Talk:Bagrationi dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georgia (country) Portal
Bagrationi dynasty is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the country of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? 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.

i Soso, I'm going to expand this article section by section and I'll need your assistance. Thanks, Kober 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources and Citations

Dear Kober What a great article! This article is an inpiration for everybody who wants to write an un-biased, completely neutral articles on the complicated matters like the Bagrationi Dynasty. I especially like the usage of the sources and the citations. Thanks Kober.
Sosomk 15:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Soso. The article is far from complete however. We need to add more info about modern-day Bagrationis. Kober 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to change check my genealogy of this family at http://genealogy.euweb.cz/georgia/index.html. It contains enough data about living members. The articles about Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia and Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya may also give you some hints. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your links, but I don’t clearly understand what you mean by "changing your genealogy of this family". Kober 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Too hasty editing on my part, I guess. --Ghirla -трёп- 05:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great... Kober 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kober
I will work on getting more information on modern Bagrationis. I am finally in Tbilisi right now. My sister actually met Ketevan Bagrationi who lives in Rome. I think she is fairly pure respresentative of the family, but I can't put it on the wikipedia, because I can't actually cite that.
Sosomk 08:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Soso, nice to hear from you again. It would be really great if you can get some extra info. You may also wish to leave a comment on Portal talk:Georgia (country). It finally works now. Thanks, Kober 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

According to GlobalSecurity.org, Bagrationi is pronounced as bah-grah-tyi-YAHN-ee. Can anyone check if the IPA key is correct? Thanks, --Kober 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

One of you may wish to get more information from H.S.H. Princess Karina Baghration-Mukhranski who lives in Kiev, Ukraine, and is a listed sponsor of the Paris-based NGO, "Innocence en danger".

[edit] Bagrationi-Mukhraneli

The article states that "...in 1942 Irakli Bagrationi-Mukhraneli, of the junior branch of the family, proclaimed himself Head of the Royal House and founded “Georgian Traditionalist Union” throughout Europe." Elsewhere in Wikipedia there are similar references to this "junior" branch. However, in all of the genealogies I have seen, the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli are the senior branch of this family. Although they were the youngest descendants of the Kartli branch, all the older branches of the Kartli Bagrationi are extinct: The last two known members of that line were brothers, Prince Demetre Bagrationi and Prince Aleksandri Bagrationi, sons of Prince Petri. They died in Bolshevik prison in 1918 or 1919. The last male member of the even more senior Gruzinsky branch of the Bagrationi was Prince Sergei Gruzinsky, son of Prince Iakob and Master of Ceremonies of the Imperial Household of Russia, who died in 1880. The Kakheti branch replaced the Kartli Bagrationi, uniting and ruling Kartl-Kakheti in 1762. The Bagrationi-Mukhraneli family then served under Kartli-Kakheti's kings as Mukhranbatoni. However, even though the Kakheti and Imereti lines were the last branches to reign with the title of King (Tsar), and there are still males of the Kakheti branch living, both the Kakheti and Imereti (as well as the illegitimate Davitishvili) lines were junior to the Kartli branch, from which the Mukhraneli descend. Therefore, the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli line remains the most senior branch of this dynasty, as male-line descendants of the extinct Kings of Kartli. Is anyone familiar with a different genealogy than this? Was Mukhraneli an independent principality, like Mingrelia, or a part of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom? Lethiere 11:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting comment. I basically agree with you, but the question is rather complicated and sources are contradictory. I was never able to fully reconstruct the genealogy of all branches and hence the further development of the article was halted. If you could help with it, I would be very thankful.
The Kakhetian line actually acquired, in the person of Teimuraz II (son-in-law of Vakhtang VI of Kartli of the Mukhrani line), the vacant throne of Kartli and prevented any attempt by the descendants of Vakhtang VI (who had emigrated to Russia) to win back the power. Thus, some regarded them usurpers, but the legitimacy of the Kakhetian branch was eventually recognized by Georgian nobility, church and subsequently Catherine II the Great in the Treaty of Georgievsk.
As for the Mukhrani fiefdom, it was not an independent principality but a constituent part of Kartli and then of Kartli-Kakheti. All the best, Kober 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Lethiere's and Kober's observations are basically correct. I refer you to alt.talk.royalty, where these questions have been discussed ad nauseum, and to the full genealogy of the family I posted here. Although the Mukhraneli are technically the senior branch in the House of Bagration (like the Galitzines are the senior branch in the House of Gediminas and the Czetwertinski are the senior branch in the House of Rurik), the last king of Georgia was George XII, whose male-line descendants are alive and well (although the line is nearing its extinction). According to the laws of the Russian Empire, the Mukhraneli have the same status as, say, Galitzine or Dolgorukov — Gediminid and Rurikid families, respectively: male-line descendants of Gediminas and Michael of Chernigov, to be precise. The marriage of Alexander II of Russia to Catherine Dolgorukov was considered morganatic. The same goes for the Mukhraneli, whose status was based on their high title at court (mukhranbatoni) rather than their sovereign demesne (Mukhrani?), although their supporters are keen to prove that each constituent "duchy" of Georgia was a sovereign polity and hence their lords should be considered mediatized nobility according to the strict standards of the Almanach de Gotha. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming the facts. But what is meant by saying that the Mukhraneli are "technically" the senior branch in the House of Bagration? Either they are or they are not, and we have agreed that they are -- and I had explicitly acknowledged that this did not make them the senior descendants or heirs of the last Georgian monarchs in Kartli-Kakheti or Imereti. So all of the references on Wikipedia that describe the Mukhraneli as a "junior" branch (Jorge de Bagration, Line of succession to the Russian Throne, etc) are inaccurate and need to be corrected. The reality is that the issues around the Russian succession are so contentious that it seems difficult for people to acknowledge facts that they think might "support" a pretender whose claim they don't accept, so the facts get buried under the rhetoric. It seems to me that the relevant data on the Mukhraneli's status is contradictory and ambivalent, and needs to be sorted out factually so that Wiki readers can draw their own conclusions. Two points occur to me as relevant in this regard:
  1. When Vladimir Kirilovich Romanov responded to Infante Ferdinand of Bavaria's inquiry about whether the Mukhraneli were dynastic enough for Prince Erekle Bagrationi-Mukhraneli (Leonida's brother), to contract an equal marriage with his daughter, Vladimir did not declare that they were so because they were Georgian pretenders, claiming (erroneously) to be heirs of the last Georgian kings in Kartli-Kakheti. To do so would have been to implicitly support the pretensions of Prince Erekle Bagration-Mukhransky to the Georgian throne, something Vladimir carefully avoided doing because it conflicted with his own claim to be rightful sovereign over Georgia pursuant to the 1801 annexation. Rather, Vladimir acknowledged the Mukhraneli's "royalty" on the grounds that they were the senior line of a former royal dynasty -- just as the House of Hanover was acknowledged by the German Emperors after Prussia annexed that kingdom. In doing so, of course, he reversed the attitude toward them of Nicholas II in 1911 -- but he never claimed that Mukhraneli Ebenbürtigkeit was tied to any claim to represent the Kartli-Kakheti legacy.
  2. It is, however, true that the distinction Maria Vladimirovna Romanova's supporters make is that her mother Leonida's descent from a dynasty that had reigned more recently by a couple of hundred years than the Rurikids and Gedyminians justifies distinguishing between Maria Vladimirovna's dynasticity and the non-dynasticity of most other descendants of the Romanovs who belong to the Romanov Family Association. They argue, in effect, that such a distinction was commonly made by other reigning dynasties in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, which accepted the Ebenbürtigkeit of the House of Orléans, which ceased to reign in the 19th century, but not that of, for example, Irish clan chiefs, some of whom reigned into the 17th century. On this point, the Treaty of Georgievsk becomes potentially relevant, because it constituted an international treaty guaranteeing a certain status to the ruling dynasty of Kartli-Kakheti, a guarantee not possessed by Rurikids or Gedyminians. But the treaty is ambivalent on this point. On the one hand, it does guarantee the dynastic status of the "the Heirs and descendants of his House" of the Kartlii-Kakheti kings (not merely "descendants of the kings") and required that the treaty's terms could only be changed by mutual agreement between Russia's and Kartli-Kakheti's monarchs. But on the other hand, in the treaty's list of Georgian families that were to be treated as nobility (not royalty) in the Russian Empire, the Mukhraneli are included -- and they were eventually accepted into Russia with legal status as ordinary nobles. In and of itself, the latter point is not decisive: In France, Britain and Sardinia, the Condés, Cumberlands, and Carignans were simultaneously princes of the blood royal and nobles, and their legal status as nobles did not differ from that of other nobles, except in precedence, yet they retained Ebenbürtigkeit. On the other hand, it is true that although Nicholas II of Russia promised Grand Duke Constantine Konstantinovich that he would not "treat" his daughter's marriage to a Bagration-Mukhransky as unequal, and unlike most unequal marriages the couple was welcomed into the Imperial family, she was required to renounce her succession rights prior to the wedding. When evidence is so mixed, it's crucial that people get all the facts to develop a POV -- so Wiki need not have one. Lethiere 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just one minor correction: the Bagrations claims of great antiquity is hype that should not perhaps be taken at its face value. Their male line cannot be traced behind David Soslan, while the male-line ancestors of Princess Yurievskaya ruled Russia since the 9th century and (if we accept Snorri's evidence and the popular identification of Rurik with a scion of the House of Hedeby who ruled Dorestad) descended from the first man known as king in the Swedish language. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Correction" to what? Where have we been discussing the relative antiquity of dynasties? The Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs had zero antiquity as rulers, and were deemed equal. Both the Dolgorokys and the Bagrationi were far more ancient as ruling dynasties than the Romanovs. If anything, the relevant criterion for marital equality seems to be recentness of sovereignty -- not "ancientness". Lethiere 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to your remark that "the distinction Maria Vladimirovna Romanova's supporters make is that her mother Leonida's descent from a dynasty that had reigned more recently by a couple of hundred years than the Rurikids and Gedyminians justifies..." etc. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

By "senior", appears, is there meant that in the primogeniture-oriented thinking that branch is genealogically senior = descends from an elder brother, compared to some others ("junior") who descend from younger brother. However, primogenitural orientation is not decisive everywhere. Even in Western Europe, other alternatives, such as succession by next brother rather than a son, and proximity of blood, were highly favored at least all the Middle Ages. Several other cultures have used and are using some other preference in succession than primogeniture. Georgian monarchy/monarchies came, in several ways and through many occasions, to hands of "junior" branches, and in their people's view, they were more important and higher than a "senior" branch descending from only some early monarchs but not from recent ones. Besides, I do not think that anyone says even in European genealogist circles that Michael II of Romania should be regarded junior to the Prince of Hohenzollern; or that Queen Elizabeth II should be regarded junior, and possibly somehow subjugated, to whomever now happens to be the pretender to the Saxe-Weimar grand duchy. So, being "senior" branch does not matter much to Georgians, nor to Russian dynasty, but it seems to matter to German houses. That is the light in which I see Vladimir's response and Ferdinand's satisfaction. (The Spanish aspect of Ferdinand actually did not much need that, it seems to be just the German aspect.) Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken, and I agree that Romania/Sigmaringen is an apt analogy. Even though the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens were a non-reigning but senior branch of the Hohenzollerns that lacked the royal rank of the Romanian line, they were 1. still eligible to inter-marry with reigning dynasties, and 2. still eligible to inherit the Romanian throne. In fact, in every dynasty, non-reigning cadets are considered to be dynastic if they descend in the male (and sometimes even the female) line of the dynasty's founder. Nonetheless, if a Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen prince had sought to marry a Romanov princess in 1911, no one would have questioned the fact that the H-S ranked as equal, whereas the B-M were not considered equal in 1911. On the other hand, other dethroned imperial dynasties (Habsburg, Hohenzollern) still enforced marital standards in 1948 (when Vladimir wed Leonida), but their pretenders had lowered those standards from the strict ebenbürtig rules of the monarchy. Lethiere 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In the matter of Tatjana Konstantinovna, I have long held an idea that Nicholas II's desire to have her renounce IS a sign of her mariage being equal - because if the marriage was NOT equal, her issue would not be heirs to Russian throne in its semi-salic sense just because they then were born of an unequal marriage and therefore ineligible, and Tatjana's renunciation would not have changed that at all. Whereas if her husband was equal, then her issue born of that marriage were entitled to semi-salic rights to Russian succession, an outcome avoidable by Tatjana's renunciation. By the way, Nicholas I of Russia deemed Duke Maximilian of Leuctenberg as equal enough, and it is well-known that the Leuctenberg issue of Maria Nicolaievna were regarded entitled to semi-salic rights to Russian throne. What was Leuchtenberg? A family of Bavarian nobility and French nobility, having its ancestor as adopted son of Napoleon I, whom Imperial Russia did not want afterwards to recognize as a proper emperor nor a proper monarch. So, Nicholas I already created the precedent that some tenuous link to former de facto rulers is sufficient; the Bagrationi are in approximately same situation. Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia's marriage was considered legally (although not socially) morganatic. The reason that she had to renounce is because Russia's laws automatically deprived her morganatic children of succession rights, but left her own rights intact. To prevent the possibility of her succeeding to the crown and creating dynastic havoc by attempting to de-morganatize her offspring by imperial fiat (as it was widely believed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria planned to do), Russian Imperial policy was to require that any dynast marrying morganatically must also renounce his/her own rights of succession. This is well-documented in the 1911 Imperial memorandum that was initiated to accomodate Tatiana's wedding, which was the first dynastically-approved-but-unequal marriage to take place among the Romanovs (not counting Alexander II's 1880 mésalliance with Princess Catherine Dolgoroky, which was done suddenly and secretly to legitimise the couple's illegitimate children). Lethiere 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there in imperial Russia of 19th century (say, in year 1900), in real terms, other families than imperial house itself and its semi-salic cognatic descendants, to hold a "legal status" higher than "ordinary nobles"; and what was such status, if such existed? I have grave doubts that in 1900, Russia did not treat any of its subjects (other than the imperial house and its cognatics such as Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Leuchtenberg...) as royalty. Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. You cannot simply cite the Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs and then discount them as an exception. They were exactly like the Battenbergs and Tecks in England; a "Gotha-3rd-section" princely family not strictly equal by European dynastic standards, but accepted as equal by a dynasty that found it advantageous to find suitable husbands for royal daughters without forcing them to move abroad (The Spanish also chose to generate home-grown spouses, with their Orléans, Sicilian and Bavarian infantes, but the Borbóns managed to choose fully royal --although often uprooted -- princelings to naturalise. Leonida's sister-in-law was among them, King Juan Carlos's mother was another.) Aside from Russia's Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs, the only other princes étrangers naturalised in Russia were the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayns. Their status was unusual, for not only was their foreign title confirmed, but they were one of the 20 or so families whose members were recognized in Russia as Serene Highnesses. In Russia you are correct: they inter-married with the nobility rather than the Romanovs, but the Sayns had equality rules, and when these were complied with descendants often married back into mediatised dynasties, yet when the rules were violated the result was deemed morganatic in Germany. Their Russian princely title and Sérénissime was affirmed in 1899 (but remember that the morganatic branch of the Beauharnais were also given a ducal title and HSH by the Tsar in 1890). As a mediatised rather than reigning house, it is intriguing to wonder how they might have been regarded if one of Nicholas II's daughters had, for example, taken a fancy to HSH Prince Gustav Alexander zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn (1880-1953), whose mother belonged to a French ducal family and paternal grandmother was a Princess Bariatinsky, whose elder brother wed a mediatised countess in 1911, and whose father renounced his princely title to make a second, morganatic marriage to a Russian commoner in 1883. Romanov house law required dynastic spouses to belong to "a royal or reigning family" -- the "or" necessarily implied that the family need not be both. Lethiere 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I tagged this article as having a POV problem because of the occasional peacock language, and because of the monarchist/legitimist bias visible throughout the modern portions of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the problematic passage, but I don't really see any monarchist/legitimist bias in the article.--KoberTalk 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)