Discussion:
Females in Russian Sucession
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2005-07-26 03:07:54 UTC
Permalink
I have some questions about Russian females inheriting the trone.

1. How many Russian Grand Duchesses or Princesses did NOT renounce to
her rights to the sucession and married equally?

2. Could the descendant of a Russian Grand Duchess who made an equal
marriage be a Russian dynast, even if he/she enters into a morganatic
marriage

3. Must the descendants of Russian Grand Duchesses who made an equal
marriage follow the Fundamental Law to be considered heirs to the
throne?

Thank you.
p***@hotmail.com
2005-07-26 07:31:24 UTC
Permalink
1. The only two that I am certain of are HH Princess Maria Vladimirovna
of Russia (1907-1951)and her sister HH Kira Vladimirovna of Russia
(1909-1967) who were both raised to the style and rank of HIH Grand
Duchess of Russia by their father HIH Grand Duke Kyril Vladimirovich of
Russia (1876-1938)in his capacity as Head of the Imperial House.

2. Only if the descendant is the product of an equal marriage and if
the Head of the Imperial House has approved the unequal marriage as
well as the previous generations' of equal marriages. Issue from this
unequal marriage would not have dynastic rights.

3. Yes, they must conform to the Fundamental Laws in order to be
considered dynasts. There are presently a number of qualifying Russian
dynasts in the Royal House of Prussia and the Serene House of
Leiningen.

David Pritchard
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have some questions about Russian females inheriting the trone.
1. How many Russian Grand Duchesses or Princesses did NOT renounce to
her rights to the sucession and married equally?
2. Could the descendant of a Russian Grand Duchess who made an equal
marriage be a Russian dynast, even if he/she enters into a morganatic
marriage
3. Must the descendants of Russian Grand Duchesses who made an equal
marriage follow the Fundamental Law to be considered heirs to the
throne?
Thank you.
a***@gmail.com
2005-07-26 18:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
3. Yes, they must conform to the Fundamental Laws in order to be
considered dynasts. There are presently a number of qualifying Russian
dynasts in the Royal House of Prussia and the Serene House of
Leiningen.
David Pritchard
Then, for example, Prince Michael of Kent, descendant of equal
marriages from Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, entered into a
morganatic marriage (for the Russian Law, because in Britain they don't
have morganatic marriages), does this make him not able to inherite the
throne, or is it irrelevant because he is a member of the British
Family and not part of the Russian?
Lisa Davidson
2005-07-27 03:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
3. Yes, they must conform to the Fundamental Laws in order to be
considered dynasts. There are presently a number of qualifying Russian
dynasts in the Royal House of Prussia and the Serene House of
Leiningen.
David Pritchard
Then, for example, Prince Michael of Kent, descendant of equal
marriages from Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, entered into a
morganatic marriage (for the Russian Law, because in Britain they don't
have morganatic marriages), does this make him not able to inherite the
throne, or is it irrelevant because he is a member of the British
Family and not part of the Russian?
P Michael's marriage would not be considered morganatic under the
Fundamental Law. If he asked the head of house's permission (it would have
been Vladimir Kirilovich at the time of his marriage), it likely would have
been considered an unequal marriage. What is likely more relevant is whether
or not he would have been considered a dynast of the Imperial House. My
guess - and it's only that - is that he is not.

Succession through the female line is based on relationship to the last
tsar. PM's only relationship to the Romanovs is through Olga Constantinova,
and it's a remote connection at best.

However, if he would be considered a dynast, his unequal marriage would not
exclude him from the throne, it would exclude his children and their
descendants.
a***@gmail.com
2005-07-27 05:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
P Michael's marriage would not be considered morganatic under the
Fundamental Law. If he asked the head of house's permission (it would have
been Vladimir Kirilovich at the time of his marriage), it likely would have
been considered an unequal marriage. What is likely more relevant is whether
or not he would have been considered a dynast of the Imperial House. My
guess - and it's only that - is that he is not.
Succession through the female line is based on relationship to the last
tsar. PM's only relationship to the Romanovs is through Olga Constantinova,
and it's a remote connection at best.
However, if he would be considered a dynast, his unequal marriage would not
exclude him from the throne, it would exclude his children and their
descendants.
Thank you very much for the answer. I asked that, because I was told
before that just the Romanovs (I mean Grand Dukes/Duchesses and
Princes/Princesses) had to ask the Head of the House for permission to
marry, and other descendants by the female lines were ruled by the Laws
in the family they belong. For example, if under the British Law, P
Michael's marriage was not morganatic, it was enough to consider him as
a dynast. I hope to have been clear, my english is very bad =).
j***@aol.com
2005-07-26 07:58:25 UTC
Permalink
As I recall, Emperor Paul changed the succession laws around 1797 and
that only direct male heirs can inherit the throne. If this is true,
who would be the current legal heir?

I know Maria Vladimirovna (daughter of G.D.Vladimir Kyrilovitch) claims
it now, and I believe she married a Prussian prince and has a son.
Gary Holtzman
2005-07-26 12:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
As I recall, Emperor Paul changed the succession laws around 1797 and
that only direct male heirs can inherit the throne. If this is true,
who would be the current legal heir?
This is not true. Females can inherit in the event of the extinction of the male line.
Post by j***@aol.com
I know Maria Vladimirovna (daughter of G.D.Vladimir Kyrilovitch) claims
it now, and I believe she married a Prussian prince and has a son.
--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Matt Lavengood
2005-07-26 17:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@aol.com
As I recall, Emperor Paul changed the succession laws around 1797 and
that only direct male heirs can inherit the throne. If this is true,
who would be the current legal heir?
Not true. Russia follows Semi-Salic law, meaning females can inherit in
case of the extinction in the male line.
Post by j***@aol.com
I know Maria Vladimirovna (daughter of G.D.Vladimir Kyrilovitch) claims
it now, and I believe she married a Prussian prince and has a son.
And she would indeed be the legal heiress if the Imperial Family was
still ruling, as all the remaining male-line branches are of morganatic
descent.
Donald Renouf
2005-07-26 20:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Lavengood
Post by j***@aol.com
As I recall, Emperor Paul changed the succession laws around 1797 and
that only direct male heirs can inherit the throne. If this is true,
who would be the current legal heir?
Not true. Russia follows Semi-Salic law, meaning females can inherit in
case of the extinction in the male line.
Post by j***@aol.com
I know Maria Vladimirovna (daughter of G.D.Vladimir Kyrilovitch) claims
it now, and I believe she married a Prussian prince and has a son.
And she would indeed be the legal heiress if the Imperial Family was
still ruling, as all the remaining male-line branches are of morganatic
descent.
I've been wondering about this topic recently, too. What sort of a
claim does Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (son of Prince Paul) have?
Matt Lavengood
2005-07-26 23:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Renouf
Post by Matt Lavengood
Post by j***@aol.com
As I recall, Emperor Paul changed the succession laws around 1797 and
that only direct male heirs can inherit the throne. If this is true,
who would be the current legal heir?
Not true. Russia follows Semi-Salic law, meaning females can inherit in
case of the extinction in the male line.
Post by j***@aol.com
I know Maria Vladimirovna (daughter of G.D.Vladimir Kyrilovitch) claims
it now, and I believe she married a Prussian prince and has a son.
And she would indeed be the legal heiress if the Imperial Family was
still ruling, as all the remaining male-line branches are of morganatic
descent.
I've been wondering about this topic recently, too. What sort of a
claim does Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (son of Prince Paul) have?
I don't know who you're talking about... how is Prince Paul/Prince
Alexander connected to the Russian Imperial Family?
a***@gmail.com
2005-07-27 00:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Lavengood
I don't know who you're talking about... how is Prince Paul/Prince
Alexander connected to the Russian Imperial Family?
Maybe he means Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia,
great-great-grandson of Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna, Queen of the
Hellenes and a granddaughter of Emperor Nicholas I of Russia.
p***@hotmail.com
2005-07-27 03:04:38 UTC
Permalink
He does not mean the more commonly known Alexander, but rather the son
of Paul Prince Regent of Yugoslavia. Prince Alexander has made two
equal marriages, firstly to HRH Princess Maria Pia of Italy and
secondly to HSH Princess Barbara of Lichtenstein. Prince Alexander's
mother was HRH Princess Olga of Greece who was the daughter of HRH
Prince Nicholas of Greece and HIH Grand Duchess Helen Vladimirovna of
Russia.

Considering that Grand Duchess Helen married a foreign prince in 1902,
one could be almost certain that she renounced her rights to the
Russian Throne as was the custom. That would leave Prince Alexander and
his children out of the succession despite their equal marriages.

David Pritchard
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Matt Lavengood
I don't know who you're talking about... how is Prince Paul/Prince
Alexander connected to the Russian Imperial Family?
Maybe he means Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia,
great-great-grandson of Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna, Queen of the
Hellenes and a granddaughter of Emperor Nicholas I of Russia.
Matt Lavengood
2005-08-01 01:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Considering that Grand Duchess Helen married a foreign prince in 1902,
one could be almost certain that she renounced her rights to the
Russian Throne as was the custom. That would leave Prince Alexander and
his children out of the succession despite their equal marriages.
So Russian Law says that a Princess or Grand Duchess of Russia who
marries a foreign prince loses dynastic rights? In that case, who could
a Pss/GDss marry that would keep her dynastic rights? Of course, a
Russian Prince could be married, but if there was still a Russian
Prince that would mean the male line is not extinct, so that's
irrelevant.
Dimitry
2005-08-01 08:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Lavengood
So Russian Law says that a Princess or Grand Duchess of Russia
who marries a foreign prince loses dynastic rights?
No, that's wrong. The renunciations were invented in 1911 for
princesses of the blood as necessary condition to approval for unequal
marriages.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
j***@aol.com
2005-07-28 07:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Also a g-grandson of Queen Marie of Romania, daughter of Grand Duchess
Marie Alexandrovna, daughter of Alexander II.
Dimitry
2005-07-31 17:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1. How many Russian Grand Duchesses or Princesses did NOT renounce to
her rights to the sucession and married equally?
All the Grand Duchesses did NOT renounced.

None of the Princesses of the Blood married equally.

Only three renunciations of Princesses of the Blood are known: Tatiana
Constantinovna, Irina Alexandrovna and Catherine Ioannovna. It was the
result of 1911 pact which allowed Princesses of the Blood to marry
unequally.
Post by a***@gmail.com
2. Could the descendant of a Russian Grand Duchess who made an equal
marriage be a Russian dynast, even if he/she enters into a morganatic
marriage
Yes. First of all, the unequal marriage is irrelevant to Russian
dynast's succession rights. But even for descendants of unequal
marriage of foreigner who happened to be Russian dynast there is no any
prohibition.
Post by a***@gmail.com
3. Must the descendants of Russian Grand Duchesses who made an equal
marriage follow the Fundamental Law to be considered heirs to the
throne?
Why no?
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
a***@gmail.com
2005-07-31 23:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Hi Dimitry, so for example, a Prince of the Blood marries unequally
and his sister enters into an equal marriage to a British Prince. So
the descendants of that Prince won't be considered dynasts. But the
descendants of the Princess and the British Prince, who all married
unequally, will be considered Russian dynasts, in case that the
sucession passes to the female line?
Dimitry
2005-08-01 08:44:15 UTC
Permalink
The descendants of the Princess and the British Prince are Russian
dynasts and it is not relevant whether they married equally, unequally
or not married at all.

Their descendants, not being members of the Russian Imperial House, can
marry anyone they want.
---
Dimitry Macedonsky
Matt Lavengood
2005-08-01 22:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry
Post by a***@gmail.com
1. How many Russian Grand Duchesses or Princesses did NOT renounce to
her rights to the sucession and married equally?
All the Grand Duchesses did NOT renounced.
Are you sure? I thought that HIH Grand Duchess Olga Aleksandrovna,
sister to Nicholas II, married Nikolai Aleksandrovitch Kulikovsky
morganatically.
Dimitry
2005-08-02 07:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Yes, this marriage was not equal, but she also did not renounced. The
other Grand Duchesses married not equally and not renounced were Maria
Nikolayevna (to Count Stroganov) and Maria Pavlovna Jr (to Prince
Putyatin).
---
Dimitry Macedonsky

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...