Author Topic: Re: taking away the family name  (Read 37623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • born a century too late
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2005, 04:26:13 PM »
The Vladimirovicii have no leg to stand on when trying to disqualify the marriages of their Romanov relatives.

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

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

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

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


The above was excerpted from:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/suc.html
The only real possession you'll ever have is your character.
Tom Wolfe
US author & journalist (1931 - )

Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2005, 09:13:16 AM »
I've discussed the erroneous claim that Tatiana Konstantinovna's 1911 marriage was morganatic elsewhere, but as far as morganatic descendants being entitled to the surname of Romanov, this is clearly not the case.

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

Greg King

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2664
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2005, 03:09:06 PM »
Romanov descendants who wish to use the dynastic name as a surname are certainly legally entitled to do so under the laws of the countries in which they reside (or of which they are citizens). That is, providing such use does not violate the laws of that country. American Romanov descendants may generally use this surname (or another of their choosing) provided there is no intention to commit fraud.

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

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

So I think you are correct, Greg, to call Nicholas Romanovich by Nicholas Romanov.

Offline TampaBay

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4214
  • Being TampaBay is a Full Time Job.
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2005, 08:31:08 AM »
Quote

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



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

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

TampaBay
"Fashion is so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we should stop going to the mall.

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2010, 12:27:54 AM »
I just love the irony of the fact that everybody who could have been (imperial) Romanovs are merely Romanovskys, except Grand Duchess Maria and her son, who, while technically entitled to the dynastic name don't use it, because they are royals and thus don't use surnames! Just as ironic is the fact that love is always victorious: Indiscriminate love might do what the Revolution and the Bolsheviks didn't manage to: Wipe out the whole dynasty!

Although I see that Romanovsky is not automatically the surname of morganatic branches, I'd like to ask a question about it: Since Romanov is such a common name in Russia, is Romanovsky, being a derivation of a surname, more unique? Or could it just as well originally refer to a person from a place called Romanovo, in which case I guess it wouldn't be very unique.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 12:29:38 AM by Tainyi Sovetnik »

Offline Student of History

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2010, 02:28:28 AM »
I think Queen Margerethe of Denmark summed it up best in an interview with the BBC (?) for the series Royals of Europe when she was asked about the succession to the Russian throne. It went something like this... "It is a family matter".






Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2010, 06:30:52 AM »
I think my objection to the Vladimirovichi is that since 1928 they have used their decidedly theoretical powers under the Fundamental Law only to the benefit of themselves!

Ann

Offline Student of History

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2010, 07:07:51 PM »
Ann,
Don't we all have family members that make us cringe at times? But can we dismiss a child's natural instict to trust and adore their parents and grandparents and hang on their every word, comforted in the (sometimes false) reassurances of 'why would s/he make it up.?' 
The recollections of displaced persons differs widely for a number of reasons: some choose to talk, some feel compelled to talk and some will never talk about their experiences (one only needs to profile returned servicemen from WWII for suitable insights) yet from this reality we,  the following generations have to piece together our own understanding of the past.
Surely, if we can learn anything from the 1917 Revolution, shouldn't it be that children do not deserve to be brutalised because of the shortcomings of their kin?
Kind Regards,
SOH

Offline kmerov

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2010, 06:24:56 PM »
I think my objection to the Vladimirovichi is that since 1928 they have used their decidedly theoretical powers under the Fundamental Law only to the benefit of themselves!

Ann

Could you explain how and when they have done this according to you?

Offline richard_1990

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2010, 03:22:13 AM »
Quote
I think my objection to the Vladimirovichi is that since 1928 they have used their decidedly theoretical powers under the Fundamental Law only to the benefit of themselves!

Ann
I think 99% of non-reigning royalty using their 'theoretical' powers to benefit themselves...

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2010, 03:31:19 AM »
First Vladimir Kirillovich declared himself a Grand Duke (or was declared a Grand Duke by his father - I can't remember which), although he was merely a Prince of the Imperial Blood. Vladimir then declared his own marriage to be - uniquely - within the Pauline Law, although there is room for doubt, to put it no more strongly. He then declared his daughter to be his heir and a Grand Duchess, when, again, she was no more than a Princess of the Imperial Blood. Then there is 'Grand Duke' Georgi Mikhailovich.

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

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

Ann

Offline kmerov

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2010, 05:57:04 PM »
I see your objection to the family is mostly because of their use of the Grand Ducal title, or am I wrong? I fail to see how exactly they have "only benefitted themselves" though. Whether you like this branch of the family, past or present, they became head of the Romanov family and remain so today.

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


I fail to see what Romanian succession law has to do with Russia, since it is a completely different situation.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2010, 06:11:33 PM »
I must agree with Kmerov;  all actions taken  by the Valdimirs is completely in line with the fundamental laws. Also, if GD Maria is "benefitting" from her position,  no one seems to know it.  She has not much, if any, money and lives off the kindness of her relatives,  donates most of her time to the church and  put her son through school to earn a living.
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 Margot

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2010, 01:32:46 AM »
I wander if poor George is going to forced to make a dynastic marriage to a Highness just to satisfy his mother?

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2929
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2010, 05:36:28 AM »
I think it is the arrogance of the 'We are the only real Romanovs,' which gets up my nose, but this is an entirely personal view.

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

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

Ann