Grand Duke Kyrill, his wife Victoria Fedorovna and children, Part II

[Kalafrana]

The whole business is extremely complicated!

One of the arguments against Vladimir Kirillovich, though not against Kirill himself, is that the marriage between Kirill and Victoria Melita was invalid in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, which does not permit marriage between first cousins and does not recognise marriages conducted by other churches (the pair married in a Lutheran Church).

Hope that helps.

Ann

[QueenEna1887]

So far that does help. But if Cyril and Ducky married in a Lutheran Church wouldn't that also have barred Cyril from the succession? I mean yes he was Orthodox and Ducky later converted to Orthodox but they were married in Tegernese, Bavaria...I wonder which church?  And thanks Ann.

[rachel5a]

Does it matter that she was divorced also?

[Kalafrana]

I'm not an expert on the exact Russian position, but the British position would be that neither would automatically bar Kirill from the succession. Under the Act of Settlement 1701 marriage to a Catholic would bar a person from the succession (no case law on marriage in a Catholic church, but here you wouldn't marry in a Catholic church unless one of the parties was a Catholic!). No formal restriction on marriage to a divorcee. However, in my opinion either would give discretion to bar the person from the succession. This is effectively what happened with the Duke of Windsor, who abdicated for himself and any issue in order to marry Wallis Simpson, and Parliament then passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act to give full legal effect to the abdication.

Hope that helps

Ann

[Robert_Hall]

It is my view that he was the legitmate  successor according to the Pauline laws, all others being  eliminated. These were indeed extraordinary circumstances and the Romanov succession was not as cut and dried as perhaps some others were.

[Belochka]

It is my view that he was the legitmate  successor according to the Pauline laws, all others being  eliminated. These were indeed extraordinary circumstances and the Romanov succession was not as cut and dried as perhaps some others were.

All Imperial laws were extinguished when the monarchy collapsed in March 1917 and were replaced by the set of laws enacted by the Provisional Government. The P. G. did its best to eradicate its nation's former ties to the monarchic system of government.

Thus, the imperial Pauline Fundamental Laws were no longer operative (in whole or in part) in the new Russia nor in any foreign jurisdiction (abroad). Consequently, there could never have been a successor who could claim rights to the defunct Romanov throne. 

Kyrill was the first pretender in his family to make a claim that there was a throne to be had.

[Sunny]

Well - if we choose to follow tsar's Paul laws, which still were the main laws during Nicholas' reing, then Kirill COULDN'T technically be heir. He was married to his first cousin, which is not (as you have said) permitted in the Orthodox Church; moreover, when there still was a throne Nicholas, the head of the state, never recognised the marriage, so for this two reasons Kirill's son COULDN'T be tsarevich.
But as Belochka stated, this laws were no more effective when the Provisional Government took power.
IMHO, it's a problem of choosing - do the living Romanovs want to continue to follow - among them of course - Paul's law? If so, technically, the hereditary line has estinguished when Alexej died. The don't want to because they are not valid anymore? Well, so Kirill should be considered heir because, as Robert pointed out, there was none else left.
Note that even Michail - if he had survived and all - couldn't be heir according to Paul's laws - his marriage was bnever recognized, and was morganatic. His son was not a Romanov, and all.
I have always thought Paul's laws were too restrictive: i mean, one to be heir should have too many necessary requirements to be "ok". It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the dinasty couldn't have provided someone who could fulfill them perfectly. Here, IMHO, also lies the deep of the tragedy of Alexej's illness - beyond Alexej there was, in that precise moment, NONE ELSE who could really be heir fullfilling the requirement's of Paul's laws. 

[Belochka]

Well - if we choose to follow tsar's Paul laws, which still were the main laws during Nicholas' reing, then Kirill COULDN'T technically be heir. He was married to his first cousin, which is not (as you have said) permitted in the Orthodox Church; moreover, when there still was a throne Nicholas, the head of the state, never recognised the marriage, so for this two reasons Kirill's son COULDN'T be tsarevich.

Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolayevich was the last Heir to the Romanov throne.

[Kalafrana]

The Pauline Law contained so many restrictions precisely because Tsar Paul wished to ensure that no one like his mother could ever again claim the throne!

As a constitutional lawyer (albeit a British one), I would argue that the fall of the monarchy did not extinguish the Pauline Law. A formal repeal would be necessary, by a body or office-holder with authority to repeal it. Under English law, an Act of Parliament is not rendered void by long disuse (Attorney General v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, House of Lords 1957). I understand that Michael of Roumania has said that he will not declare any of his five daughters to be his heir because the Roumanian succession law can only be altered by a reigning monarch, and there is none.

My personal take is that Kirill himself could be regarded as a legitimate heir, but not his issue.

Ann

[Belochka]

The Pauline Law contained so many restrictions precisely because Tsar Paul wished to ensure that no one like his mother could ever again claim the throne!

In 1886, Alexander III amended certain sections of the Fundamental Laws that further restricted its operation with regard to "succession".

As a constitutional lawyer (albeit a British one), I would argue that the fall of the monarchy did not extinguish the Pauline Law. A formal repeal would be necessary, by a body or office-holder with authority to repeal it. Under English law, an Act of Parliament is not rendered void by long disuse (Attorney General v HRH Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, House of Lords 1957).

Given the absence of revolutions in Britain, the British system of lawmaking is a continous process. Laws are indeed enacted and can be repealed by the sitting government of the day.

However, after the Provisional Government came to life in Russia following the February Revolution, it did not preserve the statutes related to "imperial succession". The new government was after all a republic. All legal ties to the former monarchy were progressively severed. When the Soviets grabbed power from the Provisional Government later that same year, they made a clean break with their legal past.

Consequently, Kirill's claim in the later part of the 1920's can only be described as self-indulgent.

[Forum Admin]

Actually, you are all missing the most important piece of the reason why Kyrill could never take the throne.  Maria Pavlovna senior was NOT Pravaslavnoya (Orthodox) when her sons were born.  The Laws of Succession are clear. The Heir MUST BE BORN TO AN ORTHODOX MOTHER.  Her 1905 later conversion can not retroactively cure that defect. Tchtcheglovitov was most clear (as Minister of Justice) and wrote his determination of this to both Nicholas II and Maria Pavlovna.  (See Spiridovitch "Les Derniers Annees...").  Because, however, they were still the grandsons of an Emperor they were still entitled to all the other rank and privileges of Grand Dukes.  People often confuse the retention of the privileges as Grandsons of an Emperor as some sort of acknowledgment of their place in the Succession.

This is the truly fatal reason why the Vladimirs have no legitimate claims. Period.

[Robert_Hall]

I never said these claims were legitimate, only to  certain minds living in a fantasy. AS Belotchka pointed out- there was no throne to claim. If anything, all this talk by Cyril  and company is purely hypothetical.
 There is, though, another claim- that of head of the house.  Which seemed to be rejected by all concerned.

[TimM]

One has to wonder that, should Russia ever choose to bring back the Monarchy (albeit in a British like Constitutional form), who would be picked?  Since Nicholas II had no direct descendants, that does muddy the waters somewhat.  I mean should Germany, for example, do this, they'd probably select the first born living descendant of Wilhelm II, which would be much easier.

[Robert_Hall]

In the case of Russia, it would not need be a Romanov.   The people, or whatever represents them,  would choose, just as in  1613. This is purely fantasy, as any such restoration would be highly unlikely.

[Belochka]

In the case of Russia, it would not need be a Romanov.   The people, or whatever represents them,  would choose, just as in  1613. This is purely fantasy, as any such restoration would be highly unlikely.

I agree with you Robert.

Russia's political development does not involve a return to its monarchic past.