Messages

1

Palaces in St. Petersburg / Re: Residences of some Grand Dukes in St.Petersburg

« on: May 23, 2015, 08:55:44 AM »

:)Greetings, everyone.

 It is difficult to believe that all three Michailovichis - Nicolas, Georgii and Sergei shared the same palace on the Palace Embankment (Novo-Michailovskii Palace). Yes, it is huge - but - three adult men with their own little  GD courts, staff members, employees, etc., plus one of them is married with kids the while two others are eligible bachelors with their own well-developed lifestiles, habits, hobbies - all three of them in one house?
  I remember that years ago, while studying in St.Petersburg i happened to read an article in one of the Russian (Soviet then) historical periodicals -  cannot recall the periodical's name - about the February Revolution 1917 (The Fall of The Russian Monarchy). Particurlarly the artcle was concerned about the details of GD Michael Alexandrovich abdication. Having nothing to do with the architecture of Romanovs' residences as such, the authors of the article, however, tried to present a reader with a short "tour" along the Millionnaia Street (where in one of the upper class apartment buildings, at Prince Putijatin's apartment, the historical meeting between GD Michael and members of the Duma took place - tragically resulting in GD's abdication). To cut the story short - the apartment building was located somewhere between the Winter Palace and Novo-Michailovskii Palace. For whatever reason, a number of other buildings along the Millionnaija were mentioned by the author(s), with short descriptions. The building right across the Novo-Michailovskii Palace - through Millionnaja- was named as the Zapasnoi (Reserve) Novo-Michailovskii Palace. Unfortunately i do not remember the street address. The Novo-Michailovskii Palace proper is located between the Palace Embankment and the Millionnaia and the so-called Reserve Novo-Michailovskii Palace - right across the Millionnaja, being located between the Millionaja and the Moika Embankment.
I went there to see the "reserve" NM palace. It does not look like a palace - more like an apartment building - four- or five-storey high. But the exterior decor (Neo-Rococo) - is strikingly similar to the NM Palace across the street. It looks as if it was designed bu the same architect or, at least, the "reserve" one was modelled on the main palace.
 Could it be that this "Reserve" NM Palace (if the authors of the article made no mistake) was a residence of one or two other Michailovichis, while the main NM Palace remained a residence of GD Nicolas Michailovich???
 ( i believe it was him who inherited the Palace after his father GD Michail Nicolajevich).

  

Had to believe, but true.  The Mikhailovichis were the junior most branch, and the brothers lived in suites according to their precedence.

2

Palaces in St. Petersburg / Re: Residences of some Grand Dukes in St.Petersburg

« on: May 23, 2015, 08:53:49 AM »

Hello everyone

Does anybody know where GD Sergei Michailovich, Georgi Michailovich and Dimitri Konstantinovich resided in St.Petersburg proper? And what about Petr Nicolaevich, Pavel Alexandrovich and all three Vladimirovichi (Kirill, Boris and Andrei)?

I know that I am late to the game, but as of 1912, the official St. Petersburg residences of the Grand Dukes were as follows (in order of precedence):

HIH Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, The Anichkov Palace
HIH Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, Glinka, 13
HIH Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich, Quai de la Cour, 26
HIH Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovvich, Quai Anglais, 28
HIH Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich, Quai Anglais, 68
HIH Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich, Nevsky, 41
HIH Grand Duke Nikolai Konstantinovich, (at Tashkent)
HIH Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich, The Marble Palace
HIH Grand Duke Dimitri Konstantinovich, Strelna (No town residence)
HIH Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, Quai de L'Empereur Pierre 7 & 60-83
HIH Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich, Fontanka, 22
HIH Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich Quai de la Cour 18-13
HIH Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich, (At Ken Wood, Hampstead, London)
HIH Grand Duke George Mikhailovich, Quai de La Cour 18-15
HIH Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Moika 104
HIH Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, Quai de la Cour 18-17

3

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Who is the rightful heir?

« on: December 17, 2014, 01:39:11 PM »

The problem with George may be the fact that his line is excluded entirely because Maria Pavlovna was not orthodox at the time her sons were born. Alexander II gave Vladimir succession rights for marrying outside of Orthodoxy, but said nothing about any children he produced. See my comment in the Kyrill thread:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1076312290;start=15#15

If this report is true, then this entire line has no "legal" claim to succession. Many people belive this to be correct.

This is a fiction.  Regarding HIH Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich and his succession rights and the succession rights of his children. You state (as have many western scholars) that Kirill Vladimirovich had no right of succession to the Russian throne because of the Lutheran faith of his mother at the time of his birth.  This is, in fact, a widely repeated fallacy -- it was among the many pieces of émigré disinformation which was spread in the west after 1918 by supporters of Nikolai Nikolaevich aimed at people who were unfamiliar with private arrangements within the Imperial Family, as well as the specific nature of the succession laws.

There was a "Familial Decree" at the time of the marriage of Grand Duke Vladimir to his wife Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna concerning this exact matter.  Because of Maria Pavlovna's reticence regarding conversion, the following document was drawn up, signed, countersigned, and announced in the Russian Imperial Senate (full citation follows the quote for the original Russian Source material):

“Having allowed my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, to enter into marriage with Her Grand Ducal Highness Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; and indicating our agreement that Her Highness Duchess Marie, in accordance with her special familial circumstances, is not required before her betrothal and marriage to convert to the Orthodox faith, I deem it right to establish in this present Familial Decree the following unalterable rules with respect to this marriage: (1) If, by God’s inscrutable will, the succession to the Throne should fall to my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, and his spouse should remain in the Lutheran faith, then my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, in accordance with Article 142 of the Fundamental Laws, may not take up the right of succession other than after the conversion of his spouse to the Orthodox faith; (2) If the spouse of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich should not convert to the Orthodox Faith at the time of the passing of the Succession to him, then he should be regarded as having of his own free will renounced his said rights, in full accordance with the contents of Articles 15 and 16 of the Fundamental Laws; (3) If, by God’s inscrutable will, the spouse of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, having not converted to the Orthodox faith, should die before the passing to him of the right of succession, then, his marriage to a person of another faith having ended, he will preserve his right of succession to the Throne;  (4) In the event indicated above in section 2 concerning the renunciation of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, and in the same manner if, by God’s inscrutable will, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich should die before his spouse should convert to the Orthodox faith, the children born of this marriage retain full rights to the succession and are Members of the Imperial House in the order of succession set by the Fundamental Laws.” 

This ukaz' was signed by Emperor Aleksandr II, by the Tsesarevich Aleksandr, and by the bridegroom, Grand Duke Vladimir Aleksandrovich.  Dr. Stanislaw V. Dumin found this memorandum in the Russian State Historical Archive (GARF) in Moscow.  I am grateful to Brien Horan for having brought it to my attention and to Professor Russell Martin for his English translation.  The original is at GARF, Fond 468, subsection 46, number 63.  CF Dr. Dumin’s analysis of this document is in the Chronicle of the Historical and Genealogical Society, issue 14/15 (58/59), Moscow, 2009.  (The numbering of the Fundamental Laws was different in 1874 than in 1917, when the monarchy fell.)  It was first published in english by Brien Horan in his article "The Russian Succession in 2013" published in the Royal Russia Annual Vol. No. 3, 2013.

You can see from this Ukaz' that even if Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna had NOT converted to Orthodoxy, there was no question that her son, Kirill Vladimirovich, and all subsequent issue were in line for the throne with full dynastic rights.  The conversion of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna may be regarded charitably to have been a purely religious act of conscience on the death of her husband, or uncharitably as a political move to remove the last publicly perceived though legally irrelevant obstacle to her son's inheritance of the throne.

4

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Maria Vladimirovna hadn't any rights to the Russian Throne

« on: December 17, 2014, 01:36:20 PM »

General Alexander Spiridovitch, Chief of Secret Security Police to the Emperor, in his Memoirs states as a matter of fact that Nicholas II asked Minister of Justice Tcheglovitov to prepare a report about succession rights to the Valdimirovich descendants.  The report stated without a question that because Maria Pavlovna was not Pravoslavnaya on the day she was married, her children had no succession rights.  The Ukaze issued by Alexander II giving consent when Vladimir married Maria Pavlovna stipulated specifically that ONLY Vladimir kept his rights, not his children.  Tcheglovitov was clear in the report that none of the Vladimirovtichi had succession rights to the Imperial Russian Throne because her adoption of Orthodoxy decades later was not "retroactive" because her sons were born to a non Pravoslavnaya mother.  I hope that this document still might exist in GARF and one day it will be found. Spiridovitch was most clear that there were THREE copies of his report, one for Nicholas II, one was sent to Maria Pavlovna, and the third retained in his records.

Actually, Spiridovich states a great deal of things as a "matter of fact" in his memoirs which are inaccurate, incomplete, or misremembered.  The Ukaze which was mentioned here is misquoted. Regarding HIH Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich and his succession rights and the succession rights of his children. You state (as have many western scholars) that Kirill Vladimirovich had no right of succession to the Russian throne because of the Lutheran faith of his mother at the time of his birth.  This is, in fact, a widely repeated fallacy -- it was among the many pieces of émigré disinformation which was spread in the west after 1918 by supporters of Nikolai Nikolaevich aimed at people who were unfamiliar with private arrangements within the Imperial Family, as well as the specific nature of the succession laws.

There was a "Familial Decree" at the time of the marriage of Grand Duke Vladimir to his wife Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna concerning this exact matter.  Because of Maria Pavlovna's reticence regarding conversion, the following document was drawn up, signed, countersigned, and announced in the Russian Imperial Senate (full citation follows the quote for the original Russian Source material):

“Having allowed my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, to enter into marriage with Her Grand Ducal Highness Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin; and indicating our agreement that Her Highness Duchess Marie, in accordance with her special familial circumstances, is not required before her betrothal and marriage to convert to the Orthodox faith, I deem it right to establish in this present Familial Decree the following unalterable rules with respect to this marriage: (1) If, by God’s inscrutable will, the succession to the Throne should fall to my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, and his spouse should remain in the Lutheran faith, then my son, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, in accordance with Article 142 of the Fundamental Laws, may not take up the right of succession other than after the conversion of his spouse to the Orthodox faith; (2) If the spouse of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich should not convert to the Orthodox Faith at the time of the passing of the Succession to him, then he should be regarded as having of his own free will renounced his said rights, in full accordance with the contents of Articles 15 and 16 of the Fundamental Laws; (3) If, by God’s inscrutable will, the spouse of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, having not converted to the Orthodox faith, should die before the passing to him of the right of succession, then, his marriage to a person of another faith having ended, he will preserve his right of succession to the Throne;  (4) In the event indicated above in section 2 concerning the renunciation of Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich, and in the same manner if, by God’s inscrutable will, Grand Duke Wladimir Alexandrovich should die before his spouse should convert to the Orthodox faith, the children born of this marriage retain full rights to the succession and are Members of the Imperial House in the order of succession set by the Fundamental Laws.” 

This ukaz' was signed by Emperor Aleksandr II, by the Tsesarevich Aleksandr, and by the bridegroom, Grand Duke Vladimir Aleksandrovich.  Dr. Stanislaw V. Dumin found this memorandum in the Russian State Historical Archive (GARF) in Moscow.  I am grateful to Brien Horan for having brought it to my attention and to Professor Russell Martin for his English translation.  The original is at GARF, Fond 468, subsection 46, number 63.  CF Dr. Dumin’s analysis of this document is in the Chronicle of the Historical and Genealogical Society, issue 14/15 (58/59), Moscow, 2009.  (The numbering of the Fundamental Laws was different in 1874 than in 1917, when the monarchy fell.)  It was first published in english by Brien Horan in his article "The Russian Succession in 2013" published in the Royal Russia Annual Vol. No. 3, 2013.

You can see from this Ukaz' that even if Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna had NOT converted to Orthodoxy, there was no question that her son, Kirill Vladimirovich, and all subsequent issue were in line for the throne with full dynastic rights.  The conversion of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna may be regarded charitably to have been a purely religious act of conscience on the death of her husband, or uncharitably as a political move to remove the last publicly perceived though legally irrelevant obstacle to her son's inheritance of the throne.

5

The Imperial Family / Re: Weddings of the Romanovs

« on: January 27, 2014, 10:11:30 PM »

Actually she wore her mother's -- the cloth of silver dress belonged to Victoria Melita, the Grand Duchess Kirill.

Grand Duchess Kira...I believe she wore her grandmother's wedding dress for this..





Grand Duchess Constantine 1884


Grand Duchess Xenia

6

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: Current location of Alexei's remains?

« on: September 13, 2013, 11:56:27 AM »

Sunbeam, I'm with you.  Lord Have Mercy.

7

Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna / Re: Ella's grave in Jerusalem & her relics

« on: September 13, 2013, 11:55:00 AM »

This is from wikipedia, but a good condensation of what actually happened in '97.  No car parks. 

In 1997 Patriarch of Moscow Alexei II attempted to visit a ROCOR held monastery (the convent of Mary Magdalen) in Hebron with Yasser Arafat. It has been noted that "The Moscow-based church has enjoyed a close relationship with Arafat since his guerilla fighter days."[6] Upon arrival Arafat and the patriarch were refused entry by the ROCOR clergy, who held that Alexy had no legitimate authority. Two weeks afterwards police officers of the Palestinian Authority arrived and by "assaulting and cursing priests and nuns" they managed to evict the ROCOR clergy and then turned over the property to the ROC.[5]ROCOR Mother Superior Juliana said "We were told you have to leave because this man has to come here. This man was from the red church [i.e. the ROC]."[7] Another nun stated "They put me on the floor and they dragged me like a sack of potatoes."[7]
Alexy made another visit in early January 2000 to meet with Arafat and asked "for help in recovering church properties"[7] as part of a "worldwide campaign to recover properties lost to churches that split off during the Communist era".[8] Later that month the Palestinian Authority again moved to evict ROCOR clergy, this time from the 2.91-acre (11,800 m2) Jericho Gardens with a Chapel.[5][7] Five ROCOR monks and two nuns were forcibly removed from the property and ROC clergy took their places.[5][7][8] The monks and nuns who were evicted said that they had been "badly manhandled."[7]A monk claimed he was "knocked to the ground, handcuffed and beaten."[7] The ROCOR clergy stated that "the police refused to produce any documentation" and all seven of the ROCOR evictees required hospitalization.[8] The claims that the PA police used force were disputed by Palestinian Security Chief Jibril Rajoub "This is not true. It did not happen. It will never happen in the future. ...As the responsible authority in Hebron and all parts of the West Bank, we have the right to do our best to help them [the ROC]."[7]
The eviction of the ROCOR clergy at the Jericho Gardens (with a Chapel) gained international attention because two ROCOR nuns who were American citizens managed to sneak into the confiscated monastery and barricade themselves inside a portion of the complex. Further media attention became focused on the event when it was discovered that one of the nuns was Maria Stephanopoulos the sibling of George Stephanopoulos the former advisor to U.S. President Bill Clinton.
Maria and her fellow nun Xenia Cesena communicated with reporters their motivation "No matter what happens to the property, we made it clear to the world what the Moscow church is doing to us."[5] The supervisor of the ROCOR mission Archbishop Mark declared that they had "been talking with the Palestinian administration but so far no solution has been found, unfortunately."[5] He said that the International Red Cross had been denied access to the nuns and any request for ROCOR clergy to visit the women had been rebuffed. He declared "The PA interfered in church affairs without a legal right. It's a state interference into church affairs [and] a violation of human rights."[5] The compound was "bustling with staff from the Russian Consulate" and it was reported that they were giving food to the nuns. During the incident the five evicted monks maintained a vigil outside the monastery sleeping in their car.[5]
As the nuns were American citizens the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem became involved to ensure their safety. When Arafat visited the US while the incident was ongoing the subject was raised by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.[5] Ibrahim Kandalaft, in charge of Christian Affairs in the PA Ministry of Religious Affairs, told reporters "There is nothing so important here. This monastery belonged to the church of Moscow before 1917. It is returned to them."[5] The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the PA raid, saying it "violated the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements under which both sides are to respect holy sites."
After confining herself to a section of the monastery without running water for over 60 days Sister Maria Stephanopoulos (who began limiting herself to a bread and water diet as a form of hunger strike) appealed to Pope John Paul II (who was making a historic visit in the area) to use his influence on Arafat to resolve the conflict, she said "I would hope this issue's going to resonate with him. He was in Poland and he really had a lot to do with the downfall of communism there, so he should certainly understand."[6] Roman Catholic Bishop and the Vatican's ambassador to Jerusalem Kamal Bathish stated bluntly that the pope would not meet with Sister Maria or intervene on her behalf.[6]
Sister Maria complained of "brusque treatment at the hands of the Palestinian Authority guards" and being "harassed by the Moscow Patriarchate monks who occupy the other half of the compound."[6] In an address to reporters her sibling, George Stephanopoulos, stated that he planned to meet with her in Hebron, and said "My greatest concern, as her brother, is that Sr. Maria remains safe and healthy, and I admire her determination."[6] An agreement brokered by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Rep. Tom Lantos and Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan with the PA, the U.S. consulate and the Moscow Patriarchate was made to allow Sister Maria and Sister Xenia Cesena greater access to the entire property, especially the monastery's chapel. Despite this, Sister Maria stated that the ROC monks were still preventing her from worshiping in the chapel, "Anytime we get close they close the door in our face. There's no such thing as equal access."[6] She told reporters she had no intention of relenting, saying "I believe in the new martyrs, what they stood for. The freedom of the church in the end is what it's about."[6]

Today, both the ROC and ROCOR have a continued, and separate existence in the Holy Land, but the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion has brought about a new era of cooperation between the two parts of the Russian Church.

8

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Verzichtserklärung of Grand Duchesses

« on: September 07, 2013, 02:59:28 PM »

Further, unlike a Verzichtserklärung, there is no need to additionally abdicate on behalf of your children or further issue.  In russia, a marriage of unequal birth immediately disqualifies the issue.

9

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Verzichtserklärung of Grand Duchesses

« on: September 07, 2013, 02:56:20 PM »

I believe that the question is getting at whether or not the children of Grand-Duchesses who married equally outside the family would be allowed to succeed.  Yes, this would be the case if all the descendant in question were Orthodox, or willing to accept Orthodoxy.  If they already occupied a throne and that throne was tied to a particula confession. they would have to renounce that throne.  This is exactly how the house of Holstein came to the throne with the accession of Peter III. (Though none of these Pauline laws were in place yet).

10

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: July 20, 2013, 06:37:59 PM »

That's him.  Also, an interesting picture of the "Countess Dvinskaya" (At Left.  She now goes by her maiden name of Dona Elena Kirby de Bagrationi) in Madrid at a reception held by the Royal Family of Georgia to distribute honors.



You can read all about it (in Spanish) here: http://docelinajes.blogspot.com/2013/07/imposicion-de-condecoraciones-de-la.html?spref=fb&m=1

11

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: July 15, 2013, 01:26:41 PM »

Sumner Moore Kirby

12

The Imperial Family / Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

« on: July 15, 2013, 01:24:21 PM »

Interestingly the Guisando 17 address in Madrid has been the family address for over 40 years.  GDKW and GDLG lived there as well.  It is still GDMW's published address.

13

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: Current location of Alexei's remains?

« on: July 05, 2013, 12:56:50 PM »

Hi Sunbeam,  there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding concerning the Russian Orthodox Church and their position on the remains. 

The process for burying laypeople in the Orthodox Church, versus the process of the glorification of the relics of saints is very different, and is interconnected.  While the official position of the ROC is that they are not satisfied that the remains are authentic, this is a smoke screen for the larger issues; 1.  The family was not complete until the discovery of the remains of Maria and Alexis  2.  The family had already been glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. 3.  The family had only been buried as laypeople.  4. ROCOR and MosPat had not been reunited.  If the ROC announces that the remains are authentic, they will be in direct violation of all the canons of the Orthodox Church by allowing the remains of saints to lie buried in a layperson's grave.

With the signing of the act of Canonical communion between ROCOR and MosPat, we have eliminated two of those isssues.  Now that the family is complete, we have eliminated another reason. 

I am certain that the Patriarchate looks at interment in the Peter & Paul Fortress as a temporary stopgap measure.  I believe that we will see in the coming years a reversal from the Patriarchate, and the announcement of a plan to reunite the remains of the family in one location.  They will be reburied with a pannakhida, but then there will be a ceremony of "The Uncovering of the Relics" and subsequent glorification of the remains, which will then probably be moved to a) The Cathedral on Spilled Blood in Ekaterinburg on the site of the martyrdom, b) Ganina Yama, the place of the burial where a series of expiatory churches have been erected, or c) the newly restored Feodorovsky Cathedral at Tsarskoye Selo, which the family built, and which they regarded as their family church.  (Guess which one I'm praying for?)  Best,  Nick

14

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: Current location of Alexei's remains?

« on: July 01, 2013, 03:23:28 PM »

The remains of the Tsarevitch and Grand Duchess Maria were last reported as having been in boxes in the National Archives in Moscow.

"Viktor Aksyuchits, a ... politician who led the government commission that identified and buried the remains discovered in 1991, says this completely undermines the exhibition. "On the one hand, it's a big deal that the state archives decided to hold this exhibition. On the other hand, we're still waiting for the government to make a decision about burying the others. The remains of Alexei and Maria are still lying in a box somewhere in the State Archives," he said by telephone."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303962304577508570717420772.html

15

Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna / Re: Ella's grave in Jerusalem & her relics

« on: June 18, 2013, 08:47:05 PM »

A theological question, may be out of ignorance.... I believed England's church didn't approved "statues" of saints and the Orthodox church only accepted icons -so how come they have that statue in Westminster's abbey? Or was it just placed there the same way they could have placed Mother Theresa or Mahatma Gandhi -i. e., not as religious character but for what she did for people?

The statue of Elizabeth at Westmister Abbey is in the new overdoor carvings of the West Door.  The jambs have been carved to represent 20th Century Saints and Martyrs, and include not only Grand Duchess Elizabeth, but, amongst others, Dr. Martin Luther King!.  Elizabeth is not (yet) recognized as a saint by the Church of England, but she is definitely celebrated at the Abbey, and is remembered there every July 18th. 

From the Abbey:

"Dear Mr. Nicholson,

To answer your question about the Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Russia, she is certainly much loved here at Westminster Abbey. As one of the modern martyrs above the Great West Door, we also have a liturgical commemoration of her life and witness to Christ on 18th July, when she is also remembered by other Anglicans. For more information:
 
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/grand-duchess-elizabeth
 
With all best wishes,
 
Jamie Hawkey
 
The Revd Dr James Hawkey
Minor Canon and Sacrist, Westminster Abbey"