Talk:Paul Ilyinsky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Duke, count, Schleswig and Holstein-Gottorp
What exactly were the titles? The article states that he was "a prince and duke of Schleswig and Holstein-Gottorp" and "Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn and Dithmarschen as well as duke and count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst". I thought the titles were actually Duke of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn and Dithmarschen, Count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, Heir to/of Norway. But that says nothing for any title in the form of "Holstein-Gottorp". Was Paul both a duke and prince of Holstein-Gottorp or just a duke of Holstein-Gottorp? Charles 00:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, briefly looking at alt.talk.royalty, it is said that the style of Royal Highness was given to the duke of Schleswig-(?)Holstein-Gottorp for himself and his heirs. If that is indeed true, would Paul not be entitled to the style of Royal Highness? Charles 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read that a Duke of Holstein-Gottorp was granted the style of Royal Highness, but don't recall if it was ad personam or hereditary. I thought this extremely unlikely (since even the Habsburg archdukes were only HSH at this point), but it appeared to check out when I followed up. I'll see what I can find in my files. Despite what Theroff says, no one in this family ever bore the title "Prince (Prinz)" of Holstein-Gottorp: all members were Dukes/Duchesses of Holstein-Gottorp until their title was switched to "Duke of Oldenburg" in 1777 (this was not, strictly, an additional title but a substitute: no new Reichsstand was created, so the one which entitled these dukes to a seat in the Empire's College of Princes was re-named as "Oldenburg"). Lethiere 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a reminiscence that HRH would come from Sweden. Long, old ties and an eldest royal daughter married to Gottorp and so forth. Sweden did not much care that archdukes were HSH, actually Swedes may have been happy to snub those "catholicks", "papists". As to "Holstein-Gottorp", that's a convenient and conventional but not the official form. Almost no fuerst actually was of "land-castle" format, they were "title of land", seated at "castle", in general rule. Officially, there was no margrave of Brandenburg-Bayreuth, there was a Margrave of Brandenburg seated in his (burgravial) castle of Bayreuth. And officially there was a number of dukes of Saxony all around Thuringia, peskily titled identically, not dukes of "Saxe-whatever". Holstein was HRE fief, Schleswig was a Danish fief and duchy. Gottorp was castle. They were dukes both in HRE and in Denmark. In 18th century, a convention became more common that only the head of an established branch is Duke, his younger children are and will remain princes in addressing. Best examples of this (deplorable) habit are some princes of Augustenborg branch. Although Queen Vicky's son-in-law technically may have been a Duke of Schleswig and Holstein etc, he is here and in other sources titled as Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein. In literature about Catherine the Great, I have never seen her mother referred to as "Duchess Johanna Elisabeth of Holstein-Gottorp" but rather Princess Johanna Elisabeth of Holstein-Gottorp, if any honorific is put to her in references. Do not ask me how to have that changed to the Duke form which would be better in my opinion. Shilkanni 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unequal marriages were not proscribed in the ducal Schleswig and Holstein
The ducal house of Schleswig-Holstein did not have precise Ebenbuertigkeit restrictions upon otherwise valid marriages. For historical reasons, the House of Oldenburg never succeeded in agreeing a clear House Law. Its two most important branches, Gottorp branch and the Danish royal branch were regularly at loggerheads and did not agree upon anything. For centuries heads of this house, Dano-Norwegian kings, had Schleswig-Holstein as a handy device to produce titles to children of their mésalliance marriages and to some less-than-royal spouses. Several Danish kings had burgher women as their "second" wives, and children of those marriages sometimes were accorded a part to Schleswig-Holstein inheritance. A few members of various branches of Schleswig-Holstein dukes contracted quite unequal marriages: with burgher girls, with Neugräfliche daughters, and with regular noblewomen, instead of a restriction to keep to high nobility; and their children inherited.
Heir of Norway is not subject to equal marriage restrictions. It is derived from the medieval so-called Harfagri dynasty (and literally comes as their inheritance, because Norway did not explicitly regulate its succession after 14th century), and all sorts of burgher girls were accepted spouses there.
When Oldenburg was elevated from county to duchy in late 18th century, Russian monarchs regarded that to have rubbed to their titulary too. Mostly because Oldenburg was actually Paul I's patrimony which (or the thing that was exchanged in order to gain Oldenburg) he gave to his junior-line cousin.
As to their ducal titles derived of Schleswig, which never was a part of Holy Roman Empire, presumably the Danish nobility law applies, and it does not stipulate loss of succession rights in basis of unequal marriages.
The 1604 Norrköping Succession Pact of Sweden provided for female succession in case of the immediate royal family having no male heirs (The first to benefit of it was Christina I of Sweden in 1633, as Gustav II Adolf did not have sons). Peter III of Russia was such heir. It was politics which made Sweden to choose another dynasty for its next kings. The old Swedish succession laws had no specific prohibition against unequal marriages (think about it: how could Charles IX have made the Norrköping Pact to exclude children of misalliances, when he himself was born of Gustav I's marriage with Margaret Leijonhufvud, a noblewoman whose known pedigree went backwards for about only a century before her birth, and who belonged to the knight class but not to any real high nobility).
Losses of all sorts of principalities and kingdoms just caused that they became "formerly reigning monarchs" in regard to them. The dynasty seems not to have given up those titles. On the contrary: there are numerous examplese where all that litany is used by Russian rulers, even in 20th century.
The Grand Duchy of Finland's only Constitution (that adopted from Sweden, the 1772 Instrument of Government) made a specific stipulation in its third paragraph that the order of succession is based on Norrköping Pact and the earlier Västerås Pact which it amended. Alexander I had given his Assurance in 1809 and on the other hand, Oaths of Fealty in Finland to him, guaranteed that 1772 constitution will continue in force in Finland. It is just through operation of that law that the Ilyinsky had a right to its succession. Shilkanni 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] recognition of Schleswig title
Whut is this talk that Denmark no longer acknowledges Gottorps their title to Schleswig duchy? At least in the occasion of HRH princess Marie Sofie Frederikke Dagmar of Denmark's marriage with Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich of Russia, it was acknowledged. In the marriage contract, king Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark, parents of the bride, acknowledge the other contracting party (its litany of titles) being Alexander II, Emperor of All Russias etc, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein etc, and his son Grand Duke Alexander, Tsesarevich etc, Duke of Schleswig, Holstein etc. I must wonder how would it be possible to allege that Denmark will not recognize the Schleswig titles of Paul Ilyinsky or Dimitri Ilyinsky, when they are great-grandson and great-great-grandson, respectively, of Alexander II, the aforementioned ratifier of that signed contract. Shilkanni 09:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Guy Stair Sainty, "The Russian imperial succession", speaking about non-dynastical ("morganatical") issue of Romanovs: "They are each entitled to the titles of Prince or Princess of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, Heir of Norway, Duke or Duchess of Schleswig, Holstein, Stormarn and Ditmarschen, Count or Countess of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst". Shilkanni 11:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Children, Grandchildren, Great-Grandchildren
I find the section re descendants to be utterly ridiculous, particularly as it takes up nearly half of an already questionable article which exists with no citations; it should either be deleted entirely or shortened considerably, with each member of the family receiving his or her own article. I think it would be great to have a vote on this.Mowens35 14:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Point of Article
Ilyinsky was much more noted for having been a three-time mayor of Palm Beach than he was for titles he never used, claimed, or otherwise embraced. This should be enhanced in the article; otherwise, the only reason for this article is to beef up royalist claims that he never espoused in his lifetime.Mowens35 14:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fact tags
Adding more than a couple fact tags makes it looks like you are making a WP:POINT rather than challenging particular facts. I added an unreferenced tag to each section and a verify tag to the article, which is more appropriate. It really would be nice for someone to get references for these facts, but tagging each sentence is not the right way to ask for it. Some of the tagged sentences even had inline citations attached to them. This is not a living person, so the extra-strict WP:BLP requirements don't apply here. CMummert · talk 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
