Talk:Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
A membership in the "patronage committee" of Almanach de Gotha does not mean that one necessarily is head of the house. Has anyone checked the actual contents of AdG??? Sjostrom 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And, I must warn that the AdG today is not highly authoritative. It is not the same as the AdG of same name in 1800's. It is even possible it recognizes headship of house because someone supports it in patronage committee and so on.
[edit] Almanach de Gotha does recognize Nicholas Romanov as Head of the Imperial Family
In answer to the first question above, the actual text of the "revived" Almanach de Gotha recognizes Nicholas Romanov as the rightful head of the Imperial House of Russia (Romanov). This has been true of all editions issued since 1998. I do not know how to post the actual written text here, but anyone can consult a copy in a library. Certainly the new version of the Gotha leaves much to be desired. I am not sure, however, that the original was actually any better. Such publications are always dependent to some extend on their patrons. The value of such things is very much in the eye of the beholder. Whatever its faults, it is difficult to dismiss the Gotha as irrelevant when one considers that it enjoys the support of H.M. King Juan Carlos of Spain and and representatives of most of the former Royal families of Europe. In the end, it is a well-known reference source with a reputation as the arbiter of all things "Royal." As such, the Gotha's support of Nicholas is certainly relevant to an article about him. Noting that support is particularly important in light of the fact that most wikipedia articles on the Romanovs after 1917 tend to support Grand Duchess Maria and dismiss Nicholas. Reading the article on Grand Duchess Maria,I would assume that the Romanov Family Association consisted solely of Nicholas and that he was the only one to doubt Maria's claims. That is not the case so noting the position of the Gotha is certainly relevant as a counter-balance. By the way, if you search the internet for information on the Russian Succession you find that most of the "expert" opinions circulating in support of Grand Duchess Maria's claim were actually written by or rely on the work of her personal lawyer, Brien Horan. Is he a more reliable source than the Gotha? Would anyone really expect Maria's family lawyer to write articles questioning her rights? By the way, if wikipedia is supposed to be neutral why is the article on one claimant titled "Nicholas Romanov" and the article on the other titled "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia?" At best, the succession is disputed and neither one actually rules Russia or has any prospect of living in the Kremlin. --64.12.116.66 08:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I cannot regard AdG as high arbiter of anything. It is a register. I trust usually on its data on dates: births and so on. Claims to thrones are hopefully to be decided elsewhere. Personally, I would prefer the article Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia to be moved and titled as Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, since we should not use nobility titles in article titles - in my opinion. Perhaps we can give her that "of Russia", not forcing her to "Maria Romanov" as those people did not use surnames in the pre-revolution era. (She claims to be "of Russia", be it properly "grand duchess" or "princess". Her equivalents did not use surname Romanov. Whereas those from so-called morganatic marriages, as Nicholas, use them often.) Her claims should be stated/ explained in the article text, not in the title.
There have been allegations that RFA is one-person lead, where a bunch of others are passive, and several bunches of others are not with. The names of ölast-mentioned category are used in membership lists, but it is not acceptable. Membership in an association is based on voluntary joining, no one should be regarded as member without own expressed desire. These points should be explained when pleading the "authority" of RFA.
Membership of a house is based on genealogy, and it is certainly no association. It is not voluntary, but it neither forces those individuals to other memberships. And, membership of a house usually is not regarded as entitled to choose the head of the house.
I am not appreciative of Nicholas' claims. It is highly true that no proper order of succession puts him first.
Nor am I very supportive of Maria's claims. I cannot appreciate that her father regarded himself as the only entitled to marry a princess of subjugated family. I accept that he was entitled to marry, but his marriage should be treated according to same criteria as marriages of others.
I cannot regard the claim of anyone in that house and its descendants as number one over all others. Therefore, no one cannot be treated here as self-evident, uncontestable heir.
One of the reasons is that as dynasty law was changed by whim, the Russian tradition shuld also be taken into account. Russian rulers succeeded in old tradition by line "from brother to next brother". Russians may feel also that sort of succession as natural.
Regarding the authoritativeness of any expert opinions or such, I believe that most people can see the truth and value and weight of all those arguments when seeing the arguments neutrally explained. The truth, of course, to which I have arrived, is that no one is fully entitled to succeed because of some problems in each one's claims, but a handful of persons have a claim which could be sufficient. Identify such persons and let the possible Russian monarchists to group themselves behind whomever they value highest. If one of those groups ever succeeds in restoring monarchy, good luck.
Do you happen to be Nichols Romanov's supporter? 62.78.124.63 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I consider this article to be quite biased and poorly written. The truth is that no one alive today meets the criteria for succession in place before the Revolution. That includes Grand Duchess Maria, not least because the throne could not pass to or through a woman. Prince Nicholas, who has made it clear that he understands this and would have no interest in the throne for himself or his descendants were it to be revived, has correctly pointed out that Maria is not in a position to claim that she and her son George possess inheritance rights that the other family members do not. This article should not, in any case, involve a debate on who is or isn't "the rightful heir" but rather biographical facts only. A separate article on the "Russian Succession" should discuss these matters.
[edit] Introduction
I think we should style Romanov in the introduction as His Highness Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia, and then later clarify this style is somewhat unconventional. My reasoning for this is that Maria Vladimirovna's article introduces her with an Imperial title, even though her title is as disputed as Nicholas's. I'm changing it now; if anyone has an objection, please feel free to change it back and leave a comment here on the issue. --Matjlav 01:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Roman Petrovich was known as HH Prince RP of Russia, and I believe his two sons were also styled this way. I think it's correct to keep Nicholas at HH Prince Nicholas Romanovitch. Morhange 04:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Roman Petrovich (who is not the individual of this article) was conventionally Prince of Russia. The unconventionality is that his (allegedly morganatic) son Nicholas, the individual of THIS article, also uses the title Prince of Russia (see his website). I agree that both Maria and this Nicholas should be treated symmterically as to their title of pretension and therefore this article should be Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia. Shilkanni 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
