Author Topic: Re: taking away the family name  (Read 46387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Seth Leonard

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2010, 10:08:27 PM »
Just because Maria married equally does not necessarily mean that she is going to hold her son to the same high standard (a standard which nearly all European royal families have now abandoned). The Grand Duchess and her son have several times talked about the possibility of relaxing the marriage laws of the dynasty should the Head of the Imperial House (luckily, Maria herself) and the Russian Patriarch agree to it. So, if George falls for a mere mademoiselle instead of a blue blood, I would not be surprised if the aforementioned change takes place, and the marriage is declared dynastic anyways.

But this is all speculation, George may not marry for years, or he might not marry at all. Only time will tell.

Offline Margot

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2010, 10:44:55 PM »
Goodness I had no idea. It does seem rather amazing that one member of a family can have such flexible and singular power to change family laws at will! Even when that member is not even anointed by God!

No wonder so many other members of the family have disputed such chicanery over the decades....in particular the 'equality' of the marriage of MV parents which I, to this day, find still leaves a decidedly unpleasant whiff of hypocrisy in the air!

If George married a commoner perhaps MV should be brave enough to consult the rest of her family! Just to see what sort of response she would get! Especially if it was suggested that any further changes beto the family law be made retroactive! If that happened I would love to see what would happen next!!!!!! We know that such a thing would never happen as it would automatically see MV removed from her present position! But it does feel pleasant to contemplate how she would deal with such a situation without it appearing as though she was making even more of a travesty of the whole marriage laws issue than her immediate predecessors!

 Personally I do not care who George decides to marry, if he marries at all! It is more to do with the principal, which is what I find so difficult to palate. Then again, MV sounds like to she is just following her grand father and father in her interpretation of just how flexible the family laws are and were on the matter of marriages! It sounds more and more as though self appointment and subsequent 'inheritance' by right of said position, has made Kyril V., Vladimir K. and MV laws unto themselves....all of which is quite hollow and meaningless when they wield no tangible power whatsoever.

 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2010, 11:12:39 PM by Margot »

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2010, 11:47:26 PM »
Personally I do not care who George decides to marry

In this day and age, when nearly all reigning royalty have thrown Ebenbürtigkeit out of the window (but nevertheless don't contract really romantic commoner marriages, to e.g. cleaning ladies and garbage collectors), and most non-reigning houses are in the process of doing the same (Hohenzollern, Habsburg, Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg etc.) I, for one, am fascinated by George's position. His story is the last Ebenbürtigkeit vs. Love drama! Especially since he is the last nominal member of his dynasty.

Techincally, his bride will be more interesting than Kate Middleton (whose last name I couldn't remember and had to look up now, so unromantic do I think she is.) Of course my opinion doesn't matter at all, but in my opinion he must marry equally or the Imperial House will come to an end, no matter what his mother decides. In a way I hope he marries somebody very un-ebenbürtig and romantic so that the Imperial House finally comes to an end by its own standards and all get closure.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 12:06:09 AM by Rœrik »

Offline Seth Leonard

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2010, 12:50:18 AM »
Goodness I had no idea. It does seem rather amazing that one member of a family can have such flexible and singular power to change family laws at will!

Welcome to the world of royalty! ;-)

If George married a commoner perhaps MV should be brave enough to consult the rest of her family! Just to see what sort of response she would get!

By the rest of the family, do you mean Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov? Because they are the only members of the "rest of her family" who seem to enjoy whining about the Grand Duchess.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 12:53:25 AM by Benjamin »

Offline Margot

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2010, 01:50:13 AM »
Are they permitted to call themselves Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov! I thought that only MV and George were permitted to use the surname Romanov?

I would like, should MV feel obliged to move the gate posts again so to speak in order to ensure that her son is 'eligible' to become head of the family, to see how all other male line descendants of the dynasty born out of post 1918 marriages deemed unequal including Xenia A an Alexander M's male line descendants would respond! As well as Prince Nicholas Romanovich and Prince Dimitri Romanovich.

I agree with Roerik anyway....the matter has gone on too long and it was merely a musing of mine as to how MV would deal with it should the matter arise and more to the point how would the other male line branches respond! It is pure speculation....but nonetheless quite an interesting issue to watch unfold! 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 02:05:33 AM by Margot »

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2010, 02:03:26 AM »
Are they permitted to call themselves Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov!
Only civilly, i.e. that is the name they are registered under in the countries they are citizens of. Dynastically they are Princes Romanovsky-? (i.e. the specific designation for their morganatic line, as granted by the Head of the House.) I think Romanovsky makes much more sense than Romanov, because they are Romanov-ish, of Romanov stock, but just shades of the Dynasty that once was the Romanovs.

Offline Margot

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2010, 02:10:32 AM »
Roerik, are they technically Princes or were they born sans titles because of their parents' morganatic marriage and because Kyril never deigned to make them Princes through his assumed 'Imperial' prerogative? I only ask, as I wonder if those who support MV really feel that no one who bears the title of Prince or Princess of Russia is qualified to do so as per the Family Laws which MV seems to value so much and consider altering as per her 'right'!
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 02:15:12 AM by Margot »

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2010, 03:42:05 AM »
Roerik, are they technically Princes or were they born sans titles because of their parents' morganatic marriage and because Kyril never deigned to make them Princes through his assumed 'Imperial' prerogative?
Lol, that's a good question which I'm not sure I can answer. My head is spinning from the legal absurdities of semi-hyopthetical law!
I think we need to hear from the experts whether Kyrill granted their parents' undoubtedly morganatic line a new name.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2010, 04:21:41 AM »
Margot, Romanov is a fairly common name,   99% of the bearers have absolutely nothing to do with the former Imperiall Family. A Communist mayour of Leningrad was named Romanov !
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.

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2010, 04:24:29 AM »
Is Romanovsky equally common? I guess it would normally refer to a person from a place called Romanovo?

Offline richard_1990

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2010, 06:03:24 AM »
Quote from: Rœrik
[...]Because they are Romanov-ish, of Romanov stock, but just shades of the Dynasty that once was the Romanovs.
That's a silly thing to say... Nicholas II was just a shade of the first Romanov Tsar, Mikhail Fyodorovich. You could also argue that the difference between Nicholas II and GD Maria Vladimirinova is less than the difference between Nicholas II and Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich - if one were to take genealogy into account.

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2010, 06:08:44 AM »
I wasn't thinking of the blood, but the dynasticity. I guess it's really ridiculous to argue about the denial of a name that unlike most other dynastical names is extremely common. What is important is of course that the combination Prince+Romanov must never be allowed with regard to non-dynasts. They are Princes Romanovsky even if their surname might be Romanov.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 06:12:59 AM by Rœrik »

Offline richard_1990

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2010, 06:36:03 AM »
I was arguing from the position that GD Maria is the head of the house  ;)

Offline Seth Leonard

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #73 on: February 09, 2010, 10:26:24 AM »
Dynastically they are Princes Romanovsky-? (i.e. the specific designation for their morganatic line, as granted by the Head of the House.) I think Romanovsky makes much more sense than Romanov, because they are Romanov-ish, of Romanov stock, but just shades of the Dynasty that once was the Romanovs.

They have no title. They are plain Misters.

Prince Roman choose not to ask for a title for his morganatic wife and offspring. This unlike Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich, Prince Vsevolod Ivanovich, Prince Gavril Constantinovich, Prince Andrei Alexandrovich, Prince Feodor Alexandrovitch, Prince Nikita Alexandrovitch, Prince Dimitri Alexandrovich, Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich, and Prince Vassili Alexandrovich, who all requested and were granted such princely titles (Ilyinsky, Romanovsky, etc) for their wives and issue by the successive Heads of the Imperial House.

It is amusing how Nicholas Romanov claims to be a republican, yet for whatever reason he and his brother felt the need to assume a princely title that is without foundation.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 10:29:41 AM by Benjamin »

Offline kmerov

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
    • View Profile
Re: taking away the family name
« Reply #74 on: February 09, 2010, 10:57:20 AM »
All logic dictates that in these modern days GD George can marry a non-royal without the marriage being morganatic.
When Prince Roman Petrovich made a morganatic marriage times were different. The claims of his son are totally ridiculous, both him being a dynast and head of the family. He is related to the dynasty, not a member.  
What ever you think about GDss Maria and her family they have followed the Pauline laws, which is more then the rest of the dynasts did. If these laws seem autocratic and dictatorial, it's not the fault of GDss Maria.
There are no members of the family to consult with other then her son.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 11:22:31 AM by kmerov »