Author Topic: Re: taking away the family name  (Read 37620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2004, 01:47:22 PM »
No I was being sarcastic because almost everybody does marry foreign royalty, like Nicholas, like most people. That's why did didn't get the thing that Tatiana K. denounced because she married a 'foreign prince' because that should not take you out of the line like marrying nobility does, (like Felix and Irina)  I also don't see the difference between the Yussoupovs and Bagrations, both former rulers living as subjects of the Tsar.

I admit I'm trying anything I can think of to get rid of Maria V.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2004, 07:51:48 PM »
Quote
I admit I'm trying anything I can think of to get rid of Maria V.  ;)


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

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

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

Greg King

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2004, 08:11:42 PM »
Annie-

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

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

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

Greg King

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2004, 09:56:27 PM »
I'd really rather not get into my personal opinons on the Vladimirovichi  :-X  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2004, 12:47:35 AM »
But that's the point of this discussion, Annie.  I think you need to explain your positions.

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

I also think the Vladimirovichi claim comes down to George making an equal marriage and siring sons. If he fails to do this, no matter how valid their claims are, with their claim to be the only dynasts, then by their definition, the Romanovs will be extinct. Finito, done, over.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by LisaDavidson »

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2004, 08:33:03 AM »
I mean I don't feel like fighting because some of the things I'd say wouldn't be very nice :-X Really, in all reality, the dynasty is extinct, and while people do remain alive, they are not royalty and have no powers or benefits of it. Even if MV is the legitimate heir, it really doesn't mean anything because people can make claims and fight over it and you never know who's going to win. The histories of Russia, and England, are full of things like that. So I don't see this as a cut and dry case based on rules. Since there is no throne, all the rules are just as invalid as other rules under the Imperial regime which fell in 1917, it's open season, and IF there is to be a restoration, which isn't likely, there should be several possible prospects.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2004, 10:03:40 AM »
Annie, that has been my position all along, for years. It is all academic & totally anachronistic.  The equal marriage bit has gone out the windows everywhere in Europe. As you said: just like all the other Imperial Laws.
Although I tend to think MV would be a "legitimist" heir, there honestly is nothing to be heir of. Other possibilities would only be natural The original Romanovs were elected [of a sort] so it would be expected for any hypothetical new dynasty to be so as well.
Cheers,
Robert
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline Katya04

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • a galaxy far far away
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2004, 12:04:18 PM »
Quote
I also think the Vladimirovichi claim comes down to George making an equal marriage and siring sons. If he fails to do this, no matter how valid their claims are, with their are claim to be the only dynasts, then by their definition, the Romanovs will be extinct. Finito, done, over.


What would be considered equal? Does he have to marry into a ruling family or will a deposed one do? Does he have any sweethearts yet?

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2004, 02:44:40 PM »
I don't know if GM has a girlfriend or not. If you accept MV as the head of the dynasty, then she would approve any marriages and decide if the bride is equal or not. As I said in another thread, this would be a dynast from a royal house or a non-reigning descendant such as GD Leonida Bragration.

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

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

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2004, 11:16:15 PM »
It's perhaps true that Vladimir would not have married a Bagration princess had he been a reigning emperor presiding over a country, though if the revolution had not happened, and Nicholas II had formalized what he said in 1911 to KR about recognizing the B-Ms as being equal and of sovereign status, it is always possible.  But as long as Maria Vladimirovna keeps to the former laws and statutes, it all comes down, as Lisa says, to George's pick of a bride.

Greg King

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
y furthwRe: taking away the family name
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2004, 11:06:20 AM »
Clinging to such anachronistic rules only makes them look like insufferable snobs. I cannot see them going any further with it.
I say this as a firm legitimist, for what my opinion may be worth.
As it is extremely unlikely that anyone, least of all a Romanov from either faction, will ever come to any revived "tsarist throne", the whole matter is simply academic, isn't it?
Cheers,
Robert
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2004, 11:13:07 AM »
I agree with Ralph said in this part of his posting:
Quote
... [in part]...it is extremely unlikely that anyone, least of all a Romanov from either faction, will ever come to any revived "tsarist throne", the whole matter is simply academic, isn't it?
Cheers,
Robert


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

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

AGRBear

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2004, 04:06:16 PM »
Just last week when I spoke with HRH Princess Michael of Kent,  she explained that she does NOT have a last name.  Her name is Marie Christine.  That is it.

So from the royal mouth to me to you ;D

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2004, 06:20:14 PM »
Wonder what it says in her passport...
Cheers,
Robert
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2004, 07:04:08 PM »
HRH Princess Michael of Kent, I would assume,  since her husband's title is higher than what she carried before her marriage.

However,  I do not know for sure.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152