Author Topic: Who is the rightful heir?  (Read 334898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Janet Whitcomb

  • Guest
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2004, 11:54:42 AM »
All of this talk--which I consider highly suspect, to say the least--about Alexandra surviving and her daughters marrying, etc., reminds me that such talk was going on as early as the Toblosk imprisonment. In fact, if memory serves, I recall reading that the family came across an article, in a  newspaper eventually given to them, about Tatiana learning to use a typewriter so she could become her father's secretary . . . this gave them all a good laugh!

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2004, 10:45:27 PM »
Well, the first problem is a really difficult one for someone whom wishes to prove a 'match' with the published Gill - Ivanov results.

If knight et al are correct, then a 'match' with the Gill - Ivanov results doesn't mean a 'match' with the royal family.  :-/

However, a match with their published result for Grand Duchess Elizabeth would be . . . interesting.
WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2656
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2004, 12:27:38 AM »
Rodger - you should be able to register as no one has to divulge their real name or email address. Check with the Forum Administrator.

Offline Nick_Nicholson

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • www.objectofvirtue.com
    • View Profile
    • Nicholas B. A. Nicholson
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2004, 09:25:05 AM »
Hi there, everyone.

I just have to jump in, finally.

Even if (and it would be nice if it were true) ALL of the Grand Duchesses had survived, unless Alexis had a son with a woman of equal birth, we would still be having the same discussion over succession to the throne.  Since I am quite certain that EVEN if Alexis had survived, and EVEN if he had managed to live to adulthood with Hemophilia, and EVEN f he had managed to live a quiet and undisturbed life somewhere hidden away behind the iron curtain, that I doubt highly someone managed to sneak a Royal Princess out of one of the mediatised german principalities for  him to marry and have children with.

That aside, we are still faced with the Imperial laws of succession and the following: Kirill Vladimirovitch, was the seniormost male agnate after the revolution, and all the living agnates who had reached their majority acknowledged him as such.

Kirill Vladimirovitch married a woman of equal birth.

That woman was Orthodox at the time of the birth of her son, Vladimir.

Vladimir was acknowledged as head of the family by the living male agnates.

Now here's the tricky part;  if you aknowledge that Vladimir succeeded to all Imperial Rights and Privileges, than you must believe the succession laws which grant the Emperor the right to change those laws.

Vladimir decreed that his wife Leonida Georgievna was of Royal birth.  That goes against past precedent, but if you are a monarchist, and a russian one at that, you have no right to question his word on the subject (that is one of the problems with autocracy.).

Those of you who argue with that fact escape the essential truth about the Russian monarchy--laws do not apply to the Emperor.  NIcholas' abdication in favor of his brother was no legal problem.  Michael was certainly next in line to the throne.  His marriage to Countess Brassova would have prevented him from providing HEIRS to the throne, but perhaps Nicholas hoped he would divorce and marry a woman of equal birth someday (which was not out of the question).  As you remember, the Russians are experts at getting "difficult people" out of the way.  I personally think that Michael's abdication which placed power in the hands of a representative democratic government has finally come to pass.  If the Russians ever want a Tsar again, it will be, as Michael wished, up to them to choose.  Remember, they don't even have to choose a Romanov.

I know a lot of people will disagree, but If you want there to be a legitimate Romanov successor to the throne -- unfortunately, Maria and George are the closest thing we have.

Nick
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Nick_Nicholson »
Nick Nicholson
New York City

Offline CarolynnB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • I love Russian history
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2004, 10:03:59 AM »
Nick,

Thank you for so eloquently explaining what I tried to say in my late-night post-- historically, whoever was recognized to be "in power" had control over the succession.  I realize that there are lots of people out there who disagree with this, but it holds up under historical scrutiny.  

In addition, your point about the power of the Russian people to chose who or what they want in Russia is also a matter of historical record---if people have doubts about this, they need to look at both recent political events, and at the zemskii sobor that brought the Romanovs to power in the first place.

Just my 2 cents,
Carolynn Burbee

Janet Whitcomb

  • Guest
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2004, 01:38:03 PM »
Wow, Nick! What a concept! And thank you for taking the time, trouble, common sense, and humor to get us back on track. Maria and George it would undoubtedly be . . . but given both the past and the present, let's hope they just stay International Figures of Mystery!  ;)

The best justification for the study of history--even more than the immersions, reinactments, and fabulous websites such as this one (and thank you, Bob, for your continued work, expertise and devotion)--is learning from our mistakes and avoiding future Holocausts, WWs, 9/11s and 3/11s.

Janet Whitcomb

  • Guest
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #36 on: March 25, 2004, 08:29:31 PM »
Jane, beautifully said. And now I'll add my own two cent's worth--actually, more like a dollar's worth.

Jmentanko, I appreciate your message, but I want to add that most of us are not "outraged" because someone has "disregarded" what we have researched and shared on this discussion board. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Many of us, in fact, first became interested in the Romanovs and the Russian Revolution because we were intrigued by the mystery of Anastasia and wanted to believe in the possibility that she might have survived.  

Since that time we have read voraciously on these subjects, consulting books, newspapers, periodicals, websites and other materials that offer a variety of viewpoints and approaches.  We have watched a number of documentaries, as well as quite a few dramatizations.  We are well-versed not only with regards to the personalities involved, but also the way in which they interacted with each other.  And yes, we still will consider alternate outcomes--that's one of the reasons we check out this forum--because we try to be as open-minded as possible.  Sometimes, in fact, our research takes us to places that can be  emotionally/psychologically difficult to deal with, such as the material in the well-researched and well-documented Wilson/King book.

Many of us have made a lifelong study of this period in history.  A few of us have ancestors who lived in Russia at that time, and so we bring that to the mix as well.  Whatever the case, we are immersed in the story of the last Romanovs, and although we were not at the "House of Special Purpose" in July 1918, most of us have come to the carefully considered conclusion that the survival of one Romanov, let alone an entire group of them, would be highly unlikely.

All the same, if one of us came across reliable data pointing to an opposing conclusion, we would present that information with care, realizing that others would quite rightly review our information, detail by detail, not to mention question our source material. We would also understand those challenges, and even some skepticism, because the mystery of Anastasia and, in fact, that of the entire family, has engendered so many conflicting theories and possibilities.  

We care about Nicholas, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Marie, Anastasia, and Alexei, as well as those who died for them and with them, and we respect their memory.  We also are aware of the many attempts to rewrite--with emotionalism and/or chicanery, rather than with measured rationality--this immensely unfortuate chapter in modern history.  Revisionism is not something we disregard.  But we appreciate a thoughtul sharing of ideas more than a wild-eyed promotion.

Finally, we realize that, just as rumors were spread about Alexandra, her family, and Rasputin, so too can unsubstantiated information cause damage today--perhaps not via this particular website, but certainly in the way we regard and treat each other and thereby, in ways both large and small, shape current world events.

And now, feeling also very exhausted, I bid you a fond goodnight!


Offline Greg_King

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
    • Atlantis Magazine
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #37 on: March 26, 2004, 01:22:52 AM »
Quote


Now here's the tricky part;  if you aknowledge that Vladimir succeeded to all Imperial Rights and Privileges, than you must believe the succession laws which grant the Emperor the right to change those laws.

Thank you, Nick, for stating the best argument in favor of HIH Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna.  This aside, however, there are two additional issues that play into the Bagration-Mukhransky marriage debate: I've seen (from Brien) original copies of KR's diary in 1911, when he recorded-on Princess Tatiana's marriage-that Nicholas II himself told him that he considered the B-M family as equal rank-therefore, not a morganatic marriage.  And then, too, 3-4 years before Vladimir married Leonida he also (in his position as de facto Emperor) recognized a similar union with one of them as being equal for the purposes of succession.

I don't find it necessary to argue the details, though-because as you say, if Kirill retained his rights and passed them on to Vladimir as every living male member of the Dynasty agreed up to 1969, then whatever Vladimir did was lawful by virtue of his position as Emperor.

Greg King

Offline Louise

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #38 on: March 26, 2004, 09:52:21 AM »
There is little known about Franz Wilhelm of Prussia and his role in the Romanov Dynasty; other than being the father of George.  Did Franz Wilhelm convert to Orthodoxy before the marriage to Maria?

Does anyone find it ironic that the house of Romanov and Hohenzollern merged to continue the Romanov claim, when it is well known that the majority of Romanov's detested their German relatives?

Louise

The sign of a sick mind is studying for a final exam and thinking it's the

Offline Jane

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #39 on: March 26, 2004, 11:57:32 AM »
Hello Louise,

You're quite right about the dearth of information regarding Prince Franz Wilhelm.  I believe he is the great-grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, through the Kaiser's youngest son?  I am just going from memory here--I might be mistaken.  I do know, however, that he did convert to Orthodoxy prior to his marriage to Maria Vladimirovna, and took the name GD Mikhail. He has now resumed the style of Prince of Prussia, since their divorce (the exact year of which, I cannot quite determine--anyone out there have that information?).

Regards,

Jane

Offline 3710

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
seemedSo pRe: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2004, 12:40:12 PM »
Hi Louise,
what makes you think Romanovs detested their German relatives? Apart from Maria Feodorovna all Russian Empresses in the XIX century were Germans and family ties seemed to be quite  strong. I can only think of N&A dislike of Kaiser Wilhelm, due to his personality, not nationality.
(MF complained  that she had to keep her hatered for Germany  to herself all her life till the WWI. So perhaps this was not a popular opinion?)
Galina

Offline Louise

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2004, 12:51:43 PM »
Detested maybe too hard a word. Let me use the term "not fond of". Not only did the Dowager Empress dislike the Kaiser and his family, so did Alexander III. In Massie's N & A, Tsar Alexander more than shows his contempt for Wilhelm.

GD Ella was not a fan of "Willie." After she rebuffed his advances and married GD Sergei, Wilhelm was less than polite to the Grand Duke.

I can not pinpoint which books I have read about this attitude as there are too many references regarding the Romanov's feelings towards some of the Hohenzollern's.

Louise


The sign of a sick mind is studying for a final exam and thinking it's the

Offline Jane

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2004, 02:08:45 PM »
I think any antipathy felt was focused more towards the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty, which certainly was not peculiar to the Romanovs, due to Prussian foreign policy throughout the nineteenth century .  The Romanovs were essentially German, anyway, as were the majority of European dynasties of the time.  

Jane

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2656
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2004, 02:30:39 PM »
I will not mention who said this - beyond its being a grandchild of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrova who said this to me- and I am paraphrasing However "amusing" people may find tales of purported survivors, it is important to remember that there is still a real family involved here - and not cardboard characters:

"This is what they think of my family. That we would somehow turn our backs if one of Uncle Nicky's daughters had managed to survive. That somehow for money or power or anything else they consider to be important, we would say one of Uncle Nicky's daughters was not. But they are wrong. Yes, Uncle Nicky may have been a bad tsar - that's for history and not us to decide. But they have no right when it comes to my grandmother. Whatever quarrels may have existed between adults in the family - and there were many - one thing that Uncle Nicky's children knew beyond question was their Auntie Xenia loved them. And she mourned them every day, for over 40 years. So, if someone tells you that they or a relative was one of these children, you need to ask yourself, would they let their aunt and family continue to mourn them after everything that happened? I can tell you this for sure - those children would never have done this to their Auntie Xenia, never! And the joy she would have felt to have seen any of them again - beyond what you can imagine!

But, this is what the world thinks of my family".

Offline JM

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2004, 02:52:04 PM »
     I think that you made an excellent point!

    Regardless of the divisions within the Romanov family, they were still a family. The only difference between our families and the Romanov's is that their lives were played out for all the world to see. It is extremely hard for me to imagine that they would refuse to recognize or accept N&A or their children had they survived. I have to admit I was almost inclined to believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. This was until I read that GD Olga finally admitted that she did not believe that Anna was her neice. DNA did not convince me as much as GD Olga. I just couldn't see her doing this unless she was certain, and she had nothing to lose or gain.

    Thanks for that post.