Discussion:
Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
(too old to reply)
Gillian White
2004-06-19 17:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?

I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because a)
he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria Melita of
Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox Church and
c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee. And even if he had not been barred, Maria
Vladimirovna's claim would be recognised only if there were no other
legitimate male Romanov heirs, which there are.

Given these problems, why does she persist in making her claim? Is there
room for manoeuvre in the succession law, or is it absolute? How many
members of the Romanov family support her?

And what about Prince Nicholas Romanovich? What are the arguments for and
against his position?

Gillian
Andy.III
2004-06-19 17:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
And what about Prince Nicholas Romanovich? What are the arguments for and
against his position?
Gillian
I suggest a good google in the archives of alt.talk.royalty and
alt.gossip.royalty. There are 10 years worth of arguments to be found. <G>

A completely neutral strict interpretation of the Fundamental Laws and
Cannonical Laws can easily lead one to the conclusion that there is NO one that
meets ALL the requirements and that the Imperial Family of Russia (as opposed
to the Romanov family) is extinct.


Andy.III
--
"I have a congenital birth defect.
I have a violent commitment to candor,
so don't ask unless you *REALLY* want to know!"
Louis Epstein
2004-06-19 18:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
Grand Duchess Maria is the heiress under the Fundamental Laws;
Nicholas has NO claim,as if she is disqualified he is doubly
disqualified,and if he is qualified others are also qualified
who are senior to him.
Post by Gillian White
I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because a)
he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria Melita of
Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox Church and
c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee.
However,the Tsar subsequently reinstated his rights.
Post by Gillian White
And even if he had not been barred, Maria Vladimirovna's claim would be
recognised only if there were no other legitimate male Romanov heirs,
which there are.
There are no DYNASTICALLY QUALIFIED male Romanov heirs,
her father was the last,and in the default of dynastically
qualified males the nearest female of the last succeeds.
Post by Gillian White
Given these problems, why does she persist in making her claim?
Because it's the only credible one.
Post by Gillian White
Is there room for manoeuvre in the succession law, or is it absolute?
There is no real room for any claimant other than Maria.
Post by Gillian White
How many members of the Romanov family support her?
And what about Prince Nicholas Romanovich? What are the arguments for
and against his position?
He descends from an unequal marriage,explicitly barred from
succession rights.He is not the most senior member of the family
of such descent.

He is the head of a family club that is of no consequence when
it comes to determining or interpreting House laws.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Gillian White
2004-06-19 22:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
However,the Tsar subsequently reinstated his rights.
Aaaah. The book I quoted from re Kirill's marital issues did not mention
that. It explains a lot!

Gillian
David / Amicus
2004-06-20 01:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Well George better hurry up and find an equal bride and make an heir or
the cause will be lost!

It's interesting that royals without thrones have higher marital
standards than those who do.

The likes of the wife of the CP of Norway or a Diana could never become
an Empress of All the Russias!

Say what you want about the morals of Catherine the Great at least she
was a born royal!
Grandfluke
2004-06-20 04:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Well George better hurry up and find an equal bride and make an heir or
the cause will be lost!
Mamma insists I must marry the daughter of a King! I wish however to marry
daughter of proctologist! Pincess Mindy Sue Goldfarb from kingdom of Long
island.
At least she is Orthodox, but mamma says it is the wrong kind of Orthodox. I f
I cannot marry Mindy Sue I do not wish to marry at all. I shall abdicate and
work in furniture store of Mindy Sue's uncle Morris.

I am,
Sincerly Yours,
George Hohenzollern
Candide
2004-06-20 04:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
Well George better hurry up and find an equal bride and make an heir or
the cause will be lost!
It's interesting that royals without thrones have higher marital
standards than those who do.
The likes of the wife of the CP of Norway or a Diana could never become
an Empress of All the Russias!
Say what you want about the morals of Catherine the Great at least she
was a born royal!
Say what you will about Lady Diana Spencer's behaviour after her
marriage, but on paper before the event she would have fit most royal
bride shopping lists nicely. Aside from not being royal, there isn't
much else to have disqualified her from the Romanov family.

Diana was the right age, loved babies (even worked as a baby minder),
pretty/attractive, and seems to have lead a pretty blameless life before
her engagement (no serious suitors/love affairs and probably a virgin).

Her family while not royal per se, certainly had more royal blood than
the Windsors and probably could claim relations to many royal
courts/families even if distant.

On the down side there was the fact Diana was the daughter of a bolter,
that would have weighed heavily in the Victorian/Edwardian Romanov court
marriage market.

Now CP of Norway, she is another kettle of fish entirely and cannot
seeing her ever getting past say Queen Victoria or Empress Marie.

Candide
Gillian White
2004-06-20 05:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Her family while not royal per se, certainly had more royal blood than
the Windsors and probably could claim relations to many royal
courts/families even if distant.
How exactly do the Spencers have 'more royal blood' than the Windsors?!?
They may be descended from a few former monarchs, but Queen Elizabeth II,
the Head of the House of Windsor, IS the monarch! And even if the Spencers
could claim a relationship to other royal families, how would they ever
match the links between those families and the House of Windsor?

Diana was a well bred, aristocratic young woman, and an entirely suitable
choice of bride for the Prince of Wales, but to suggest she was 'more royal'
than her husband, the future King of Great Britain, is somewhat ridiculous.

Gillian
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-06-20 19:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Her family while not royal per se, certainly had more royal blood than
the Windsors and probably could claim relations to many royal
courts/families even if distant.
I realise that their is a delusionist cult surrounding the memory of the
unfortunate Diana Princess of Wales, but "more royal blood than the Windsors"?
How looney is this?

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Andy.III
2004-06-20 20:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I realise that their is a delusionist cult surrounding the memory of the
unfortunate Diana Princess of Wales, but "more royal blood than the Windsors"?
How looney is this?
Guy Stair Sainty
It is absurdness squared to the nth degree.


Andy.III
--
"I have a congenital birth defect.
I have a violent commitment to candor,
so don't ask unless you *REALLY* want to know!"
Boffman
2004-06-20 23:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I realise that their is a delusionist cult surrounding the memory of the
unfortunate Diana Princess of Wales, but "more royal blood than the Windsors"?
How looney is this?
The W's are related by blood, however distant to just about every European
royal house that's ever existed. Not sure about the Hapsburghs, but they
probably have some of that blue blood too. I think Pince Michael claims
descent from Jesus.
Rick Morgan
2004-06-21 00:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Even Albania???
Post by Boffman
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I realise that their is a delusionist cult surrounding the memory of the
unfortunate Diana Princess of Wales, but "more royal blood than the Windsors"?
How looney is this?
The W's are related by blood, however distant to just about every European
royal house that's ever existed. Not sure about the Hapsburghs, but they
probably have some of that blue blood too. I think Pince Michael claims
descent from Jesus.
Andy.III
2004-06-21 00:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Morgan
Even Albania???
Even Albania; Queen Mother Geraldine is descended from Johann Gorg II of
Anhalt-Dessau (as are almost all other royal families)

Johann Georg II, Prinz von Anhalt-Dessau 1627-1693
|
Leopold I, Prinz von Anhalt-Dessau 1676-1747
|
Leopold II, Prinz von Anhalt-Dessau 1700-1751
|
Henriette Catherine von Anhalt-Dessau 1744-1799
|
Agnès von Loën 1785-1832
|
Hermann von Seherr-Thoss 1810-1883
|
Margarete von Seherr-Thoss 1848-1931
|
Gyula Apponyi, comte de Nagy-Apponyi 1873-1924
|
Geraldine Apponyi, comtesse de Nagy-Apponyi 1915-2002
|
Leka of Albania


Andy.III
--
"I have a congenital birth defect.
I have a violent commitment to candor,
so don't ask unless you *REALLY* want to know!"
Grant Menzies
2004-06-21 04:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Rick Morgan
Even Albania???
Even Albania; Queen Mother Geraldine is descended from Johann Gorg II of
Anhalt-Dessau (as are almost all other royal families)
Johann Georg II, Prinz von Anhalt-Dessau 1627-1693
|
Leopold I, Prinz von Anhalt-Dessau 1676-1747
|
Leopold II, Prinz von Anhalt-Dessau 1700-1751
|
Henriette Catherine von Anhalt-Dessau 1744-1799
|
Agnès von Loën 1785-1832
|
Hermann von Seherr-Thoss 1810-1883
|
Margarete von Seherr-Thoss 1848-1931
|
Gyula Apponyi, comte de Nagy-Apponyi 1873-1924
|
Geraldine Apponyi, comtesse de Nagy-Apponyi 1915-2002
|
Leka of Albania
Good Heaven, even *I* am related to Leka of Albania....

Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Damian Ferrara
2004-06-23 19:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
Good Heaven, even *I* am related to Leka of Albania....
I'm not... fortunately !!... :P

D.F.
Grant Menzies
2004-06-24 01:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damian Ferrara
Post by Grant Menzies
Good Heaven, even *I* am related to Leka of Albania....
I'm not... fortunately !!... :P
Of course, the crowd of cousins also includes Goethe and Hegel, who
could never have guessed (well, maybe Goethe) that they'd have cousins
so far-flung - and far-fetched ;-)

Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Candide
2004-06-21 02:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Candide
Her family while not royal per se, certainly had more royal blood than
the Windsors and probably could claim relations to many royal
courts/families even if distant.
Ok, I take it back, I TAKE It Back!
Mea culpa, mea maxima, maxima culpa

Candide
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I realise that their is a delusionist cult surrounding the memory of the
unfortunate Diana Princess of Wales, but "more royal blood than the Windsors"?
How looney is this?
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Grant Menzies
2004-06-20 05:11:14 UTC
Permalink
***@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:

<snip>
Post by David / Amicus
Say what you want about the morals of Catherine the Great at least she
was a born royal!
<snip>

Consult your Europäische Stammtafeln. She was born a petty German
princess - the GREAT-GREAT-GRANDDAUGHTER of a Danish king; was not a
royal at all, and would be the first to tell you so. Catherine was
totally self-made and did not need to rely on her birth to any degree.


As for her morals, I can recommend several books about her that do
much to demolish that old gossip, but I am not convinced such a
reading list would do much good in this case.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
David / Amicus
2004-06-20 07:03:19 UTC
Permalink
<<Consult your Europ=E4ische Stammtafeln. She was born a petty German
princess - >>

The KEY word here is PRINCESS! She was born a princess unlike either
Diana or the spouse of the CP of Norway.

Regarding Catherine the Great <<As for her morals, I can recommend
several books about her that do much to demolish that old gossip, but I
am not convinced such a reading list would do much good in this case.>>

Please do share especially books in English. I like Catherine!
Grant Menzies
2004-06-20 07:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
<<Consult your Europ=E4ische Stammtafeln. She was born a petty German
princess - >>
The KEY word here is PRINCESS! She was born a princess unlike either
Diana or the spouse of the CP of Norway.
The key definition turns on princesses royal and princesses non-royal,
and Catherine belonged to the latter group.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Nicholas Trahan
2004-06-21 12:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Just ask the horse!

Nicholas Trahan
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 00:03:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
<<Consult your Europäische Stammtafeln. She was born a petty German
princess - >>
The KEY word here is PRINCESS! She was born a princess unlike either
Diana or the spouse of the CP of Norway.
Regarding Catherine the Great <<As for her morals, I can recommend
several books about her that do much to demolish that old gossip, but I
am not convinced such a reading list would do much good in this case.>>
Please do share especially books in English. I like Catherine!
MarleneKoenig
2004-06-20 18:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Aaaah. The book I quoted from re Kirill's marital issues did not mention
that. It explains a lot!
When he married, Kirill was stripped of military rank. He was also not allowed
back into Russia, but he did not lose his succession rights.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Gillian White
2004-06-20 19:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
When he married, Kirill was stripped of military rank. He was also not allowed
back into Russia, but he did not lose his succession rights.
From 'Queen Victoria's Descendants', page 104 :

'Kirill maried without the Tsar's permission, which automatically debarred
him and his descendants from the succession'.

Gillian
MarleneKoenig
2004-06-21 02:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Kirill maried without the Tsar's permission, which automatically debarred
him and his descendants from the succession'.
that was an incorrect statement as it was based on others who wrote the same
... I learned afterward that it was incorrect.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Ole Andersen
2004-06-21 21:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
Would you please change your settings so that the signature comes after
a separator (a line consisting of "-- ")?

That would make your messages even better.
--
Ole Andersen, Copenhagen, Denmark * http://palnatoke.org
Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent.
Fourteen percent of all people know that. - Homer Simpson
royalboy
2004-06-21 01:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
Grand Duchess Maria is the heiress under the Fundamental Laws;
Nicholas has NO claim,as if she is disqualified he is doubly
disqualified,and if he is qualified others are also qualified
who are senior to him.
Post by Gillian White
I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because a)
he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria Melita of
Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox Church and
c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee.
However,the Tsar subsequently reinstated his rights.
Post by Gillian White
And even if he had not been barred, Maria Vladimirovna's claim would be
recognised only if there were no other legitimate male Romanov heirs,
which there are.
There are no DYNASTICALLY QUALIFIED male Romanov heirs,
her father was the last,and in the default of dynastically
qualified males the nearest female of the last succeeds.
Post by Gillian White
Given these problems, why does she persist in making her claim?
Because it's the only credible one.
Post by Gillian White
Is there room for manoeuvre in the succession law, or is it absolute?
There is no real room for any claimant other than Maria.
Post by Gillian White
How many members of the Romanov family support her?
And what about Prince Nicholas Romanovich? What are the arguments for
and against his position?
He descends from an unequal marriage,explicitly barred from
succession rights.He is not the most senior member of the family
of such descent.
Was the marriage of Vladimir & Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky equal ?
Post by Louis Epstein
He is the head of a family club that is of no consequence when
it comes to determining or interpreting House laws.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2004-06-21 04:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by royalboy
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
Grand Duchess Maria is the heiress under the Fundamental Laws;
Nicholas has NO claim,as if she is disqualified he is doubly
disqualified,and if he is qualified others are also qualified
who are senior to him.
Post by Gillian White
I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because
a) he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria
Melita of Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox
Church and c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee.
However,the Tsar subsequently reinstated his rights.
Post by Gillian White
And even if he had not been barred, Maria Vladimirovna's claim would be
recognised only if there were no other legitimate male Romanov heirs,
which there are.
There are no DYNASTICALLY QUALIFIED male Romanov heirs,
her father was the last,and in the default of dynastically
qualified males the nearest female of the last succeeds.
Post by Gillian White
Given these problems, why does she persist in making her claim?
Because it's the only credible one.
Post by Gillian White
Is there room for manoeuvre in the succession law, or is it absolute?
There is no real room for any claimant other than Maria.
Post by Gillian White
How many members of the Romanov family support her?
And what about Prince Nicholas Romanovich? What are the arguments for
and against his position?
He descends from an unequal marriage,explicitly barred from
succession rights.He is not the most senior member of the family
of such descent.
Was the marriage of Vladimir & Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky equal ?
According to the relevant authority,yes.
Post by royalboy
Post by Louis Epstein
He is the head of a family club that is of no consequence when
it comes to determining or interpreting House laws.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Nicholas Trahan
2004-06-21 12:27:44 UTC
Permalink
{BIG SNIP}
Post by royalboy
Was the marriage of Vladimir & Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky equal ?
Yes, the marriage was equal

Nicholas Trahan
Post by royalboy
Post by Louis Epstein
He is the head of a family club that is of no consequence when
it comes to determining or interpreting House laws.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-21 17:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Post by royalboy
Was the marriage of Vladimir & Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky equal ?
Yes, the marriage was equal
The marriage was considered equal by Vladimir as Head of the Imperial House.
He was senior judge in the question of equality for Russian dynasts so his
decision was final. OTOH, in 1911 the marriage of Pss Tatiana was considered
unequal by the then arbiter.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Nicholas Trahan
2004-06-21 18:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Yes, because Vladimir was de facto Emperor, and recognized as such as early
as 1938 (don't have the documents at hand at the moment) he could recognize
his marriage in 1940 something an equal one. Remember too that the members
of the Georgian Royal Family were considered Royal from the annexation of
Georgia. Sorry, as I said I don't have the exact documents at hand since I
am in the store at the moment, but I seem to remember Vladimir writing a
letter to the King of Spain about the equality of the Bragations.

Nicholas Trahan
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:40 +0400
Subject: Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Post by royalboy
Was the marriage of Vladimir & Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky equal ?
Yes, the marriage was equal
The marriage was considered equal by Vladimir as Head of the Imperial House.
He was senior judge in the question of equality for Russian dynasts so his
decision was final. OTOH, in 1911 the marriage of Pss Tatiana was considered
unequal by the then arbiter.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Pierre Aronax
2004-06-21 19:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Post by royalboy
Was the marriage of Vladimir & Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky equal ?
Yes, the marriage was equal
The marriage was considered equal by Vladimir as Head of the Imperial House.
He was senior judge in the question of equality for Russian dynasts so his
decision was final. OTOH, in 1911 the marriage of Pss Tatiana was considered
unequal by the then arbiter.
Hmm... if I follow you well, the present heir of Grand-Duchess Mary can
choose his wife in absolutely any family, as soon as his mother considers
her as equal: she has not at all to come from a sovereign family. Am I
right?

Pierre
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-22 08:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Hmm... if I follow you well, the present heir of Grand-Duchess Mary can
choose his wife in absolutely any family, as soon as his mother considers
her as equal: she has not at all to come from a sovereign family. Am I
right?
Nearby. But this any family should be considered a sovereign or ruling. Or
formerly ruling anywhere. Indeed it is better to have some ground (e.g.
Dolgoruky descends from Rurikides). It is also possible to invent some
ancestry (Biron descends from French dukes).

What about Caesarevich George there are few ways. He can marry
half-fictional to one of Gotha non-ruling girls and divorce after a child
birth. Or one German Countess can be proclaimed descending from
Hohenstauffens.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Robert Hall
2004-06-22 14:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Pierre Aronax
Hmm... if I follow you well, the present heir of Grand-Duchess Mary can
choose his wife in absolutely any family, as soon as his mother considers
her as equal: she has not at all to come from a sovereign family. Am I
right?
Nearby. But this any family should be considered a sovereign or ruling. Or
formerly ruling anywhere. Indeed it is better to have some ground (e.g.
Dolgoruky descends from Rurikides). It is also possible to invent some
ancestry (Biron descends from French dukes).
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways. He can marry
half-fictional to one of Gotha non-ruling girls and divorce after a child
birth. Or one German Countess can be proclaimed descending from
Hohenstauffens.
But isn't all this just academic nonsense? Even the reigning families
do not practice this so-called equal-marriage rule any longer. It is
certainly out-of-step with contemporary "democratic monarchial"
principles.
Cheers,
Robert
Nicholas Trahan
2004-06-22 16:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Date: 22 Jun 2004 07:32:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Pierre Aronax
Hmm... if I follow you well, the present heir of Grand-Duchess Mary can
choose his wife in absolutely any family, as soon as his mother considers
her as equal: she has not at all to come from a sovereign family. Am I
right?
Nearby. But this any family should be considered a sovereign or ruling. Or
formerly ruling anywhere. Indeed it is better to have some ground (e.g.
Dolgoruky descends from Rurikides). It is also possible to invent some
ancestry (Biron descends from French dukes).
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways. He can marry
half-fictional to one of Gotha non-ruling girls and divorce after a child
birth. Or one German Countess can be proclaimed descending from
Hohenstauffens.
But isn't all this just academic nonsense? Even the reigning families
do not practice this so-called equal-marriage rule any longer. It is
certainly out-of-step with contemporary "democratic monarchial"
principles.
Cheers,
Robert
NO, this is not academic nonsense. For some principles mean things and are
not to be cast onto the ash heap of history just to feel good. OH would that
Norway and Spain put principles first. Would anyone have believed, ten years
ago, the that Crown Princess of Norway would have a bastard child and the
Crown Princess of Spain would be a divorce?

If standards had existed the nightmares of Diana and Sarah (although she has
rehabilitated herself ) would never have happened.

Nicholas Trahan
Candide
2004-06-22 18:43:01 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Thomas Rex Campbell
2004-06-23 04:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Nicholas Trahan
If standards had existed the nightmares of Diana and Sarah (although
she has
Post by Nicholas Trahan
rehabilitated herself ) would never have happened.
Nicholas Trahan
If you are saying a royal princess would have done her duty and kept
quiet whilst her husband had mistresses, or was away on military duty;
maybe and maybe not.
Of course, it was the Prince of Wales who kept quiet while his WIFE
was having affairs; he renewed his friendship with another woman
several years into their marriage. Read the Dimblby and Bedell Smith
biographies.
Post by Pierre Aronax
There are not a whole lot of royal princesses sitting around out there,
never mind those willing to live some sort of "Stepford Wife" existence
in order to full fill familial avarice.
There are probably more princesses out there (but I doubt just sitting
around) than you realize. "Avarice" (?) has nothing to do with it.
Rather, IMO, an understanding of their own country's tradititions and
feelings (and laws!) will allow royal families to act as they think
best.
. If you are upset about the current crop of
Post by Pierre Aronax
crown princesses, wait until an heir to the throne marries someone of
their own sex. THAT is going to be interesting!
Any suggestions who will be first?
Post by Pierre Aronax
Candide
Graham Truesdale
2004-06-26 20:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Trahan
NO, this is not academic nonsense. For some principles mean things and are
not to be cast onto the ash heap of history just to feel good. OH would that
Norway and Spain put principles first. Would anyone have believed, ten years
ago, the that Crown Princess of Norway would have a bastard child and the
Crown Princess of Spain would be a divorce?
If standards had existed the nightmares of Diana and Sarah (although she has
rehabilitated herself ) would never have happened.
Can you suggest what standards would have allowed a marriage
to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but forbidden one to Lady Diana
Spencer? If you are suggesting that the then Duke of York's marriage
to Lady Elizabeth should never have happened, then: -

1. Your views are irrelevant and can safely be ignored.
2. You sound like David/Amicus.
Nicholas Trahan
2004-06-28 11:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Organization: BT Openworld
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
Post by Nicholas Trahan
NO, this is not academic nonsense. For some principles mean things and are
not to be cast onto the ash heap of history just to feel good. OH would
that
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Norway and Spain put principles first. Would anyone have believed, ten
years
Post by Nicholas Trahan
ago, the that Crown Princess of Norway would have a bastard child and the
Crown Princess of Spain would be a divorce?
If standards had existed the nightmares of Diana and Sarah (although she
has
Post by Nicholas Trahan
rehabilitated herself ) would never have happened.
Can you suggest what standards would have allowed a marriage
to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but forbidden one to Lady Diana
Spencer? If you are suggesting that the then Duke of York's marriage
to Lady Elizabeth should never have happened, then: -
1. Your views are irrelevant and can safely be ignored.
2. You sound like David/Amicus.
That is not at all what I am suggesting. There was a time, not too long
ago, when duty to the Crown was paramount and discretion was the better part
of value.

How are we expected to raise children with standards in a world where a
Crown Princess (and possible future Queen) can have a bastard child, or in a
world where a Crown Princess (and possible future Queen can be a divorce?

Employing what I have said above, I do not think that Charles and Camilla
should marry either. Although the POW is considered a widower, C P-B is a
divorce. It is a shame they were not permitted to marry years ago. C P-B
would have made a lovely Princess of Wales.

I am sure that in the early years the marriage of the Duke of York and Lady
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons was not easy for her, with the pressures of Court etc,
but she didn't slink off sleeping with anything that moved like Diana.

Nicholas Trahan
Graham Truesdale
2004-07-16 21:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Organization: BT Openworld
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
Post by Nicholas Trahan
NO, this is not academic nonsense. For some principles mean things and are
not to be cast onto the ash heap of history just to feel good. OH would
that
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Norway and Spain put principles first. Would anyone have believed, ten
years
Post by Nicholas Trahan
ago, the that Crown Princess of Norway would have a bastard child and the
Crown Princess of Spain would be a divorce?
If standards had existed the nightmares of Diana and Sarah (although she
has
Post by Nicholas Trahan
rehabilitated herself ) would never have happened.
Can you suggest what standards would have allowed a marriage
to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, but forbidden one to Lady Diana
Spencer? If you are suggesting that the then Duke of York's marriage
to Lady Elizabeth should never have happened, then: -
1. Your views are irrelevant and can safely be ignored.
2. You sound like David/Amicus.
That is not at all what I am suggesting. There was a time, not too long
ago, when duty to the Crown was paramount and discretion was the better part
of value.
How are we expected to raise children with standards in a world where a
Crown Princess (and possible future Queen) can have a bastard child, or in a
world where a Crown Princess (and possible future Queen can be a divorce?
Both Diana and Sarah were childless spinsters at the time of their
respective marriages.
Post by Nicholas Trahan
Employing what I have said above, I do not think that Charles and Camilla
should marry either. Although the POW is considered a widower, C P-B is a
divorce. It is a shame they were not permitted to marry years ago. C P-B
would have made a lovely Princess of Wales.
I am sure that in the early years the marriage of the Duke of York and Lady
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons was not easy for her, with the pressures of Court etc,
but she didn't slink off sleeping with anything that moved like Diana.
So you are saying, not that the marriages to D & S should never have taken
place, but merely that those ladies (and perhaps also their husbands) should
have behaved better during them?
Frank Johansen
2004-07-16 21:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Trahan
How are we expected to raise children with standards in a world where a
Crown Princess (and possible future Queen) can have a bastard child, or in a
world where a Crown Princess (and possible future Queen can be a divorce?
That's not considered a problem in Norway. Both children out of wedlock
and divorves are quite normal.

The standard for young people today seem to be:
1. Live together for some years.
2. Get a child.
3. Get married (if ever).
4. Hopefully not get a divorce, allthough an alarmingly high percentage do.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen

RobertStClair
2004-06-22 17:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Can't wait until "Grand Duchess" Maria marries her "boy" friend, who
she recently created Count Porky, after her mother dies. That should
raise a few eyebrows.
Damian Ferrara
2004-06-23 19:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways.
Since when the traditional "Tsarevitch" is written "Caesarevich" ?
Let's not russify Romance languages ! :|
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-23 21:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damian Ferrara
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways.
Since when the traditional "Tsarevitch" is written "Caesarevich" ?
It's question of preference. I prefer not to use direct transliteration
("Tsesarevich", "Georgiy", "Mariya", "Kseniya", "Sankt-Peterburg",
"Rossiya", "Imperator", "Kirill" etc) but some way anglicize Russian terms
(Saint-Petersburg, Russia, Emperor, Maria, Xenia, George, Cyril). Old
discussion Re: Juan Carlos vs John Charles.

What about "traditional" "Tsarevitch". Here is not NYT or BBC with their
"Princess Di" and "Baroness Margaret Thatcher", am I right? So I prefer to
differentiate two different Russian titles - "Tsarevich" and "Tsesarevich".
While "Tsarevich" (why -*t*ch?) descends from "Tsar", "Tsesarevich" is
compilation of Caesar and "Tsarevich". I prefer spelling "Caesarevich"
because it indicate this compilation. In Almanach de Gotha 1840 you can find
"Cesaréwitsch et Grand-Duc héritier", thus it is not my invention.
Post by Damian Ferrara
Let's not russify Romance languages ! :|
Since when English is Romance language? :|
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Don Aitken
2004-06-23 23:15:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:20:45 +0400, "Dimitry Macedonsky"
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Damian Ferrara
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways.
Since when the traditional "Tsarevitch" is written "Caesarevich" ?
It's question of preference. I prefer not to use direct transliteration
("Tsesarevich", "Georgiy", "Mariya", "Kseniya", "Sankt-Peterburg",
"Rossiya", "Imperator", "Kirill" etc) but some way anglicize Russian terms
(Saint-Petersburg, Russia, Emperor, Maria, Xenia, George, Cyril). Old
discussion Re: Juan Carlos vs John Charles.
What about "traditional" "Tsarevitch". Here is not NYT or BBC with their
"Princess Di" and "Baroness Margaret Thatcher", am I right? So I prefer to
differentiate two different Russian titles - "Tsarevich" and "Tsesarevich".
While "Tsarevich" (why -*t*ch?) descends from "Tsar", "Tsesarevich" is
compilation of Caesar and "Tsarevich". I prefer spelling "Caesarevich"
because it indicate this compilation. In Almanach de Gotha 1840 you can find
"Cesaréwitsch et Grand-Duc héritier", thus it is not my invention.
As long as you are consistent, I don't think that anyone can
reasonably complain. What you will find in written sources in English
depends mainly on the date; in the 19th century there was an odd habit
of taking transliterations of Russian from French or German, even when
they didn't suit the English pronunciation at all. That is why we
still have a horse race called the Cesarewitch.

I had a look at Google, restricted to pages written in English; these
are the numbers it found:

caesarevitch 1
cesarewitch 1,930
caesarewitch 7
caesarevich 35 (not just yours!)
tsarevich 5,720
tsarevitch 951
tsarewitch 7
tzarevitch 155
tzarevich 564
czarevich 762
czarewich 5
czarevitch 790

I ran out of energy at that point; there are thousands of possible
variations!
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-24 09:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
I had a look at Google, restricted to pages written in English; these
caesarevitch 1
cesarewitch 1,930
caesarewitch 7
caesarevich 35 (not just yours!)
I just wished to separate this two groups of variants. Two different Russian
titles.
Post by Don Aitken
tsarevich 5,720
tsarevitch 951
tsarewitch 7
tzarevitch 155
tzarevich 564
czarevich 762
czarewich 5
czarevitch 790
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Damian Ferrara
2004-06-24 05:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Damian Ferrara
Since when the traditional "Tsarevitch" is written "Caesarevich" ?
It's question of preference. I prefer not to use direct transliteration
("Tsesarevich", "Georgiy", "Mariya", "Kseniya", "Sankt-Peterburg",
"Rossiya", "Imperator", "Kirill" etc) but some way anglicize Russian terms
(Saint-Petersburg, Russia, Emperor, Maria, Xenia, George, Cyril). Old
discussion Re: Juan Carlos vs John Charles.
What about "traditional" "Tsarevitch". Here is not NYT or BBC with their
"Princess Di" and "Baroness Margaret Thatcher", am I right? So I prefer to
differentiate two different Russian titles - "Tsarevich" and "Tsesarevich".
While "Tsarevich" (why -*t*ch?) descends from "Tsar", "Tsesarevich" is
compilation of Caesar and "Tsarevich". I prefer spelling "Caesarevich"
because it indicate this compilation. In Almanach de Gotha 1840 you can find
"Cesaréwitsch et Grand-Duc héritier", thus it is not my invention.
Post by Damian Ferrara
Let's not russify Romance languages ! :|
Since when English is Romance language? :|
It's not about English, it's about Latin : because Caesar comes from
Latin... of course.
Gotha or not, your invention or not, I don't regard the "Tsesarevich"
formula as a most accurate one : *everyone* knows that Tsar(-evich)
comes from Caesar, ergo such an etymolgical formulation -
"Caesarevich" - is rather a distorting caprice. The Almanach de Gotha
wrote it "Cesaréwitsch" in 1840 because it was a shade of flattery to
Russia's membership in the Concert of Europe (1815-1853, due to its
overestimated military power). (Besides, the Almanach de Gotha makes
some unglorious mistakes...)

D.Ferrara
Switzerland
Damian Ferrara
2004-06-24 05:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Damian Ferrara
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways.
Since when the traditional "Tsarevitch" is written "Caesarevich" ?
It's question of preference. I prefer not to use direct transliteration
("Tsesarevich", "Georgiy", "Mariya", "Kseniya", "Sankt-Peterburg",
"Rossiya", "Imperator", "Kirill" etc) but some way anglicize Russian terms
(Saint-Petersburg, Russia, Emperor, Maria, Xenia, George, Cyril). Old
discussion Re: Juan Carlos vs John Charles.
What about "traditional" "Tsarevitch". Here is not NYT or BBC with their
"Princess Di" and "Baroness Margaret Thatcher", am I right? So I prefer to
differentiate two different Russian titles - "Tsarevich" and "Tsesarevich".
While "Tsarevich" (why -*t*ch?) descends from "Tsar", "Tsesarevich" is
compilation of Caesar and "Tsarevich". I prefer spelling "Caesarevich"
because it indicate this compilation. In Almanach de Gotha 1840 you can find
"Cesaréwitsch et Grand-Duc héritier", thus it is not my invention.
Post by Damian Ferrara
Let's not russify Romance languages ! :|
Since when English is Romance language? :|
It's not about English, it's about Latin : because Caesar comes from
Latin... of course.
Gotha or not, your invention or not, I don't regard the "Tsesarevich"
formula as a most accurate one : *everyone* knows that Tsar(-evich)
comes from Caesar, ergo such an etymolgical formulation -
"Caesarevich" - is rather a distorting caprice. The Almanach de Gotha
wrote it "Cesaréwitsch" in 1840 because it was a shade of flattery to
Russia's membership in the Concert of Europe (1815-1853, due to its
overestimated military power). (Besides, the Almanach de Gotha makes
some unglorious mistakes...)

D.Ferrara
Switzerland
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-24 10:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damian Ferrara
Gotha or not, your invention or not, I don't regard the "Tsesarevich"
formula as a most accurate one : *everyone* knows that Tsar(-evich)
comes from Caesar, ergo such an etymolgical formulation -
"Caesarevich" - is rather a distorting caprice.
I can repeat. Tsarevich and Tsesarevich are two *different* terms. Both are
descend from Latin Caesar but in different ways:

Caesar -> Tsar -> Tsarevich (-evich is just suffix, Nikolay -> Nikolayevich,
Sergey -> Sergeyevich etc)
Caesar -> Caesarevich

In 1721 when this title was invented (although in femine form) there were
three daughters of Tsar John and three daughters of Tsar Peter. All six hold
the title Tsarevna. After Tsar Peter was granted titles Emperor, Great and
Father of the Fatherland it was needed to separate two sets of ladys, so
daughters of Peter the Greate were granted Tsesarevna/Caesarevna, invented
directly from Caesar.

I think the difference is important in foreign languages too. Well, can you
give another variant for Tsesarevich/Cesarevich/Caesarevich different from
traditional Tsarevich?
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
m***@yahoo.com
2004-06-24 15:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Since when English is Romance language? :|
English is a Germanic language with a vocabulary that is heavily
influenced by Latin and other Romance languages like French.
Grammatically, it is also more similar to modern Romance languages
which no longer use case endings for nouns (and so depends on word
order in a sentence to indicate meaning and intention).
Damian Ferrara
2004-06-25 18:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Since when English is Romance language? :|
English is a Germanic language with a vocabulary that is heavily
influenced by Latin and other Romance languages like French.
Grammatically, it is also more similar to modern Romance languages
which no longer use case endings for nouns (and so depends on word
order in a sentence to indicate meaning and intention).
Perfectly true, Mrs/Miss Kalishnikova. 66% of the English vocabulary
has Latin origins, as British linguists point out. What "keeps"
English within Germanic languages is 1) the grammar - 2) the daily use
of the basic lexical fund, which is Anglo-Saxon, and the frequency of
the Anglo-Saxon words.

Dimitri,
No, I am not suggesting the use of another word for Caesarevich (recte
: etc...) other than simply Tsarevich. My request is renforsed even by
the fact that originally the title was created for women. Could that
be applied to men ? I doubt it... Using the same system you do : how
about "Henri, Grand-Duchess of Luxembourg" ?!?!? How does that sound
?? ;)

D.F.
Switzerland
Pierre Aronax
2004-06-23 19:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Pierre Aronax
Hmm... if I follow you well, the present heir of Grand-Duchess Mary can
choose his wife in absolutely any family, as soon as his mother considers
her as equal: she has not at all to come from a sovereign family. Am I
right?
Nearby. But this any family should be considered a sovereign or ruling. Or
formerly ruling anywhere. Indeed it is better to have some ground (e.g.
Dolgoruky descends from Rurikides). It is also possible to invent some
ancestry (Biron descends from French dukes).
But the definition of who is sovereign or ruling is entirely to be
determined by the Grand-Duchess, there is no general definition, is that
correct? So if the Grand-Duchess considers for example that Miss Clinton is
the daughter of a former sovereign, or that the descent of a British prime
minister belongs to a formerly ruling family, she can marry her son?
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
What about Caesarevich George there are few ways. He can marry
half-fictional to one of Gotha non-ruling girls and divorce after a child
birth. Or one German Countess can be proclaimed descending from
Hohenstauffens.
Indeed. Or even a non-German non-Countess.

Pierre
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-23 20:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
But the definition of who is sovereign or ruling is entirely to be
determined by the Grand-Duchess, there is no general definition, is that
correct? So if the Grand-Duchess considers for example that Miss Clinton is
the daughter of a former sovereign, or that the descent of a British prime
minister belongs to a formerly ruling family, she can marry her son?
I am not sure.

But it seems there is another way. I just read new interview with MV where
she said that equality is anachronism and can be abolished. Of course after
the Patriarch exorcised her of her oath to keep Alexander I's will. She just
awarded the Patriarch (on occassion of his 75 jubilee) the Imperial Order of
St Andrew the First-Called. "Imperial" is important because Putin can award
him by "Republican" Order with the same name.

If anyone is interested I can found the URL of interview in Russian.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-06-24 06:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Pierre Aronax
But the definition of who is sovereign or ruling is entirely to be
determined by the Grand-Duchess, there is no general definition, is that
correct? So if the Grand-Duchess considers for example that Miss Clinton
is
Post by Pierre Aronax
the daughter of a former sovereign, or that the descent of a British prime
minister belongs to a formerly ruling family, she can marry her son?
I am not sure.
But it seems there is another way. I just read new interview with MV where
she said that equality is anachronism and can be abolished. Of course after
the Patriarch exorcised her of her oath to keep Alexander I's will. She just
awarded the Patriarch (on occassion of his 75 jubilee) the Imperial Order of
St Andrew the First-Called. "Imperial" is important because Putin can award
him by "Republican" Order with the same name.
I think you will find that the Saint Andrew the First Called now instituted
in Russia is NOT an Order, but the prize given by the Center of National
Glory of Russia Public Foundation, otherwise called the Foundation of
Saint Andrew the First Called.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
David / Amicus
2004-06-24 07:20:36 UTC
Permalink
So does this Order of St Andrew mean that the Order of Lenin is no more?
Now if they would just get rid of that corpse and tear down his
mausoleum! I'd like to see a chapel dedicated to the Imperial Family
martyrs erected on the site.
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-24 10:16:05 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Rick Morgan
2004-06-24 20:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Why did Solzhenitzin refuse?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
I think you will find that the Saint Andrew the First Called now
instituted
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
in Russia is NOT an Order, but the prize given by the Center of National
Glory of Russia Public Foundation, otherwise called the Foundation of
Saint Andrew the First Called.
1. Imperial (Grand Duchess)
2. Church (Patriarch or Holy Synode)
3. Federal (President)
4. Private (foundations etc)
President Eltsin re-established the Order of Saint Andrew the First Called
1. Acad Likhachev - September 30, 1998
2. Weapon designer Kalashnikov - October 7, 1998
3. Kazakhstan President Nazarbaev - October 11, 1998
4. Author Solzhenitzin - December 11, 1998 (refused to receive)
5. Patriarch Alexis II on occasion of his 70 - February 19, 1999
6. Shumakov - November 3, 2001
7. Alieva - December 11, 2002
8. Aliev - May 10, 2003
9. Petrovsky - June 04, 2003
10. Author Gamzatov - September 8, 2003
11. Singer Zykova - June 12, 2004
Thus, Patriarch has two Orders of St Andrew...
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-24 20:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Morgan
Why did Solzhenitzin refuse?
Because it was soon after 1998 collapse of the Russian economy and
Solzhenitzin was against Eltsin's politics and.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Gidzmo
2004-06-24 20:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
she said that equality is anachronism and can be abolished.
I don't think her father would have seen things QUITE that way. That comment
must have caused quite a stir amongst the other relatives.
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Of course after the Patriarch exorcised her of her oath to keep Alexander I's
will.

An oath to keep Alexander I's will? Paul (Catherine the Great's son) was the
one who put the succession something resembling order. What was this oath in
Alexander I's will?
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-25 06:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
An oath to keep Alexander I's will? Paul (Catherine the Great's son) was the
one who put the succession something resembling order. What was this oath in
Alexander I's will?
It was Alexander I who in 1820 established the requirement of equal
marriages. In Paul I's legislation there was no such requirement.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Graham Truesdale
2004-06-27 11:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
Grand Duchess Maria is the heiress under the Fundamental Laws;
Nicholas has NO claim,as if she is disqualified he is doubly
disqualified,and if he is qualified others are also qualified
who are senior to him.
Who is the most senior of them?
IE, if you take Maria's view, quoted elsewhere in this thread, that
the equality rules are outdated?
Lisa Davidson
2004-06-27 16:18:38 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Graham Truesdale
Post by Louis Epstein
Grand Duchess Maria is the heiress under the Fundamental Laws;
Nicholas has NO claim,as if she is disqualified he is doubly
disqualified,and if he is qualified others are also qualified
who are senior to him.
Who is the most senior of them?
IE, if you take Maria's view, quoted elsewhere in this thread, that
the equality rules are outdated?
And, how and when are the "new rules" to be applied? There are 50 odd
descendants of Nicholas I at the moment. Consider these questions:


* Primogeniture: If we are talking about legitimate male descent from
Alexander II and excluding his children by his second marriage to
Princess Yurievsky because they were born while their parents were
unmarried to each other, would we recognize the children of a morganatic
marriage in 1926 who eventually became the senior by descent? (IOW a
method similar to that in use in many European countries prior to gender
blind descent reforms?) If so, the most senior is HSH Prince Dmitri
Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky (b. 1954?), son of the late Mayor of Palm
Beach, Paul Ilyinsky.
* From the Last Tsar: What about legitimate male preferred descent from
Alexander III, without excluding his daughters, and acknowledging that
the last Tsar, Nicholas II, has no living descendants, and none of his
brothers have living descendants? Under that method, the most senior is
Prince Michael Andrievich, (b. 1920?), eldest son of the eldest son of
TIH Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich and Xenia Alexandrovna.
* By the Romanov Family Association: This group considers Prince Nicholas
Romanovich (b 1920?) followed by his brother, followed by the
Mikhailovich line above), to be the most senior.
Grandfluke
2004-06-30 04:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Please do not start this up again. Mamma reads this newsgroup, she is what you
americans call a "lurker." Everytime she thinks someone else might challenger
her right to sit on the throne of our anscestors she drinks too much wodka and
makes life introlerable for everyone. It's all such nonsense anyway.

I am,
Sincerely yours,
George Hohenzollern
Damian Ferrara
2004-07-05 19:52:09 UTC
Permalink
I hope your kidding.
:-/

Damian Ferrara
Post by Grandfluke
Please do not start this up again. Mamma reads this newsgroup, she is what you
americans call a "lurker." Everytime she thinks someone else might challenger
her right to sit on the throne of our anscestors she drinks too much wodka and
makes life introlerable for everyone. It's all such nonsense anyway.
I am,
Sincerely yours,
George Hohenzollern
MarleneKoenig
2004-07-05 22:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damian Ferrara
I hope your kidding
Yes - the "grand duke" is a long time poster here -- providing lots of
amusement.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Thomas Rex Campbell
2004-07-06 03:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Damian Ferrara
I hope your kidding
Yes - the "grand duke" is a long time poster here -- providing lots of
amusement.
Well, at least he uses the correct last name! Of course being royal
one would normally use just a Christian name...perhaps customs are
different in Prussia.

Thomas
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-07-07 05:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Rex Campbell
Well, at least he uses the correct last name! Of course being royal
one would normally use just a Christian name...perhaps customs are
different in Prussia.
Prussia had the same rules for royals. But what do you mean with "the
correct last name"? Netherland royals can not use Orange last name? British
should be Mountbattens?
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Thomas Rex Campbell
2004-07-08 02:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Post by Thomas Rex Campbell
Well, at least he uses the correct last name! Of course being royal
one would normally use just a Christian name...perhaps customs are
different in Prussia.
Prussia had the same rules for royals. But what do you mean with "the
correct last name"? Netherland royals can not use Orange last name? British
should be Mountbattens?
Rather than "Romanoff". I should have put "" around 'last name'.

Thomas
coeurdelion
2004-07-08 13:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Rex Campbell
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Damian Ferrara
I hope your kidding
Yes - the "grand duke" is a long time poster here -- providing lots of
amusement.
Well, at least he uses the correct last name! Of course being royal
one would normally use just a Christian name...perhaps customs are
different in Prussia.
Thomas
The correct last name would be Preußen, i.e. Prussia. The name of
Hohenzollern is only borne by the South German, Catholic line, because
they kept the territory of (Hohen-) Zollern. German ruling houses do
not distinguish between a family name and the title of their
territory. Christabel Bielenberg in her memoirs of 1940ies Berlin
describes meeting a younger son of the last Crown Prince at a party
and being bewildered when he introduced himself by saying simply
"Preußen"; somewhat confused, she replied "Great Britain" as she
believed he had wanted to indicated his nationality, so it took some
sorting out before she realized who she was talking to. Best regards,

Leonhard Horowski
Damian Ferrara
2004-07-07 10:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Well, I imagined he's a fake...


Damian Ferrara :o
(Grand-Duke of Atlantis... 12th Earl of Pepsi-Cola...)
Post by MarleneKoenig
Post by Damian Ferrara
I hope your kidding
Yes - the "grand duke" is a long time poster here -- providing lots of
amusement.
Grandfluke
2004-07-10 18:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Damian Ferrara
I hope your kidding.
:-/
Damian Ferrara
Oh my heavens to Betsy me oh my I wish I were kidding. Mamma has really done it
this time. She just put Poland up for sale on e-bay. I told her she can't do
that, it's not ours anymore, but she won't listen. She's already sold Alaska.
That's not ours anymore either. I'm sure they're going to make us give the
money back.

I am,
Sincerely Yours,
George Hohenzollern
j***@bellsouth.net
2004-07-16 16:47:17 UTC
Permalink
I hope you didn't sell it to the US Government, no telling what President
Dipshit would have paid for it.

Joe
--
http://www.aclu.org/
http://www.moveon.org/front/
http://www.johnkerry.com/front/07/index.html
http://www.democrats.org/
Post by Grandfluke
Post by Damian Ferrara
I hope your kidding.
:-/
Damian Ferrara
Oh my heavens to Betsy me oh my I wish I were kidding. Mamma has really done it
this time. She just put Poland up for sale on e-bay. I told her she can't do
that, it's not ours anymore, but she won't listen. She's already sold Alaska.
That's not ours anymore either. I'm sure they're going to make us give the
money back.
I am,
Sincerely Yours,
George Hohenzollern
Lisa Davidson
2004-06-19 18:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
My current view of this situation is that the strength (or weakness) of the
Vladimirovichi claim lies entirely with Maria V's son, George Mikhailovich. If
George does not marry equally and have legitimate succession, it's all very moot
because the two (George and Maria) consider themselves and Maria's mother
Leonida, as the entire Imperial Family of Russia. So, with no George with equal
marriage and legitimate succession, the Imperial Vladimirovichi line will become
extinct, at least for some people.

OTOH, the claim of the Romanov Family Association is at least numerically
stronger, as there are many legitimate males within these lines. However, they
do not consider the Romanovs to be anything but a family at this point - no
longer a dynasty. An argument for the RFA and its system of succession can
certainly be made.
Post by Gillian White
I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because a)
he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria Melita of
Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox Church and
c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee. And even if he had not been barred, Maria
Vladimirovna's claim would be recognised only if there were no other
legitimate male Romanov heirs, which there are.
The main requirement for agnates was that they marry equally. In that respect,
no one could doubt the equality of Princess Victoria - her mother was a Russian
grand duchess, after all. The part about the Tsar's permission I do not believe
was a part of the Fundamental Law as much as it was the custom under autocracy.
So, the absence of Nicholas' permission alone was really a poor reason to make
the Kyril/Ducky marriage morganatic. Second, it was not Victoria Melita's
religion that was a problem - she did convert to Orthodoxy - I would need to
look up the date. Without question, VM was Orthodox at the time of the birth of
her son, Vladimir. The religious objection was raised because Kiril's mother
Maria Pavlovna did not convert to Orthodoxy until rather late in the game.
However, her father in law the Tsar allowed her to keep her Lutheran religion
and he did not consider the marriage morganatic. Nonetheless, this argument does
have some teeth.

VM's being a divorcee was not a problem in terms of the FL or the Orthodox
Church. The only decent argument against the legitimacy of the union regarding
Victoria M herself is the fact that she and Kiril were cousins. Again, however,
once Nicholas recognized the union as dynastic, which was several years later,
this argument was much less viable. While many would not approve of Victoria
socially because of her divorce from Ernie of Hesse, she was still able to be a
full member of the Orthodox Church and a Russian grand duchess by marriage.
Post by Gillian White
Given these problems, why does she persist in making her claim? Is there
room for manoeuvre in the succession law, or is it absolute? How many
members of the Romanov family support her?
As of now, since George and Maria consider themselves the sole members of the
dynasty - along with Leonida - so no members of the remaining family support
her. The Ilyinskys - the descendants of Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich - have the
sole distinction in the Romanov family of getting along with everyone -
including the Vladimirovichi. The Fundamental Law is old - last amended around
1912 - and there are varying opinions as to how it is appropriate to interpret
it today. Maria does not persist in making her claim - she is widely regarded as
head of the house by many people throughout the world. However, that approval is
far from universal.
Post by Gillian White
And what about Prince Nicholas Romanovich? What are the arguments for and
against his position?
Gillian
The arguments for and against are very complex so I hesitate to try to present
them briefly here. In the main, the RFA feels that few dynasts were in a
position to marry equally after the Revolution and that Russia has the right to
be the republic she is today - and without a Romanov dynasty. The Romanov family
still loves Russia and still wants to help when and where it can.

Lisa Davidson
MarleneKoenig
2004-06-20 18:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because a)
he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria Melita of
Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox Church and
c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee. And even if he had not been barred, Maria
Vladimirovna's claim would be recognised only if there were no other
legitimate male Romanov heirs, which there are.
All of the above is utter nonsense. KIrill was never denied his inheritance
rights. He was briefly stripped of military rank and of his appanage.
However, in July 1907, Nicholas issued a decree recognizing the marriage and
annoucing that Ducky was to be styled as HIH Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna.

The Fundamental Laws require that the wives of the Tsar and the heir be
Orthodox. Other wives were not required to convert and this did not affect
their husbands or childrens inheritance rights. Princess Tatiana Constantinova
renounced her rights when she married. Her mother was Lutheran.

There is nothing in the Fundamental laws about being divorced. In fact,
Orthodoxy allows for three marriages. Ducky and Kirill were first cousins,
which was a bar to Orthodox marriage (but Orthodoxy also barred second and
third cousin marriages, difficult for royals). However, Nicholas II did accept
the marriage in 1907.

Ducky joined the Orthodox church in January 1907. Her mother in law converted
a year later.

Grand Duchess Anastasia (nee Montenegro) was divorced when she married GRand
Duke Nicholas - a marriage approved by the Tsar.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Gillian White
2004-06-20 19:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
All of the above is utter nonsense. KIrill was never denied his inheritance
rights. He was briefly stripped of military rank and of his appanage.
However, in July 1907, Nicholas issued a decree recognizing the marriage and
annoucing that Ducky was to be styled as HIH Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna.
You are the source of the 'utter nonsense', since my information was taken
directly from your book, 'Queen Victoria's Descendants' :

'Romanov House law, which was decreed by Tsar Paul, regarding the succession
to the throne is specific, and Kirill was not eligible. Although the Grand
Duke was a member of the Imperial Family, he was not entitled to declare
himself Emperor or even Curator of the Throne on at least three counts:
first, Kirill's wife, Victoria Melita, did not convert to the Orthodox
religion until years after their marriage; second, she had been divorced;
and third, Kirill married without the Tsar's permission, which automatically
debarred him and his descendants from the succession'.

Gillian
MarleneKoenig
2004-06-21 02:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
You are the source of the 'utter nonsense', since my information was taken
what edition 1987? or 1997? You are quoting from the 87 edition .. the 1997
edition is totally different.

author of A Grand Alliance - the descendants of Grand Duke Michael of Russia
and Countess Sophie von Merenberg. For more information, write to
***@aol.com
Gillian White
2004-06-21 03:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
what edition 1987? or 1997? You are quoting from the 87 edition .. the 1997
edition is totally different.
Fair enough. I would read the 1997 version, but my library doesn't have it
in the catalogue.

Gillian
Kori Lawrence
2004-06-21 04:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by MarleneKoenig
However, in July 1907, Nicholas issued a decree recognizing the marriage and
annoucing that Ducky was to be styled as HIH Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna.
Between the time of their marriage and its recognition by the Tsar,
what name was Victoria Melita referred to as?
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-21 07:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kori Lawrence
Between the time of their marriage and its recognition by the Tsar,
what name was Victoria Melita referred to as?
"Former spouse of the Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt Victoria Melita".
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Nicholas Trahan
2004-06-21 12:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty
Date: 20 Jun 2004 18:16:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna
Post by Gillian White
I know there are several factors that work against the Grand Duchess. Her
grandfather, Kirill Vladimirovich, was barred from the succession because a)
he did not obtain the Tsar's permission to marry Princess Victoria Melita of
Great Britain b) Victoria Melita did not convert to the Orthodox Church and
c) Victoria Melita was a divorcee. And even if he had not been barred, Maria
Vladimirovna's claim would be recognised only if there were no other
legitimate male Romanov heirs, which there are.
All of the above is utter nonsense. KIrill was never denied his inheritance
rights. He was briefly stripped of military rank and of his appanage.
However, in July 1907, Nicholas issued a decree recognizing the marriage and
annoucing that Ducky was to be styled as HIH Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna.
The Fundamental Laws require that the wives of the Tsar and the heir be
Orthodox. Other wives were not required to convert and this did not affect
their husbands or childrens inheritance rights. Princess Tatiana Constantinova
renounced her rights when she married. Her mother was Lutheran.
There is nothing in the Fundamental laws about being divorced. In fact,
Orthodoxy allows for three marriages. Ducky and Kirill were first cousins,
which was a bar to Orthodox marriage (but Orthodoxy also barred second and
third cousin marriages, difficult for royals). However, Nicholas II did accept
the marriage in 1907.
The Orthodox Church also bars marriage with non-Orthodox but that is
overlooked all the time. The FACT that they were married by an Orthodox
Priest, in an Orthodox Church and the marriage was approved by the Tsar is
all that matters

Nicholas Trahan
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-21 07:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of Russia,
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
Try http://macedonsky.narod.ru/links.html , I hope some links still works.

Concerning the present discussion... I should disagree with Lisa Davidson's
statement that "The part about the Tsar's permission I do not believe
was a part of the Fundamental Law as much as it was the custom under
autocracy". Really approval was necessary by law, established in 1797 by
Paul I.

Other correction is about Pss Catherine, the only member of the Imperial
House born before Revolution, is still alive. She renounced her succession
rights before her marriage in 1930s. Maria Vladimirovna consider Pss
Catherine as member of the dynasty. Not vice versa.

---

New link: http://www.alexis-romanov.narod.ru/ - Alexis' centenary will be in
August. In Russian but many photos.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-06-21 21:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Gillian White
Regarding the dispute over who is the Head of the Imperial House of
Russia,
Post by Gillian White
who has the 'best' claim - Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Prince
Nicholas Romanovich?
Try http://macedonsky.narod.ru/links.html , I hope some links still works.
Concerning the present discussion... I should disagree with Lisa Davidson's
statement that "The part about the Tsar's permission I do not believe
was a part of the Fundamental Law as much as it was the custom under
autocracy". Really approval was necessary by law, established in 1797 by
Paul I.
Other correction is about Pss Catherine, the only member of the Imperial
House born before Revolution, is still alive. She renounced her succession
rights before her marriage in 1930s. Maria Vladimirovna consider Pss
Catherine as member of the dynasty. Not vice versa.
Princess Catherine? Where does she fit? I can find Princess Vera but not
this Princess....

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Frank Johansen
2004-06-21 21:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Dimitry Macedonsky
Other correction is about Pss Catherine, the only member of the Imperial
House born before Revolution, is still alive. She renounced her succession
rights before her marriage in 1930s. Maria Vladimirovna consider Pss
Catherine as member of the dynasty. Not vice versa.
Princess Catherine? Where does she fit? I can find Princess Vera but not
this Princess....
Princess Jekatarina Ivanovna, b. 25 Jul 1915; m. Ruggero, Marchese
Farace di Villaforesta (1909-1970). She was the daughter of Prince Ivan
Konstantinovich (1886-1918) and Princess Elena Petrova of Serbia
(1885-1962).

Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-22 05:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Johansen
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Princess Catherine? Where does she fit? I can find Princess Vera but not
this Princess....
Princess Jekatarina Ivanovna, b. 25 Jul 1915; m. Ruggero, Marchese
Farace di Villaforesta (1909-1970). She was the daughter of Prince Ivan
Konstantinovich (1886-1918) and Princess Elena Petrova of Serbia
(1885-1962).
Exactly. Was born at 11:55 am at Pavlovsk Palace. The only Serene Highness
amongst the Romanovs. Nicholas II as godfather.
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Gidzmo
2004-06-23 22:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Other correction is about Pss Catherine, the only member of the Imperial House
born before Revolution, is still alive. She renounced her succession rights
before her marriage in 1930s.

IIRC, Princess Irene (daughter of GD Alexander and GDss Xenia) renounced her
succession rights when she married Prince Felix Yussopov.

What of GDss Maria Alexandrovna? Was she required to renounce her succession
rights when she married Prince Alfred (Duke of SCG/Edinburgh), or was she still
considered a Russian Grand Duchess?
Dimitry Macedonsky
2004-06-24 08:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
IIRC, Princess Irene (daughter of GD Alexander and GDss Xenia) renounced her
succession rights when she married Prince Felix Yussopov.
Exactly. As like as Princess Tatiana, also married morganatically.
Post by Gidzmo
What of GDss Maria Alexandrovna? Was she required to renounce her succession
rights when she married Prince Alfred (Duke of SCG/Edinburgh), or was she still
considered a Russian Grand Duchess?
Two different questions. It is impossible to lost title and status of
Russian Princess or Grand Duchess. Princesses Irina, Tatiana and Catherine
after their renunciations kept their status (title, precedence etc).

What about Maria Alexandrovna, she did not renounce. Moreover, as like as
any Grand Duchess, in her marriage contract she confirm her loyality to the
succession laws (male dynast took oaths). From MA contract:

"As with a view to provide for the safety of the State and insure public
tranquillity, the order of succession to the Throne of the Empire of all the
Russias has been laid down in an irrevocable manner by an act solemnly
proclaimed on the day of the Coronation of His late Majesty the Emperor Paul
I, of glorious memory, as also by the Manifesto of His late Majesty the
Emperor Alexander I, of glorious memory, of the 20th of March, 1820, and in
that of the 28th of January, 1826, which was promulgated in the same year on
the day of Coronation of His late Majesty the Emperor Nicolas I, of glorious
memory, Her Imperial Highness shall conform to the arrangements set for in
those divers acts, not shall She, or Her Heirs or Successors, contravene
them in any manner or by any pretended rights or pretexts whatever".
--
Dimitry Macedonsky
St.Petersburg, Russia
http://macedonsky.narod.ru/english.html
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...