Messages

1

Books about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: "Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson" by King And Wilson

« on: January 17, 2011, 02:50:57 PM »

Greg and Penny,

Heartfelt congratulations on another amazingly interesting history and, above all, an insightful treatment of a remarkable 20th-century phenomenon. I enjoyed it immensely. ... As with FOTR, my only regret concerning "Resurrection" is not to be able to read everything that was cut out in order to meet the publisher's requirements.

Best,
Steven Lavallee
Providence

2

Italian Royal Families / Re: King CARLO ALBERTO of Sardinia (1798-1849)

« on: October 05, 2008, 11:12:34 AM »

I´ve found doubts about the marriage of your Auguste of Montléart, Grand Duke. Some sources states that she died unmarried, but there are sources where Auguste of Montléart appeared as the wife, from 1832, of Karl Kurt Maria von Wernitz

This is part of a fraud posted by Hungarian-born Andreas "von Wernitz," who
claims through another fantasy descent to be "Prince of Salm-Kyrburg" among other titles.

See an exposé about him at http://www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/wernitz/wernitz-realstory.htm

3

Italian Royal Families / Re: Bourbon del' Monte family

« on: September 28, 2008, 07:34:05 AM »

True,but some members have descended from all royal houses of Europe throgh female line...

If one opens that barn door, thousands of obscure families across the globe  join the Bourbon del Montes
in descending from various royals of the last thousand years. No one is doubting it's a grand old family,
but there is no special connection to either the old Sires de Bourbon or the royal Capetian branch of that name.

but obviously not descended from the House of Capet otherwise they would be included in genealogy pages of Capet like the Bourbons from India are...

As regards the so-called Bourbons Bhopal, they are not included as a Capetian branch in standard scholarly
treatments of the dynasty. The alleged connection between the Bourbons of France and the Bourbon-Bhopal
family is at best a sketchy old tradition.

4

Forum Announcements / Re: Death of Michael Feodorovich Romanoff de Russie (1923 - 2008)

« on: September 27, 2008, 11:27:08 AM »

Amazing coincidence:

Due to the different time zones, it turns out that the cousin/namesakes have the very same date of death, as Netty just announced at the Royals Portal (citing the date given in Le Figaro).

5

Italian Royal Families / Re: Bourbon del' Monte family

« on: September 27, 2008, 11:20:49 AM »

The Bourbons of France are Capets. The Bourbon del Monte family is completely separate. They are not male line Capets. Nor are the Bourbon del Monte family male line relatives of the ancient Sires de Bourbon whose heiress married a Capetian prince. The Bourbon del Monte family is like the Cruoÿ-Chanel family, which claims to be descended from Hungary's royal House of Arpad, or the various modern Comnenus, Cantacuzenus and Palaeologos who claim to connect to the Byzantine Imperial Families: there is no real proof of such connections, aside from family legend.

6

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

« on: September 09, 2008, 09:20:47 AM »

My turn to throw my 2 cents in!    There is no rightful heir....,period.

I tend to agree that "rightful heir" is a very poor term. By what right?

That's why I like the term dynast, which is connected more to the rights and privileges
associated with tradition or the former monarchy. As a term, it does not necessarily imply
rights that any country or government is bound to today.

7

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

« on: September 09, 2008, 06:38:52 AM »

A dynast to what, Lisa?

One is not a dynast "to" anything. A dynast is a member of of current or formerly reigning family
who, by the traditions of the dynasty, would not be barred from succession should their turn come
either through moving up in the royal succession or through restoration of the former monarchy.

8

News Links / Re: Georgia declares war on Russia

« on: September 02, 2008, 07:00:10 AM »

I do think the USA should have stayed out of it as they are not in a position to have a go at anyone about invading a country.  

Absolutely agree. The US lost its moral high ground when it invaded Iraq based on a deliberate exaggeration of the situation there. Russia's occupation and "punishment" of Georgia is no different. I was as disgusted by the Iraq invasion as I am by Russia's actions. Neither great power truly respects the idea of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Nevertheless, it is still very important for people of all nationalities to speak out when an outrage is committed in the world.

9

News Links / Re: Georgia declares war on Russia

« on: September 01, 2008, 06:45:35 AM »

"Two thousand dead S.O, thirty thousand displaced persons, when is enough enough" Russian Ambassador to U.N. I think that StephenL has forgoten that it was the Georgians who attacked S/O first, on the day of the Olympic Opening Ceremony, when no

However, these Russian figures are highly contestable.
[/quote]

They are highly contestable because they are untrue propaganda. Just like the melodramatic stories of Georgians raping and slashing the bellies of pregnant Ossetians. All rubbish for which there is no evidence -- fabricated to justify Russia's over-the-top counter-aggression, including its ongoing interference in Georgia and the current destruction of ethnic Georgian-owned villages and homes in S.O. which has been observed via satellite.

10

Balkan Royal Families / Re: Obrenovich Family (except the Kings)

« on: August 28, 2008, 05:39:19 AM »

The natural son son of King Milan was in fact not a prince, though he may have liked to called himself one. Don't think I've ever seen a picture.

11

Having Fun! / Re: who is that Serbian Grand Duke ?

« on: August 24, 2008, 05:35:03 PM »

I have  checked all of my royal reference books, and I certainly can't, Lisa. And some of mine include just about every obscure dynatsy in the charts.  I have posted the question on alt.talk.royalty, however.  There are several real experts there. Let's see what  we get as a response.

Many of us who specialize in royal genealogy no longer post at ATR due to all the spam and trolls.
A few die-hards post there, but not very often.

12

The Russian Revolution / Re: The Soviet Union: What Kind of Mistake Was It?

« on: August 24, 2008, 12:27:46 PM »

Excuse me for saying so, Steven, but you can't seem to confront the question of Kosovo, and what it has meant for the world political paradigm. I've asked this question twice in a row now, in two different posts, and you still haven't answered. I think it's because you're honestly stumped. You can't answer, because if you answered, you'd have to admit that South Ossetia, like Kosovo, has the inherent right to go its own way - even if that means, in South Ossetia's case, rejoining Russia!

Do you ever stop to observe yourself? Yet again, you imagine and then ascribe attitudes and positions to me -- and continue to put words in my mouth --even regarding a subject I have not at all discussed on this thread. You have such an amazingly out-of-control imagination that you can even "paraphrase" and decide upon the meaning of my silence. This behavior is both irrational and unsettling, and certainly it is a deterrent to meaningful discussion.

As I have repeated said elsewhere, it is fruitless for you and I to discuss certain matters due to our conflicting fundamental values. You may read whatever you want into my silence on what I personally view as (1) a totally unrelated topic and (2) an example of another matter that is pointless to debate with you. Over and over, the motives, words and attitudes you ascribe to me are mostly from your hot-headed imagination. Please understand I'm not buying into your "Soviet mindset-sensitive world-view," nor am I buying into your insistence that Kosova is fundamental to this discussion. Personally I find it is wiser to work to narrow the focus in an area of vehement disagreement, not expand it. Else, soon we will be fruitlessly discussing Iraq, Basque separatism and East Timor.

13

Having Fun! / Re: who is that Serbian Grand Duke ?

« on: August 24, 2008, 11:14:16 AM »

Incidentally, for the serious scholars of royal genealogy here, I suggest a wonderful little gem I just uncovered here in my office:

Published in Zagreb in 1937 (title page in Serbo-Croatian and English, contents in English):

"King Petar II and Prince Regent Paul: Descendants of the Ancient Serbian Kings"

The co-authors are the emminent genealogist Baron Otto von Dungern and Dr A. Omicikus.
Included are three unbroken lines of descent:

From King Stephen I (+1223) down to King Petar II (+1970)
From Prince Lazar (+1389) down to King Petar II (+1970)
From 11/12 century Grand Zhupan Urosh down to Prince Regent Paul of Yugoslavia (+1976)

14

The Russian Revolution / Re: The Soviet Union: What Kind of Mistake Was It?

« on: August 24, 2008, 10:55:05 AM »

You are avoiding the fundamental question, Steven. What about Kosovo? Wasn't that a radical shift in the geopolitical paradigm? And doesn't it give Russia implicit permission to intervene if it sees that a people wanting to join Russia are being unnecessarily persecuted (well, yes, actually bombed) by the nation they supposedly "legally" belong to (if you can call an arbitrary decision made by Stalin some 50 years ago legal?).

NATO may be a voluntary orgainization but that still doesn't make it any less a sphere of influence, for crying out loud. You seem to make distinctions like this only when it suits your argument. After all, South Ossetia VOLUNTARILY wants to rejoin with North Ossetia and Russia - but somehow that doesn't count in your book. Only Georgia's rights - to be IMPERIALISTIC in South Ossetia - seem to count with you.

Sorry, your style here way to shrill for my tastes. As I said our core values  and approaches are irreconcilably different, including what you have suddenly introduced here what apparently is for you "the fundamental question" of this debate.

The Soviet world-view is unhealthy as the Soviet Union is no more. Those like you who enable that view and propose that whole nations do the same are free to do so, though in my opinion it is like reinforcing and coddling a friend who lives in an unhealthy state of denial.

In the meantime, Eastern Europe and the break-away republics are moving on, and looking in new directions, such as to the West. As sovereign nations it is their choice. Just as Belarus looks to Russia, Georgia as a sovereign state is completely free to aspire to greater association with the West. Hopefully if it is serious in doing so, Georgia will adopt a more practical path, which will probably include, in time, recognition of the will of the majority in S.O. and Abkhazia.

15

The Russian Revolution / Re: The Soviet Union: What Kind of Mistake Was It?

« on: August 24, 2008, 09:26:29 AM »

Well, what about those South Ossetians, then, Steven, if you're so gung-ho about the self-determination of smaller nations? The South Ossetians do not want to belong to Georgia, they want to rejoin North Ossetia in Russia.

Read way above before --yet again-- ascribing to me words I never spoke, and putting the most inflammatory spin on what I said.

As you will find on this forum I am fine with working toward compromise (I even cited several successful models)
in this dispute and I do not approve of Georgia's action that precipitated the crisis. However, Georgia, unlike S.O.,
is an internationally recognized sovereign nation. S.O. at the moment is not. There is a difference, and there are models in the past
for handling secession which Georgia, the UN, and the West and Russia both should strongly consider after all the posturing and
muscle-flexing dies down.

What is NATO if not a "sphere of influence"? And is a great power like Russia just supposed to turn a blind eye to the expansion of the Western (and specifically American) sphere of influence into its own region?

Again, due to fundamental differences in our core values, I cannot debate this with you. Nowhere in your most recent words is it recognized that NATO is a free and voluntary legitimate association of sovereign nations. That is a far cry from a "sphere of influence," a situation where associations are non-voluntary and where the weaker parties have inferior rights. In your message you also continue to accept Russia as having special rights to a certain "region," i.e., you are "enabling" Russia's tragic and fatal inability to move beyond the now long-defunct Soviet-era reality.