Re: taking away the family name

[Annie]

So is no one allowed to call themselves "Romanov" or "Grand Duke/Duchess" other than the Vladimirovichi? That is so very wrong. I hope someone will challenge this injustice, in court if need be. If nothing else they can gain back the name of their blood, the name of their ancestors.

Surfing the web I've been finding a lot of comments about 'a bitterly divided family' and feuding. Is this true, and does it have anything to do with this?

[LisaDavidson]

Annie:

Here's a rundown of the names you say Kiril used to give his relatives instead of Romanov.; by the way, the people who keep saying the Romanovs have a last name should pay attention to this - because if they did, then morganatic spouses and issue would technically have no need for titles.

Iskander - this had nothing whatever to do with Kiril - this family name was given by Alexander III for the children of Nicholas Constantinovich's children by his wife.

Ilyinsky - this title was requested by Grand Duke Dmitri because he married morganatically.

Romanovsky - often incorrectly used as a surname. It's not a surname when referring to morganatic issue of the Family.

[Annie]

Okay, it looks like some family members DID have a problem with it. This is from Flight of the Romanovs, page 345:

In 1961, Prince Nikita Alexandrovich said to Vladimir on his behavior and claim to the throne:

Stop performing this shameful farcial charade!

Romanovs, Nikita argued, had to be called by that name and not Romanovsky, as Vladimir was insisting... the family felt outrage that the Vladimirovichi considered that they were now the only Romanovs, that the family, due to 'improper marriages' had declined dramatically to three...the family believed that they had married no worse than...Kryil and Vladimir themselves.

Nikita also averred that monarchial privileges belonged to all Romanov males as a collectivity. Furthermore, Nikita argued, Vladimir had no right to call his wife and daughter "Grand Duchesses"...Moreover, Vladimir's wife, Leonida, Nikita insisted, had never belonged to a royal family because the Bagration-Mukranaskis had been ordinary subjects of the Russian empire, just like all other noble families.

That's what I thought, and I agree completely with Nikita! If the Bagrations, a deposed house of a country which was now part of the Russian empire, were royalty, then so were the Yussoupovs, who once ruled the Crimea. So why did Irina have to sign away her rights before morgatanically marrying Felix? I am so glad to hear that other Romanovs are upset that their name has been taken away and that the Vladimirovichi claim they are the only ones in the world with the right to the family name!

[LisaDavidson]

It comes down to whether or not the surviving members of the family are dynasts or not and what control if any the head of the house has. I agree that a Romanov descendant has the right to use the dynastic name as a surname. I think the RFA believes there are no more dynasts and that they can elect a head of the house with their own succession system. The Vladimirovichi believe they are the remaining dynasts and that they have the right to give the non dynasts names such as Romanovsky.

[Annie]

I know, I just posted this viewpoint because I was glad to see someone in the family see it the same as me. I am with Nikita in saying that because there are also questions about Kyril and Vladimir's marriages, everyone's the same. It's a disgrace only a couple of people, what, only one now, is allowed to claim the name of Romanov? Even the lowest, poorest person, even a disowned jailbird uncle, should at least be able to keep the family name. Good for anyone who fights this nonsense.

Isn't the biggest rift in the family over this? Doesn't MV demand they accept their lesser titles and they think that's absurd? What is she going to do if they put Romanov on their driver's license or something, shoot them?

[Greg_King]

Annie-

This follows tradition, and indeed the last pre-Revolutionary word on the subject was issued by Nicholas II himself in 1911.  On June 14, 1911, Vladimir de Freedericksz, Minister of the Imperial Court, conveyed-on the Emperor's orders-the following statement: "Surnames and new coats-of-arms of spouses and issue of Princes of the Imperial Blood who have contracted marriages with persons not of corresponding rank [i.e., morganatic marriages] will be granted in each case by the Sovereign Emperor."(In GARF, F. 601, Op. 1, D. 2143) In plain English, if a dynast married morganatically, their children had no right to the name Romanov, but had to await a new surname, title, and coat-of-arms from the Emperor.

Such is the case with every surviving male member of the family today-all are descended from morganatic unions, save Grand Duke George, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna's son.  Under Nicholas II's decree, none of them would have been entitled to call themselves "Prince X Romanov."  Nor would they be entitled to any style such as "Prince of Russia"-it simply didn't exist.

The idea that Kirill, Vladimir, or Maria somehow "took away" the family name is therefore in error; as moganatic issue, they had no Romanov name to have taken from them.

Greg King

[Annie]

But how was Vladimir's wife any more 'royal' than Felix Yussoupov, both were nobility/former ruling families who had been incorportated into the empire and  become subjects of the Tsar like everyone else. If Irina's marriage was morgatanic, Vladimir's should be too. Also, didn't Tatiana Konstantinovna marry morgatanically to another member of the Bagration house? So why was it different for Vladimir?

But the main thing is, really, since there is no more Imperial line and no throne for them to sit on, all the rules don't matter anymore. It reminds me of a scene from The Stand, where the 4 sent west to meet Flag were stopped along the road by some former cops who asked for their SS#'s and they laughed. It didn't matter anymore, all the old standards were void when the regime fell. But I guess anyone can call themselves anything they want, but that goes for them all.

[LisaDavidson]

Annie: This rift in the family is of long standing - since at least the 1920's. It does indeed come down to who you do or do not consider to be a dynast, and it appears you feel that there are none left.

Maria V. has inherited this rift and it is decidedly not of her making. She has never threatened anyone that I know of.

I am acquainted with Prince Andrei Romanoff, and he is a naturalized citizen of the United States as, I think, Andrei Romanoff. As an American citizen, he is answerable to US authorities and not his cousin - and no one has tried to stop him from using the dynasty's name as his surname. His sons and granddaughter are all "Romanoffs".

I use the style of Prince with him out of respect for him and his family. Many Americans have or may be referred to by titles (out of respect) which are rather moot here in a republic.

[Greg_King]

But how was Vladimir's wife any more 'royal' than Felix Yussoupov, both were nobility/former ruling families who had been incorportated into the empire and  become subjects of the Tsar like everyone else. If Irina's marriage was morgatanic, Vladimir's should be too. Also, didn't Tatiana Konstantinovna marry morgatanically to another member of the Bagration house? So why was it different for Vladimir?
l.

Annie-

This is precisely what the argument comes down to-all of the other objections raised concerning the Vladimirs, Kirill's marriage, his role in 1917, etc., have no bearing on the issue.  I don't have time at the moment to post a lengthy reply as I'm on my way out the door, but basically, Nicholas II-when Tatiana Konstantinovna married Prince Konstantin Bagratian-Muhkransky in 1911-made several references that the marriage was not morganatic since the Prince was descended from a once-ruling house-in his diary KR recorded this remark; but Nicholas never formalized the status of the B-M in his empire; he did ask Prince Konstantin to sign the register as "Prince of Georgia" instead of "Prince Konstantin," again indicating that NII held to the view that the B-M were-like other former sovereign houses recognized as being equal for purposes of marriage-a former ruling dynasty.  Several years before he ever met his future wife Leonida, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich was asked by one of the Spanish Infantas to determine if-in his position as head of the exiled Imperial House-the B-M's qualified as a mediatized or former ruling house and were therefore considered equal for purposes of marriage; this he did and determined that, in keeping with what Nicholas II had said about Tatiana Konstantinovna's marriage in 1911, the B-M's were equal for the purpose of marriage.  It was 3-4 years after this that he met Leonida and married her, so the two questions are unrelated.  Vladimir relied on the precedent of 1911 and his own study; he was able to do this because-from the legitimist point of view-he was de jure sovereign.  Tatiana, incidentally, renounced on marrying Konstantin, but did so because, as her father's diaries state, Nicholas II considered that she was marrying a foreign prince, and not contracting a morganatic marriage-hence Nicholas II telling him to sign the register as a foreign prince of Georgia.  I can post complete details and the like later, but this is the basic outline of the argument that Vladimir's marriage to Leonida was equal.

Greg King

[Annie]

What's wrong with marrying a foreign prince? Why would she have to renounce for that? Most of the Romanovs married foreign people, including Nicholas himself.

[Greg_King]

Female dynasts marrying foreign royals were required to renounce succession rights to avoid the (then) highly unlikely scenario that, for example, Grand Duchess X or Princess Y married Crown Prince A, who in time becomes sovereign of his own country.  It was to avoid a William/Mary situation where someone might be sovereign of two different countries, and also because the issue of the union were presumed to not be Romanov dynasts-in this, Russia differed, for example, from Great Britain-where there are something like 200 people in line of succession, many of whom are Mr. X or Miss Y, working ordinary jobs around the world.  The Russian laws were stringent about who was or was not a dynast and therefore eligible to succeed.

Greg King

[Annie]

And Maria V. married a Hohenzollern

[Robert_Hall]

So what ?

[Greg_King]

And Maria V. married a Hohenzollern

And Queen Elizabeth II married a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.

In legitmist terms, a man marrying an heiress presumptive always renounces his own claims and oaths, as Philip did when he married Elizabeth in 1947, and Maria's husband did when they married.  In these cases, where-let's face it, the woman is the important partner-the husband's background is subjugated to that of his wife.

Had there been legitimate male dynasts capable of fathering children alive at the time of Maria's marriage it might have gone differently for her-but as it was, they were all rather old men, so it was obvious the burden was going to fall on her.  In these cases-like that of Elizabeth II-the woman doesn't renounce anything, but her husband does.

Greg King

[Robert_Hall]

It is the same case, I believe, with Denmark & The Netherlands. Perhaps even eventually with Monaco.
So MV was setting no precedent.
Robert