« on: February 09, 2004, 11:10:58 PM »
While it is true that Kirill openly broke his oath to Nicholas, two points are salient here. One, there is nothing within the Fundamental Law which bars a traitorous heir from the throne. You could argue that such an heir would be morally unfit, but the law itself protects heirs from being excluded. Second, nearly all the Romanov agnates broke their oaths to Nicholas, it's just that Nicholas never made these actions public. So, if you would exclude Kirill (even though it violates the FL), you would have to exclude nearly every other Romanov alive in 1917 and their descendants.
Regarding problems with Kirill's marriage or his mother's religion excluding Kirill or his descendants, neither argument stands up. While Orthodoxy does frown on cousin marriages, there is no particular problem with 1st cousin marriages. Even so, the approval of the Tsar was considered to be all the dispensation needed for a cousin marriage, and clearly, Nicholas approved Kirill's marriage, albiet considerably after the fact. Kirill was listed as an agnate in every court circular from this approval through the Revolution. As to Maria Pavlovna's late conversion to Orthodoxy, it was customary for Romanov tsars to allow the German brides who joined the family and who did not marry heirs to the throne to keep their religion. The children of these marriages had full succession rights, so it appears the enforcement of this part of the FL allowed for late conversions such as Maria Pavlovna's in 1908. Again, all her sons (as well as the sons of Constantine, who also married a German bride) were listed as heirs to the succession in Court Circulars as long as they were published.
A source of all this confusion about what the Fundamental Law allows appears to be Massie. While a brilliant writer and historian, he is not well versed in this law, so one finds people repeating his arguments - few of which are valid.