitious and overly self promoting.

All the Imperial laws that supported the former Russian monarchy were extinguished in March, 1917 and replaced by the laws enacted by the Provisional Government before the Soviets implemented their own body of law to cement their unfettered authority.

The laws of the Russian Federation do not provide for a monarchy. Therefore any thoughts that there is some kind of "rightful heir" can only be described as an absolute folly.

Margarita

Dear Margarita. What ever the laws say, the people surely say differently. Ultimately, a Tsar will be selected! Isn't it funny, though, how Mr Putin then and now the present leader are not too quick to eliminate all the Romanov Monarchy symbolism. The rich pageantry of Russian Royalty, and its history, with its double headed Eagle proudly displayed on uniforms during the Olympics. It also graces our military uniforms and navy ships and airplanes. It has given and continues to give Russians a foundation to be proud of which no other country can match in the same way.
Even if Mr. Putin, the British and the Americans are still trying to bury the Romanovs away I'm sure that if their descendants cannot be found someone will, and soon, to fill their shoes if such a thing can at all be possible. And if you were wondering, Russia and American Democracy can never be, its just that simple! JonC. 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on May 02, 2010, 02:18:03 AM
Quote from: Toscany
The fact is, there are Romanov's alive and well!  And, yes, some are products of morganatic marriages.  However, some are not!
Thanks for the reply. But I'm not I understand. You don't seem to be disagreeing with what I said.. If you accept that there exists a non-morganatic Romanov then it has to be GD Maria V. No?

Quote from: JonC
how Mr Putin then and now the present leader are not too quick to eliminate all the Romanov Monarchy symbolism. The rich pageantry of Russian Royalty, and its history, with its double headed Eagle proudly displayed on uniforms during the Olympics.
Yeltsin and Putin have been restoring pre-revolutionary symbolism if anything. Look at all the palaces restored.. all the emblems of the Russian army. Putin's even had the Presidential Regiments uniform changed to the pre-revolutionary incarnation.. Look at the official state seal also.. I don't see any attempt by the current government to distance themselves from the Romanov's, in fact they seem to be embracing it.
Quote
Even if Mr. Putin, the British and the Americans are still trying to bury the Romanovs away I'm sure that if their descendants cannot be found someone will, and soon, to fill their shoes if such a thing can at all be possible. And if you were wondering, Russia and American Democracy can never be, its just that simple! Jon
I don't understand. What do you mean?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on May 04, 2010, 09:14:47 PM
Dear Richard.

Its very simple. Russians, that is, the ordinary traditional Russian brought up under totalitarianism, much of which is still in the memory of most Russians who were under Communism, and all those who have been influenced by the rich Monarchical imagery and symbolism that is pervasive throughout the various Russian peoples are, because of this background, very protective and engrossed by this influence.

Most Russians are therefor deathly afraid of American Democracy, Nato, and their combined military power. The so-called Western, American influence is viewed by them as the Devil's work.They don't want ' Freedom ' as we here in America know it. Their idea of freedom is based within the protective arm of a government which looks after them and guides them in the direction they must go, with no questions asked.

American Democracy, to them, brings with it the destruction of authority of both within the family and in the larger scope, society. Rampant crime and no sense of communal responsibility because ' God ' is left out of the picture. The US Government and its leaders are prohibited to support the worship of Our Lord. The everyday Russian believes that if God does not consolidate the people, and their leaders, under the ruler ship of Himself, through the Tsar, well then their world will eventually collapse. Democracy, to them, is worse than death. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on May 06, 2010, 05:03:12 AM
Monarchy works so well because it is above politics, in a Crown like England's, and ties the people together apart from party politics and also denies supreme power to one person. I once heard it described as monarchy is not the power it allows itself it is the power it denies to others. If the Crown were restored in Russia it would allow people to rally around the symbol of the country without involving the Duma and allow a check on what parliament was doing in extreame circumstances.   
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 06, 2010, 08:17:15 PM
Monarchy works so well because it is above politics, in a Crown like England's, and ties the people together apart from party politics and also denies supreme power to one person. I once heard it described as monarchy is not the power it allows itself it is the power it denies to others. If the Crown were restored in Russia it would allow people to rally around the symbol of the country without involving the Duma and allow a check on what parliament was doing in extreame circumstances.   

But this is a relatively contemporary view on monarchy. Monarchy is like your favorite pair of stretch pants - you can make it fit anything - but the results are not always pleasant to the eye or the spirit. The thing is, there is no basis in Russian culture for such a detached style of monarchy. that's not to say that one could not develop, but I don't see it developing now.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 06, 2010, 08:32:59 PM
I know that Grand Duchess Maria/Princess Maria(I dont want any arguements has been in the US lately, visiting San Francisco.
 
By the way, its a good thing i'm not a stock market trader, what with my fat fingers!!


http://www.stjohnsacademysf.org/news-and-events/hihthegrandduchessmariavisitsstjohns

http://picasaweb.google.com/stjohnacademy/HIHTheGrandDuchessMariaVisitsStJohnSAcademy


From a Russian Monarchists blog!

"Head of the Russian Imperial House Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna visits the United States of America.
On 23 April 2010 Grand Duchess came to San Francisco (California) invited by archibishop Kirill of San Francisco and Western America. In the airport Her Imperial Highness was met by the archibishop and the delegation of the Russian Imperial Union-Order headed by the Member of the Supreme Council of the RIU-O Sir Georgiy Kumansky."
It is the third visit of the Head of the Russian Dynasty to the United States. In 1979 and 1988 Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich visited the USA, first time on occasion of the 50th anniversary of the RIU-O, and secondly to participate in celebrations in honour of 1000 years of the Baptism of Russia.
From 24 April to 1 May Grand Duchess visited the Russian Centre, Russian cemetery, Orthodox churches and organisations of Russian people placed in San Francisco. Obviously Her Imperial Highness visited Fort Ross, a former Russian colony in California.
On 29 April on occasion of the Highest Visit the Russian Imperial Union-Order organised reception in honour of the Head of the Dynasty.
On 1 May Grand Duchess left San Francisco and moved to Los Angeles.

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on May 07, 2010, 10:33:18 PM
I hope things change, seriously!  I guess if the whole world is bombarded constantly with the above references Maria and her family refer to themselves by sooner or later everyone, sadly, believes them. Where is the honesty, integrity and sovereign right for her and her family to not only claim but now own the throne of the Russian Monarchy by simply putting a crown on her own head by her own hand. I cannot believe the Church or anyone could fall for this. Is this the will of the people? JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 07, 2010, 11:39:33 PM
I hope things change, seriously!  I guess if the whole world is bombarded constantly with the above references Maria and her family refer to themselves by sooner or later everyone, sadly, believes them. Where is the honesty, integrity and sovereign right for her and her family to not only claim but now own the throne of the Russian Monarchy by simply putting a crown on her own head by her own hand. I cannot believe the Church or anyone could fall for this. Is this the will of the people? JonC.

The Russian Church both Abroad and in Russia, recognises her as the Heir.
She has dined with Presidents and Prime Ministers(Medvedev and Putin.)
She has attended many family events, like Crown Prince Frederik's wedding to the then Mary Donaldson.

I dont really think anyone is falling for it or not.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Naslednik Norvezhskiy on May 09, 2010, 10:12:41 AM
Intereant legibus suis.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 10, 2010, 02:15:00 AM
 ???
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on May 12, 2010, 11:20:15 PM
I hope things change, seriously!  I guess if the whole world is bombarded constantly with the above references Maria and her family refer to themselves by sooner or later everyone, sadly, believes them. Where is the honesty, integrity and sovereign right for her and her family to not only claim but now own the throne of the Russian Monarchy by simply putting a crown on her own head by her own hand. I cannot believe the Church or anyone could fall for this. Is this the will of the people? JonC.

The Russian Church both Abroad and in Russia, recognises her as the Heir.
She has dined with Presidents and Prime Ministers(Medvedev and Putin.)
She has attended many family events, like Crown Prince Frederik's wedding to the then Mary Donaldson.
I dont really think anyone is falling for it or not.



You are certainly far reaching!! If the Orthodox Church did recognize her then why are there so many objections to her actually assuming the Throne? No-one, whether in Government or within the Church, when it is all said and done, will actually choose her because of the baggage her family brings. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Student of History on May 13, 2010, 06:01:50 AM
All branches of the Romanov family have heirs. The real question is, to what.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on May 13, 2010, 07:01:01 AM
Of course we never hear from her son and his views. His s 3rd in line to the German throne as well and 111th (i think) to the british one as well! What are his views on the question and does he actually want it? Would he heal the rift between the family or continue? So many questions.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 14, 2010, 09:01:05 PM
I hope things change, seriously!  I guess if the whole world is bombarded constantly with the above references Maria and her family refer to themselves by sooner or later everyone, sadly, believes them. Where is the honesty, integrity and sovereign right for her and her family to not only claim but now own the throne of the Russian Monarchy by simply putting a crown on her own head by her own hand. I cannot believe the Church or anyone could fall for this. Is this the will of the people? JonC.

The Russian Church both Abroad and in Russia, recognises her as the Heir.
She has dined with Presidents and Prime Ministers(Medvedev and Putin.)
She has attended many family events, like Crown Prince Frederik's wedding to the then Mary Donaldson.
I dont really think anyone is falling for it or not.




You are certainly far reaching!! If the Orthodox Church did recognize her then why are there so many objections to her actually assuming the Throne? No-one, whether in Government or within the Church, when it is all said and done, will actually choose her because of the baggage her family brings. JonC.

She might not assume the throne, if there ever is one again, but perhaps George might, or one of his decendants.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on May 15, 2010, 05:20:25 AM
Quote
You are certainly far reaching!! If the Orthodox Church did recognize her then why are there so many objections to her actually assuming the Throne? No-one, whether in Government or within the Church, when it is all said and done, will actually choose her because of the baggage her family brings. JonC.
The Orthodox does appear to support her, but this means nothing - the Orthodox church doesn't have the power to elevate her to the throne. That's a political process.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Student of History on May 17, 2010, 07:59:58 AM
I am sure I have seen a whole thread or two dedicated to the reasons why/ why not the Vladimirovitchi claim of succession is flawed. That is through no fault of Maria nor George's as far as I am aware. However, it is the combined fault of certain European royal houses being inarticulate about the facts.

There is only one pure line of decent that remains from the original Romanov family. Senior family members, across the globe - particularly those with high public profiles are aware of them and have been for a very long time.  Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in families - and royal houses are sadly no different - hostilities over money and who can get what', and 'who has what' within the wider branches of the family remains.

Accordingly, for the moment at least, the real Romanov heir will continue to be debated ad nauseum...
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on May 17, 2010, 08:06:41 AM
Quote
There is only one pure line of decent that remains from the original Romanov family. Senior family members, across the globe - particularly those with high public profiles are aware of them and have been for a very long time.  Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in families - and royal houses are sadly no different - hostilities over money and who can get what', and 'who has what' within the wider branches of the family remains.
"pure" line of descent? descent from what? The male Romanov line died out with Peter II in 1730. I'd be interested in knowing what this "pure line" of descent is, and who possesses it.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Student of History on May 17, 2010, 08:15:32 AM
Hello Richard ;)

Pure line refers to the offspring of two equal royal /high noble partners (according to the lLs).
As I've mentioned previously in this forum, Queen Marguerite summed it up best in an interview with the BBC when asked about Romanov heirs she commented, 'It is a family matter'.

History is created by those who write it... a little like the history of Australia, originally black has been filtered 'white' until recently.

All the best,
SOH

Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on May 17, 2010, 08:56:00 AM
What? If you're of the opinion that GD Maria is the product of an unequal marriage then you must conclude that there is no legitimate heir, at least by the Pauline Law, so as to leave the dynasty itself defunct. Unless you're the reincarnation of Tsarevich Alexei?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 17, 2010, 09:07:10 AM
To be technical, the discussion is moot.  The instant that Michael refused to accept Sovereign power, "unless the people wished it", that Sovereign power ceased to exist. Nobody could "claim" it, and frankly the governmental institutions which "could" have recognized any such inheritance of "Sovereign power" also ceased to exist. The "dynasty" is indeed defunct. People who's gg grandparents USED to have titles and positions now squabbling over the "right" to claim a title that means nothing whatsoever.

The discussion of "who is the rightful heir" is a pedantic exercise in fiction. There is nothing to inherit.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 17, 2010, 05:59:21 PM
Well said Admin.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Student of History on May 17, 2010, 06:24:11 PM

Konstantinoupoli, athelfe,
And you know I mean that!

There is no need for you to send her a note, she already knows your thoughts.

Also, you calling her Mrs. is inappropriate, as she is divorced.

Now,my turn...

I have always believed that GD'S Xenia's descendants were the rightful heirs, by blood, of the Imperial throne.
There is a young lady in Athens somewhere, called Xenia (from memory).
Anyway,
I was a friend of the late Lieutenant Commander Michael Romanov, R.N.
grandson of  H.I.H Grand Duchess Xenia.
( i hate typing, all this upper and lower case drives me insane)
:)
Prince Michael Andreevich asked but one thing prior to his death,
and that was, to help unite the family and to right past wrongs.
I am not an ecclesiastic, nor an academic, nor a historian,
but ,

when the Vice President of the Romanov Family Association tells me, just 2 days before his death, that after this generation is gone, it will all be left to Georgyi, what in heavens name do you want me to think or do?
The Church, the State, and most parts of the R.F.A now aknoweledge that Maria and her son George are the closest to the throne.
It might not hapen, but he is closest to the bullseye.

Ilias.
And I too have Romanov friends (living)

Ilias, your hostility surprises me given your commitment to the family.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 17, 2010, 06:49:21 PM
Such is life!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on May 18, 2010, 06:18:55 AM
Many would say that the wishes of GD Michael still prevail and it is a matter for the Russian people to decide. This was the last act of Imperial law and IMHO still stands today, not matter what Maria might wish.

But the argument will go on for ever, sadly. I do wish George would state his views on the subject, perhaps he is waiting until his Mother passes away?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on May 18, 2010, 09:42:24 AM
That's an interesting point Ilias_of_John. I always forget Grand Duchess Xenia and her descendants. Considering that GD Maria's claim rests on the the basis that there are no male dynasts and therefore it goes to the female line, wouldn't it be the most senior female line? Which would undeniably be one of Nicholas II's sisters.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 18, 2010, 10:07:49 AM
Let us also not forget the fact that Imperial Law demanded that all male dynasts be born to a Pravaslavnya mother. Maria Pavlovna Senior was NOT Russian Orthodox when her sons were born. She did not convert to Orthodoxy until 1905.  There is strong evidence that the minister of Justice for Nicholas II wrote a legal opinion confirming that her sons were excluded from inheritance for this reason and that a much later conversion to Orthodoxy could not be "retroactive" for the requirement that the sons be born to a woman who was at that time Russian Orthodox. Thus all the Vladimirovichi line is excluded anyway. including Maria and George....

Interesting....Still, a moot point tho.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: mcdnab on May 18, 2010, 10:55:22 AM
Actually moot point or not - it seems that the Orthodox mother issue is highly debatable - Grand Duke Vladimir's children Kyril, Andrei and Boris were undoubtedly treated as dynasts irrespective of their mother's religious affiliations as were the Constantinovichi children.

If a minister did write a legal opinion on it for Nicholas II I would be interested in the date given that after Kyril's marriage Nicholas deseperately wanted to exclude him but most legal opinion said he couldn't do that a contrary view from an ambitious minister might have been most welcome whether accurate or not.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 18, 2010, 12:35:45 PM
According to Spiridovitch, the report was requested by Nicholas II soon after her conversion. Tchetcheglovitov, the Minister of Justice, sent the report to Nicholas II as well as Maria Pavlovna.  There may well be a copy tucked away in GARF somewhere. It was clear according to him that the law required dynasts to be born to an Orthodox mother. As Maria Pavlovna was NOT Orthodox, her children could not inherit the throne.  Further, when Alexander II gave permission for Vladimir to marry a non Orthodox, his ukaze very interestingly said only that Vladimir did not lose his succession right, but there was no mention of his children's rights. Don't confuse the rights and privileges that came with being the grandsons of an Emperor with being able to succeed to the Throne.  According to Spiridovitch, Nicholas II himself was convinced that Vladimir's sons could not succeed to the Throne.
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 18, 2010, 06:11:41 PM
All moot points unfortunately.
However.......
I have always said that those closest to the throne were those that were direct relatives,ie one of Nicholas II sisters kids.
Which leaves us with Xenia's sons and Grand Children.

So....
Now that Prince Michael Andreevich is dead, does that leave his brother Prince Andrew Andreevich, even though he is on his third marriage, and has married outside the faith?
Or, do we go to Xenia and her children in Athens?
Or the Illynsky's in Florida and Conneticut?
Or, the Canadian Romanov's?
Also, dont forget that the ROC and what used to be ROCA, recognise GD Maria and GD George, and both Mendevev and Putin treat her as the most senior claimant.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kmerov on May 18, 2010, 06:45:35 PM
According to Spiridovitch, the report was requested by Nicholas II soon after her conversion. Tchetcheglovitov, the Minister of Justice, sent the report to Nicholas II as well as Maria Pavlovna.  There may well be a copy tucked away in GARF somewhere. It was clear according to him that the law required dynasts to be born to an Orthodox mother. As Maria Pavlovna was NOT Orthodox, her children could not inherit the throne.  Further, when Alexander II gave permission for Vladimir to marry a non Orthodox, his ukaze very interestingly said only that Vladimir did not lose his succession right, but there was no mention of his children's rights. Don't confuse the rights and privileges that came with being the grandsons of an Emperor with being able to succeed to the Throne.  According to Spiridovitch, Nicholas II himself was convinced that Vladimir's sons could not succeed to the Throne.
 

You only had (imperial) rights and privileges as grandsons of the Emperor when your parents and their marriage were in accordance with the Pauline Laws. There were lots of grandchildren of Emperors who didn't enyoy imperial rights.

You can't just take Spiridovitch's word as the thruth on the matter or Tchetcheglovitovs. Historical sources say otherwise. For instance, Nicholas II made Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna renounce her rights when she married, which he wouldn't have done if she didn't have them. And she of course was the daughter of a Lutheran mother. 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kmerov on May 18, 2010, 06:51:07 PM
All moot points unfortunately.
However.......
I have always said that those closest to the throne were those that were direct relatives,ie one of Nicholas II sisters kids.
Which leaves us with Xenia's sons and Grand Children.

So....
Now that Prince Michael Andreevich is dead, does that leave his brother Prince Andrew Andreevich, even though he is on his third marriage, and has married outside the faith?
Or, do we go to Xenia and her children in Athens?
Or the Illynsky's in Florida and Conneticut?
Or, the Canadian Romanov's?
Also, dont forget that the ROC and what used to be ROCA, recognise GD Maria and GD George, and both Mendevev and Putin treat her as the most senior claimant.

Nicholas II doesn't have any direct relatives.
GDss Xenia's descendants are not dynasts, but if that is of no matter, then you can pick anyone you like.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 18, 2010, 07:00:21 PM
Well, the Pauline laws are no longer relative.
Who do you think Putin will, if he ever does pick?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Student of History on May 18, 2010, 07:02:59 PM
Do you think Putin will pick someone Ilias_of_John?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on May 18, 2010, 07:10:34 PM
Of course if it's a Romanov restoration, it will probably be GD Maria or GD George, simply because they have made themselves known.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: kmerov on May 18, 2010, 07:12:34 PM
Well, the Pauline laws are no longer relative.
Who do you think Putin will, if he ever does pick?


No, and if it was up to me I would pick someone from GDss Xenia's line aswell.
If Putin ever picked someone, I think that it would be GDss Maria Vladimirovna.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 19, 2010, 01:17:29 AM
Well, the Pauline laws are no longer relative.
Who do you think Putin will, if he ever does pick?


No, and if it was up to me I would pick someone from GDss Xenia's line aswell.
If Putin ever picked someone, I think that it would be GDss Maria Vladimirovna.

The best bet from Xenia's line is Rostislav Rostislavovich who is known as Misha.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on May 19, 2010, 05:30:48 AM

From Kmerov,
Well, the Pauline laws are no longer relative.
Who do you think Putin will, if he ever does pick?



No idea, I don't move in those circles.

From Lisa,
The best bet from Xenia's line is Rostislav Rostislavovich who is known as Misha"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rostislav_Romanov_(b._1985).


I have heard about this young man,and he does belong to the RFA, so.......anythng is possible!







Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on June 23, 2010, 11:32:27 PM
Under all these possibilities then it is clear that Putin might just pick himself! Why not? He's going to pick someone and soon because with the Alexander Palace now been opened to the public its clear someone has to live in it, right? I mean with all these efforts made by the government to restore Romanov imagery and history it just seems logical that the Monarchy will be restored, and soon. Why then couldn't he pick himself? JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on June 23, 2010, 11:49:57 PM
Quote
Under all these possibilities then it is clear that Putin might just pick himself! Why not? He's going to pick someone and soon because with the Alexander Palace now been opened to the public its clear someone has to live in it, right? I mean with all these efforts made by the government to restore Romanov imagery and history it just seems logical that the Monarchy will be restored, and soon. Why then couldn't he pick himself? JonC.
There's no reason he can't pick himself. But I wouldn't draw conclusions from the restoration of palaces... I mean, AP is being restored as a museum with a gift shop if I'm not mistaken - why would Putin want a gift shop in his palace?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on June 24, 2010, 12:03:28 AM
Or even live, Goverment is in Moscow.
I think you are making a statement just to post something.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on June 24, 2010, 10:23:52 PM
Or even live, Goverment is in Moscow.
I think you are making a statement just to post something.

I was actually being facetious. Of course the Alexander Palace could, at this stage, only be a tourist attraction, BUT, my point, for the more astute, was that because of all this effort to restore Monarchical imagery and history must be for the possible restoration of the Russian Monarchy. My playful mention of Putin announcing himself as the new Tsar, although possible, was to show how ridiculous the notion that a Romanov would be selected since the belief by almost all - me NOT being one of them - that there are no direct descendants of the Anointed line of Nicholas 2nd himself which makes the Pauline laws null and void. Of course , again, I'm NOT one who holds such a conviction. JonC. 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ilias_of_John on June 25, 2010, 01:14:11 AM
" that there are no direct descendants of the Anointed line of Nicholas 2nd himself which makes the Pauline laws null and void. Of course , again, I'm NOT one who holds such a conviction. JonC.  "

Share your thoughts with us JonC.
Which child survived to give us direct descendants?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on June 25, 2010, 02:30:03 AM
Quote
" that there are no direct descendants of the Anointed line of Nicholas 2nd himself which makes the Pauline laws null and void. Of course , again, I'm NOT one who holds such a conviction. JonC.  "
The fact that there's no direct descendant means nothing and certainly does not make the Pauline laws null and void. There's no such thing as an "anointed line". I mean look at the succession following the establishment of the Pauline laws, it was erratic. Alexander I (son of Paul I) > Grand Duke Constantine (son of Paul I) > Nicholas I (son of Paul I) > Alexander II (son of Nicholas I) etc. I mean, there's no reason you can't have the descendants of the Vladimirovitchi assume the throne, or if you don't want them, have the Nikolaievichi. When you look at how disjointed the history of succession under the Romanov's it, there seems plenty of precedents to put any of the modern Romanov's on the throne. And if you're really serious about "anointed lines", then the customary coronation ceremony would re-establish it.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on June 25, 2010, 06:02:51 AM
Ah, "richard 1990" and your Reply # 584:  Your comments about the "erratic" succession to the Russian throne, reminds me of a quote (author unknown to me, at least at present):  "The Russian throne is neither hereditary, nor elective.....it is usurperatory."   Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on June 25, 2010, 09:40:08 AM
Ah, "richard 1990" and your Reply # 584:  Your comments about the "erratic" succession to the Russian throne, reminds me of a quote (author unknown to me, at least at present):  "The Russian throne is neither hereditary, nor elective.....it is usurperatory."   Regards,  AP.

Pretty much in agreement here, Aleksandr Pavlovich. However, what of this word, usurperatory?  Would you be so kind as to elaborate on this definition?

When you look at the 'big picture', I am not so sure that Putin would wish for a monarch to live in the restored Alexander Palace.  Further, I am not so sure that a monarch would choose to live there either.

I have made many trips to the UK and Ireland, on spiritual tours, that have taken me through many castles.  The hiers of these homes find it extremely expensive to maintain.  Many of them simply renovate a condominium style of living in a portion of the castle, and allow tourists to come through, as part of The National Trust.  This way they can keep their properties as part of their inheritance. We know that there would be funds to maintain Alexander Palace.

I am inclined to agree with Lisa Davidson's outlook on the young Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov. He represents the line of Alexander III, through his great grandmother Xenia Alexandrovna Romanova. He is in good standing with all of the Romanov relations, and attends royal gatherings by invitation. People know of him.

There are others out there, however, that may not be recognized or wish to have nothing to do with the turmoil of the family. I will step out on a limb here, because I am a believer, and mention that there was the daughter of Prince Nicolas Dolgoruky and Cecile Czapska (aka Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna), Olga-Béata (b.1927). Her son, Alexis d'Anjou Romanov-Dolgorouki, Duke of Durazzo (1946-1995), has a son living in Europe. I am aware that he does not even know he is a Romanov, though many of you would say that he is not. I have read Alexis' book, and find it both with credence and authenticity. There are still many supporters of Alex. When he was living, he occupied the position as a Russian, for the Soveriegn Order for Saint John of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceclava_Czapska

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/UNIoN_SOVIeTICA/zarina/hijas/sobrevivieron/matanza/familia/imperial/rusa/elpepiint/19800210elpepiint_1/Tes/

http://www.orderofsaintjohn.info/

I am one that believes there are descendants in the world today, under alias names they were given at birth with their parents.  After learning about all the victims of the Stalin era, and how he sent his KGB around the world to silence exiled Russians that were not supportive of him, there is room for other theory and considerations. Due to the fact that the Romanoff Family Association does not entertain claimants, one can imagine the costs of going public, and having the support to do so.

The old laws regarding the succession should also be left up to interpretation.  This has been stated by the current president, Nikolai Romanovich
 of the RFA, for there is no Tsar to approve or deny marriages or divorces, and there are not enough royals to marry! In the interim, it is up to the people of Russia to make the overture of a return. They may never decide to do so.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on June 25, 2010, 09:56:05 AM
Re Reply # 586:   Hello!  Not having the printed quote in front of me, the CORRECT/CORRECTED spelling is "usurpatory."  Obviously, it comes from the verb " usurp" ("to seize or hold with force an office, position, etc., without legal right"). That's what results I get for typing so early in the morning!  Nice to hear from you again!  Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on June 25, 2010, 10:10:30 AM
Re Reply # 586:   Hello!  Not having the quote in front of me, the CORRECT/CORRECTED spelling is "usurpatory."  Obviously, it comes from the verb " usurp" ("to seize or hold with force an office, position, etc., without legal right"). That's what results I get for typing so early in the morning!  Nice to hear from you again!  Regards,  AP.

Thank you for the clarification, AP.  I like the "without legal right" part.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on June 25, 2010, 11:20:27 AM
Is this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Brimeyer ) the person you're talking about SirJohnGaines? An imposter? Btw, a very appropriate quote AP.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: toscany on June 25, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
Is this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Brimeyer ) the person you're talking about SirJohnGaines? An imposter? Btw, a very appropriate quote AP.

Yes, I speak of him.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on June 26, 2010, 12:03:00 PM
" that there are no direct descendants of the Anointed line of Nicholas 2nd himself which makes the Pauline laws null and void. Of course , again, I'm NOT one who holds such a conviction. JonC.  "

Share your thoughts with us JonC.
Which child survived to give us direct descendants?


Well, discussions of ' Joseph LoPresti's ' claims have been prohibited on this forum for years but I think I can give you a link to his web page which will clue you in on what he claims.

' www.home.earthlink.net/~alexofdenmark '

Presently, to update, a ' Y Chromosome ' analysis is in the works on the male descendants from who he has claimed to be Alexie, who are still alive or else he has to exhume his grandmother, Josephine, who he claims to be ' Anastasia '. I'm sure that will put an end of sorts. Either that his claim is true or that it is false because if the analysis proves a match it has to be true, grouped with his other documentation and photographs. Also how likely would it be that Tsar Nicholas 2nd would have children other than OTMA running around the world. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on June 27, 2010, 12:11:21 AM
I've noticed lately that those people who refuse to accept the DNA analysis done by the Russian/British scientists as legitimate point to some conspiracy conducted by the Russian government. Look at the bottom of that website JonC where the webhost says "[...] so that everyone who has a voice can express their outrage on the Russian government for continuing to hide the truth." Why would they need to hide the truth? The Russian government has no problem meeting with Maria Vladimirovna and her family, or Nicholas Romanov and his family.

This particular case strikes me as being absurd than most others. Claiming that the Empress herself survived is rather absurd - why didn't she contact her family? Why didn't she contact the other surviving Romanov's?

Also, could anyone explain the conspiracy theorist line that the Russian government has something to hide?

edit: JonC that site is ridiculous. Check this photo ( http://home.earthlink.net/~alexofdenmark/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kaiserandemanuele.jpg ), the website claims that this is a photo of his grandfather "Emanuele" with Kaiser Wilhelm II... that's laughable. That man is not kaiser wilhelm.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on June 27, 2010, 07:06:13 PM
You are
I've noticed lately that those people who refuse to accept the DNA analysis done by the Russian/British scientists as legitimate point to some conspiracy conducted by the Russian government. Look at the bottom of that website JonC where the webhost says "[...] so that everyone who has a voice can express their outrage on the Russian government for continuing to hide the truth." Why would they need to hide the truth? The Russian government has no problem meeting with Maria Vladimirovna and her family, or Nicholas Romanov and his family.

This particular case strikes me as being absurd than most others. Claiming that the Empress herself survived is rather absurd - why didn't she contact her family? Why didn't she contact the other surviving Romanov's?

Also, could anyone explain the conspiracy theorist line that the Russian government has something to hide?

edit: JonC that site is ridiculous. Check this photo ( http://home.earthlink.net/~alexofdenmark/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kaiserandemanuele.jpg ), the website claims that this is a photo of his grandfather "Emanuele" with Kaiser Wilhelm II... that's laughable. That man is not kaiser wilhelm.


As I said, discussions are not allowed about Mr. LoPresti. You make unqualified statements about how ' ridiculous ' his site is. So I'm compelled to reply. First of all the Russian govt., ingratiates Maria because she isn't of Nicholas 2nd's line or of any Pauline legitimate line. Eliminating the legitimate line with bones collected in an unscientific, contaminated way which no court on earth could or would consider valid IF it were ever taken to court was the only way the Russian, American and British govts., could collude together in order to establish democracy in Russia...my opinion of course....These governments needed to have Russia to grow and move on with freedom and democracy. Eliminating the Romanov issue from the minds of the Russian people was a valiant effort in order to free Russians from their historical capacity to be subservient to totalitarianism, and also, on the other hand, to rebuild the palaces and Romanov imagery so that Russians could be proud of their history, creating a foundation for a new world and a new hope for the future.

All this, though, doesn't take away the reality that the Royal Family could still have survived as Mr. LoPresti is trying to prove even now with his ' Y Chromosome ' analysis. Sorry if this offends anyone but I have an open mind about this and am eagerly awaiting the results. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 27, 2010, 08:17:52 PM
The vast majority  have not interest whatsover in the Romanovs, so it would take  very little effort to get their minds off them. I am sure they do not sit around debating who the "rightful heir" is.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: richard_1990 on June 27, 2010, 11:45:06 PM
Thanks for the reply JonC. But, just look at the photographs on his website. None of them are the people he says they are.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 28, 2010, 12:42:06 AM
I feel like a hostess whose guests have abused her hospitality. We have been clear about why we don't allow imposter discussions any more. It's no big secret - the owner of this site, Bob Atchison, the Forum Administrator, and all of us who have worked over the years with Bob, all agree that the results of the testing on the 2007 remains as well as those excavated in 1991 conclusively prove that none of the Imperial Family imprisoned at the Ipatiev House survived.

In spite of this, discussion about impostors continues on legitimate threads such as this one. It's a big wide web out there, folks, so you are welcome to take your faux Romanov beliefs out there. Just not here. This is my first and only warning - all faux Romanov advocacy will be deleted and perps reported to the FA.

To the rest of our well behaved members and guests, I apologize for the misbehavior of some of the others.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: JonC on June 28, 2010, 08:59:38 AM
Dear Lisa, the question of just who the imposter(s) are is still arguable in my mind. In all fairness to me I did warn Richard and others NOT to talk about this topic on this forum because of the policy you mention. JonC.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 16, 2010, 01:28:47 AM
Indeed, you did Jon C. So, let's get back to the topic.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 16, 2010, 08:20:13 AM
Hi,

BTW, what is the topic anyway??
Oh yes, "Who is the Rightful Heir?" - -

ME !!!
For the one and only reason that I've been to Russia 6 times and
I'd love to live in the Winter Palace, if only to run up & down The Jordan Staircase (my favourite place on Earth!!).....

Sorry Lisa - now back on topic.
And, you can spank me the next time we meet;  and I'm sure you will!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 18, 2010, 12:23:17 AM
Larry - you have much better taste than many mentioned here, so I imagine you would do wonderful things with the Winter Palace. And spankings or not, we have too much fun, don't we? :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 18, 2010, 09:01:21 AM
Dear Lisa,

Ah, yes we do, we do have fun!!!

Tea will be served in the Malacite Room when I become Czar....

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 18, 2010, 09:25:05 AM
Czar of what, Larry ? Remember Peter 1 abolished that title in 1725 [as I try to keep remindiing, to no  avail].
 In any case- the Malachite Room? Reserved for imperial weddings and the highest of formal state receptions.....? For TEA!  Well,  I would have to drag out [get my drift?] my malachite suite, with matchin accessories.  Been years since that has been dusted off, least of all cleaned! but, for tea at the Winter Palace [even with my own Faberge flask] it might be worth it, don't cha think?
 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 18, 2010, 11:45:01 AM
Hi,

Now Robert, you know I'm only kidding - let me be a phony Czar (I do not stive to be Emperor!!), and I will bring my malachite egg (the only malachite thing I own) to match your service and we can all fantacize together about what could have been!!!

Sometimes I take a silly pill and just dream.

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 18, 2010, 12:57:01 PM
That is OK, Larry, so was I.
 However, I do have a Malachite suite that has not been dusted off in years,  It is just too heavy!
 However, this line of humour suits the thread- just as silly.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Alixz on July 23, 2010, 01:33:46 PM
I couldn't imagine why anyone including Putin would want to declare himself/herself as Emperor or Empress.  The restoration of the Alexander Palace is like the restoration of Disney Land.  It is to bring in tourist dollars not to set up a new monarchy.

I know the line of succession and why it is the way it is.  I don't agree with it, but I don't matter.

I see Marie Vladimirovna as a cartoon figure and her son is one as well.

It has been close to 100 years folks.  Even any Romanovs who might harbor a need to be back in charge know that.

Of course the right of presumption moves from direct line to the next available and complete - by law- direct line and so there is always going to be someone who can be considered a claimant.  But the farther we get from Nicholas and his death, the less it matters.

BTW - I have a couple of Malachite pendants and one watch with a malachite face so can I come to tea?
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 23, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
There are "claimants" to many extinct thrones  still running around, all  just silly wastes of time & energy, IMO.  I hear from or about these people all the time. One of the latest claims to be descendant of the Ptolemy's of Egypt. Right, and I am, well, whatever I want to be.
 I agree Alixz, the Romanov  "cause" or whatever it may be called, is futile and they must be aware that no one cares! At least  the  Russians  I know do not.
 BTW, Alixz, my teas are more like "Ladies Who Lunch" [Sondheim] And my malachite is in need of cleaning. I used to loan it out for weddings and stage, but it is so covered in makeup now, I would have to send it out. Unless...thedishwasher ???
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Alixz on July 23, 2010, 02:54:15 PM
Robert - Please not the dishwasher!

I think I knew that your teas would be like that, but I would want to come anyway.  Especially if Larry can pull off changing 300 years of tradition and actually have tea in the Malachite room.  It would seem the Alexandra couldn't change a thing.

And back to the Rightful Heir.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TimM on July 23, 2010, 06:48:45 PM
Well, if could possibly happen.  Look at Spain, they got rid of their monarchy in the early 1930's, but got it back after Franco died in 1975.

Of course, should Russia bring the monarchy back, it won't be the old Empire, that's dead and gone.  Rather I think it would be like the British Monarchy.  The Tsar would be a figurehead, with no political power.

So never say never. 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Alixz on July 23, 2010, 07:20:32 PM
But Franco made that choice and let the royal family know that the monarchy would be restored with Juan Carlos.

That was about a 45 year absence for the family but they knew well in advance of Franco's death that they would be coming back.

I guess that one can never say never, and the Imperial Family is quite popular again, but is Marie Vladimirovna and her son any where near as popular as the late Tsar is now? 

And is the late tsar only popular because he is dead?  Guilt, even after almost 100 years, is a powerful motivator. 

No one has any reason to feel guilty about Marie or her son George.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TimM on July 23, 2010, 09:10:12 PM
Quote
and the Imperial Family is quite popular again


One has to wonder what Nicky and his family would say if they knew about this, heck, perhaps they do know.  It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the matter.  What would they think of this board, for example.

Off topic, I know :)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 23, 2010, 09:48:50 PM
Hi,

Yes Alixz, by all means you can come to tea;  and bring your malachite, I'd love to see it!!
I didn't know that you couldn't have tea in the Malachite Room (that shows you how much I know!)...
So, I suppose they wouldn't allow me to put a bed on the Jordan Staircase either and just live there...

I can see that I would probably be deposed after 2 weeks - - oh well!!!!   ;D

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Alixz on July 24, 2010, 09:18:16 AM
Larry - I also think that the Jordan Staircase is one of the most beautiful places in any of the palaces.  It is instantly recognizable.  

I want to walk up it and pretend that I am attending the last Winter Ball of Alexander III and his wife Marie Feodorovna in 1984.

Well before Alexandra came to be in charge and spoiled all the fun.

But back to topic.  Sigh...

And further off topic, the malachite watch face is taken from the design of a clock face on display in the Hermitage (of course in much smaller dimensions)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on July 24, 2010, 10:27:59 AM
Hi Alixz,

Your watch sounds wonderful;  to be treasured I'm sure....

Now back on topic - suffice it to say that the rightful heir is not me - darn!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: HSHPrinceMichael on October 23, 2010, 03:57:37 PM
Every time I see these assemblage of names, I walk into my study and gaze on a remarkable  "document" that hangs suitably framed and away from direct sunlight.  The story is this:  When the body of the Empress Marie Feodorovna was brought back for burial in the vaults of the Imperial Church of Sts Peter and Paul, a learned gentleman (who speaks/reads and lives in Russia for a portion of each year-----indeed was instrumental in translating the Emperess Marie's diaries Danish/Russian) with whom I have had serveral contacts by telephone and mail was invited and was in attendance at the burial ceremonies in Saint Petersburg, 2006 (and NO, while he said that he heard the noise and subsequent commotion of the "Danish" diplomat, slipping and falling into the prepared waiting/open grave of Maria Feorodorvna, he did not actually wittness it due to the crowd in the church, but there exist good  photos of this mishap).  After the service, there was a luncheon held at a nearby church hall, where most of the prominent guests attended, including my acquaintance.  A several page memorial booklet containing a "Hymn" created in 1890, by a Milli Balak ( but not published at that time) had now been finally published and was presented to the VIP guests at the afternoon luncheon, following the ceremonies. Dedicated to the late Enpress and bearing her likeness on the from cover and was printed in both Russian and Danish with the date 2006. ( A separate menu of the luncheon was also placed at each dining position.) My acquaintance gathered at least two of the "Hymn" booklets and proceeded to politely and ethically move among the more prominent guests with highly pertitent Russian historical connections in this situation.  He asked if they would autograph, (as a momento of the occasion) a couple of copies each on the inside title page?  And WHAT an assemblage of names did he gather! Somewhat later he put up for sale ONE copy of the Hymn and one copy of the luncheon memu (unsigned).  Learning of his willingness to sell one copy of each, I immediately entered into a contest with several others desirious of such an historical assemblage of names.  My top competitor turned out to be a "Texas University of Russian History professor," but I was able to become the purchaser of BOTH the items.  I have absolutely NO DOUBT that these are authentic signed-on the-spot by the people so named.  The signatories on the inside front right page are as follows: ""Prince Nicholas Romanoff (simply signed "Nicholas"; Prince Dimitri Romanoff, (signed "Dimitri Romanoff"; "Princess Olga Romanova"( signed "Olga Romanova"); "George Yurievsky" (great-grandson of the Emperor Alexander II); "Princess Angelica Ilyinsky;" "Dimitri R. Ilyinsky;" and " Anna Ilyinsky;" ( daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich); and Princess Xenia Yusupova Sifiri ( daughter of Prince Felix Yusupov and the Grand Duchess Irina Alexandrovna).  This was an unrepeated chance for me to have all these interrelated and intertwined representatives of this era assembled on one page and I happily paid the price!  The question arises:  Where was the Grand Duchess Maria V. ?  I understand that she left early, thus no representative signature of herself.  The acquisition of signatures settled on the Russian individuals, not on such other relations as the Michael Kents, who were there.   The booklet is twelve pages, in Russian and Danish, 6" x 8.5."  I apologize in advance in spelling/s as it was the first time I have had it down from the wall since framing in early 2007!  I have seen nothing like it before, or since.    AP.








Hello aleksandr pavlovich,

To correct a couple of typos regarding your signatures.  It should be Prince Dmitri Romanoff Ilyinsky, Princess Anne Romanoff Ilyinsky (Anne Glossinger) and Grand Duke Dmitri (only two, not three "i's." I'm a bit dysfunctional when it comes to proper spelling of names. By the way, who did you purchase the menu and Hymn from? Perhaps Paul or Steven?

Kindest Regards,

Michael














Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 23, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
Re Reply # 614:   Greetings! I thank you very much indeed for your kind note of assistance in properly correcting the names that you mentioned. I will definitely append your information to the existing documentation that I have.  As to the vendor source, I will get that to you right away in a personal e-mail. Best wishes to you and yours for the up-coming Holidays!  Best regards,  Aleksandr Pavlovich.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TimM on October 23, 2010, 07:57:30 PM
I can't help but smile when I read about all these people bickering over which of them is the rightful heir.  Until Russia becomes a monarchy again, it really doesn't matter who wins this fight.

Hail (fill in the name), Emperor of nothing!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Превед on November 11, 2013, 08:38:13 PM
My acquaintance gathered at least two of the "Hymn" booklets and proceeded to politely and ethically move among the more prominent guests with highly pertitent Russian historical connections in this situation.  He asked if they would autograph, (as a momento of the occasion) a couple of copies each on the inside title page?  And WHAT an assemblage of names did he gather! Somewhat later he put up for sale ONE copy of the Hymn and one copy of the luncheon memu (unsigned).  Learning of his willingness to sell one copy of each, I immediately entered into a contest with several others desirious of such an historical assemblage of names.  My top competitor turned out to be a "Texas University of Russian History professor," but I was able to become the purchaser of BOTH the items.  I have absolutely NO DOUBT that these are authentic signed-on the-spot by the people so named.  The signatories on the inside front right page are as follows: ""Prince Nicholas Romanoff (simply signed "Nicholas"; Prince Dimitri Romanoff, (signed "Dimitri Romanoff"; "Princess Olga Romanova"( signed "Olga Romanova"); "George Yurievsky" (great-grandson of the Emperor Alexander II); "Princess Angelica Ilyinsky;" "Dimitri R. Ilyinsky;" and " Anna Ilyinsky;" ( daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich); and Princess Xenia Yusupova Sifiri ( daughter of Prince Felix Yusupov and the Grand Duchess Irina Alexandrovna).  This was an unrepeated chance for me to have all these interrelated and intertwined representatives of this era assembled on one page and I happily paid the price!  The question arises:  Where was the Grand Duchess Maria V. ?  I understand that she left early, thus no representative signature of herself.

I can understand her if she left early! This sounds tacky: Asking for autographs on a hymn booklet at a memorial ceremony and then proceeding to sell it!
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Vecchiolarry on November 11, 2013, 10:59:46 PM
Hi,

Indeed - crass and tacky - and quite without class...
Even the lowliest plebian in Rome wouldn't behave so vulgarly!!!!!!!

Larry
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Ajimmo on November 11, 2013, 11:21:50 PM
I am curious as to who is Anna Ilyinsky?  The named Angelica is (now) the widow of Pr Paul Ilyinksy, who was a US Marine, the Mayor of Palm Beach Florida USA and a very handsome man as well as the son of the Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovitch.  . 
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Превед on November 12, 2013, 09:44:27 AM
I am curious as to who is Anna Ilyinsky?

Paul Ilyinskiy's youngest daughter. See here. (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#.D0.91.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.B8_.D0.BF.D0.BE.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.BC.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.BE)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Romanov_Fan19 on November 13, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchist_Party     good idea   ???
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Michael HR on November 17, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
Hi all,

Until Russia decides on this question it is mute.

For myself I have always followed the manifesto of GD Michael Alexandrovich when he handed imperial power to the Duma for the people to decide in free elections, and the Duma to ratify,  who and in what status should take the throne. This was the last act of the dynasty and is effectively still in effect. The Pauline laws do not matter it will be a decision for the country to make should they wish.

Michael
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: TimM on November 17, 2014, 06:17:02 PM
Looks to me that Putin setting himself up for the job.   He acts like an autocrat, he's in tight with the ROC, he's building himself a fancy palace on the Black Sea.

All Hail His Imperial Highness:  Tsar Vladimir I
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Превед on November 18, 2014, 03:18:46 PM
All Hail His Imperial Highness:  Tsar Vladimir I


As Imperial Majesty Vladimir Vladimirovich would be Vladimir IV. (V, if you count the Romanov pretender Vladimir Cyrillovich-:)
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: NickNicholsonNYC on December 17, 2014, 01:39:11 PM
The problem with George may be the fact that his line is excluded entirely because Maria Pavlovna was not orthodox at the time her sons were born. Alexander II gave Vladimir succession rights for marrying outside of Orthodoxy, but said nothing about any children he produced. See my comment in the Kyrill thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1076312290;start=15#15

If this report is true, then this entire line has no "legal" claim to succession. Many people belive this to be correct.

This is a fiction.  Regarding HIH Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich and his succession rights and the succession rights of his children. You state (as have many western scholars) that Kirill Vladimirovich had no right of succession to the Russian throne because of the Lutheran faith of his mother at the time of his birth.  This is, in fact, a widely repeated fallacy -- it was among the many pieces of émigré disinformation which was spread in the west after 1918 by supporters of Nikolai Nikolaevich aimed at people who were unfamiliar with private arrangements within the Imperial Family, as well as the specific nature of the succession laws.

There was a "Familial Decree" at the time of the marriage of Grand Duke Vladimir to his wife Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna concerning this exact matter.  Because of Maria Pavlovna's reticence regarding conversion, the following document was drawn up, signed, countersigned, and announced in the Russian Imperial Senate (full citation follows the quote for the original Russian Source material):

“Having allowed my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, to enter into marriage with Her Grand Ducal Highness Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; and indicating our agreement that Her Highness Duchess Marie, in accordance with her special familial circumstances, is not required before her betrothal and marriage to convert to the Orthodox faith, I deem it right to establish in this present Familial Decree the following unalterable rules with respect to this marriage: (1) If, by God’s inscrutable will, the succession to the Throne should fall to my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, and his spouse should remain in the Lutheran faith, then my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, in accordance with Article 142 of the Fundamental Laws, may not take up the right of succession other than after the conversion of his spouse to the Orthodox faith; (2) If the spouse of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich should not convert to the Orthodox Faith at the time of the passing of the Succession to him, then he should be regarded as having of his own free will renounced his said rights, in full accordance with the contents of Articles 15 and 16 of the Fundamental Laws; (3) If, by God’s inscrutable will, the spouse of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, having not converted to the Orthodox faith, should die before the passing to him of the right of succession, then, his marriage to a person of another faith having ended, he will preserve his right of succession to the Throne;  (4) In the event indicated above in section 2 concerning the renunciation of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, and in the same manner if, by God’s inscrutable will, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich should die before his spouse should convert to the Orthodox faith, the children born of this marriage retain full rights to the succession and are Members of the Imperial House in the order of succession set by the Fundamental Laws.” 

This ukaz' was signed by Emperor Aleksandr II, by the Tsesarevich Aleksandr, and by the bridegroom, Grand Duke Vladimir Aleksandrovich.  Dr. Stanislaw V. Dumin found this memorandum in the Russian State Historical Archive (GARF) in Moscow.  I am grateful to Brien Horan for having brought it to my attention and to Professor Russell Martin for his English translation.  The original is at GARF, Fond 468, subsection 46, number 63.  CF Dr. Dumin’s analysis of this document is in the Chronicle of the Historical and Genealogical Society, issue 14/15 (58/59), Moscow, 2009.  (The numbering of the Fundamental Laws was different in 1874 than in 1917, when the monarchy fell.)  It was first published in english by Brien Horan in his article "The Russian Succession in 2013" published in the Royal Russia Annual Vol. No. 3, 2013.

You can see from this Ukaz' that even if Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna had NOT converted to Orthodoxy, there was no question that her son, Kirill Vladimirovich, and all subsequent issue were in line for the throne with full dynastic rights.  The conversion of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna may be regarded charitably to have been a purely religious act of conscience on the death of her husband, or uncharitably as a political move to remove the last publicly perceived though legally irrelevant obstacle to her son's inheritance of the throne.
Title: Re: Who is the rightful heir?
Post by: Royal Bloodline Descent on May 15, 2016, 02:05:10 PM
Is the rightful heir really Grand Duke George? I highly doubt his claim but he seems to be the only Romanov interested in the throne. Is there any other claimants? Even though the chances of the monarchy being restored are slim, I would still like to know who the real heir is.


Interesting discussion old or new the question is relevant today as it was before.   Royal Bloodline Descent on facebook  has posted on their site facts of Czar Nicholas 11 his rare bloodline markers that were passed on to Alexis and Anastasia.  So the question may be. does the present pretender and his mother the Grand Duchess have any claim to the present defunct throne of the Czar or might is be a present day Romanov whose bloodline may be the same a s Nicholas 11 and two of his children.

So the question may be who shares the royal bloodline of the last Czar of Russia or is it a mother or son that appears not to know anything of the royal bloodline of Nicholas 11 that is still been inherited even today.

Royal Bloodline Descent     on facebook