Talk:Line of succession to the Russian throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how is possible that the pretenders of The Imperial House of Russia be members of the Hohenzollern dinasty, please !!!, there are very imperial blood princes of Romanov Dinasty that can be claimants of that prerrogatives...

1 Males descending from Paul I, some categories after 1918
2 Rival contentions on operation of semi-salic change
3 Orthodox persons in the Leiningen family
4 dissatisfaction of surviving dynasts to definitions of dynasticity in 1969, 70s etc
5 Leuchtenberg heir?
6 A case for Alexandrovichi branch
7 Nicholas Romanov's parents' marriage
8 The case if Maria Vladimirovna is NOT born of equal marriage
9 view to succession disputes
10 Tim Foxworth edits
11 Vladimir's marriage
12 dynastical claim to Headship of current Nicholas Romanov
13 Leiningen equality
14 lines of succession, 1796-1989
15 Alternatives
16 "too lengthy" argument
17 What should this article be?
18 My recently proposed merges

[edit] Males descending from Paul I, some categories after 1918

Uncontested dynasts:

Nicholas Mihailovich (1859-1919)
Paul Alexandrovich (1860-1919)
Georgij Mihailovich (1863-1919)
Nicholas Nicolaievich (1856-1929)
Michael Mihailovich (1861-1929)
Peter Nicolaievich (1864-1931)
Alexander Mihailovich (1866-1933)
Kiril Vladimirovich (1876-1938)
Georgij Konstantinovich (1903-1938)
Dmitri Pavlovich (1891-1942)
Boris Vladimirovich (1877-1943)
Gavril Konstantinovich (1887-1955)
Andrew Vladimirovich (1879-1956)
Fedor Alexandrovich (1898-1968)
Vsevolod Ivanovich (1914-73)
Nikita Alexandrovich (1900-74)
Rostislav Alexandrovich (1902-78)
Roman Petrovich (1896-1978)
Dmitri Alexandrovich (1901-80)
Andrew Alexandrovich (1897-1981)
Vasili Alexandrovich (1907-89)
Vladimir Kirilovich (1917-92)

Issue of wives with tenuous membership in "ruling family":

Michael Mihailovich de Torby (1898-1959)
Alexander (Yurievich/)Georgijevich Yurievsky (1900-88)
Rostislav Rostislavich (1938-99), depends upon whether Alexandra Pavlovna Galitzina, a male-line descendant of Gediminas, didysis kunigaikstis of Litvins, were of an (once) ruling house
Michael Andreievich (born 1920), depends upon whether Elisabeth Sasso-Ruffo, daughter of a Meschersky princess, etc, were of an (once) ruling house
Andrew Andreievich (born 1923), depends upon whether Elisabeth Sasso-Ruffo, daughter of a Meschersky princess, etc, were of an (once) ruling house
Michael Fedorovich (born 1924), depends upon whether Irina Paley, biological daughter of Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich born of a morganatic marriage, and granddaughter of a reigning emperor, were of a ruling family

Obvious morganauts:

Yurij Mihailovich Brassov (1910-31)
Vladimir Andreievich Romanovsky-Krasinsky (1902-74)
Paul Dmitrievich Ilyinsky (1928-2002), titular Duke of Holstein-Gottorp
Prince Dimitry Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky (b.1954), titular Duke of Holstein-Gottorp
Prince Michael Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky (b.1961)
Gaorgij Alexandrovich Yurievsky (born 1961)
Nicholas Romanovich (born 1922), son of countess Cheremeteva
Prince Dimitri Romanovich Romanov (b.1926)
Prince Alexis Andreyevich Romanov (b.1953)
Prince Peter Andreyevich Romanov (b.1961)
Prince Andrew Andreyevich Romanov (b.1963)
Prince Nikita Nikitovich Romanov (b.1923)
Prince Feodor Nikitovich Romanov (b.1974)
Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov (b.1985)
Prince Nikita Rostislavovich Romanov (b.1987)
Prince Nicholas Nikolayevich Romanov (b.1968)
Prince Daniel Nikolayevich Romanov (b.1972)

Not all marriages of recent dynasts were morganatic, if measured by similar standards as Vladimir Kirilovich measured his own wife. Shilkanni 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the issue is that Vladimir Kirillovich, as head of house, officially ruled his own marriage as dynastic, while he or his father officially ruled all the other marriage morganatic. Self-serving and obnoxious, certainly, but arguably the basis for Maria Vladimirovna's claims. john k 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an underlying viewpoint here that certain people were not bound by the Pauline Laws due to their station. Even Tsars were bound by the Pauline Laws. If not, why did Aleksandr II not recognize his own morgantic second marriage to Princess Ekaterina Dolgorouky as dynastic? Why were their children not dynasts? Because he had sworn to uphold the House Laws as all had before him, and knew that to do otherwise would be wrong. He did not seek to alter the Laws to suit his own whims, or advance his own morgantic children. "Grand Duke" Vladimir's vain attempt to do so shows his overweening ambition for his own line of the family. However, he was as bound by the Laws as anyone else, and unable to change them- whatever position he thought he held. Tim Foxworth 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If by "basis" you mean that this is the argument put forth by Vladimir Kirillovich and Maria Vladimirovna, this is almost but not quite accurate. The marriages (that produced offspring) of the surviving Romanov dynasts outside Russia were never ruled upon by Vladimir, but by his father. In ruling on his own marriage, Vladimir did not claim to be changing the equality of birth requirement (which he, his daughter and grandson swore to uphold, as requried by Pauline law, upon attaining their majorities as purported heirs to the defunct throne). Rather, Vladimir contended that in 1946 the Infante Ferdinand of Bavaria wrote to him requesting a recommendation on the current dynasticity of the Bagration-Moukhranskys, because Leonida's brother Erekle sought the hand of his daughter -- who was a dynast in the line of succession for Spain's throne. Vladimir claims to have consulted experts on the matter, and concluded that the family could be considered equal, notwithstanding Nicholas II's 1911 decision to the contrary (but consistent with the loosening of marital standards in other deposed houses that still required dynasts to obtain approval for marriage). Vladmir then notified the infante of his opinion. Simultaneously, he recognized the Moukhranskys as "Princes Gruzinsky" (title held in Russia by the seniormost but extinct branch) and "Royal (Tsarist) Highness". He claimed his decision was based upon the Moukhranskys having become the senior agnatic line of a formerly tsarist dynasty (but it was not based on Erekle's claim to be heir to the Kartl-Kakheti kingdom, which had been held by a cadet branch of the Bagrationi until 1801, and which Vladimir, as Russia's Imperial pretender, explicitly continued to claim as part of his own realm-to-be-restored). Vladimir contended that, having already rendered his decision on the Mukhraneli/Bavaria marriage, he then married Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky in 1948. Lethiere 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the true Georgian royal family, the said "main branch" of the Bagrationi, has not died out. Male-line descendants of the last two kings of Georgia live yet in Georgia. Admittedly, in 1940s, as Soviet dictature has prevented fluent communications with Georgia, many thought that they are extinct, or wanted to think so. Erekle Bagrationi (or his father?), who lived in Western Europe, has even proclaimed himself as the Head of the Royal House in Georgia in-exile, on basis of extinction of the true royals, because they were lineal male-line descendants of certain medieval Georgian kings and a by-branch of the same dynasty. The mistake was revealed only in 1990s when Georgia succeeded in having its independence, and male-line male descendants of the royal house were found in Tbilisi very alive and kicking. So, Mukhraneli however are not, at least not yet, successors of the deposed Royal Family of Georgia because its own line yet survives. This means that the designation given by Vladimir, according to its own reasoning, rests upon faulty premise. I believe that the legitimist view today is that Nugzar, Prince of Georgia, director of Tbilisi theatre of cinema artists, is the current Head of the Royal Family of Georgia. Shilkanni 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good piece of work- nicely done. Does put a hole in the Leonida argument. Tim Foxworth 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the discussion about Vladimir's marriage and its dynasticity continues in its own thread below, not in THIS thread. I copied pertinent comments from above to that discussion thread. Shilkanni 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rival contentions on operation of semi-salic change

The regular view of semi-salic order designates the cognatic line genealogically closest to the last ruler as the successor. To VLADIMIROV camp, the last ruler means Vladimir, as the last male-line claimant. To some others, it means NICHOLAS II's family, as he was the last ruling head of the house.

And if Vladimir Kirilovich actually was not the last dynast? Arguments can be made that Rostislav Rostislavich (died 1999, seven years after Vladimir), was of dynast birth, with as much entitlement as Maria Vladimirovna is. Or that possibly Michael Andreievich's (born 1920 and lives) mother was of sufficiently equal birth, and he were the head now.

Nicholas II's closest cognatic relatives actually were/ are Michael Andreievich, the late Rostislav Rostislavich, and some other great-nephews and -nieces. Shilkanni 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Got you, this makes sense. It's worth noting, however, that if we count all of the marriages of Xenia's children as morganatic, this line of reasoning would make, er, Maria Vladimirovna still be the heir, or, if no ther, whoever from the Leiningen or Prussian branches. BTW, in some article or other, the Leiningen marriage is described as morganatic? If so, man, the Russian rules were some serious business. Even the Habsburgs could've married a Leiningen dynastically. john k 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The house law speaks of "closest" female dynast. That term means proximity of blood, not primogenitural scheme as itself. Besides, nothing in the house laws regulates that the female dynast's descendants must be married or born in compliance with the house law, in order to be eligible to succeed in her rights. This gives the funny possibility of a branch being ineligible to succeed through the rights of their father, because of morganatical marriages, but leaves the possibility to the same branch to succeed through the semi-salic rights of their mother, IF the mother herself (as dynast) was married dynastically, despite of any morganatical spots in that lineage. The closest cognatic heirs of Nicholas II in proximity of blood were firstly the eldest surviving generation of his sisters' Xenia and Olga's desvcent, and if they are somehow ineligible (though the house law cannot say anything about marriages outside the house), then the eldest surviving generation of descendants of Alexander II. Shilkanni 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox persons in the Leiningen family

the more I look at the Leiningen princely family, for this purpose limited to descendants of Maria Kirilovna of Russia, the more I see Orthodox traits. Are they waiting carefully for succession rights in some Orthodox country? There are a bunch of Slavonic first names. There are marriages, Karl of Leiningen (Karl Wladimir Ernst Heinrich) had been married with a Bulgarian princess, presumably Orthodox (did she raise her children as Orthodox?), one of their sons Boris of Leiningen was married with a Bulgarian (Milena Manov), presumably Orthodox. And Milena's son is prince Nicholas Alexander of Leiningen (born Philadelphia 25.10.1991), and I would be surprised if the boy's mother will not raise him in her own creed. Then, additionally, there are the two sons of the late Kira Melita of Leiningen, who are princes of Yugoslavia, and presumably Orthodox. Could somebody check from somewhere the hopefully exact details of the religion of each individual who descends from the late Princess Dowager of Leiningen (Maria Kirilovna). Shilkanni 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You might post a query on this issue to alt.talk.royalty. john k 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Leiningen descendants would be ineligable due to morgantic marriage. The Leiningen princely family was a mediatized, non-ruling family within the German Empire. Tim Foxworth 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "mediatized" actually, in these contexts, means just the thing that they were promised and guaranteed the equality although they lost their sovereign state.At least, they should be regarded as monarchical pretender family's worth. It is totally true that Leiningen was a tiny slice and worth almost nothing compared with the Russian empire, or even its smallest autonomy (the Grand Duchy of Finland, Europe's fifth- or whatever largest country today measured by area) - but so were Mecklenbrg-Strelitz, Hesse-Darmstadt and Montenegro. They just were regarded equal for marriage purposes. I would require clear proof of a publication, or a monarchical proclamation, that Maria's Leiningen marriage was to be morganatic, before going forward with that suggestion. And, at most, we will probably then add just something like "There is a disagreement over whether the Leiningen marriage was dynastic".... which means two sets of heirs from that nodepoint onwards. Shilkanni 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Hessen-Darmstadt were Grand Duchies and still regnant until 1918. Montenegro was a Kingdom and still regnant until 1918. Leiningen was no longer regnant and had not been since 1801, and had only been princely since 1779- before that they were Grafs (Counts). A Princely family to be sure- noble, but hardly royal. Tim Foxworth 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dissatisfaction of surviving dynasts to definitions of dynasticity in 1969, 70s etc

"In December 1969, Grand Duke Wladimir issued a statement setting forth that his daughter , then age 16, would eventually succeed as head of the dynasty following his own death and that of the 7 male dynasts. He explained that eventual succession through the female line as provided for in the Pauline law was inevitable, given the ages and morganatic marriages of the 7 male dynasts and consequently the unlikelihood that any of them would so late in life contract an equal marriage and produce from it new dynasts. The statement did not say that Grand Duchess Maria would succeed ahead of any of the seven; it simply said that she would succeed upon their deaths and that of her father. This greatly upset several of the 7 male dynasts (all of whom except Princes Roman and Vassily had formally recognized either Grand Duke Wladimir or his father as dynastic head decades before). Several dynasts thereupon protested the wording of the statement and its mention of a curatrix of the throne, because they felt that the statement sought to prejudice their rights, including perhaps the right of each, should he succeed as dynastic head, to amend the Pauline law."

"But it was on account of this disagreement that Prince Roman and others decided to form the "Romanoff Family Association" and then lump together as its "members" both dynasts and morganatic descendants of dynasts, thus causing further confusion in the minds of journalists and others unversed in the history of the dynasty. Despite the current claim of Prince Nicholas Romanoff to be a dynast, however, it is significant that even Prince Vassily of Russia, his predecessor as "President of the Romanoff Family Association", issued a "declaration" of the "association" on 25 March 1981 making a clear and correct distinction between two separate categories: that of being "a member of the Imperial House of Russia" (that is, a dynast born of an equal marriage) and that of being "a member of the Romanoff Family" (that is, a person who, while not a dynast, descends morganatically in the male line from a dynast and uses the Romanoff surname.) With the extinction of the older generation of male dynasts over the last decade, various morganatic sons of the older generation have permitted themselves to ignore this distinction." from Maria Vladimirovna's supporter jurist...

Moreover, it seems well documented or known that 3rd branch (Nicholaievichi: Nicholas, Peter, Roman) were always hostile to Kirillovichi (Vladimirovichi) assertion of emperorship in exile. Nicholas N was the senior dynast in terms of age, an important factor in Russian dynastical culture (for example, house councils' chairmanship seems to have belonged to the eldest, and council advised/ confirmed things to emperor.)

There are some lines that indicate the six sons of Alexander Mihailovich having not consented to their children's disinheritment. Shilkanni 06:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Maria was named as Curatrix of the Throne- not head of the dynasty, as there were still male surving dynast who could marry non-morgantic and inherit.Tim Foxworth 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she was named 1969 curatrix by Vladimir. And implied that in fullness of time, she will succeed as the head. In late 1980s, Vladimir then explicitly stated that she will succeed as the head. Shilkanni 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that there yet survives a male dynast? Shilkanni 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leuchtenberg heir?

"Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna (1819-1876), daughter of Emperor Nicholas I, married Maximilien de Beauharnais, Duke of Leuchtenberg. Maximilien was ... thus considered a French dynast and it was on this basis that Nicholas I recognized Grand Duchess Maria's marriage to him as an equal marriage and specified that the children of the marriage were in the Russian line of succession, with seniority after the successible male line descendants of Emperor Paul I."

If Nicholas I granted that specific privilege, enhanced seniority, to Maria's issue, to succeed in Russia after male-line descendants of Paul I are exhausted, would it then be futile to think about issue of other female dynasts, as the right seems to belong to Leuchtenberg descendants. ? Shilkanni 07:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Leuchtenberg dynastic line appears to have been extinct since 1974. The cognatic heir would appear to be the Margrave of Baden, although there's also the questionable Duke of Leuchtenberg line descending from Duke Nicholas of Leuchtenberg's marriage to Nadezhda Annenkova (which marriage possibly never occurred). The seniormost Orthodox descendant is presumably Prince Nicholas of Yugoslavia, son of Prince Tomislav and Princess Margarita of Baden, sister of the Margrave of Baden, unless Margarita herself converted to Orthodoxy at the time of her marriage, and didn't give it up at the time of her divorce. But I'd like to see some reliable source actually making an argument for the Leuchtenberg claim. john k 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A case for Alexandrovichi branch

For example Michael Andreyevich, Andrew Andreyevich, late Rostislav Rostislavich, and Marina Vasilievna belong to the descent of Grand Duke Alexander and Grand Duchess Xenia. The senior among them is Michael.

They are the Romanov bunch who are closest relatives of later 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.

There can easily be a case where those four, or two of them, are dynasts: their mothers were a Sasso-Ruffo and two Galitzin ladies. As easy for legists as had been to argue for dynasticity of Maria Vladimirovna.

Sasso-Ruffo family is 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 (a certain King of Belgians has his queen-consort from the same Ruffo house). The Ruffo house have reigned over area that corresponds something like a modern-era principality or a medieval county ("shire"?). Additionally that Sasso-Ruffo lady's mother was a princess of the house of rulers of Meshchersky people in Middle Russia.

The Galitzin house is even more highly qualified. I would say that a Galitzin has been yet a bit better choice for ebenbuertigkeit. The said princely house descends in male-line from Gediminas of Lithuania, a ruler of a real country and not a tiny slice of Southern-Italian countryside (or a slice of Georgian mountain area). The Galitzin branch itself had held vast landed properties, and in certain periods have been princes of some of those sliced Russian-Lithianian countryside principalities. And such Galitzin ladies seemingly have a more Russian ancestry than that of any Ruffo's. A male-line descent from Gediminas is obviously a house whose house has formerly reigned over a country, or actually over several of today's countries.

Maria Vladimirovna's mother Leonida came from a family which descends in male line from medieval kings of Georgia, a country though not very big one, and had themselves long held a subject principality, that of (dukes of) Moukhrani in a corner of Georgia. The Moukhraneli Bagrations are, in virtue of their own fief, more or less corresponding with the Sasso-Ruffo, and in virtue of their male-line kingly ancestry, rather corresponding with the Galitzin.

Legists employed of any such claimant are perfectly capable of arguing that, compared with the case of Leonida Moukhraneli, Alexandra Galitzia and Natalia Galitzina, and even Elisabetta Ruffo, were also an equal match in marriage with an imperial Russian prince; children of such ladies therefore must be regarded as dynasts (if Maria Vladimirovna herself is regarded as dynast). Contrary to Leonida; Elisabetta and Alexandra succeeded in giving birth to sons who lived longer than Vladimir Kirilovich. Consequently, one of those sons, was (or is) the head of the imperial house.

Thus, there are:

the late Rostislav Rostislavich, son of a Galitzin and imperial prince Rostislav Alexandrovich; and his successor would logically be his first cousin Marina Vasilievna, daughter of a Galitzin and imperial prince Vasili Alexandrovich.
the yet living Michael Andreyevich (childless), son of Elisabetta Ruffo and imperial prince Andrew Alexandrovich; his logical successors are his younger full brother Andrew Andreyevich (and then presumably the latter's sons).

How does it seem? Is a son of a princess Galitzin an acceptable dynast, compared with a daughter of a Bagration Moukhraneli?

And, is a son of a lady from the princely house of Ruffo an acceptable dynast, compared with a daughter of a Bagration Moukhraneli? Shilkanni 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The men who were heads of house at the time of these marriages said that Ruffo and Galitzin were not, but that Bagration was. Again, this would seem the distinction. I'd be interested to see if there are reliable sources arguing for the claims of the Alexandrovichi. Otherwise, it's original research. john k 14:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There was wide dissatisfaction starting 1969 of dynasts of Russia against that head, over these and other dynastical matters. People may claim that Russian dynasty's matters belonged also to the dynastical council and not only to the Emperor. And that since the loss of monarchy, the head was not a real emperor anyway, and cannot use all such powers. It seems that the Sandrovichi dynasts were well among those who did not approve Vladimir's designations about their marriages. It all depends ultimately on who garner enough, and/or most support,inmonarchist circles and during the possible restoration. If people want to support one of these persons to the throne, a "self-serving" designation by the late Vladimir is a microscopical piece indeed to effectively gainsay them. Shilkanni 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was just laying out the vladimirovichi argument. If you can source various other positions, that's the way to go. The point is that it is not you coming up with conjectures about a Ruffo marriage being equal, but that others have made the argument. john k 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having now read some material about feelings of Russian monarchists, it seems to me that Sandrovichi have a surprising (they are not staking a claim, apparently) plentiness of supporters. Shilkanni 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Romanov's parents' marriage

Nicholas Romanov is born of his father's marriage with countess Praskovja Sheremeteva. Would anybody see any grounds how a comital Sheremetev would be an equal marriage? grounds how that particular countess Sheremetev could be born from a ruling or royal house? Shilkanni 04:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Countess Praskovia Cheremeteva descends by way of her mother from Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, and by way of the Princes Trubetskoi, Naryshkin and Bariatinski to the Rurikid dynasty. As an aside, Praskovia's brother Nikolai was married to Princess Irina Youssoupov- daughter of Prince Feliks Youssoupov and Princess Irina Alexandrovna Romanova of Russia. Tim Foxworth 16:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Naryshkin really a Rurikid house? I have been under the impression that they were just boyars, and even relatively parvenues as such. Peter the Great's Naryshkin mother certanly did not receive high accolades when her ancestry was/is talked about. Shilkanni 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Pauline Laws speak clearly of "...BELONG to royal or ruling HOUSE". House. The clannish meme of agnatic family circle, as opposed to cognatic family links. The succession law, in other words, is set to be applied in a way that the "royal or ruling" family must be the woman's paternal family. Sheremetevs, the HOUSE in question, cannot itself be described as "royal or ruling", can it?
Besides, all published citations that I have thus far seen, all say that marriage with Praskovja Sheremeteva was unequal. We need a published source, a citation, saying it was equal, before we can put such to the article. Is there such? Shilkanni 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it was equal, just that it is as morgantic as a Bagration marriage would be considering distant lines of descent. Tim Foxworth 20:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see, it (Sheremetev marriage) seems to be a yet lower marriage than that with a Moukhraneli. "one notch below". Sheremetevs are not a branch of a formerly ruling family, nor are they titled princes, nor have they held an own "duchy". They are counts and come from a boyar stock, known in c 15th century as sort of local lower nobility. Mouhkraneli had held a "duchy" (Moukhrany castle and lands) in subjugation to Georgian kings, had the princely rank in Russian titled nobility, and were a by-branch in male line from medieval monarchs of Georgian kingdom. Moukhraneli seem to be analogous with princely families of Rurikid and Gediminid male-line ancestry, but higher than those boyar families. Shilkanni 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So in this view Rurikid female-line descent is deemed of lesser value? Morgantic is morgantic however you slice it, be they Counts or Princes. Tim Foxworth 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would appreciate cognatic descent from Rurikids very high, etc. But here we are with these nice Pauline Laws (written by that nice screwed-head one), where the wording is relatively clear when using terminology "belongs to HOUSE". In those laws, house means agnatic descent. The house whose name and title a person legitimately bears. (It is not outside possible that a house can (by the law of its country, or if the house is sovereign in matters of house law, to make its definitions itself) define it to encompass female-line descendants, and if so is, Pauline Laws would presumably accept it (for example in case of UK royalty, male-line descent from Victoria's is valid in Pauline Laws, because the UK itself defines its royal house to include male-line descendants of a reigning female; that would have been useful for Alfred of Edinburgh, if he had not been son of a male member of the Saxon ducal house, which also as itself is sufficient for Russian marriage). But Russian nobility laws define the membership of Sheremetev house (= male-line descendants), and it is well established that membership of Trubetzkoy house (= male-line descendants) and that of Bariatinsky house (= male-line descendants) are also limited to male-line descendants. Neither of those two princely Rurikid houses had not even tried to define Praskovia as THEIR member as far as I know, so already that lacks. In sum: Praskovia was a member of Sheremetev house, it was not ruling, nor formerly ruling, nor royal, so Praskovia is a notch below those Rurikid HOUSE members who admittedly were her cognatic relatives. We cannot change the Pauline Laws to suit our desires or to our understanding how things should be, we just can analyze how specific cases fit to those laws and as to the interpretation latitude they leave. To your comment "Counts or Princes", those who attestedly belong to houses that are, according to some plausible interpretation, royal or ruling, may contract equal marriages with Russian dynasts, be they counts or princes or even without title. I believe that Lord Frederick Windsor, despite of him having only the title "Lord" and even that just a courtesy one, is however eligible to fulfill requirements of Pauline Laws. (A different issue however is that he is not likely to want to marry a woman.) I would like to see valid evidence that somehow plausibly shows Praskovia to be a born member of a royal or ruling house (please provide such); but clearly a cognatic descent from families that were not recognizing her as their house members, is not such. Shilkanni 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that these modern days, when all branches of Russian dynasty have made more or less criticized, "less-than-high" marriages anyway, many people do not heed anything in the equality of spouse requirements, and just accept all Romanov(ski)s as members of that dynasty. Shilkanni 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The case if Maria Vladimirovna is NOT born of equal marriage

If the Leonida (Moukhraneli) marriage of Vladimir Kirilovich was nt equal, Maria Vladimirovna is not a dynast and cannot have succeeded her father. The question then is: who succeeded?

(In that case, it can be assumed that others, whose entitlement is birth of a marriage roughly similar rank than Moukhraneli (such as Ruffo and Galitzin) are also non-dynastic - otherwise Maria is dynastic)

The imperial house was, however, not devoid of uncontested dynasts in 1992. Her Serene Highness Princess Jekaterina Ivanovna of Russia (born 1915) and Her Highness Princess Vera Konstantinovna of Russia (1906-2001) were alive at that time. Their births were from marriages approved by Nicholas II, one with a Saxe-Altenburg and another with a royal princess of Serbia. Nobody has contested their dynastic birth.

Today, it is almost immaterial to work out who of them was the first heir, because Vera is now dead, was unmarried, and she was totally succeeded in her rights by her surviving niece Jekaterina, in whose person all those rights now merge. However, as the wording in the semi-salic stipulation in the Pauline laws says "closest" dynast (as opposed to "dynast in primogeniture" or whatever), I believe the late Vera Konstantinovna was the first heiress. She was one degree closer in kinship to both "last" rulers, Nicholas II and Vladimir Kirilovich, than her niece.

Both of those ladies, during their "reigns", were entitled to change the succession law as much as Vladimir was.

Such scenario makes the following list of heirs:

Vera Konstantinovna (head of the house 1992-2001), unmarried
Jekaterina Ivanovna (head of the house since 2001), widow of Ruggiero Farace, Marquess of Villaforesta

Actually- if you read closely Princess Maria's website states Ekaterina maintained her place in the family but lost her succession rights upon her non-dynastic marriage to the Marchese (not Marquess) di Villaforesta. Tim Foxworth 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it is Vera Konstantinovna who succeeded anyway in this scenario. She was unmarried, so she cannot have lost anything through a marriage. Besides, I have read that the late princess Vera accepted her niece's marriage, and seems to have made her as her heiress. Shilkanni 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(line of succession after her, provided she happens to decide her own marriage to be dynastic, and they satisfy the religion requirement:

Ioann Rurikovich Farace, Marquess of Villaforesta (born Rome 20 October 1943), married Marie Claude Tillier Debesse (born Paris 24 Apr 1944)
Alexander Ivanovich Farace (born Paris 29 August 1971)
Ivan Ivanovich Farace (born Versailles 4 October 1974))

And, knowing all the objections against Vladimir's marriage, it is not difficult. Shilkanni 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

However, were Jekaterina's own marriage non-dynastic (which does not impede her own personal accession), in that case the heir after Jekaterina is a muddy thing to determine. There are a bunch of royal orthodox relatives that descend from various' brides from Romanov house, such as Greece, Yugoslavia... Shilkanni 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Catherine's marriage was non-dynastic. However, I am unclear as to why we have to go to the nearest living female dynast, rather than to the heirs of the nearest non-living female dynast. This would be Maria Kirillovna and her Leiningen descendants. If the Leiningen match is non-dynastic, then it goes to Kira Kirillovna and the House of Prussia. If that doesn't count, either because of non-orthodoxness of the Prussians or because of the supposed ineligibility of Cyril's children to succeed on account of their not-Orthodox-until-later mother (or is it Cyril's not-Orthodox-until-later mother? Either way seems dubious - Cyril was certainly seen as a full dynast with succession rights in spite of his mother's protestantism), then it goes to Cyril's sister Elena Vladimirovna, who married Prince Nicholas of Greece. I don't see why Catherine Ivanovna, by virtue of being alive currently, is considered heiress. Semi-Salic succession is almost always deeply unclear, so far as I can tell. john k 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The lutheran at the time of birth was Kiril's mother. Vladimir was born when his mother was already orthodox. You refer to court calendar listing. That's a listing of order of precedence, in some aspects a different thing than line of succession (for example, dowager empress is listed there, though not entitled to succeed). If we however agree that it reflects, as to the relevant persons, having a place in succession chart, there however is yet one of arguments: that a dynast born of non-orthodox mother can transmit succession rights but cannot ascend the throne himself. A weak concoction, but "transmit" theories have been valid in certain other occasions, so it's not altogether ridiculous suggestion. Actually, the whole focus on the orthodox mother thing is a product of slavic-nationalist-traditionalist decades in late 19th c and early 20th c Russia. Earlier eras, possibly the whole suggestion would at times have been laughable (Catherine II certainly was not born of orthodox mother and was not even herself born an orthodox...). Those traditionalists desired as purebred as possible, they would have been happy if foreigners were not in Pauline Laws, possibly Russian noblewomen would have been accepted as imperial wives by the same camps.

You are certainly correct in thinking that semi-salic almost always leads to unclear situations. That's its intrinsic feature - and also proximity of blood has similar intrinsic feature. In proximity, you can have several individuals of whom one is precisely as far or as close as any other of the same group. The exactness feature of primogeniture is lost in proximity criterion. With semi-salic you have the problems of what is the pivotal point (usually, sufficient care has not given ahead to define the pivot), and quarrels over that living female dynasts precede their deceased kinswomen. The Spanish and English succession system is almost always clearer.

The question you raise about "representation possibility" I know to be interesting, and it will cause that two alternative lines will emerge. Because of my experiences, I believe that the prevalent view is that a living female dynast precedes any issue of a deceased female dynast. But there is certainly a place for argument in that, already because apparently many think intuitively (being familiar with English successions, primogenitural succession order) that a deceased woman is represented by her issue. However the underlying idea behind semi-salic systems is to prefer the incumbent house at cost of all members of other houses; where the incumbent dynasty (the agnatic lineage, including its own females but disfavoring "other houses") is more important than a cognatic relative who just happens to be closer relative to the last male ruler than the possibly rather distantly related surviving female dynast. In other dynasties, I have seen cases that a living younger sister has succeeded in semi-salic situation ahead of deceased elder sister's living issue. Such examples speak for that female dynasts are prferred over members of "other houses". I have not succeeded in finding the precise text of the Pauline Laws, but from various citations it seems to me that its text mentions closest "female dynast" (or female member of the reigning dynasty, or something like that) and not closest "cognatic relative of the last ruler". If those citations (which provide a text piece that is in full accordance with the underlying clannish philosophy and therefore easy to believe authentic) are correct, Vera Konstantinovna was the heiress at the moment of Vladimir's death, if Maria Vladimirovna is non-dynastic. It seems that actually, the literal text of the law does not say anything about the issue of the female. So, it does not mention that anyone represents a deceased ancestress. This opens an interesting dilemma: what if the last dynast is a male, all female dynasts having predeceased: who succeeds then. Probably the last male ruler makes a new law, designating his successor. Or a hypothetical is construed, treating the transmitting dead females in question as males and then checking, how they would have been succeeded. Another interesting scenario comes from if the male dynast is succeeded by a surviving female dynast, but that female dynast dies without own eligible issue (and not making a new law). To where the pivot settles, and how to rank the deceased female dynasts in order to decide whose descent succeeds. All these tend to produce yet more alternative lineages, and consequently rival candidates. Shilkanni 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] view to succession disputes

It is said that the Emperor was the arbiter of succession laws. Yes, that likely was the situation when Emperor had the power. Autocratic power. It also has been said that there existed and exists no arbiter (nor a judicial process) to rectify the designations made by the Emperor / the Head of the House. Well, there exists. If anyone desires to ascend to a throne, the person needs some support - even in case of a smooth succession to the heir apparent. Without support, a heir apparent will not be able to rule. Even more important is the support, and its size, when seeking to ascend a throne in a non-smooth situation - and one of the most extreme non-smooth situations is revival of a defunct rule. The support translates easily to the will of the people. And the will of supporters, will of the people, is the arbiter which is able to rectify designations made by an authority (such designations made, for example, by Kiril and then Vladimir). A head of a house is dependent on that there is not too wide opposition in the house itself. A ruler, an ascending claimant, needs that approval from the nation, or whatever the claimant is attempting to start to rule.

As each potential claimant of Russia has at least some irregularity in the pedigree, something that needs explanations and justifications from their legists, there is that arbiter -the support of the ruled ones- that will make rectifications to past designations. If one were to have a pedigree (and personal characteristics) without any irregularity, it will be self-evident that the person would be quite universally accepted claimant. As usually is the eldest son of any deposed monarch. But in the case of disputed Russian succession, only the will of the ruled may overcome the gravest irregularities in any potential claimant's "pedigree". Shilkanni 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Foxworth edits

User:Tfoxworth apparently sees alternatives and titularies as follows (from his fork page "Line of succession to the Russian throne, part I"; soon to be deleted): (copied: Shilkanni 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

The Monarchy of Russia was abolished in 1917. The current Pretender is open to debate.

If one accepts H.I.H Grand Duke Vladimir Kyrillovich of Russia's morgantic marriage to H.S.H. Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya, a member of a junior line of the Bagration family as valid, and overlook his father's treasonous behavior during the Revolution then the following are heirs to the Imperial Throne of Russia.

H.H. Princess Maria Vladimirovna Romanovskaya b. 1953 (H.I.H. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna Romanova of Russia)
H.R.H. Prince Georg von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1981 (H.I.H. Grand Duke George Mikhailovich Romanov of Russia)

Georg and Maria's Russian styles are disputed hence the parentheses

H.R.H. Prince Louis Ferdinand Friedrich Wilhelm Hubertus Michael von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1939
H.R.H. Prince Philipp von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1968
H.R.H. Prince Paul von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1995
H.R.H. Prince Timotheus Friedrich von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 2005
H.R.H. Prince Wilhelm Heinrich Michael Louis Ferdinand Friedrich Franz Wladimir von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1940
H.R.H. Prince Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1976
H.R.H. Prince Christian Sigismund Louis Ferdinand Kilian von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1946
H.R.H. Prince Christian Ludwig von Hohenzollern of Prussia b. 1988

Descendants of Maria of Leiningen would be excluded due to her morgantic marriage

If one accepts that the descendants of H.M. Nicholas II's sister H.I.H. Grand Duchess Xenia of Russia would be the next dynasts then the following are heirs to the Imperial Throne of Russia.

H.H. Prince Mikhail Andreevich Romanov b. 1920
H.H. Prince Andrei Andreevich Romanov b. 1923
H.H. Prince Alexei Andreevich Romanov b. 1953
H.H. Prince Piotr Andreevich Romanov b. 1961
H.H. Prince Andrei Andreevich Romanov b. 1963
H.H. Prince Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov b. 1924
H.H. Prince Mikhail Mikhailovich Romanov b. 1959
H.H. Prince Nikita Nikitich Romanov b. 1923
H.H. Prince Fedor Nikitich Romanov b. 1974
H.H. Prince Aleksandr Nikitich Romanov b. 1929
H.H. Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov b. 1985
H.H. Prince Nikita Rostislavovich Romanov b. 1987
H.H. Prince Nikolai Nikolaievich Romanov b. 1968
H.H. Prince Daniil Nikolaievich Romanov b. 1972

If one accepts senior male line descent regardless of morgantic marriage the following are heirs to the Imperial Throne of Russia.

H.S.H. Prince Dmitri Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinski b. 1954 (Head of the House of Holstein-Gottorp)
H.S.H. Prince Mikhail Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinski b. 1960

If one accepts the Head of the Romanov Family Association to be the head of the family then the following are heirs to the Imperial Throne of Russia.

H.H. Prince Nikolai Romanovich Romanov b. 1922
H.H. Prince Dmitri Romanovich Romanov b. 1926

[edit] Vladimir's marriage

Describing Grand Duke Vladimir's marriage as morganatic is completely and utterly POV. The man everyone recognized as head of house at the time (er, Grand Duke Vladimir himself) recognized the marriage as dynastic. At the very least, the idea that it was morganatic is highly debatable. The idea that Cyril committed "treasonous activities" by swearing allegiance to the Provisional Government seems incredibly dubious to me - after Nicholas abdicated in favor of his brother, Michael had declared that the Provisional Government was the rightful government. Who, exactly, was Cyril committing treason against? Even if people have argued this (which has yet to be demonstrated), it's still highly POV to describe his activities as "treasonous" with no qualification. Further questions - why on earth are Prinzen von Preussen being described as "von Hohenzollern" - this is not their name? Are they (other than George Mikhailovich) actually considered to be in line? And can somebody source the Leiningens being excluded? Did Cyril rule his daughter's marriage as morganatic? Is there any source for the claim that there are heirs to the throne based on the Romanov Family Association? This whole business seems highly dubious. john k 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of others, in publications and in monarchist movement, have taken the position that Vladimir's marriage must be seen as morganatic (or: clearly not fulfilling the criteria set in the Pauline Laws and thus non-dynastic). In my opinion, we will present this point stating the both stances. One POV is that it was non-dynastic, the other POV is that Vladimir decided (upon his own authority) that it was dynastic and valid for succession purposes.

Besides, "everyone recognized as head" is untrue, and POV, because while possibly most so recognized, yet the late Grand Duke Nicholas, the late Grand duke Peter, and prince Roman Petrovich, as well as their supporters, and supporters of treason theory, and supporters of non-orthodox-mother argument, did not - they opposed Kiril's and Vladimir's position.

John, you have chronology wrongly. I just recently read a treatise about that issue. Kiril took his troops and set them in use of prov.gov some hours before Nicholas II abdicated, and certainly well before anyone, incl Kiril, knew of that abdication, and well before Misha had done anything. Shilkanni 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the chronology. And fair enough that some people have made these arguments. We certainly can't make statements that assume that the Nikolaevichi position is the truth, which seems to be the position of Mr. Foxworth. My understanding is that by the 1950s, every male dynast save Prince Roman had accepted Vladimir as head of the house. Some of them may have later rescinded this recognition, but he was generally recognized, and remained more or less generally recognized until his death. I agree that we need to present both sides, but we can't present one side (and particularly we can't present the less well known side as the truth, and the other as false). john k 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Some people" have read the history books- just because it is "less well known" does not make it wrong. Vladimir was accepted as Head of the House- until his own morgantic marriage. We need to present ALL sides, not just the ones people want to believe as the ONLY truth. Tim Foxworth 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The source material is the Almanach de Gotha- I suggest you read it. Burkes' Peerage, Debrett's. If you can't afford them many libraries can lend them to you. The Empress Maria did not recognize Kyril's claims- nor did many others in the emigre population. The Almanach states Prince Nicholas to be the heir- not Princess Maria. It is not POV when the Bagration marriage is to a junior member of a non-ruling family. The Pauline Laws are very strict about this- you should read those too. Hohenzollern is the surname of the German royal family- the government outlawed all titles, so Prinz von Preussen is used as a surname. Grand Duke Vladimir's proclamation that his marriage was dynastic and valid- highly self-serving but contrary to House Law. Kyril betrayed his family by marching at the head of the forces against the Tsar- this is treason. The Leiningen family would be excluded due to morgantic marriage- see mediatized families- non-ruling. The Romanov Family Association leaves the entire matter to the will of the Russian people. Please, do some research on your own. Thanks for your input! Tim Foxworth 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The new "Almanach de Gotha" has no connection to the original and is not a reliable source. That the Dowager Empress did not recognize Cyril is true, but nonetheless all male dynasts did. Of course it is POV to call the Bagration marriage morganatic - the head of house said it was not. This is debatable, certainly, but you can't simply say it was morganatic with no qualification, as though it is uncontroversial. Of course Vladimir's proclamation was self-serving, but the question is who has the right to interpret house law. This is not a clear cut issue, and treating it as though it is is highly POV. As to Kyril, whatever he did, it is still highly dubious to refer to it as "treason" as though this is unproblematic. As to the Leiningens, they were a sovereign family. Nicholas II was going to be married to an Orleans princess, who was not a ruling family at the time. The Leiningens were certainly no more morganatic than the Leuchtenbergs, who were considered equal. john k 17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The original is valid. And your basis the new is not reliable is exactly what...? Something you heard somewhere? Are you an expert? I suppose you will say Burke's Peerage is all wrong next. So, in your most learned opinion- what tomes should one use as a basis. Or should we all just wait for you to publish? Tim Foxworth 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Leiningens were not a sovereign family- they were a mediatized family. Non regnant. Princely- Serene Highnesses, not Royal Highnesses. Nicholas II was not going to marry Princess Helene- it was suggested to cement ties with France but never got beyond that point. Nicholas already had his heart set on Alix when it was suggested. But, since you bring it up, her father was the Pretender to the Throne of France- thus a suitable alliance.

Again, please do the research. Thanks for your input! Tim Foxworth 18:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We will not quarrel over titles of those pretenders, are we? We should just call them using their own titles of pretension as they use them, not enhance nor slight any of them. Prussian titulary and surnames are unnecessary here, such should be explained in its owner's biography article. If needed, we will put a note here where say something like "Titles in this article are not endorsed here, they are just the subjects' titles of pretension they use.". Shilkanni 21:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Almanach de Gotha did not present Nicholas Romanov as the head of anything. Its publication ceased in 1940s, or was it already in 1930s.

We will make a more detailed section in the article about all points in the battle in favor of Maria and against her case, aren't we? There all those accusations of treason and its rebuttals, and several other things will be listed. All those are in the literature (see for example Horan's, was it that, article in defense of Maria's claim, there such allegations are recognized and they of course rebut them). It is not legitimate to require that such details are left out, as they have been presented in already early pamphleteering. Actually, in 1920s Paris, there were three presented candidates for throne: Kiril, Dmitri and old Nicholas. Dmitri's camp presented as their one justification just the very treason accusation against Kiril (another was his birth of a non-Orthodox mother). Old Nicholas' camp apparenly relied on feelings, appreciatio of old CINC and an ages-old Russian tradition of the oldest male in the cloan to be its head. For the Leiningen morganaticity, there is already a thread for it long above. Shilkanni 21:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied from an above thread, as the following comments deal with Vladimir's marriage)

Ah, but the true Georgian royal family, the said "main branch" of the Bagrationi, has not died out. Male-line descendants of the last two kings of Georgia live yet in Georgia. Admittedly, in 1940s, as Soviet dictature had prevented fluent communications with Georgia, many thought that they are extinct, or wanted to think so. Erekle Bagrationi (or his father?), who lived in Western Europe, has even in 40s proclaimed himself as the Head of the Royal House in Georgia in-exile, on basis of extinction of the true royals, because they were lineal male-line descendants of certain medieval Georgian kings and a by-branch of the same dynasty. The mistake was revealed only in 1990s when Georgia succeeded in having its independence, sufficient communications opened, and male-line male descendants of the royal house were found in Tbilisi very alive and kicking. So, Mukhraneli however are not, at least not yet, successors of the deposed Royal Family of Georgia because its own line yet survives. This means that the designation given by Vladimir, according to its own reasoning, rests upon faulty premise. I believe that the legitimist view today is that Nugzar, Prince of Georgia, director of Tbilisi theatre of cinema artists, is the current Head of the Royal Family of Georgia. Shilkanni 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The above is a good piece of work- nicely done. Does put a hole in the Leonida argument. Tim Foxworth 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An old principle of the Ebenbürtigkeit jurisprudence, without it being written in any legislation, has been: "no one can reject as unequal a marriage of the same nature as that of his parents" (Heinrich Zoepfl: "Grundsätze des gemeinen deutschen Staatsrechts"). This offers an argument to those who represent the view that Rostislav Rostislavich (d 1999) and Marina Vasilievna (b 1940) were born dynasts because it means that "no one", not even Maria Vladimirovna, can reject as unequal a "marriage of the same nature as that of her own parents" - such as the marriage between princes of imperial blood and a Galitzin princess. "Such rejection is simply not done by gentlemen, gentlefolk, it is done only by greedy trash, greedy tarts." "Such is utterly deplored behavior, not becoming of anyone who wishes to have or keep position of honor." As the impression which any pretender wishes to give by her or his behavior is immensely important when there is no powerful state machine to enforce obedience to autocratic, "self-serving" fiat, it seems to me that support of gentlefolk (as opposed to greedy trash people) collapses from a pretender who behaves against honor. Shilkanni 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that all sons of marriages between Princes of Russia and marriages with Rurikids and Gediminids also seem to be extinct. Rostislav Rostislavich the Elder died in 1999, and his brother in 2000. Rostislav himself married someone named, according to Theroff's site, "Christia Ipsen", so his sons would not be dynastic even if we considered him to be. Which means that if he succeeded on Vladimir Kirillovich's death, and was then succeeded by his brother, the throne would either go to his nearest dynastic cognatic line. Who this is would depend on if Yussupov or Chavchavadse marriages count as dynastic under the standards here proposed (I assume that Princess Xenia Georgievna's marriage is definitely not dynastic). I don't really know. If neither does, it would have passed in 2000 to the Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, as grandson of Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna. On his death it would go to his niece Donata, whose marriage is, however, unequal, as is her sister Edwina's. After that it seems to go to some Schleswig-Holstein princesses whose mother was a sister of the Hereditary Grand Duke. The eldest is married to a Prince of Isenburg, so there it would stop. Alternately, we could do the "nearest relation of the last emperor" rule you have proposed elsewhere. And this would be, er, Maria Vladimirovna. The basic problem with all this is that it is completely hypothetical. Without a head of house determining if different marriages are dynastic or not, there are basically an infinite number of ways that we could figure out who the heir is. It strikes me that it might be best to mention the Vladimirovichi claim, to mention the Romanov Family Association claim that it is up to the Russian people to determine who a monarch should be, and that the old imperial house is extinct, and then to mention that, depending on how we interpret the Pauline law, any number of other candidates could potentially be considered as the present heir. if we can source specific claims, that is perhaps worth doing, but i'm not sure why we should go into such high amounts of detail. john k 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are not extinct. Marina Vasilievna is living. In this scenario, she succeeded her first cousin Rostislav. Shilkanni 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. She has, however, married unequally, so upon her death this claim will go as I have noted. john k 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kings of Denmark and Royal Family of Prussia are near in this scenario. They may be a helpful thing if all nearer ones are not orthodox. Namely, there actually exist the orthodox children of Anne Marie of Denmark - another throne to pretend for, to them, after Constantine II of Greece dies. Shilkanni 16:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the problem you raise, "Without a head of house determining if different marriages are dynastic or not, there are basically an infinite number of ways that we could figure out who the heir is", is secondary. The basic problem is that this article is treating all of the Pauline Laws as optional -- and that is why it is impossible to point to any Romanov descendant and say that he/she is or is not the rightful pretender: all of them (and anybody else!) are potential pretenders depending upon which laws you declare to be applicable, and which ones you choose to ignore. Paul I was very explicit in the Pauline Laws' preamble, and in the law itself, that henceforth the succession was not to be subject only to the Emperor's designation. Article 53 explicitly decreed "That the Heir should be determined by the law itself." There were more than 200 Pauline Laws that regulated the succession and the Imperial family's rights and restrictions. Although the law accorded to the Emperor some personal discretion, his Imperial prerogative operated within numerous, explicit laws. Some of these the law allowed him to waive, others could not be waived (especially after 1906): when Cyril Vladimirovich eloped with Victoria Melita of Edinburgh, Nicholas II appointed a commission to find a legal way to demote him to "Prince Kirilovich". But the commission voted to formally advise the Emperor that he had no legal authority to strip Cyril of succession rights -- only Cyril's own renunciation could have that effect (btw, implicitly recognizing that Cyril possessed dynastic rights, regardless of his mother's religion). Later, Nicholas II tried to do get his brother Michael Aleksandrovich to sign a renunciation after he eloped, but Michael refused. A basic principle of the Pauline laws, reiterated in the 1911 Fredericks memorandum, is that no dynast could marry dynastically without the Emperor de jure's authorization. Yet the marital approval requriement is ignored in all of these speculations, even though it was as much law as primogeniture and Orthodoxy. Since all of the Mikhailovichi (Michael Mikhailovich and his sons by Xenia Aleksandrovna) had recognized either or both Cyril (in 1924) and Vladimir (in 1938) as emperor de jure in exile, it is hard to see how they could be excused from requesting his permission to marry. Yet one of the few dynasts to obtain Vladimir's permission to marry in exile was Gabriel Konstantinovich, who married a Rurikid princess in 1951 -- and received from Vladimir a morganatic title for her (just as his father had conferred such titles on previous Gedyminian/Rurikid wives). Zoepfl's judicial comment that "no one can reject as unequal a marriage of the same nature as that of his parents" is a principle of German dynastic law, not Russian. But even if it were applicable to the Russian succession (it was applicable to transmission of Vladimir Kirilovich's right to the title "Duke of Holstein-Gottorp"), Maria Vladimirovna did not grant or withhold permission in the cases of her dynastic Romanov cousins -- all of them had wed when Cyril was de jure emperor. Their descendants are non-dynastic by his decision, not Maria's. Analagously, the Hohenburgs and Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia's descendants have never been regarded as retroactively dynastic because the Habsburgs and Borbons lowered their current standards of equality: their ancestors' marriages were morganatic when contracted. Otherwise, why would the Yurievskys be bypassed in favor of the Mikhailovichi whose claims are currently being discussed on this page? On the other hand, the Pauline Laws did not impose equality restrictions on marriages in cognatic lines of descent from Russian emperors. But once a cognate inherits the crown de jure, all of the Pauline Laws are applicable to his/her marriage and male-line descendants, as if they were Romanovs. Lethiere 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If the marriage without Emperor's consent were non-dynastic and were incapable of transmitting any succession rights and were to deprive the without-permission-marrying dynast of his/her own succession rights, position, title and revenues, why then even to try to find ways to demote Kiril to a prince Kirilovich, or to find way to deprive him of his own succession rights, or to try to have Misha to renounce? If that REALLY was the effect of the law, nothing of those actions would have been necessary (Nicky could just have published an ukaz stating that due to unpermitted marriage, the former Grand Duke suchandsuch has ceased to be titled, ceased to possess any succession rights, etc, and made it clear that any posterity issuing from that marriage was eternally deemed to be ineligible to succeed - that's what Bernadotte kings did in most cases, there never was any renunciation made by Sigvard Bernadotte, for example,...). And, YET, the commissions and whatever found that there is no way to deprive, that only a renunciation would bring the effect, that... I think, based on those facts, that there was no such clause that had the effect of depriving and non-dynastifying, and in case there was somesuch clause, its interpretation has rendered it to be without said effect, or that it was invalid, or that Emperor was deemed to duty-bound to approve marriages that fulfill the Pauline criteria irrespective of any emperor's incidental wishes in the matter. Dynasts seem to have had subjective entitlement to marry an eligible partner in early 20th c Russia.

Er, the point is that Cyril's own rights are not lost by his marriage. This is a different question from whether his marriage was dynastic or not, a separate issue. At what point did Victoria begin to be styled a Grand Duchess? Was Maria Kirillovna a princess of Russia from birth? And please don't wikify random words as though this is useful in any way. john k 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A pity that the original Pauline Laws are nowhere where I can find their precise wordings. Those around 200 clauses. I would be particularly interested in those between §§ 180-189, I think (because refs of clauses stipulating related issues are nearby there). There exist a bunch of stipulations, and some texts have mentioned one that forbids to marry without emperor's consent (=authorization) AND makes the perp to lose "everything", starting from annual income due to a dynast and his own rights. Isn't it mentioned also somewhere above? Anyway, I have somewhere read about existence of such. By the way, why so much interest in stripping Kiril of and demoting, if the clause you referred to, dictates that anyway his issue cannot be heirs as they will be born from unauthorized marriage? Dynastically seen, the problem is not big anyway.

While we are at it, I think all hat material has mentioned that Kiril gave his permissions to Sandrovichi boys'marriages and augmented those permissions by some grant of names, coat-of-arms and titles to wives and posterities... It seems to be wrong to allege they did not receive permissions as itself, as opposed to that Kiril seems to have regarded everything morganatical (what a sorry existence, depressing - receiving news of projected marriages almost each year and always judging them morganatical, knowing after each one that one likelihood less for dynastical survival exists, must have been depressing... (I assume that any person with functioning brains knows how the probabilities work to have male line perpetuated over several generations, the intervening bad lucks, infertilities, etc). Shilkanni 04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Above words about "succession was not to be subject only to the Emperor's designation, the Heir should be determined by the law itself" are true and they are basis for me being wary of believing too much in the autocratic power, as presented by some for recipe and medicine for each problem.
"Cannot reject similar" does not come from to-Germany-limited, but is more like a universal chatacteristic. You know, it is not written in German law (where is that law paragraph, and what's its enactment date...?), it comes from principles, universally effective. And Maria is doing the rejecting when she claims something over cousins who are in similar situation. The principle was and is applied in courts, when two parts come and dispute over the same property. (As imaginarily do Maria and her relatives here.) It is not applied only in an earlier, hypothetical stage where someone allegedly makes a designation when granting a permission or granting a title or being not even approached just stays silent.

Er, either she's the head of house or she's not. If she's the head of house, her cousins are not and never were dynasts. If she's not the head of house, she can't reject anyone. john k 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In a "court of law" she is pleading her case toinherit by rejection of her cousins' birth of similar marriage. You are looking the situation too bureaucratically, I know from bunches of texts that the principle "cannot reject others' similar" means the situation where they are both before a court, both parties pleading their cases. To the bureaucratic situation of something be resolved already in advance, in accepting or rejecting the marriage, the principle will be written something like "decisions upon marriages need to treat similar cases similarly", "one cannot favor his own by accepting them such that was rejected from others". Before you started rebutting that, I did not think there would be any wrangling over what is meant by the principle. The principle I cited from law commentaries is written so because its writers looked forward to see ligitating parties before a tribunal. Besides, in that "approval" scheme, a marriage can be accepted but regarded morganatical as those emperors seem to have done. Then it's an accepted marriage and later, if a dispute arises, and if it actually is found to fulfill the criteria of equal birth, it actally was not morganatical. Interesting but real possibility. Shilkanni 04:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article should point to points that are within discretion, or are dependent on interpretation (as opposed to "holding everything optional"). We shall certainly not go to "if he had been second, instead of fourth born son" speculation. I am of the view that there is not "any possible number" of heirs, my assessment is that there are several possible ones with different reasonable lines of succession; but not all, nor even most Romanov relatives are such. As the number, or at least the reasonable ways to determine sch, is basically limited, my ambition is to determine all such, and as by-product, have the reasonings how to reach any SUCH successor's right. This article is "line of succession" and I am going to devise those lines of succession. If it means original research, then I would be actually happy, since such work will be published (as presumably mine) in some place due to its value etc; but pessimistically I think that sooner or later, almost all those alternative routes appear here as citations from this or that publication. Shilkanni 01:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Prince Nicholas Romanoff himself, in a published statement in October 1995, cites... the public renunciations of succession rights by two princesses of the imperial blood immediately prior to their marriages: by Princess Tatiana of Russia in 1911 prior to her marriage to Prince Bagration of Moukhrani and by Princess Irina of Russia in 1914 prior to her marriage to Prince Yusupov. Nicholas Romanoff then argues: "These Ukases [publishing the renunciations] prove without doubt that had the princesses not renounced their rights, their issue would have been in possession of full rights to the inheritance of the throne of Russia"." Doesn't this support that the Bagration-Moukhraneli marriage is dynastical? Shilkanni 04:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dynastical claim to Headship of current Nicholas Romanov

An explanation to his genealogical headship is that he/ his supporters have presented their theory that a prince of Russia needed not make an equal marriage, whereas grand dukes must. Nicholas II gave an ukaz where he stated that grand dukes will not be granted a permission to contract marriages with women of unequal rank, whereas princes might be. That is an interpretation (which in my opinion does not enjoy the support of the intention of Nicholas II's ukaz and of house laws) that would suffice to make GD Dmitri's marriage non-dynastic but prince Roman Petrovich's acceptable. Of course, the Maria Vladimirovna camp have rebutted the interpretation. Nicholas however uses the "prince of Russia" title (for example in his website), not only the prince Romanov(ski) title. Shilkanni 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

according to Brien Purcell Horan's essay, "Nicholas Romanoff's dispute concerns the 1992 succession. He argues that he, and not Grand Duchess Maria, is the lawful successor of Grand Duke Wladimir." This is a citation of Nicholas' claim and pretendership. Shilkanni 04:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The sustainable headship he has, is (in my opinion) his elected headship of the Romanov Family. It's an old tradition of Russia (and of clans having a tradition resembling salic patrimony) that agnates may together make decisions to determine new things or changes in their house. No one probably disputes that Romanov Family Association forms a community of a family calling themselves Romanov, and that the said Romanov Family have entrusted NR to be its head. Shilkanni 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leiningen equality

(from above:) "...BTW, in some article or other, the Leiningen marriage is described as morganatic? If so, man, the Russian rules were some serious business. Even the Habsburgs could've married a Leiningen dynastically. john k 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(Start playful mode) That's because Emperor Paul who apparently regarded Habsburgs little more than greedy bumpkins who had got some more fields to plow by marriages with other central European landowners, would have deemed the Leiningen princes as comparative trailer trash within the so-called royalty. Perhaps Paul would have allowed a Leiningen to assist his own imperial bearer of chamberpot (who seems to have been a Rurikid) after a careful check of credentials, but little more. In 1797, when Paul legislated the house law, Leiningens had been "princely" just some 20 years, and Paul regarded them as parvenues. (Stop playful mode). I made a study of Leiningen history some hours ago. Shilkanni 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Leiningen was a HRE medieval noble family with an own county. It is not clear from sources whether they were immediate vassals of emperor, or just mediate, being vassals of an ancient duchy, or of an elector such as Trier, Mainz or Palatine. They seem to have belonged (at least since 1779) to the comital bench of Wetterau and held no individual vote in Reichstag.

William Addams Reitwiesner has studied designation of mediatized families, chiefly on basis of d'Arenberg's dissertation. Reitwiesner offers an amazement over how several families got that status from post-Napoleonic governments (and further from "overnationalistic" editors of Gotha) without a proper actual history of being immediate imperial vassals and truly princely and really holders of landeshoheit in HRE days. Of Leiningen, Reitwiesner mentions that their first claim to sovereignty comes from 1803 Reichsdeputationshauptschluss, which was deemed illegitimate because it was never confirmed by the Holy Roman Emperor. Leiningen was elevated to princely rank in 1779, but was not able to garner a full place in the Reichstag, a full status of Reichsstand, because something lacked despite of their new princely rank: lacking Landeshoheit and/or lacking immediacy and/or consent of all the requisite chambers of "peers". The history of princely ranks is that those received before 1582 were "Old", and those granted between 1582 and 1641 were "New" (for example, Liechstenstein was a new principality, its rank was given in 1608). This leaves grants from 1641 onwards as something like parvenues, those that did not necessarily receive an own place in Reichstag (= were just something like "titled nobility").

Head of Leiningen's senior branch was elevated in 1779 to princely rank. Relatively late. They were not sovereign in any way before 1803. 1803 they received a compensation in Franconian lands as heir original possessions on left bank of Rhine were lost to France. 1803-06 any sovereignty depends on the legality of the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss, which is questioned. Until 1806 they were vassals of Emperor. In 1806 they were annexed anyway (stricter people tend to say that only those who survived 1806 and received independence/ sovereignty AFTER the last Holy Roman Emperor abdicated, have been sovereign rulers in reality). Later, Austria, Bavaria, Baden and Grand Duchy of Hesse recognized them as mediatized Standesherren. Titles and styles are not costly nor a scarce unrenewable resource, and that's a clear reason why those whose lands were taken under a new state, were rather generously given such. Those, Austria, Bavaria, Baden and Grand Duchy of Hesse had anyway traditions to allow their dynasts' marriages with other German families who had a comital rank from Middle Ages. It says nothing very convincing whether Leiningen was in any time sovereign. Shilkanni 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Leiningens were de facto sovereign from 1803 to 1806, and were, at any rate, certainly treated as equal by every dynasty in Europe other than the Saltykov-Holstein-Gottorps. The Leuchtenbergs were never sovereign in any way at all, but that marriage was clearly dynastic. I think the question is whether Cyril considered his older daughter's marriage to be morganatic or not, not whether or not one might consider it morganatic. john k 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Leiningen family's good standing in views of the real royalty (to which they did not belong) is actually from the fact that their early generation were half-siblings of someone who was from 1837 relatively important and perceived among top-royalty. I think. That however does not enhance the ancestry of those gal and guy, as they were scions of a person originally lowly count and a daughter of an impoverished duke. This view may explain in part why Emperor Paul, that pisshead, would highly probably viewed them as "trailer trash" (remember that old Paulie was badly screwed in head) - although Paul's younger son Nicky I was much much kinder in his rankings (had it been Nicky to legislate the house law, we probably would have had a rather lenient thing and later Panslavist Tsars would have married Russian princesses instead of those Germans). Shilkanni 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the so-called Pauline Laws were promulgated in 1797 by Emperor Paul I of Russia. But equality of birth was only added in 1820 by Alexander I following, as was usually the case with such laws outside of Germany, the elopement of his brother Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich of Russia with a non-royal. It is the only post-1797 law that any Russian emperor added to the list of the 11 so-called "inviolable articles" -- laws governing the succession which could not be altered, and which every emperor and heir-presumptive was required by law to swear twice to uphold unchanged, once prior to accession and once again at coronation. Lethiere 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that they must be regarded as unequal. I just collected facts that I found. They seem to give a good "too new, not truly sovereign" argument if some would like to make such. No wonder that/if some have made it. (As they were until 1806 subject to HRE and at that point of time they were annexed, they were never truly sovereign - only those who survived 1806 seem to uncontestedly enjoy the "ruling house" stipulation of Pauline Laws.) Actually, no wonder, as they were holders of a tiny slice in any stage of history anyway. The above points are good to know if some editor comes with a citation that the marriage's dynasticity was questioned/ opposed. Also nice if we get toknow what Kiril himself decided, but even in case he approved and some others opposed, the opposition should also be written to the article. Shilkanni 04:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That Leiningen was considered equal had very little to do with Queen Victoria. Well before Victoria's birth, the Leiningens were already equal enough to marry into the old princely Saxe-Coburg family, and they were granted full princely status in 1803. The key would be to know what Kirill himself decided, I think. Obviously there are arguments either way. The only comparisons I can find under the Empire are the Leuchtenberg marriage and the (first) Bagration marriage. The former was considered dynastic, the latter not. All other marriages of dynasts under the Empire were either clearly morganatic, or to members of families which were at that time ruling over countries. But I don't see any standard whereby Leuchtenberg is equal and Leiningen is not. john k 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuchtenberg: an explanation is that Maximilian belonged to the House of the former French Emperor (Eugene and his children were defined as Princes Francais by Napoleon, i.e members of the imperial house). That house had ruled over an empire and over the Italian kingdom. Nobody is able to question that Nicholas was entitled to see them in that way, if he wanted. Whereas the Leiningen house never had anything even close. Shilkanni 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course one can question that Nicholas was entitled to view the Beauharnaises as an equal family. Note that Napoleon III (a first cousin of said Duke of Leuchtenberg) was unable to find even a mediatized bride a few decades later, and that Prince Napoleon's marriage to Clotilde of Savoy was very controversial. Of course, the Duke of Leuchtenberg's brother had been married to the Queen of Portugal, and his sister was the Crown Princess of Sweden, but a Bonapartist marriage into the Russian imperial family in the 1830s must surely have been a bit controversial. The status of the Leuchtenbergs as a ruling family is obviously open to serious question. And while Eugene had been made a Prince Français, his son, born in 1817, obviously had not been, and so far as I'm aware was never recognized as such by anybody. Recognizing a non-Bonaparte as a "French prince" at a time when France was a monarchy under a different dynasty is ridiculously dubious. The basic issue is that Nicholas I was emperor, and he ruled the marriage dynastic, and that was that. It is Nicholas's recognition, and not any inherent superiority of a Leuchtenberg marriage to a Leiningen one, that makes the difference. Which means that the only useful piece of information, as far as I'm concerned, is whether Cyril viewed his daughter's marriage as dynastic or not. I suppose there's a point of view that exiled heads of houses don't have the same rights with regard to recognizing equal marriages that reigning emperors do, but if not the head of house, how else could the dynasticity of marriages of exiled houses ever be established? john k 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Maximilian inherited his father's status. Those of Eugene's children who were born before Napoleon's oust, inherited it (and were recognized), why not Max. I think nobody specifically created any of them after Eugene himself had been adopted and recognized, they just inherited. Josephine of Leuchtenberg inherited by birth the Princess Francais and, more importantly, princess of Italy; whereas she was specifically created duchess of Galliera by Napoleon. (A curiosity detail of Eugene's family is that they were designated to succeed as kings of Italy and Grand Dukes of Frankfurt, ahead of Reichstadt boy.) I am not saying that the Leuchtenberg were top, only pointing the asked difference between them and the Leiningen. As you see, there is an arguable difference, therefore it is unfuitful to equate Leiningen and Leuchtenberg.
Of course a Bonaparte marriage was controversial in those days, but the chief reasons for such were political and "feelings", not that Bonapartes were a formerly ruling house. Why Napoleon III did not manage to have a mediatized princess, reasons may be personal. It's not a supermarket so a monarch can choose from shelves and pay. Possibly that story is a myth. Who was the princess? If she (and her family) had sworn vengeance against Bonapartes, Napoleon I may have done something inexcusable to them or to their relatives. Shilkanni 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Were they imperial highnesses? Can you provide any evidence they were ever styled as French dynasts? Of course the Leuchtenberg status is different from the Leiningen. The two aren't directly comparable. In terms of Napoleon III, I have no idea what you're talking about. Napoleon III wanted to marry a princess. That he was unable to do so is evidenced by the fact that he was forced to marry a Spanish noblewoman. There was no specific princess who refused to marry him - it's more that there was no eligible lady from a ruling or mediatized house proved willing to accept his attentions. And this isn't about "feelings" - it's that most of the royal houses of Europe (and certainly the Romanovs, who were the snobbiest of all) did not consider the Bonapartes or their Beauharnais or Murat relations to be genuine dynasts at all. They were upstarts, and not properly part of the royalty of Europe. The Beauharnaises came off best because Eugene was given mediatized territory in Germany and they were treated as standesherren by the King of Bavaria, Eugene's father-in-law, not because they had any kind of status as princes of France, recognition of which would have caused serious diplomatic problems with the restored Bourbons and even, later on, with the Orleanses. I'd like to see some evidence that Nicholas I's argument for the dynasticity of the Leuchtenberg marriage was due to their supposed status as French dynasts, rather than to their status as mediatized German nobility, granted by the King of Bavaria - I find it hard to believe that he would recognize Bonapartist titles at all - he wouldn't even call Napoleon III "brother" in his initial letter to him. At any rate, the Leuchtenberg marriage is considered dynastic because Nicholas treated it as such. He could just as easily have said it was not dynastic (or forbidden the match entirely), and nobody would have demurred, I should think. My point is that Leuchtenberg was not an obvious call at all, and that the Leiningens have a different, but comparable, claim to sovereign status as the Leuchtenbergs, if Cyril wanted to consider them as such. Certainly the Leiningens' claim to sovereign status is better than that of any of the other non-dynastic marriages we are discussing. It is clearly worse than all the dynastic marriages save the Leuchtenberg (with which it is comparable) and the Bagration. john k 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the Russian marriage in 1839 Maximilian, Duke of Leuchtenberg was "Serene Highness". He and his father held titles as "Prince Français" under the 1st (but not the 2nd) Empire, as did Napoleon I's brothers. But the Beauharnais never had rights of succession to the French crown. They did enjoy rights of reversion to the crowns of Frankfurt and Italy, but the empire did not survive long enough for these reversions to elevate the Beauharnais to sovereignty. Napoleon III was rejected by Queen Victoria's half-niece, Princess Adelaide of Hohenlohe-Langenburg. Nicholass II was never engaged to Hélène d'Orléans (member of a dethroned dynasty) but noted in his diary that his parents wished him to marry her despite his love for Alix of Hesse. Lethiere 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maximilian could not have held the title of "Prince Français" under the First Empire, as he was not born until 1817, surely? The titles of the First Empire seem generally to have been considered to have been extinguished alongside the Empire itself - Napoleon II was merely "Duke of Reichstadt," Joseph was "Comte de Survilliers," Louis "Comte de Saint-Leu," Jerome "Prince of Montfort," Eugene "Duke of Leuchtenberg". Hortense was "Duchess of Saint-Leu," and Marie Louise was Duchess of Parma. How were Joseph's, Louis's, and Jerome's children known after 1815? At any rate, it still strikes me as unlikely that Nicholas I would actually present the Leuchtenbergs' supposed status as French dynasts as the basis for the dynasticity of the marriage in 1839. Their status as de facto members of the Bavarian royal family seems much more plausible, or else their generally recognized status as a mediatized family, but neither of those explanations helps with an attempt to distinguish the Leuchtenberg match from the Leiningen one. It's worth noting that the House of Orleans was always in Section I of the Gotha, despite their dethroned status, even under the Second Empire, whereas the Leuchtenbergs were always in Section II. john k 04:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy Stair Sainty's reference to Maximilian's "sovereignty" assessment speaks of "Eugène had reigned as Regent in Italy and.... had the right of reversion of the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt". Apparently those counted, ather thanLeuchtenbwrg which was NOT mediatized thing. Shilkanni 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that in the 1838 Almanach de Gotha, Leiningen and Leuchtenberg are both in Section II ("Non-Sovereign Princes"), right next to each other, in fact. john k 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. According to Reitwiesner, that was yet an year when German and non-German princely families were not separated in AdG - it took place after Franco-Prussian War. Note that the rubric is "non-sovereign", as opposed to the then part 1 that consisted of "sovereign houses". I am quite certain how the word "ruling" is to be allotted between these two categories. In the part 1 there were all the smallest ones, including Liechtenstein, Reuss and Schaumburg-Lippe, as they had sovereign rulers. And if you look carefully, the part 2 lists all such important and yet not equal families as Alba, Rohan, Orsini and whatever. If they are anywhere in that edition, part 2 also lists such as Ruffo and some Russian princely families and Czartoryski and Ruspoli and Boncompagni-Ludovisi and Decazes-Glücksbierg and Leinster and Norfolk and Galitzin, they belong precisely to that part 2 in Adg of that era. (In those days, part 3 was reserved for mediatized counts of HRE, and no one else, mediatized princes were in part 2.)

The more I look at cases of marriages in Russian Imperial House, the clearer it seems to me that Pauline Laws meant, with "Ruling Houses", those houses who actually reign over a sovereign place, AND NOT mediatized houses. The mediatized houses are a German creation, their equality was promised inside Germany, namely with treaties and decisions in the Bundes organs in the first decades after 1815. Nowhere do such German organs have power to say to Russian law that some families which German Bund designates, are to be treated as ruling by Russia and Russia's laws. And, really, no marriage actually took place with a mediatized house, save Maria's with Leiningen (under the assumption that Nicholas I regarded Leuchtenberg -which was not a mediatized one, anyway- being royal in virtue of the lost Kingdom of Italy, or somesuch reason - "including Leuchtenberg, no marriage took place with mediatized houses, save Maria Kirillovna's, because Leuchtenberg truly was not mediatized"). All the existence of Pauline Laws in imperial era, russian dynasts were carefully wed with members of actually ruling German petty princeling houses. A conclusion can be drawn that mediatized did not signify "ruling" to Russian jurisprudence. Shilkanni 05:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But Leuchtenberg was not a ruling house. It was not ruling at the time, and somebody will need to present some evidence before I accept that Nicholas viewed it as a ruling house on the basis of Eugene's status as a "Prince Français" under the Empire and his place in the succession to the defunct Grand Duchy of Frankfurt and Kingdom of Italy, which, in 1839, were generally not recognized by most as having ever been legitimate. I would be incredibly dubious to see Nicholas, who did not consider the Orleans to be a legitimate dynasty, and who did not address Napoleon III as "brother" in his first letter to him as emperor, would accept such a thing, rather than accepting the Leuchtenbergs as equal on the basis of their de facto status as mediatized princes, their close relationship to the Bavarian royal family, and their previous marriages into the Portuguese and Brazilian royal/imperial families. We certainly can't accept this a priori, without any evidence except supposition. The fact that one might consider the Leuchtenbergs to be a ruling family on this basis is not evidence that Nicholas I did do so, and it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that he would have done this. So, evidence, please. john k 17:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Leuchtenberg marriage was accepted as dynastic due to Maximilian's mother being Princess Auguste of Bavaria, daughter of Maximilian I Joseph, King of Bavaria and Marie of Hessen-Darmstadt. It's the only explanation I can think of. Just a thought. Tim Foxworth 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one such source that maintains Napoleonic rulerships as basis of Max's eligibility in Nicholas' eyes. Brien Purcell Horan, "The Russian imperial succession", footnote 64: "...Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna (1819-1876), daughter of Emperor Nicholas I, married Maximilien de Beauharnais, Duke of Leuchtenberg. Maximilien was the son of Eugene de Beauharnais. Although Eugene began life as a French vicomte and thus a minor nobleman, his status advanced after his widowed mother Josephine married General Napoleon Bonaparte. After making himself Emperor of the French in 1804, Napoleon I recognized his stepson Eugene as an imperial prince... Maximilien was thus considered a French dynast and it was on this basis that Nicholas I recognized Grand Duchess Maria's marriage to him as an equal marriage and specified that the children of the marriage were in the Russian line of succession, with seniority after the successible male line descendants of Emperor Paul I. At the time of Maria's marriage to Maximilien in 1839, there were very few Russian male dynasts: Nicholas I, his younger brother Michael (who had no living sons), and the four young sons of Nicholas I, all unmarried and aged 6 to 21. In 1839, Nicholas I decided that the de Beauharnais satisfied the Russian equal birth requirements as members of the French imperial house, a dynasty which in 1839 had been a formerly sovereign dynasty for more than 20 years; the French imperial house did not regain sovereignty until 1852, when Maximilien de Beauharnais's first cousin restored the Bonaparte dynasty and ascended the French throne as Emperor Napoleon III." In my personal opinion, having read quite a lot about the conservative Nicky's detailed governmental actions, he looks like a rather kind and lenient person. Perhaps he just was in quandary: favorite daughter really wanted a certain thing, the young man was nice and obedient and of not too bad birth, certainly did not himself represent revolutionary ideas, and was additionally a way to have the daughter to remain in St.Petersburg (which would have been less likely with a really royal marriage). The same Nicky did something very pragmatic, when his certain ministers wanted to create more assimilation in a corner of the empire, and I have thought that such is act of a man who was prepared to make casualistic decisions. Shilkanni 20:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Shillkanni - your assessment of Nicholas's situation seems perfectly fine, and the quote is interesting, but I don't find a very general statement that Maximilian was considered equal on his supposed basis as a French dynast compelling, unless there's some actual specific, primary source backing it up. The basic issue is that there was a perfectly reasonable alternative way to recognize the Leuchtenbergs as equal - to either consider them as part of the Bavarian royal family, or to consider them as a mediatized princely family, and to consider that such families count as "sovereign" under the Pauline laws, as they did under every other house law in Europe. I find it difficult to believe that Nicholas would recognize deprecated Bonapartist titles, not used at the time even by the actual Bonapartes (Joseph in 1839 called himself the "Comte de Survilliers," Louis the "Comte de Saint-Leu," and Jerome the "Prince of Montfort"), much less the Leuchtenbergs, when there were other options readily available that would allow him to consider the Leuchtenberg match dynastic. But this really doesn't go to the matter of this page, or the Leiningen match. What it does seem to me is that if one recognizes the Bagration match, one ought also to recognize the Leiningen one, since both were questionable judgments of sovereignty made by an exiled head of house. The idea that Maria is head of house, but that the Leiningen marriage is morganatic, seems more or less indefensible to me. john k 02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we're looking too closely at the "tree" -- Max's 1839 marriage -- and not closely enough at the "forest" i.e., the status of the Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs in 1839. By that date, Max's elder siblings had dynastically wed as follows: 1.Joséphine (1807-76) to Crown Prince Oscar of Sweden 2.Eugénie (1808-47) to Friedrich Wilhelm, reigning Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen 3.Auguste, 2nd Duke von Leuchtenberg (1810-35) to Maria II, Queen of Portugal, and 4. Amélie (1812-73) to Pedro I, ex-King of Portugal, reigning Emperor of Brazil. Nicholas I of Russia did not need to justify acceptance of Maximilian de Beauharnais as his dynastic son-in-law to anyone -- especially not after Max's siblings had married so well. So I think it's fruitless to argue "on what grounds" he did so, because none was needed at the time. So far as I know, while the King of Bavaria gave the Leuchtenbergs a princely fideicommis (Eichstätt) and precedence after the royal family, they were never legally Standesherren, and it is doubtful that their Ebenbürtigkeit could have legally derived therefrom anyway because the Congress of Vienna's treaty preserved that privilege for dynasties that had previously possessed it (even if briefly or tenuously) within the Holy Roman Empire, but it did not raise families to a status they could not have claimed, at least arguably, under the Empire (Leiningen, on the other hand...). Nor were the Beauharnais "members" of the Bavarian royal family, although they held the same semi-Salic rights to its throne that all female-line descendants retained. In fact, they were not permitted to use the title "Prinz/Prinzessin", which Bavaria withheld (at that time) from mediatized families and reserved for members of its own dynasty. Thus, they were "Furst/in von Leuchtenberg", like ordinary nobles, rather than "Prinz/essin von Leuchtenberg", which would have suggested dynasticity. The fact simply is that after Napoleon's downfall, Eugène emerged, alone among the Bonaparte detritus, as well-liked by everyone (but the restored Bourbons), including his Bavarian father-in-law, but generally the Great Powers held him in high personal esteem for great honor, and the Congress of Vienna promised, but failed to deliver, him a principality. His familial nearness to royalty, during and after Napoleon, placed him in a gray zone, his personality and affiliations recommended him, and reigning monarchs welcomed him -- very much like the later Battenbergs (who were rejected as in-laws only by the Prussian Hohenzollerns). This is where the monarch's right to exercise Imperial discretion came in. Once exercised, that discretion created a precedent for other Russian emperors de jure. Leonida benefitted from it. So, one can argue, did the Leiningens. Lethiere 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is fair enough, I suppose. You're right that the forest has been lost for the trees here, certainly. My original point with all this was that the Leuchtenberg marriage is not obviously more dynastic than a Leiningen one. You note that Leuchtenberg marriages were accepted as dynastic by other houses - which is of course true, but the original point being made was that the Leuchtenbergs, descended from a man who was never a sovereign of anywhere (unless one counts his supposed one day as Grand Duke of Frankfurt, which I see no reason for), were somehow *obviously* equal under the Pauline Laws because of their somewhat dubious status as French dynasts, while the Leiningens, as mediatized princes, were not. The Leiningens were a small family, and so far as I can tell there was only one marriage with a then-ruling house - with a princess of Baden in 1858. But one can point to numerous marriages between sovereign houses and families in exactly the same position as the Leiningens which were certainly considered dynastic. Is there any example of a situation in the 19th/early 20th century where any reigning European dynasty ever rejected a marriage between one of its dynasts and an ancient imperial comital or princely house like Leiningen, Hohenlohe, Salm, Arenberg, Oettenheim, Löwenstein-Wertheim, or whatever on the basis that it would be unequal? As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think anyone would have considered the Leuchtenbergs to be more appropriate matches than such families, which was the original point. Cyril approved his daughter's marriage to a Leiningen, and considered it dynastic. I can't see any particular reason that we should be calling it "morganatic.", or excluding the Leiningens from their dormant succession rights on that basis. john k 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One such example is Frederick William III of Prussia's second marriage (wed at Charlottenburg 9 November 1824) countess Auguste of Harrach who was created Fürstin von Liegnitz and Gräfin von Hohenzollern because of the morganatic nature of the marriage (she lived: born Harrach 30 Aug 1800- died Homburg 5 Jun 1873). See also de:Auguste von Harrach. Harrach was a mediatized count house (from the comital bench of Swabia, mediatized in 1806, same year as were also the Leiningen). His first, dynastic wife had been Louise of Strelitz, and Strelitz as slice of immediate territorial holding was possibly not much larger than the possessions of the Harrach, but Strelitz were a long-established family, members of the House of Mecklenburg. My point however has been and is that a royal house outside Germany, because not bound by any German law of equality for mediatized ones, would have been very able to reject such mariages as non-dynastic; now here we have a famous example that actually a German royal house did so (and my understanding is that because they were kings already before 1804, they regarded themselves too high for former immediate counts; only those German kingdoms which were created from duchies in 1804-06, seem to have accepted those counts as equal). Shilkanni 11:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Harrach was a far less distinguished family than Leiningen. The Harrachs were merely personalists in the comital bench of Swabia (meaning they did not have any immediate territories), and had no seats in the Imperial Circle Estates, whereas the Leiningens were full members of the Counts of the Wetterau, and members of the comital bench of the Upper Rhenish Circle. Furthermore, the Leiningens were elevated to princely status, which the Harrachs never were, and had been put into the council of princes. But the Harrach case is a special one - I can't think of any other instances of this, and as I understand it, the inequality of the marriage had as much to do with the beloved memory of Queen Luise as anything else (think Camilla, today). BTW, in 1910, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia's marriage to Princess Agathe of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst was considered dynastic. So were Habsburg marriages to Windischgrätz, Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst, Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Waldburg-Zeil, Salm-Salm, Stolberg-Stolberg, Isenburg, Croy, and various other mediatized families. The fact is, on the Russian side, we have absolutely no examples of a reigning Russian emperor considering a marriage with a mediatized German prince to be unequal. We have only the somewhat comparable Leuchtenberg case, and the Leiningen case, made after the end of the empire. In both cases, the head of house judged the marriage dynastic. There is no reason to think that a Leiningen match should be viewed as non-dynastic under the Pauline Laws, and the only time it was put to the test, the then head of house ruled it dynastic. A previous emperor had ruled a marriage with a prince of similarly questionable "ruling" status as dynastic almost a century before. That's the basic point. The head of house always has leeway to consider a marriage non-dynastic (although not that much leeway - apparently Nicholas could not consider Cyril's marriage to be non-dynastic), but no head of the imperial house ever said that marriages to mediatized dynasties were not dynastic. They simply didn't conclude any until after the end of the empire. That's a different issue entirely. john k 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas II could and did consider Cyril's marriage non-dynastic initially: his wife Victoria Melita of Edinburgh was not recognized as a grandduchess and Cyril's first daughter was not recognized as a dynast or registered in the Book of the Imperial Family. What the Emperor's own commission officially advised him was that he could not legally strip Cyril of his personal right of succession as punishment for marrying in defiance of Imperial command -- or for any other reason. Russia's Pauline Laws recognized the possibility of two dynastic phenomena that the laws of some other monarchies did not: 1. dynasts who could inherit the throne, but whose legitimate children could not succeed to that throne (if morganatic), and 2. ex-dynasts who (through renunciation) could not succeed to the throne personally, but whose children, born before or after renunciation, could succeed if born of an Imperially authorized and equal marriage (just as Lord Frederick Windsor inherited the right to succeed to Britain's crown through his father, Prince Michael of Kent, although Michael had forfeited his own right to succeed prior to fathering Frederick). That's why princes and princesses marrying morganatically were required to renounce in return for the monarch's permission to marry -- otherwise the temptation to de-morganatize one's own children might prove too strong for an acceding emperor or empress. Lethiere 10:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of mediatized brides/grooms being rejected by reigning dynasties, it was rare but Css Auguste von Harrach was not unique (although I agree that the so-called Personalist mediatized families were an unusual, neither-fish-nor-fowl case). The Habsburgs' list of acceptable mediatized families not only excluded all countly and some princely mediatized families, but it even accepted some branches of the same family as equal, while rejecting others (Solms, Isenburgs, Fuggers, Leiningens, and Schonburgs). The 1902 marriage of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria's granddaughter Archduchess Elisabeth to Otto Weriand Fürst zu Windisch-Graetz was declared unequal, presumably because the Windisch-Graetz lacked both an Ebenburtigkeit requirement and sufficient noble quarterings, since the family was on the 1900 list of approved mediatized families. The marriage of ex-Empress of France Marie Louise of Austria, Duchess of Parma to Count Adam von Neipperg was unequal to both the Habsburgs and Neippergs, although in the latter case this was presumably because the couple's children were spurii. It is also alleged that the issue of Princess Barbara of Bourbon-Sicily's 1922 marriage to Count Franz Xaver zu Stolberg-Wernigerode were denied dynastic recognition by Alfonso XIII of Spain. Still, the Leuchtenbergs were not listed on Austria's list of approved mediatized houses, whereas the branch of the Leiningens into which Maria Kirilovna married was included on that list. Lethiere 10:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

those comte titles were so-called incognito names, they were not serious titles. "comte something" had become in 18th c, or already in 17th c, somewhat "thirteen-in-dozen" thing, persons successfully vanished from radar by being such. Long time ago I read a book about the Bonaparte diaspora etc. They were just trying to live. They also were obeying the commandments of Napoleon's testament: they married their cousins, there were a couple of such marriages in just those decades (to keep dynasticity). After over twenty years, Napoleon-heroism was popular in many circles, some aristocratic included. Montfort was a serious Wurttemberg title, there was some property included, and it was part of Catherine's inheritance. Actually, her Bonaparte heirs have used it sometimes afterwards too. Perhaps in the difficult one decade or so after Napoleon's fall, Bonapartes were pariahs, but rehabilitation started soon. Napoleonic nobility was holding high positions in France already in L XVIII's reign, and particularly after L-Ph got kingship; and those nobles married well if they wanted. (wasn't several of Nap's brothers already dead in 1839?) Shilkanni 06:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the names used, besides Montfort, were not actual titles, but rather names used because the others were inappropriate. The point is that a title actually indicating membership in a royal or imperial family was not used. Note that, by contrast, the legitimist pretender took the name "Comte de Chambord," after a famous royal castle, that the Orléanist pretender would be "Comte de Paris," the title held by the Capetian family prior to taking the throne of France, and that the post-Second Empire Bonapartist pretenders were known as "Prince Napoléon". This is in stark contrast to the titles used by the various Bonaparte dynasts - Duke of Reichstadt, Count of Survilliers, Prince of Montfort, Duke of Leuchtenberg, etc. - none of which bore any obvious connection to the

We were discussing about the Leuchtenberg as a sideline: it came here because of a claim approximately that as Leuchtenbers were regarded as just mediatized and no other reason made them equal and eligible for Russian dynastical marriages, the marriage of Max L. with Maria, daughter of Nicholas I, and the succession rights guarantees to her Luchtenberg descendants, proves that mediatized houses, and Leiningen as such, are also similarly eligible. However, we have now attestations that dynasticity of the Napoleonic creature Italian kingdom (where Max actually was in 1839 the heir, as Napoleon had died without second son), and a guess that sideline attachment to Bavarian royal succession, were reasons. Therefore, the Leuchtenberg case helps not at all the position of the Leiningens. I am not saying that Leiningens are regarded non-dynastics by Mariaists (or Vladimirovichi), but I am of an opinion that possibly 19th c reigning emperors did not accept marriages with mediatizeds as dynastic. There is, despite requests, no facts presented to support that mediatizeds were accepted when the empire yet existed. And, the word "ruling" has a clear meaning. Formerly ruling, if high enough, were presumably accepted under the term "royal"; but formerly ruling petty princelings seem to have been out. Think of it:if all sorts of formerly ruling princeling houses were accepted, that means also bunches of Russian princes were acceptable, and now severalhowever claim that they were not accepted by reigning emperors. Shilkanni 06:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just struggled through these exchanges and would like to add some comments; my view as to the "equality" of the Leuchtenbergs was not because of the French and Frankfurt connections, but because of the treatment of Prince Eugene at the Congress of Vienna and the fact that he and his descendants were given a special position in Bavaria immediately following the princes of the royal houses and before the mediatised princes. The marriage was an attractive prospect because the groom brought with him a huge fortune. I do not believe it is reasonable to compare either the Leininingens or the Galitzins and certainly not the Ruffos, with the Bagratids. The latter had reigned over a significant territory whose monarchs had at various times signed formal treaties with the Shahs of Persia and the Russian Emperors. Unlike the Leiningens their sovereignty was not constrained by fealty to a superior ruler (such as the Holy Roman Emperor), and the Leiningen held only an immediate county, and quite an unimportant one, even though they had been elevated to the rank of prince. The Ruffos were of ancient nobility, but were not sovereign, and the feudatories they held at various times never allowed them to claim any of the rights associated with sovereignty. As for the Galitzins, they descended from a sovereign house, but one which had lost any claim to reign anywhere for so many centuries that it had never been recognised by the Russian Tsars as enjoying sovereign rights. The Bagratids reigned as immediate rulers of a province subordinate to their Bagratid cousins; the 17th century sovereign prince of Moukhranie himself became ruler of Kartli and the fact that this was deposed by the line that reigned last in Georgia is of no more importance than the fact that the line of Charles X was deposed by the Orleans. No-one would seriously have disputed that Henri Count of Chambord or any descendants he may have had were not royal. The French kings made it absolutely clear on many occasions that the line of Princes of Condé were French royal dynasts, even though the last reigning king of France in their direct male line was Louis IX who died in 1318, yet this did not inhibit their right to be treated as Princes du Sang Royal. The reasons why the Grousinskys were cast into outer darkness as mere Russian nobles was because the autocratic Emperor wished to expunge any suggestion that they might somehow reclaim the sovereign rights that Russia had deliberately breached when it broke the 1783 treaty. For similar reasons the Emperor would not have recognized the Bagration Muchransky line. However, one cannot ignore the fact that this marginalisation of the Bagratids was a political act, and may be compared with (for example) the treatment accorded the Stuarts by the Hanoverians and their allies, the treatment of the Vasas by the Bernadottes, and the treatment of the Hanoverian and Nassau royal houses by Prussia, at least for a few years after 1866. Yet, the last Russian Emperors always treated the senior branch of their own male line family, the Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg and Glucksburg as part of a ruling house, even though these dukes had not enjoyed any kind of sovereign status since the 1630s. What then is the logic of depriving the senior Bagratids of that rank when not only had their direct male line enjoyed immediate sovereign status as late as 1800, but their cousins had ruled in Georgia until 1801 and Imeritia even later. And particularly important in this argument and of some influence on Wladimir in 1946 when he was asked to rule on the status of the Bagrations by the Infante D. Fernando is the fact that Georgia itself had briefly regained its independence following the collapse of Russia. The 1946 decision was not made without consultation, but actually followed the Grand Duke Wladimir's close consultation with the oldest surviving Grand Duke. Hence he followed here the practice of the reigning Emperors when consulting their own family council. Guy Stair Sainty

Guy, was the "oldest surviving grand duke" at this time Vladimir's uncle, Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovich? Did Cyril consult with anyone on his decision as to the dynasticity of his daughter's Leiningen marriage? The senior dynast at the time was Nicholas Nikolaevich, but as I understand it he did not recognize Cyril as head of house, nor did his brother. This would make, um, Michael Mikhailovich the senior dynast in 1925 who actually recognized Cyril. Was he consulted? or his brother Alexander Mikhailovich, who was next most senior? john k 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was the Grand Duke Andrew; but I do not think Grand Duke Kyrill did consult anyone over the Leiningen marriage. He and his wife took a very Germanic view and considered that the "equality" of the Leiningen's was not in doubt - the 4th Furst, after all, had married an Archduchess, and although like all Archduchesses she had had to renounce, it was not considered by the Austrian Emperor to be marrying unequally. They had also married Saxe-Weimars and into other princely mediatised houses and strictly enforced their own house laws on marriage at the time. YThe Hohenlohe's (Grand Duchess Kira's mother-in-law was a Hohenlohe-Langenburg) were certainly treated as equal by most European houses for marriage purposes. IMO the issue of the marriage is a red herring; what the Russian dispute is really about is family likes and dislikes, jealousies and resentment, as in so many families and to justify changing allegiances the controversy over the marriages has been drafted in aid. I knew Prince Vsevelode quite well, both before and after Grand Duchess Maria was declared (undiplomatically, in my view) Curatrix of the throne. Before hand Vsevolode was 100% in support of Wladimir, and had asked him to give each of his wives titles, which Wladimir obliged. Then it was Prince Roman Petrovich who persuaded him that the Grand Duke Wladimir's declaration was an insult to the family, and got him to sign the letter, drafted by Roman that they signed along with Prince Andrew. But what is important in this letter (and somewhere I have a copy given to me by Prince Vsevolode), was the clear statement that the marriages of the children of both Roman and Andrew and all the other dynasts, were morganatic. Hence the assertion by some of these descendants, notably Nicholas Romanov, of the title of Prince of Russia would not have been supported even by their own fathers.

[edit] lines of succession, 1796-1989

I've made a list of the lines of succession from 1796 to 1989 (1917-1989 being based on the list of fully approved male dynasts born under the monarchy, plus Vladimir Kirillovich). Would this be useful for the article? john k 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please show that material before its inclusion. It will be a biiggg bunch, won't it? Do you have it somewhere in your user pages for display. Shilkanni 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is quite long - 40 pages in Word. I'll put up a user page, but it might take a while, as I need to wikify. I also used Paul's accession as a start date, rather than the date of the promulgation of the Pauline Laws, which I was unsure of. john k 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives

[edit] Line of Vladimir Alexandrovich (known as the Vladimirichi)

If one accepts Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich of Russia's marriage to Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya, a member of a male-line non-ruling by-branch of the Bagrationi Dynasty, as valid, then the following is his line of succession to the Imperial Throne of Russia:

Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia (b. 1953)
Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, Prince of Prussia (b. 1981)
Princess Ekaterina Ivanovna of Russia (born 1915), as the other surviving female dynast of the Imperial House itself, according to Maria Vladimirovna's account [1]

After George, the male line of Grand Duchess Maria is extinct. If both died without further male heirs, the throne would then follow semi-salic succession and will presumably (provided she survives the much younger nr 1 and 2) firstly pass to princess Ekaterina Ivanovna, Dowager Marchioness of Villaforesta, in her capacity of a surviving male-line female dynast.

Afterwards, or particularly in case of princess Ekaterina predeceasing, the claim would pass either to Hereditary Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen, as nearest male relation to Maria and her son, or to nearest male Orthodox relative, be it Prince Karl Wladimir of Yugoslavia (born 1964, son of the late Princess Kira Melita of Leiningen), or Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia. Shilkanni 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely strict position

If one accepts only the strictest application of the House Law, the legitimate line of succession is currently already extinct and has been so since the 2001 death of Princess Vera Konstantinovna of Russia. This position takes the stance that no cognatic relative outside the dynasty may succeed; and that Vladimir Kirillovich's marriage with Leonida was not dynastic and that Vladimir's own designations cannot alter that. In this line of succession, Vladimir (1917-92) was de jure succeeded in 1992 by his surviving unmarried distant cousin Princess Vera Konstantinovna (1905-2001), the youngest daughter of the late Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich of Russia and his wife Jelizaveta Mavrikievna of Saxe-Altenburg. Princess Vera Konstatinovna belonged as founding member, and ultimately as its Honorary President, to the Romanov Family Association, which had already taken the position, subscribed by its members in writing, that no one will take up pretension to the throne of Russia. Apparently princess Vera Konstantinovna did not proclaim her accession.

Her niece, Jekaterina Ivanovna, is reported to have lost her succession rights in 1937.

However, if one accepts that a dynastically eligible cognatic lineage may succeed princess Vera, even if that lineage's ancestress who was Romanov dynast herself, is no longer living; and if one accepts her niece Jekaterina (who would be titularly Jekaterina III) not eligible, the closest cognatic relatives, in degree of kinship (the succession law of Russia uses the term "closest", which implies proximity of blood rather than primogeniture), at the moment of princess Vera's death were:

if counted from Nicholas II, the last reigning Emperor: firstly the issue (not any child but grandchildren were living) of his sister Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna of Russia, current survivors presumably all morganatic (senior among them is Prince Michael Andreyevich Romanov); and then several surviving great-great-grandchildren of Alexander II, including princess Kira Melita of Leiningen (1930-2005), was married with a prince of Yugoslavia; Frederick William of Prussia (born 1939), protestant, who married morganatically; king Michael of Romania (born 1927); prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (born 1924); etc.

if counted from princess Vera herself: the surviving children of her first cousins, prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, also known as Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who is no longer orthodox; prince Michael of Greece and Denmark (born 1939) who is orthodox and married morganatically Marina Karella; princess Ekaterini of Greece and Denmark, also known as lady Katherine Brandram, who seemingly is orthodox and whose marriage's official status in her royal house is not known; and princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark who married first a prince of Hesse-Kassel and secondly a prince of Brunswick-Luneburg-Hanover Shilkanni 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

from Assembly of Russian Nobility, "...third group of legitimists ... form the legitimate (dynasts) in the orthodox sense, who only acknowledge the old law of succession. They insist that all present day members of the Romanoff family are born from morganatic marriages (including Maria Vladimirovna) and consequently according to articles 36 and 188 can not pretend to the throne and that according to article 27 in the fundamental laws the throne of the Romanoffs must pass to the female lines according to the right of succession, in other words the closest to the last ruling monarch. Concerning this not everyone realizes, even the orthodox legitimists not realize, that this position leads to such heureistic conclusions. It is thoroughly studied in the article by V.U. Rikman and S.A.Sapozhnikov, on the grounds of which the present publication has been prepared. If drafted briefly, in the face of several assumptions, the succession to the throne would pass to the Karageorgevich dynasty- to the descendant of Prince Aleksander Yugoslavskii; to the Duke of Kent, a member of the British royal Family of Windsor, or to Prince Lainingenskii; or to the descendant of the Prince of the German and Prussian Louis-Ferdinand." Shilkanni 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

from published essay of Guy Stair Sainty, "The Russian imperial succession": "On 22 July 1970, Prince Vsevelode of Russia, who was the next male in line after Wladimir, wrote that after himself, Princes Roman and Andrew of Russia and the latter's surviving brothers, the dynasty would become extinct in the male line, since he did not consider any of the marriages of members of the Dynasty, including "Prince" (as he now referred to him) Wladimir's, to be in accord with the Fundamental Laws." Shilkanni 11:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Pavlovichi line

Soon after the 1917 Revolution, Russian monarchists attempted to organize a pretender's government, and most of such attempts took place in Paris. A group of monarchists gathered around Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich of Russia (1891-1942). Their reasoning was based on:

widely believed accusations of treason against Grand Duke Kiril Vladimirovich and an idea that Kiril had so lost his rights to succession by betraying his Emperor Nicholas II
the belief, affirmed by certain government memoranda in last decade or so of the imperial era, that an Emperor must be born of a woman of orthodox faith at the time of birth. This disqualified Kiril, Boris and Andrew from accession (although perhaps not from conveying succession rights to their legitimate issue).

Dmitri Pavlovich played with the idea of pretendership, but ultimately did recognize Kiril. This did not prevent most hard-liners to regard him as the de jure Emperor. The next problem for their line of succession came then from Dmitri's own marriage with a commoner woman in 1926. However, hardline opponents of Kiril justified that by an explanation that the head of the house is not bound by house law, and that actually the house law did not explicitly regulate anything upon the ruler's own marriage. This empowered them, in opposition to Kiril, to accept Dmitri's son, prince Paul Dmitrievich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky as their next shadow de jure Heir after Dmitri's death in 1942. Paul Ilyinsky himself did not participate in any of those activities. When communist regime fell apart in Russia, a delegation of private citizens from Russia traveled to Palm Beach, Florida, where Paul was mayor, and offered him the throne. Paul Ilyinsky declined. Paul is regarded, in accordance with HRE nobility laws, to have succeeded Vladimir Kirilovich in 1992 as Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. His heir and successor is his elder son Dimitri Ilyinsky (born 1954). Shilkanni 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Holstein-Gottorp not have equal marriage laws? Also, didn't Paul firstly trade Holstein-Gottorp to the dukes of Holstein-Glückstadt in exchange for Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, and secondly give Oldenburg and Delmenhorst to a cadet line? john k 07:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Those exchanges did not mean he renounced his titles (the exchange history: Paul received promise [not taking himself the actual possession] of Oldenburg-Delmenhorst from the king of Denmark, who until that held O-D, a place more distant from physical borders of Denmark, against his patrimony in Schleswig-Holstein but he did not cede titles, and Paul also retained reversion rights, i.e if the direct Danish royal line goes extinct, he regains what he ceded to them. When having made that exchange, Paul assigned the whole thing to his own branch's younger line, Holstein-Eutin = prince-bishop of Lübeck, who became Duke of O-D, again with reversion rights. Paul did not preserve anything tangible in Germany, but reversion rights and titles to everything and a junior-line relative who should be grateful and behave like a loyal vassal. The whole thing was engineered by Catherine II, his mother, to whom some slices in Northern Germany were more a bother than anything useful. Danish king got his lands concentrated better in geographical terms, and Paul's one relative got a principality which he did not earlier have, and which arrangement made it less likely that Russian power would directly to come to battle in every little north German feud). Actually, the Schleswig-Holstein Question had Nicholas I as one interested party. About the H-G equality laws, there has been a discussion going at Talk:Paul Ilyinsky (and partly in its edit comments). My view is, briefly simplified, that it had no serious equality requirements. Shilkanni 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Seniority line

Grand Duke Nicholas Nicolaievich, the highest-age dynast after the Revolution Shilkanni 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The oldest non-Emperor member of the Imperial House would be something along the lines of...

Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich 1801-1831
Grand Duke Michael Pavlovich 1831-1849
Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich 1849-1855
Grand Duke Constantine Nikolaevich 1855-1892
Grand Duke Michael Nikolaevich 1892-1909
Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich 1909-1918
Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich 1918-1929
Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich 1929
Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich 1929-1931
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich 1931-1933
Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich 1933-1938
Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich 1938-1943
Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovich 1943-1956
Prince Roman Petrovich 1956-1978
Prince Andrew Alexandrovich 1978-1981
Prince Basil Alexandrovich 1981-1989
Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich 1989-1992

Or, at any rate, something like that. I'm not sure what the basis for such a line is, though. john k 07:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The oldest male member of the Imperial House was:

Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia 1825-1831
Emperor Nicholas I 1831-55, coincides with ruler
Grand Duke Alexander Nikolayevich of Russia 1855-81 coincides with ruler
Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich of Russia 1881-1892
Grand Duke Michael Nikolayevich of Russia 1892-1909
- Alexander III never was eldest
- nor Nicholas II
Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich 1909-1918
Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich the Younger 1918-1929
Grand Duke Michael Mihailovich 1929
Grand Duke Peter Nikolaevich 1929-1931
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich of Russia 1931-1933
Grand Duke Kiril Vladimirovich of Russia 1933-1938 coincides with primogeniture pretender
Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich 1938-1943
Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovich 1943-1956
Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia 1956-1978
Prince Andrew Alexandrovich of Russia 1978-1981
Prince Vasili Alexandrovich of Russia 1981-1989
Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia 1989-1992 coincides with primogeniture pretender

My start above was to start making a draft, which now here. The idea behind this is the known ancient Russian custom of succession to oldest male of the dynasty. That idea follows the system of agnatic seniority and actually is quite regular, predominant, in clannish structures and tribal societies. Kievan Rus had officially that succession system, and it was afterwards followed in part in split principalities too. The customary law was so strong that even in modern centuries it was given some weight. And, the imperial dynasty's House Council seems to have been chaired by the oldest male, as his right, until the very end of the monarchy. Thus, at least, this list gives the list of theoretical succession to the House Council presidency during the exile decades. Some literature I read (at time and place that I cannot now recall), stated that those who offered Grand Duke Nicholas the pretendership = throne in Paris in 20s, among other things pleaded such "oldest" succession right. Shilkanni 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Sandrovichi family

Xenia Alexandrovna and Alexander Mihailovich's posterity Shilkanni 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

from Assembly of Russian Nobility, "...interpret the act (recognizing Bagration-Muchranskii princes of equal birth with Romanoff) broadly as the equal birth Bagration Muchranskii, as former ruling princes, then the Rurikovichi and Hediminovichi are considered of equal-birth, the only difference from the Georgian family being these Russian families lost their crown lands not between the 18th and 19th centuries but 100 years earlier. In such a case the above mentioned Rostislav Rostislavovich, born by the prince of Imperial blood Rostislav Aleksandrovich from the marriage with Princess Aleksandra Pavlovna Holitsyna, can also be considered a legitimate pretender to the Russian throne". This view is published and places the late Rostislav Rostislavich as viable candidate,as well as attests that "some" have put forth such claim for him. Shilkanni 07:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Prince Nicholas Romanoff (Head RFA), "in a published statement in October 1995, cites ...the public renunciations of succession rights by two princesses of the imperial blood immediately prior to their marriages: by Princess Tatiana of Russia in 1911 prior to her marriage to Prince Bagration of Moukhrani and by Princess Irina of Russia in 1914 prior to her marriage to Prince Yusupov. Nicholas Romanoff then argues: "These Ukases [publishing the renunciations] prove without doubt that had the princesses not renounced their rights, their issue would have been in possession of full rights to the inheritance of the throne of Russia."". Would this support the Ruffo, the Galitzin, etc marriages being sufficiently dynastical? Yes, of course it supports. And this can be used as citation. Shilkanni 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "too lengthy" argument

When people read the long long explanations supplied by the Maria Vladimirovna camp, there comes the thought "such a long and unclear defense, they must be the bad guys". People have seen that white-collar criminals offer a defense that takes days in judicial court to present, and they are known to be disgusting crooks. Same with the tedious and detailed "wishwash" of Vladimirovichi camp. "They must have done it if they need so much text to mask their mistakes..." - What about this? Shilkanni 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shilkanni, you seem to be coming at this article from the perspective of a prosecutor attacking the Vladimirovichi claims, not as someone trying to create an NPOV article (not so badly as Mr. Foxworth, though). It is not our job at wikipedia to assess the merits of claims. So far as I understand it, Maria Vladimirovna's claim is accepted by the majority of Russian monarchists, and she has been semi-officially recognized by the (republican) Russian government as head of the imperial house. I fail to see how their argument is all that "long and unclear". Grand Duke Cyril rejected all the marriages of the surviving male members of the imperial house as non-dynastic. Then he died and his son Vladimir succeeded him. Then Vladimir ruled that his own marriage to a Bagration-Moukhransky was dynastic. Then he outlived all the other male dynasts. With no male dynasts left, semi-salic succession comes into play. By Semi-Salic succession, Vladimir's daughter was the next heir. That Vladimir ruled his own marriage dynastic, after all his cousins' marriages had already been ruled non-dynastic, was perhaps self-serving, but it is all perfectly clear. What is completely unclear is who is to be considered to have succeeded Vladimir if the Bagration marriage is considered non-dynastic. That is where dozens of complicated arguments are being deployed. So far as I can tell, the ex-Hereditary Prince of Leiningen, Prince Boris of Leiningen (if he is Orthodox), Prince Karl Vladimir of Yugoslavia (if Prince Boris is not Orthodox), Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, Prince Paul Ilyinsky, Prince Nicholas Romanovich, Prince Michael Andreyevich, and Prince Rostislav Rostislavich have all been suggested by someone or other. However self-serving Cyril and Vladimir's actions may have been, it's difficult to see how else we can determine who the head of house is than by the actions of previous heads of house in recognizing marriages. john k 15:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And just what POV do you think I have John? Tim Foxworth 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I have no POV to drive. And, it is not our job to find or confirm a head to that dynasty. Our job is to present evenly the arguments presented, and the facts from which any of those arguments are derived. Perhaps the erroneous asumption that I were to act as prosecutor, comes from a POV that the Vladimirovichi camp has it right and everything against it must be a prosecutor. That's POV. If they have it, readers may see that from facts etc we cater to be read in the article. And so forth. If someone else has better right, readers may see it from the facts we cater to the article. The thing that now comes, to be fairly presented in the article, is a finding that actually one of reasons behind the Vladimirovichi position is their claimed autocratic power, because I have started to see increasingly from arguments you present that in the end, there is a fiat, "one of the rivals decided it", the one "who was more or less recognized head". That's an important point to be added to the article. Shilkanni 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My comment is based on the fact that you keep on making statements that the Vladimirovichi are sleazeballs. Perhaps it's a language issue, though. I have no opinion on whether the Vladimirovichi camp are right - I think the contention that the Bagrations are an equal match, but that Galitzins are not seems somewhat dubious, certainly, on the merits. The problem is that if you view the Bagration marriage as non-dynastic, it becomes pretty much impossible to identify any alternative claimant. That Maria Vladimirovna's claim is controversial should of course be mentioned. But any attempt to identify an alternative candidate seems pretty much doomed to failure, especially since none are really making claims on their own behalf (not even Prince Nicholas Romanov, whose claim rests on his election as head of the Romanov Family Association, not on any genealogical claim to seniority). john k 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahm, if presented facts tend to give an impression that they are sleazeballs, then they perhaps really are sleazeballs. However, in my personal view, when I look at what they have done, they look like relatively normal chief-like persons. In my experience, persons whose genetical inheritance and growing-up environment is that of rulers/chieftains, in any society in the millennia of known history, tend to be chief-like. Shilkanni 20:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is a good thing to identify various other candidates, i.e lines that lead to their being first in line of succession (after all, we have a certain title as this article's name). I believe at the end we can make a pretty well through-thought list of other "rightful" alternatives, and at the end, we have shot down such whose lineages do not yield any sustainable argument for their right to succeed. In previous discussions, there have been candidates whose claims cannot be reasoned in any way - and in cases they have not pretended themselves, it would be futile to list such. But candidates with a reasonable, arguable line of succession leading to them, are worth listing, even in case they have not themselves presented a pretension. That's "line of succession" at work, I believe. Shilkanni 16:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is original research. Any claims need to be sourced to reliable sources. john k 17:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should this article be?

I think that the thing we've all gotten away from here is what, exactly, this article is meant to be. It strikes me, as I've previously suggested elsewhere, that these "Line of succession to defunct thrones" articles are highly problematic, and that it would be best to rename and reconceive them. I would suggest an article on the topic of the succession to the Russian throne, more broadly. We could cover the old, pre-Petrine conventions, Peter's ruling that the Emperor selects his own heir, and the confusion that resulted (I believe that neither he nor Catherine I nor Peter II actually named a successor, and Anna's and Elizabeth's successors were overthrown by coups within a few months of their accessions - only Paul, as Catherine II's chosen successor, actually successfully established himself on the throne. But perhaps Catherine I chose Peter II as her successor?) and then the Pauline Laws (including the 1820 modifications). Various issues with respect to interpretation and implementation of the Pauline Laws under the Emperor should then be discussed - the various morganatic marriages of male dynasts, for instance, the renunciations of Princess Irina and Princess Tatiana on their marriage to, respectively, Yusupov and Bagration princes. Perhaps we could here insert a list of the order of succession at the time of the end of the Empire. We could follow with a discussion of dynastic questions following the end of the empire - the question of Nicholas and Alexis's abdications/renunciations; the uncertainty following the deaths of the three senior dynasts in 1918; Cyril's claim to the de jure Emperorship in 1924; his recognition by most, but not quite all, of the surviving male dynasts; his rulings on the marriages of the other members of the family; his death; the succession of Vladimir; his ruling on the dynasticity of his own marriage; later disputes of that ruling by the other male dynasts; the founding of the Romanov Family Association; the various claims and counterclaims made by Vladimir and Maria and their supporters and the Romanov Family Association an its supporters; and any other POVs that have significant, documentable followings. Thoughts? john k 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanov Family Association already has its own article. Its birth and so forth should be explained there, and only barest essentials mentioned here. No se to repeat same lengthy chain of argument in several places.

as to including here also lines of succession, or various succession laws, in actual monarchical era, it will make this unduly big article. There is an upper limit recommendation for article size. Let's comply with that already pre-emptively. Please create something else, such as "evolution of succession laws of Russian monarchy".

We already have the list of "Line of succession at the end of empire" (or has someone erased it away?)

I am open to renaming this article, if it helps John's (or others') concerns. Such as "Lines of succession to defunct throne of Russia" or "Pretenderships and their lines of succession to defuncth thtrone...". Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just break the rival claimants down as the French (Bonapartist, Legitimist, and Orleanist) and Portugese rival claimants are- separately. The Nikolaievichi- (Nicholas-RFA), the Mikhailovichi- (Xenia's descendants), the Vladimirovichi- (Maria and Georg), and the Pavlovichi- (Dimitri Romanovsky-Ilyinski). This should satisfy everyone and the major claimants are covered. Just a suggestion. Tim Foxworth 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Each pretender gets an own biography article. That's all the isolation (=~~ forking) I am for now ready to support. The contrasting lines of succession as far as they deal with post-revolution era, should be in one and same article. Be it "heirs to defunct throne xx" or whatever. Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Little evidence has been presented that the Nikolaievichi actually claim an inheritance of the crown under the Pauline Laws (as far as I can tell, Prince Nicholas's claim is based on his elected headship of the RFA), and even less for any kind of claims on the part of the Pavlovichi or Sandrovichi. As I've noted before, I generally oppose the existence of articles on lines of succession to defunct thrones. john k 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a claimant base his/her claim on the Pauline laws. A claimant is a claimant if a claim is articulated on their behalf. Notable claims are eligible for mention in Wiki. This sounds like another version of the "Fake Pretenders" argument that Wiki editors should apply old dynastic laws to assess whose claim we consider plausibly bona fide, which I object to as POV. I've read several monarchists familiar with the Pauline Laws who argue that they should be jettisoned in favor of a new Zemsky sobor. Post-revolution, many fervent monarchists in exile recognized Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich as pretender on the grounds that either 1. he was the senior living grand duke, or 2. he was the most widely-respected living Romanov. I've read, but frankly don't grasp the gravamen of, the "no-pretender-articles" rationale, so I can't comment on it other than to hope it'll be re-stated in different terms, as I'd like to understand :-) Lethiere 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not support exclusion of claimants on basis of "fake" argument. If they are/were pretenders, they will be listed and presented. (And I should not mention Charles' name in this context, lest he appears here to demand exclusion of pretenders that are fake in his view. (soon somebody will say "speak of devil...") Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no requirement that claims be based on the Pauline laws. But I don't see how one can devise a line of succession on any other basis - anything else would be pure fantasy. For instance, the Zemsky Sobor idea does not admit of a line of succession, and the "senior dynast" idea didn't survive Nicholas Nikolayevich. Prince Nicholas's claim is based on his being elected head of the Romanov Family Association. There is no line of succession to this position - on his death, somebody else will be elected. As to the "no-pretender-articles" - that's not what I was saying. I was saying "no articles on lines of succession to defunct thrones." These things are almost always disputable, and just a magnet for marginal POVs. john k 01:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

John, please see the separate discussion about basis of Nicholas R's dynastical claim. There is such published interpretation, and you happen to be wrong (probably just ignorant) when you deny it. And, please comment on that issue there, do not continue it in this thread. Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are scores of articles and websites supporting all claims. And since there are four major rival claimants, and there already is an article on lines of succession all points should be shown. Or do you see Maria's claim as the only valid one? Tim Foxworth 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read a number of articles supporting Maria's and Nicholas's claims, and some opposing or pointing out flaws in both claims, but none supporting other claimants. Can you recommend sources? Wiki can properly reflect notable and verifiable claims, and notable and verifiable rationales for those claims, but it is neither obligated nor proper for Wiki to include all claims or all claimants per Wikipedia's "undue weight" policy, i.e. "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Lethiere 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

With a pretender stating basis of his/her claims, it is proper to mention who other persons hold or may hold better claim on basis of the rules or interpretations, i.e analogously. Otherwise, we endorse a claimant's POV, giving support to a premise that the said claimant has the best right under such rules. NPOV requires that the claimants' POV be "revealed" if there are holes in claimed argument. We do not hesitate to point out weaknesses in Lafosse claim or in Rosario "Braganza" claim, despite of the fact that Francis, Duke of Bavaria or e.g Duke of Loulé do not stake their claims that may be better using the same set of rules. Thus, nothing should prevent to mention that if only similar requirements face Sandrovichi marriages as were applied to Vladimir's marriage (and so forth), there is a heir with arguably better claim than Maria. And so forth. And under Nicholas Romanov's construct of succession laws, all Sandrovichi are eligible too. (After these short thoughts, I begin to realize that Sandrovichi, who have not been putting forth claims, seem to have several details in their favor - not a clearly superior place, but plenty of arguable things.) And, if Orthodox mother is the valid argument, none of Vladimirovichi ever were de jures, strict succession ended with Vasili Alexandrovich in 1989 and HIS nearest cognatic relatives, not under any marriage-equality requirements, are possibly (who are they). Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy of the Romanov Imperial House by Timo Haapanen offers a wealth of information and shows the 4 competing claimants. "Flight of the Romanovs" addresses the various claimants as well. The new Almanach de Gotha recognizes Nicholas, various groups support Maria, purists seem to favor the Ilyinski's, and traditionalists seem for favor Xenia's descendants. Paul Theroff's work thinks either Maria or the Ilyinski's- but doesn't choose which. Brien Horan and Guy Stair Sainty both favor Maria's claim. The point is- everyone has an opinion, and none of them is 100% correct. Tim Foxworth 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found that there actually is at least two separate possible lines within the Sandrovichi. Thus, at least five competing candidates. One of them is "Galitzin marriage can be equal and is if Moukhraneli marriage is" and Rostislav Rostislavich was heir, and after him Marina Vaslievna; the other is that either cognatically they did not need equal marriages, or that mere princes of Russia did not need marry equally, or that Ruffo was equal enough, and any one of those makes Michael Andreyevich the heir. Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Websites are not reliable sources. As to articles, it should be noted that there is a difference between saying that a case could be made for a certain claimant and actual advocacy of said candidature. Only Maria and Nicholas Romanov actually make claims to be heads of the Romanov House. And Nicholas's claims, as I understand them, are not that he is the heir under the Pauline laws. The only person that I am aware of who claims to be heir to the Russian throne under the Pauline laws is Maria. She may not be the heir under the Pauline laws, but the alternate candidates - Karl Emich of Leiningen, Karl Vladimir of Yugoslavia, Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, Alexander of Yugoslavia, even Prince Michael Andreyevich, if you go by the questionable "nearest cognatic relation of the last de facto, as opposed to de jure, emperor standard - have actually made a claim. Prince Nicholas, whose father's marriage was universally seen to be morganatic, has no claim at all under the Pauline laws - his pretensions rest on other bases entirely. The Ilyinsky claim is based on his undisputed status as heir-male to Emperor Paul, but also undisputed is the morganaticity of his grandfather's marriage to Audrey Emery. Any alternate Sandrovichi claims, based on the male descent from Nicholas I, rather than the cognatic descent from Alexander III, run into the same problem, even if the wives of the Sandrovichi were of higher status than those of Grand Duke Dimitri and Prince Roman. john k 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Websites are sources too. Reliability is assessed on objective criteria, not just dismissing websites. Books can be very bad sources, some are, and yet books arenot excluded. And so forth. Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maria and Nicholas' websites are quoted all the time, and used to advance their opinions. By your definition- Wikipedia would be useless as well. I guess I don't understand what you want to see here. For myself, I would like to see the 4 major claimants in separate categories as the French and Portuguese are. The above mentioned persons would naturally fall under one of those 4 anyway. Just my opinion. Tim Foxworth 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If a pretender's claim is such that it contradicts those of other claimants, the two are relevant to one another because they cannot simultaneously be heir under the same laws and rules. While some Wiki readers may seek info about a pretender in isolation, others seek out info about the claim, and that is difficult to understood in context or to present accurately and neutrally unless contrasted with competing claims. More fundamentally, the article shouldn't violate the "No POV fork" guideline. Lethiere 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any suggestions as to what should be done here will all these relevant claimants? Tim Foxworth 01:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be slow, but I am yet in the process of identifying possible heirs. Therefore I do not have yet a ready article content to "battle for". I begin to see that we need to group various heirs under their own sections, however. I am just afraid that in the end, there will be well over ten such sections. And that some of them would be partially repetition. A better way to organize the sectioning would be welcome (how about different sections to each "basis of claim"??) Shilkanni 03:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Any further claimants would still fall under one of the four surviving branches of the family. Who is for or against separating the claimants as they are in the other countries succession categories. Tim Foxworth 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with "separation"? Separation to separate articles? I oppose that. Separation to separate sections of this article (as this now has started anyway)? I support that. Shilkanni 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above- separating them as they are in the French and Portuguese sections of Former Monarchies- under the four surviving rival claimant branches. Tim Foxworth 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My recently proposed merges

I have merged sections of the List of Grand Dukes of Russia and List of Grand Duchesses of Russia into this article, as they contained highly repetitive information about current claimants to the throne and the controversy surrounding them. It's better to have all this in a single place, so changes don't have to be made on several pages at once. I also think Titular Emperor of Russia should redirect here. Also, there are repetitive sections on the succession controversy at Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, and Romanov Family Association. I think the sections of those articles that repeat the claims made in the succession controversy (of course, not the entire articles) should be merged into here.

That way, the "main events of the monarchy-in-exile" section will concern the descendants of Cyril Vladimirovich, while the "current situation" section will concern the claims in the succession controversy. Incidentally, I think the "current situation" section should be renamed "succession controversy," while the "main events of the monarchy-in-exile" section should be renamed something like "principal claimants." (I have no view in favor of any side here -- I just want the information to be more compact!) Chaucer1387 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started some merges but the article is still in the process of cleanup. Chaucer1387 01:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My merging is done. Chaucer1387 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELine_of_succession_to_the_Russian_throne_8fc6.html"