Talk:Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] untenable heading

The present heading of this article, Grand Duke George of Russia, is an obvious POV. For example, the titulary Grand Duke is against all approved usage here in Wikipedia. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to George Mikhailovitch of Russia as long as there are no protests. Morhange 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"of Russia" can yet be seen as POV. Is it, or is it not? Does it represent an endorsement of pretension, or is it simply the "surname" that is in widely accepted use regarding specifically this guy? 217.140.193.123 06:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

George Mikhailovitch of Russia → Prince Georg Michael of Prussia – Moving this is probably less "controversial" because his legal title is HRH Prince Georg Michael of Prussia (or Prince Georg of Prussia) since he only claims the title of Grand Duke through his mother, but since his mother wasn't a monarch in her own right, he would probably be titled Prince Georg of Prussia. His claim to the defunct Russian throne is contested anyway, since he's not a male-line grandchild. It could be mentioned in the article that he is a claimant and claims the titles of Tsesarevitch and Grand Duke of Russia. Morhange 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Oppose Read the laws of the Russian Imperial House and pay very close attention to each would-be emperor after Nicholas II. Charles 19:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose We shouldn't be throwing titles to nonexistent monarchies into Wikipedia article names. Gene Nygaard 15:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prussia is no more a monarchy than Russia so his legal title is not "HRH Prince Georg Michael of Prussia." German civil law allows descendants of former royal and noble families to use the titles their ancestors had in 1918 as a last name. The styles, such as HRH, are not legally recognized and the title goes at the end of the name like any other surname (John, Prince of X, not Prince John of X). Since his father was legally named Franz Wilhelm Prinz von Prussen, George's legal name in Germany might be Georg Prinz von Prussen. Keep in mind, however, that George was born in Madrid, Spain so his father's legal German name might not have entered the picture with the Spanish authorities (I have no idea what George's birth certificate says). I presume that this proposed move is well-meant, but it will look like a POV attempt to disparage his Russian claims. In any case, why move him from being a member of one long defunct Royal Family to another. The real question is should the article title imply that he is Royal (or Imperial) in the first place by describing him as "of Russia" or "of Prussia." He is the great-grandson of a man Grand Duke Cyril of Russia who was legally "Imperial" until February 1917. He is also the grandson of a man, HRH Prince Franz Josef of Prussia, who was legally royal until November 1918. In both cases, you need to go back two more generations to find an actual reigning monarch. How long should royal status be accepted after the monarchy is gone. Is "of Russia" really his last name? Apparently in Europe (including Russia, Germany, and Spain) it is much harder to change your last name than it is in Common Law countries (UK, USA, Canada, etc.) Presumably, George has a legal last name. Find out what it is and move the article there. (Unless it turns out to be "of Russia" in which case leave it alone.)--ThomasK107 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments'

The right question here is:

  • By which of these claims to dormant titles is he actually known?

The text of the article indicates that he is known as Grand Duke. If this is true, it should stay where it is. Septentrionalis 04:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He is indeed known as Grand Duke. He also is a prince of Prussia, but that title is not used in lieu of his imperial title. Morhange, here is a good link to a website by a qualified royal historian... http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/russhist.htm . George takes his title as an agnate of a would-be empress. Charles 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The only thing is, though, that if Russian were still a monarchy, Maria wouldn't be Empress because she is a female, and George would have no claim to the throne as a female-line descendant. Morhange 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The Russian imperial throne was bound by semi-salic succession laws. Females succeed after the last male dynast. The last male dynast was Maria's father. The next in line was Maria, and once she succeeded as head of the imperial house then her son entered the line of succession. Charles 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I interpreted that to mean the last male dynast in the line of succession, including those in generations once or twice removed, etc. If it were going by that one generation, then wouldn't the descendants of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna be the current claimants? Morhange 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The last male dynast was Grand Duke Vladimir. Since there was no male dynast to succeed him, the closest female dynast, who would otherwise succeed if she were male, became the titular empress. That, of course, is Maria Vladimirovna. Charles 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The arguement that Grand Duke Vladimir was the last dynast is itself challenged by the Romanov Family Association which argues that Vladimir could no longer be considered a dyanst once he married Princess Leonida Bagration-Mukhranski as she was from a high noble family of the Russian Empire and not an equal. Thus Maria would not be next in line. People who support Vladimir argue that Grand Duchess Leonida's Bagration-Mukhranski family were decended from the Bagration royal family of Georgia. The fact that the elder line of the Bagration family still exists within Georgia, and the fact that the Bagration-Mukhranski's accepted noble status in Russia after the conquest of Georgia does not disuade them. If Vladimir's marriage is to be considered morganatic, then neither Maria Vladimirovna nor her son George can claim the title of Grand Duke, and the next in line would indeed be a decendant of Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna, daughter of Alexander III. The Romanov Family Association refers to Maria as Princess Maria Vladimirovna Romanova (or sometimes Princess Romanov-Mukhranski). They refer to her son as Prince George Michael von Hohenzollern, a Prince of Prussia and the Germans. It is also to be remembered that the Romanovs bore a deep grudge against Vladimir's father, Grand Duke Cyril, for having been the only member of the family to embrace the revolution and fly a red flag over his St. Petersburg palace, as well as leading a contingent of revolutionary soldiers to go pledge their allegience to the Duma and against Czar Nicholas II. Sendek
What exactly is a "qualified royal historian." I have a great deal of respect for Guy Stair Sainty and often read his website. The amount of work he put into studying his subjects is very impressive. Nevertheless, I take issue with calling him a "qualified royal historian." Guy Stair Sainty is an art dealer (a very good and successful one) who has written a large website about royalty, nobility, and orders. He also posts frequently on websites. If that makes him a "qualified royal historian" there are thousands who are equally qualified. I would certainly say that he is better than most and would give due weight to his thoughts, but I would not consider him especially "qualified." He does not have an advanced degree in history, and has never passed a qualification exam in "royal" or any other type of history. He has written several articles and a few books but none of them were subjected to rigorous academic review such as those produced by professional academics. He recently edited a book for Burke's on Orders of Chilvary but it has yet to be published and he basically selectd himself for the job and convinced Burke's to publish it. In any case, Burke's is not Cambridge University Press (i.e. it is not a publisher known for subjecting its authors to any sort of "quality control.") Perhaps the worst thing about Guy Stair Sainty is that he has no "academic detachment." He is deeply involved with several of the Royal Families and Orders that he rights about. If he was a politician, you might say that he has a conflict of interest. That does not mean that he is always wrong, but it does raise legitimate questions about whether his personal interests might impact his conclusions. To be specific, Sainty is a member, leader, and strong advocate of the Constantinian Order of St. George controlled by HRH Infante Don Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies "Duke of Calabria" (the "Spanish Claimant") who disputes the headship of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies with his cousin, HRH Don Francisco "Duke of Castro" (The "French/Italian Claimant"). (Confusing, Francisco's son is named Carlo and he also uses the title Duke of Calabria.) The dispute turns on whether the grandfather of Sainty's Spanish Claimant, Don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, legally renounced his rights to the Two-Sicilies throne. Further, the Spanish Claimant, Don Carlos, has a son, Pedro (called Duke of Noto) who married a non-Royal member of a Spanish noble family who was already the mother of his child born out of wedlock. Originally, it was thought that Pedro, Duke of Noto's marriage removed him from the line of succession since his wife was not Royal, which would strengthen the hand of the French/Italian claimant who is next in line. It would also undermine one of the complaints against the French/Italian claimant based on his own and his son's non-Royal marriages. Now, the Spanish Claimant is moving toward the position that since he approved of Pedro, Duke of Noto's marriage, it is acceptable and his children can eventually inherit. At the same time, the Spanish Claimant could assert that the marriage of the French/Italian Claimant's son was not approved so he would still be out of contention. The point being that Sainty's friend is helped by the argument that the senior line takes precedence over the junior lines except under very exceptional circumstances and that any potentially unlawful marriages can be dealt with it the Head of the House approves. Sainty would have a reason to support Grand Duchess Maria's claims because doing so could help the similar claims of his friend, the Spanish Claimant. That does not make everything Saint writes wrong. It may be perfectly correct. It does, however, undermine his status as an impartial expert. At the most, Sainty should be viewed as a person who puts forward the case for Grand Duchess Maria. Only someone who has tested academic credentials as a historian, an expertise in Russian Royal History acknowledged by recognized experts, and a clearly documented knowledge of Imperial Russian law could count as a "qualfied" expert of the subject of the Russian succession. Unfortunately, the issue is of so little relevance to the real world that very few people examine it unless they are motivated to "prove" the claims of one side or the other. I cannot imagine that anyone would take to the subject with the passion and determination of Guy Stair Sainty. --ThomasK107 08:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure why he would be called George Michael or Georg Michael in any case. The "Mikhailovitch" in his Russian name comes from the fact that his father adopted the name Grand Duke Michael of Russia. Mikhailovitch means "son of Michael." Multiple names do not appear to be a Russian tradition, so he probably only has one first name. In Germany, he would likely be Georg Prinz von Prussen rather than Georg Michael. --ThomasK107 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If the plan is to use his legal German name, it should be written in German since we do not translate last names. In other words, he would be "Prinz von Prussen" not "Prince of Prussia." --ThomasK107 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
His legal German surname would be Großfürst von Rußland or Romanov, certainly not Hohenzollern or Prinz von Preußen. You talk about taking away titles he has inherited through his mother and applying equally defunct Prussian titles to him. The practice with pretenders is to accord them the titles and styles by which they are known and use. Nicholas only uses the title of Prince. Read the Russian laws of succession. Charles 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think there is a case for moving several of the articles on Romanov's born after the Revolution so that the article titles no longer imply that they are reigning royalty. This would be particulary valuable in the Romanov case since supporters of one side in the disputed succession routinely insist that the others be denied any indications of titles. NPOV would be to remove indications of Imperial status from all Romanovs born after 1917 or to call all of them by whatever title they use for themselves. Calling Grand Duchess Maria, her son, and father, "of Russia" while insisting that there rival be called "Romanov" or "Romanovsky" or some variation (regardless of what the person calls himself or herself) seems to be a determination that Grand Duchess Maria is right and everyone else wrong. Personally, I do not have a problem if the subject of this article, George Mikahilovitch, wants to identify with his mother's family. I would, however, rather see George Mikhailovitch Romanov than George Mikhailovitch of Russia. Since George was born and primarily lives in Spain, and current Spanish law apparently allows people to use either their father or their mother's last name, there is not a real problem here. It would, as noted above, probably be best to try and determine his legal name and use that. Unlike British, Canadian, American, Australian, and other citizens of Common Law countries where we can change our names very easily (unless their is evidence of fradulent intent), it appears that people in Spain, Germany, and Russia are subject to much greater restrictions. If George has a legal name on his passports, identity documents, etc., and we can learn it, why not use that. (By the way, in some countries it is possible to obtain such information from official records. I do not know the law in Spain, but it might be possible to just ask the authorities in Madrid for a copy of George's birth certificate. That would be a big deal in the USA, but apparently not everywhere. I know that people were able to legal obtain a copy of the Belgian birth certificate for Michael Lafosse AKA Prince Michael of Albany.) It might also be possible to simply ask Grand Duchess Maria's secretary for the information. The Grand Duchess has a website and an office in Spain. --ThomasK107 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia treats pretenders as they wish to be titlesd. Michael Lafosse was a pure fake. George's descent and connections to royalty are undeniable. Charles 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Michael Andreyevich Romanov

It simply needs to be made clear that his claim is challenged. This article is in place to inform people of his position, which is disputed. We, the writers and editors of this encyclopedia, are not those who make the decisions about whether or not he is the legitimate heir. The fact is that it can be argued either way, and that should be stated in the article in some way, which it currently is not. The current article has no clear idea - some sentences support his claim and some deride it, resulting in a very confused paragraph that makes no sense. That is what needs to be addressed, not whether or not he is technically the heir. --Kleio08 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Michael Andreyevich Romanov would be an heir to the Russian Throne with a better claim that Nicholas Romanov and implies that he could make a serious challenge to George Mikhailovitch. Why? How? There is no article on Michael Andreyevich Romanov. There no information about who he is. There no indication of why he would have any claim. Either some additional information should be included, an article created, or the reference removed.

--ThomasK107 07:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I will remove it. Nicholas has no claim to the Russian throne at all. Reading the house laws, it is clear that George is the heir. Charles 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you haven't read them Charles this is strictly POV. Tim Foxworth 17:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles, "Reading the house laws" it is clear to you that George is the heir and "Nicholas has no claim." It is not clear to everyone. That is the entire point. There is no one who can state clearly who should be the heir. NPOV and no original research mean that Wikipedia is not the place to settle this dispute. When you state that based on your reading of the house law, George is the heir, you are conducting original research. We need to limit ourselves to making a neutral presentation of each side in the dispute.
Before someone accuses me of being anti-Maria or pro-someone else, let me state that I am a republican. As far as I am concerned, the only person who can have any legal right to the Russian throne is a person chosen under a constitution freely approved by the Russian people. Under the current situation, that means that I do not support Grand Duchess Maria, Prince Nicholas, Michael Andreyevich Romanov (whoever he is), or anyone else. None of them are heirs, none of them have any rights.
My interest in this matter is simply preventing people from using wikipedia to support or denigrate people. Use titles for all pretenders or use titles for none of them, but be consistent.
Personally, I strongly favor the idea of describing people in the way they wish to be described, provided we are not advancing an obvious fraud. The problem is that someone then pops up and declares "Nicholas Romanov," or some other member of the family, is not a Romanov and should be called Romanovsky, or some such thing. Look through the history of the various pages on these people. As you wrote above about Michael LaFosse, there is a clear difference between someone who is undoubtedly descended from former Royal Families and someone who makes what is, at best, a highly debatable claim. Going beyond that and adjudicating which descendants have the best claim is outside wikipedia's purpose.
Charles, you are the one who keeps writing that you have read the house laws and that Grand Duke George is clearly the heir. I do not care who is the "real" heir. My goal is that the issues are fairly presented from all sides. Although you are convinced that Grand Duchess Maria and her son are right, others are not. If you review records from the closing years of the Russian monarchy, even some officials of the Imperial government had concerns about whether Grand Duke Cyrill was in line for the throne because his mother did not convert to Russian Orthodoxy. I am not saying that such views are correct, or even that I would agree with them. They cannot, however, be dismissed out of hand.
Similarly, I think that a case could be made (NOTE: "could be made" not "should be," or "must be" just a possibility) that Grand Duchess Maria's mother was not of equal rank and thus that Maria's parents had a morganatic marriage. Again, I am not arguing in favor of that position, just stating that it needs to be considered. It is clearly debatable whether the reigning Tsars in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries regarded the Bagrations of Georgia as their equals. Would Tsar Alexander II, for instance, have consented to the marriage of one of his sons with a Bagration? Frankly, I suspect the answer would be no. That does not mean that he would be correct or that Grand Duchess Maria should be deemed the child of a morganatic marriage. The case for regarding the Bagration of Georgia as a royal family of equal or superior status to the Romanovs is good. My point is that the issues are not as absolutely clear as you suggest with your constant repetition of the fact that you have read the house laws.
In the Nicholas Romanov article, I tried to explain the arguments for Nicholas Romanov being the senior male. (I have not checked that they are still there today.) My point was not that I personally believe in those arguments. Frankly, I think they border on absurdity. The basic point, in case it was already removed, is that Nicholas has, in the past, claimed that his father, as a prince, could contract an unequal marriage under the house laws because the requirement for equal marriages only applied to grand dukes. Thus, Grand Duke Dimitri's son, Paul Ilyinsky, was not in line because Dimitri was a grand duke who married unequally. Similarly, Maria's parent's marriage was morganatic, under this argument, because her father was a grand duke who married unequally. The basis for this claim is a decree of Nicholas II concerning the marriages of Grand Dukes and Princes which permitted princes to make unequal marriages. Prince Nicholas argued that this decree permitted princes to marry anyone without the marriage being morganatic. Personally, I think he is wrong. I think that the point of the decree was to impose an absolute bar on Grand Dukes marrying unequally (i.e. the marriage of a Grand Duke with an uneqal wife would be void) while allowing Princes to make such marriages provided they were morganatic. In other words, this decree did not give a new right to princes (marriage to anyone without consequences) but removed a the right of Grand Dukes to make morganatic. marriage. Nevertheless, while I think that Nicholas interpretation is wrong (it not absurd), I do think there is a case for presenting it instead of saying (as the article said before I changed it) that "it is difficult to see" how Nicholas could be the senior heir. Further, while I do not agree with the argument, I do not feel that it is meritless. Stranger arguments have succeeded. (Again, I am talking about the article on Nicholas Romanov not Grand Duke George.)
--ThomasK107 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Prussia Comment Explained

Discussion from Debate on Move above

I wrote:

If the plan is to use his legal German name, it should be written in German since we do not translate last names. In other words, he would be "Prinz von Preußen" not "Prince of Prussia." --ThomasK107 09:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles responded:

His legal German surname would be Großfürst von Rußland or Romanov, certainly not Hohenzollern or Prinz von Preußen. You talk about taking away titles he has inherited through his mother and applying equally defunct Prussian titles to him. The practice with pretenders is to accord them the titles and styles by which they are known and use. Nicholas only uses the title of Prince. Read the Russian laws of succession. Charles 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Charles, since you keep suggesting that people read things, you might try reading all of what I wrote in the discussion on the move. Let us begin with the comment in question which begins with "If." Expanding to the full clause "If the plan is to use his legal German name." I did not suggest using his legal German name; I made a comment on what should be done "If" that was the plan. (A plan I opposed.)
I did not advocate calling Grand Duke George "Prince of Prussia." I was merely pointing out that, "If" that course of action (which I opposed) were adopted, then this legal German last name would not be "Prince of Prussia" but "Prinz von Preußen." I was pointing out the flaw in the proposed move, not advocating anything. Your inability to see that makes me wonder about your frequently mentioned reading of the Russian Succession Laws. (By the way, I have read them several times.)
I did not "talk about taking away titles." I opposed moving the page to "Prince George Michael of Prussia." I merely tried to point out a flaw in the reasoning of the person who proposed the move.
I myself made the point above that any Prussian title was equally as defunct as a Russian title. Again, I was pointing out the flaw in the original argument, not making a new argument or supporting the flawed one.
The point I was making was that, "if the plan is to use his legal German name" (a plan I opposed) than it should be written in German not translated into English. The person who proposed the move suggested that George's legal name was Prince Georg Michael of Prussia and that the article should use that name. If you read the discussion above, you will see that I actually questioned whether that was, in fact his legal name. Further, if it is his legal name in Germany, it is so under German law, which converted former titles into last names. Accordingly, the former title would all be at the end of the name so he would be "George Prince of Prussia" not "Prince George of Prussia." Secondly, as a German last name it would be written in German as "Prinz von Preußen" not "Prince of Prussia."
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Russian Laws of Succession. The issue concerns George's legal name under modern German Civil Law. Take your own advice and read up on the subject. You will find that legally, a child of a person with the last name "Prinz von Preußen" has that same last name regardless of whether the child would have any right to the Prussian Crown under the Prussian succession laws. For that matter, if Nicholas Romanov had been born in Germany (he wasn't) and his father's legal German last name had been "Prinz von Rußland" than Nicholas legal German last name would be "Prinz von Rußland" regardless of what the Russian Laws of Succession provide. (Again, that was merely a hypothetical situation, I am not making any point about Nicholas' legal rights.) We are talking about legal last names in a Republic (Germany), not the rules of a defunct monarchy. The proposed move was based on a idea about George's legally recognized last name under German law (an idea we both believe to be mistaken). German Civil Law is not bound to follow Russian Succession law.
In the previous discussion on the move, I questioned whether George would, in fact, have the legal last name "Prinz von Preußen." His father was born with the name Franz Wilhelm Prinz von Preußen in Germany. Grand Duke George, however, was born in Madrid, Spain not in Germany. At the time of his son's birth, Franz Wilhelm was using the name Grand Duke Mikhail of Russia. Accordingly, I do not know what Franz Wilhelm's legal last name was at the time of his son's birth or what Spanish laws say about the last names given to newborns.
I made the point above, that in Spain people have both their father and mother's last names. Traditionally, the father's last name came first followed by the mother's with the Spanish word "y" (meaning "and") separating the two. I understand that it is now possible to reverse the order of the two names. Accordingly, even if Grand Duke George was born, in Spain, with the last name Prinz von Preußen derived from his father, he also had the legal last name of his mother (presumably Romanov, "of Russia," "Grand Duchess of Russia" or some variation). As a result, in Spain, he could legally reverse the order of the names and use his mother's last name.
Again, despite the above, the immediate comment was not about Spain but about Germany. I did not suggest that Grand Duke George was a German citizen, had a legal German name, or that his legal name in Germany was "Prinz von Preußen." The person who suggested the move did those things and I opposed them.
Charles you suggest that "His legal German surname would be Großfürst von Rußland or Romanov." On what basis do you make that claim? Hopefully, it is not because of the Russian Laws of Succession, because I can assure you of one thing, the Federal Republic of Germany could not care less about George's status under the defunct laws of the defunct Russian Empire.
Finally, again, my point was not that "if" George had a legal German last name, and, "if" on that basis wikipedia was to list him under his legal German name, than that name would be in German "Prinz von Preußen" not English "Prince of Prussia." I would appreciate not being attacked on the basis of taking one note out of context.--ThomasK107 21:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Vladimir was emperor de jure at the time of his marriage to Leonida Bagration and as such, had every right to approve and recognize his own marriage. Previous emperors toyed with recognizing various marriages for various reasons. Members of former royal families are mostly listed under titles, not surnames. Therefore the language issue is null. Even so in Germany, a child may take his mother's surname and a husband may take his wife's. Given the choice, it is almost certain that Maria would opt to give her son an imperial name rather than a royal name. That is where the Romanov/Großfürst von Rußland comment came from. The republic need not care, the parents name the child. Given Franz and Maria's own usage of Russian imperial titles, why would they give him the name Prinz von Preußen? That is all I have to say on the matter for now. I will read more carefully from now on. Charles 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Wonderful. We have a royalist and pro-pretension pov guy above. I checked something about spanish name formation. According to those rules, the boy would be Jorge de Prusia y de Rusia. Henq 02:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be Spanish usage, just as the children of the King of Spain are de Borbón y de Grecia. That aside, George is most known in English by his Russian dynastic titles and with his patronym. Charles 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tsarevich or tsesarevich

I know very little about the Russian monarchy, but I heard that the title "tsesarevich" was used in recent times rather than "tsarevich". Should this be replaced in the article? Lesgles (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been a subject of dispute for a while. I am underinformed on the issue, but it seems all the children of a tsar were tsarevich and tsarevna. The heir was the tsetsarvich and his wife the tsetsarevna or something like that. At any rate, he is the son of the woman who would be tsaritsa, so both or either apply. Charles 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretensions

Since this article is anyway a fruit of fantasy world, a place where young George is allowed to be Tsesarevich and his dear mother an Empress regnant, how about we add things to this fantasy. My personal favorite is to determine the succession based on ancient Kievan Rus line of succession, as applied now to Holstein-Gottorp family. It cannot be more wrong than any nice application of whatever, are such Pauline laws or what. In that, agnatic seniority determines the succession. The scenario: Alexander II barely succeeded his father. Then he was succeeded by Constantine II. Nicholas II was a different person than the one generaly known under that name, and reigned one year. Michael II survived his nephew,Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, who did not have the opportunity to become the dynamic conservative ruler he once was. Nicholas III Constantinovich possibly was not murdered by Bolsheviks, as events could have been different with those as recent emperors. Nicholas Nicolaievich, the general, was the senior as he was in exile, and instead of just being treated as senior grand duke and a claimant by some, he woould have been the head of the house. Michael III, another one with morganatic marriage, would have reigned a couple of months. There would have been Peter IV. Alexander (here "III") and not his brother-in-law Nicky would have been tsar. Kiril I had shorter "reign" than in primogeniture. Boris I and Andrew I... Certainly one of these would have accepted one or several of the morganatic marriages as acceptable for dynasty, and more heirs would be legitimate tan in the current fantasyworld.

I have liked to check such lists, as it brings experimental material what are differences between different systems of hereditary succession. In agnatic seniority, the throne is turning more and more, between all branches of the family. There are more rulers and reigns are generally much shorter. Younger branches seem to be favored more by such turnover and eldest branch possibly succeeds never. Shilkanni 10:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

George Mikhailovich of Russia → Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia – The only way George can be "of Russia" is if that status is inherited through his mother (which is most widely recognized) and in that case, it would be as Grand Duke. The title needs to be added in front of George's name. It is the title most used for him. Charles 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] beliefs of factions in monarchist camp(s)

The so-called Curatrix of the Throne of Russia camp clearly believes that Maria Vladimirovna succeeded her father, on basis of semi-salic house law. George, self-evidently, is her heir.

Some other monarchists believe that male-line heirs of the Romanov are better entitled to the legacy than Maria, a woman. An unbroken male-line Romanov descent apparently produces a better right in minds of some people.

From the material of RFA, it seems that actually they (the Romanov Family Association) have the position that it is up to the Russian people to decide whether to restore monarchy and who in that case to choose. And their material also seems to reflect an idea that the strict Romanov imperial line is totally extinct, all descendants being morganauts (perhaps yet a more careful reading for the latter is needed, perhaps it is not so clearly worded there).

Nicholas Romanov is the elected President of the Romanov Family Association. Clearly, other of its membership have put their trust in him as to hold the family headship. For some reason, the today's Almanach de Gotha (which is presumably a different thing than the old AdG publishing tradition), lists Nicholas as the head of the house. However, Nicholas is actually the product of a marriage contrary to Dynastic Law of Imperial Russia (morganatic marriage) and therefore ineligible to succeed to the throne under the Russian succession law.

There exist several male-line morganaut descendants of Nicholas I of Russia, for example the mentioned president Nicholas, as well as Michael Andreyevich Romanov (b 1920) who has not staked a public claim. Perhaps their claims/entitlements should be fuller presented somewhere, but probably not in George's biography article. Shilkanni 23:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should Michael Andreyevich get any special reference? The number of morganatic agnates is quite large, and Michael Andreyevich seems to have no special claim to anything. Legitimate agnates at present, in order of seniority, are:

  1. Prince Dimitry Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky (b.1954)
  2. Prince Michael Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky (b.1961)
  3. Prince Nicholas Romanovich Romanov (b.1922)
  4. Prince Dimitri Romanovich Romanov (b.1926)
  5. Prince Michael Andreyevich Romanov (b.1920)
  6. Prince Andrew Andreyevich Romanov (b.1923)
  7. Prince Alexis Andreyevich Romanov (b.1953)
  8. Prince Peter Andreyevich Romanov (b.1961)
  9. Prince Andrew Andreyevich Romanov (b.1963)
  10. Prince Michael Feodorovich Romanov (b.1924)
  11. Prince Nikita Nikitovich Romanov (b.1923)
  12. Prince Feodor Nikitovich Romanov (b.1974)
  13. Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov (b.1985)
  14. Prince Nikita Rostoslavovich Romanov (b.1987)
  15. Prince Nicholas Nikolayevich Romanov (b.1968)
  16. Prince Daniel Nikolayevich Romanov (b.1972)

I concur with Shilkanni that there is no particular need to go into detail on this subject in this article. john k 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that a mention of rivals of George are in place in this biography (and also such rivals who have a viable right though not actively asserted - their reclucence also affects), as such persons have an impact to George's life because of George's chosen occupation. But elsewhere (actually, it has now started to take place at Line of succession to the Russian throne) is the right place to detail those succession details, grounds for rival rights to claim - it can there happen in one place, nopt spread over a bunch of biograhies). Shilkanni 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you see any reason to mention Michael Andreyevich specifically? I can see no particular reason that he should be seen as individually noteworthy. john k 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

When you now asked that, I looked at the situation more carefully. Until now, in those regards, I have just left contributions of others preserved, as I have regularly not wanted to alter such which is not the target of my edit. I have even left in some article a mention of Alexander of Yugoslavia as closest orthodox relative, although I have information that the issue of Her Late Imperial Highness the Dowager Princess of Leiningen also includes orthodox descendants. Now I checked Michael A. and my conclusion is: he deserves to be mentioned individually. Firstly, he is the genealogically senior member of the descent of Grand Duke Alexander and Grand Duchess Xenia - and thus represents as first heir the Romanov bunch who are closest relatives of the late Nicky II. This is an important thing at least at the level of feelings, and at how many people may conceive the situation where to look at who could be successor of Nicky II and his family IF the monarchy is restored. And their bunch is known (rightly or wrongly) to be more "Russian" in blood than several branches of Romanovs who are perceived as Germans or almost. Actually, I believe that in case of real monarchy restoration, they and particularly he if he wants, would find plenty of supporters. Secondly, there can easily be a case where he is the senior surviving dynast: the Sasso-Ruffo family are princely and held their lordships since Middle Ages. Perhaps they look like rather regular Italian "thirteen-in-a-dozen" nobles, but that's not the entire truth; they are as ancient as several small German landeshoheit houses, and they have princely rank (you know, a certain King of Belgians has his queen-consort from the same Ruffo house), and additionally Michael's mother's mother was a princess of the house of rulers of Meschersky people in Middle Russia. Legists are perfectly capable of arguing that, compared to Leonida Moukhraneli, Elisabetta Ruffo was also an equal match in marriage with an imperial Russian prince; her sons therefore must be regarded as dynasts (if Maria Vladimirovna is regarded as dynast). Contrary to Leonida, Elisabetta succeeded in giving birth to sons who lived longer than Vladimir Kirilovich. Consequently, the eldest of Elisabetta Ruffo's sons, as he lives, is male and all male dynasts senior to him are deceased, is the head of the imperial house. I would say that Michael's cousins, the late Rostislav Rostislavich and the yet living Marina Vasilievna, are a bit better choices; their mothers came from a princely house which descends in male-line from Gediminas of Lithuania, a ruler of a real country and not a tiny slice of Southern-Italian countryside. They (or the remaining one of them) should also be mentioned, as some could argue that their mothers' ancestry is better and more Russian than Elisabetta Ruffo's. Whereas everyone, including Nicholas Romanov, seem to agree that his mother countess Sheremeteva was just a commoner i this sense, no way to make an argument of equality of her. All in all, I would mention Marina Vasilievna, Michael Andreyevich, Maria Vladimirovna and Nicholas Romanov at least as individuals in these contexts. AND, Iask to direct further discussion about strengtht and weaknesses of their positions to Talk:Line of succession to the Russian throne. Shilkanni 03:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fluency in Russian language

copied a piece of text from the public list "Alexanderpalace", that written by Alex P on 12 Aug 2005: "I am very sorry to inform you that having personally met the Grand Duke George that he does not FLUENTLY speak, write and read Russian to a degree to be shown on Russian-television speaking it. She has of late sent him to immersion classes but no he has not mastered the language. He speaks it like a perfectly decent FRENCH university graduate would speak it with a "kartavz", a strong "karvatz", an "udareniya" that is off, and he addes a great deal of "vii zhaete" (vous savez...que..), in another words, he gallicisizes. He does not have a grip at all on the komu/kovo cases, etc., etc."

Can we use Alexanderpalace publishings as sources, and/or is there any other source attesting something about George's skill in Russian language?

Surely all this is saying is that he can speak Russian, however, not with an excellent accent.--Couter-revolutionary 21:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Some dude on a listserv is not a reliable source, I don't think. john k 23:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrand_Duke_George_Mikhailovich_of_Russia_8749.html"