Talk:House of Romanov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	Russia Portal House of Romanov is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Sorry Arno - i just felt if the article uses "Nicholas II" not "Nikolai II" then why not use Michael instead of Mikhail?

---

Hi there, whoever you are.

I've settled on the "Mikhail(Michael)" format as a compromise. I'm no great fan of Anglicised names of non-Engligh monarchs, as you masy have guessed. If I were to follow this Anglican name-style logic, then Ivan the Terrible (and his five namesakes) should be called John the Terrible (or whatever). How logical is that?

Also, if you are happy with calling Mr Gorbachev Mikhail and not Michael, then you should be equally happy with calling the first Romanov monarch Mikhail.

Cheers,

Arno

That's stupid. Names of European monarchs are translated into English (or Russian or French), that's not merely a tradition, that's the rule. The reason why Ivan is not translated as John, is because Russian has several versions of John such as Ioann and Ivan. The rule of translating names applies to other established European languages as well. So, King John or Lackland is Jean Sans Terre to the French and Ioann Bezzemelny to the Russians. Prinz Eugen von Savoy is Prince Eugene of Savoy or Prince Eugène de Savoye or Princ Evgeni Savoiskii.

Since this Arno personage does not obviously know anything about languages, rules of how names are translated, history, or in this case the subject he is writing about (what is this invented dynasty? Romanovs (or Romanoff) consider themselves Romanovs, not some Holstein-Gottorp-Whatever. There is no such thing as Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.

Portuguese-speaking countries also translate the names of European Monarchs into Portuguese, too. John of Lackland is called "João Sem Terra" in Portuguese. Ivan is never translated as João in Portugal or Brazil though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.145.117 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Encarta says there's a heir of the Romanov, Grand Duchess Maria, after her father's death in 1992. What is this about? --Menchi 02:49, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

They're wrong to be certain about it. The House Laws are sufficiently complex (requiring equal marriage, allowing succession of females only after all dynastic males are dead, etc.) that different heirs have different supporters depending on interpretation, and it's not necessarily true that there even is an heir. It would be a mess to get into but an interesting exercise in NPOV if anyone were to take an interest. Maria's supporters do seem to be more numerous than others...but given that restoration of the monarchy is rather unlikely, it seems a bit academic. See pro-Maria POV, pro-Nicholas POV - Someone else 02:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's all part of a complex argument between two possible pretrenders to a hypothetical Russian throne. Arno 09:28, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please read the detailed argumentation which is a part of article Maria Vladimirovna of Russia 217.140.193.123 23:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Pavel's real father 2 Our Lady of St Feodor 3 Origins 4 Family Flag 5 Lots of bold 6 Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia 7 Executed versus Murdered 8 Pauline laws 9 Bulletproof kids 10 Imperial Crown 11 Downfall section needs rewriting 12 Vandalism? 13 Curious Edit 14 The best source for the name Romanov- Holstein-Gottorp 15 Modern day

[edit] Pavel's real father

"Catherine II (of the House of Anhalt-Zerbst), insinuated in her memoirs that Paul's real father had been her lover Serge Saltykov"

Give the accurate quotation from her memoirs (diary?), please. Pavel I and emperor Peter III had striking similarity in their look. --80.249.229.122 08:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Lady of St Feodor

Please clarify the status of the image, linked thusly from the article: Our Lady of St Feodor. Mikkalai 02:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Our lady of St. Theodore (there is no saint caleld Feodor in English)

The brother of Alexander III who died prematurely, was Nicholas, not Michael.

[edit] Origins

The origins section is crap and obviously written with the purpose of denigrating Romanov ancestry.

I agree this section sounds confuse, but it was a relief for me anyway, I'm glad to learn that the name 'Romanov' just comes from a Russian guy whose first name was Roman, I thought it had such name because they really believed they were descendants of Julius Caesar (I already knew about the bloodline relating the Romanovs to Julius Caesar so I thought -until today- that the name 'Romanov' was taken after Julius Caesar himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.145.117 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family Flag

Anyone notice the Romanov family flag is the same as the Austrian Habsburgs......only really stretched out? Odd 207.200.116.73

I believe that the double eagle is relatively standard for imperial families, although I could very well be wrong. Charles 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They both are of the same origin.

The whole article is a crap written by some idiot. It's amazing that Wikipedia has become a repository of garbage. Allida rules

I say the flag is the most ugly I've seen. What a shade of yellow...and used with black and white!?! Who needs a new flag? Davros77 14:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of bold

So, why is there an entire sentence bolded at the intro? It's important information, but it's not consistent with the style guide...

I'll change it myself if nobody objects soon.

[edit] Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

Hello. The article on the last Grand Duchess of Imperial Russia, Olga Alexandrovna Romanova, is complete of facts, biographical information, and is furthermore packed with the needed information. Now the information and technical matters within the article must be resolved in order to promote the article to Featured Article status. Thank you for your time and please visit the article here (Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia) and make comments on how to improve the article at its Wikipedia: Peer Review page here: [1]. Thanks again. -- AJ24 23:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executed versus Murdered

With reference to the death of Nicholas II and the Imperial family, I replaced the word "executed" with "murdered". An execution implies a judicial proceeding preceded the killing, and that did not happen. - SansTerre

Murder is an illegal act. This act was ordered by the new leaders of the country.--Konst.able 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "killed"?--Konst.able 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the original phrasing ("executed"). "Murdered" is very POV. "Killed" may be a compromise. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would actually prefer "executed" myself. The original phrasing was actually "murder" - I changed it to "execute" only a couple of days ago in this article, as well as a whole bunch of other relatedones.--Konst.able 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when little CHILDREN are executed? This is against any possible construction of justice. They were murdered. 195.70.32.136 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A killing can surely be illegal even if it is ordered by the state. If George W. Bush ordered the Secret Service to come to my house and kill me, that would be illegal, even if the "leader of the country" ordered it. I don't see how the execution of the royal family can be described as an "execution" when there was no trial, and the Bolsheviks never even admitted to killing Alexandra and the children. In fact, as I understand it, overall there was a great deal of buck-passing between the Ekaterinburg Soviet and the central authorities as to who was responsible for the killings. "execution" is clearly inappropriate, and the idea that a killing is "legal" because it is ordered by the state is dubious. "Killing" would be better, I think. "Murder" certainly seems appropriate as a way to describe the killings of the children, at least, but is perhaps too POV. "Execution" is at least equally POV, though, and more morally grotesque, I think. john k 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Russian courts have recently solved your dispute. The petition to rehabilitate the Czar and his family was denied because there was no sentence. The Romanovs had been unlawfully killed.

Therefore their death, and that of 17 other Romanovs in that week, was indeed a case of murder. (You could probably google it, I read it in a Dutch newspaper) Robert Prummel (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline laws

The consorts of Russian dynasts had to be of equal birth (i.e., born to a sovereign house of Europe) and of the Orthodox faith. Otherwise their children forfeited all rights to the throne.

The latter point doesn't seem to be true. The consorts of the Emperor and the Tsesarevich had to be orthodox, but I am not aware of any rule requiring that the consorts of other dynasts had to be, or their children lost all rights to the throne. The Vladimirovichi were certainly considererd to have dynastic rights, and to be in line for the throne, in the later years of the monarchy, in spite of their mother's Lutheranism. There appear to have been some people who thought that the consorts had to be Orthodox, but certainly this wasn't generally accepted, or else Grand Duke Cyril and his brothers would've not been Grand Dukes, not listed in official publications, and so forth. This ought to be changed, but I'm not sure how to do so. john k 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, Princess Tatiana renounced her rights of succession in 1911 when she married a Bagration prince. But her mother never converted. So presumably orthodoxy was not considered a requirement for consorts of cadets. john k 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, Shilkanni. john k 02:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulletproof kids

> some unscholarly accounts suggest only Nicholas had been shot

This is true, the children were actually bayoneted because they were bulletproof. Literally. When the bolsheviks arrested the Romanoffs they ransacked all the gold they found and gave the family one hour to get ready for moving. However the Romanovs had a big cache of diamonds handy, rough and polished and the tsarina arranged to have the kids garments stuffed with the diamonds embedded in bulk cotton so they have valuables with them to help escape by bribery. The tsarina tought the bolsheviks will not be so low as to pat down pre-teens and she was right, so the treasure went unnoticed. The kids had to wear the diamond stuffed clotches all the time to avoid discovery.

The commies liked such fat appearance of tsar kids and often had them march the village streets under guard so the local peasants could see how fat they are while the entire population is starving, thus emphasizing the evil nature of the tsarist system. When the bolsheviks eventually opened fire on the Romanov family, bullets split on the kids, since dimond is the hardest substance ever. The atheist bolsheviks were not fazed by such miracle, they stabbed the kids with bayonets and then discovered the gems. 195.70.32.136 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Crown

Nevermind. I deleted it. I read the template, but there was no reason behind the proscription on "educational use" photographs. Perhaps someone could enlighten me? Svyatoslav 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Downfall section needs rewriting

Lots of it is lifted verbatim from Yahoo News page: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_eu/russia_czar_s_son_5Kostia 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Under the sub-topic The era of dynastic crises it is said that the Empresses Anna and Elizabeth were beheaded for being lesbians and that the Romanov line died for the male dynasts at the time being homosexuals. Now I don't know how far this is true but I don't think there is proof to Anna and Elizabeth being lesbians, and further being beheaded for it.

Anyone?

219.93.152.12 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)S D C

[edit] Curious Edit

You disturb the consistency of the House of Romanov. Even if any kind of situation, current article is inappropriateness. You described a founder unlike a surname written in the box(R-H-G). The parent house is House of Oldenburg now, Michael of Russia is Oldenburg?? Though only the title of the "Emperor" was described, you described the person who wasn't the Emperor(he was Tsar). Your thought wants to know me. Do you think that a result of your editing does not have any problem? If it is so, there cannot be the thing that I talk so with you. You did vandalism and threatened me. It is only it for me. --Motsu 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The best source for the name Romanov- Holstein-Gottorp

The greatest authority for matters of nobility has allways been the "Almanach de Gotha". It's 1914 edition calls the Russian Imperial dynasty "Maison Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp".

There is no more authoritative source than the venerable Gotha, is there?

The 2001 Gotha, a new issue that is not related to the old publishers firm of Justus Pertis, calls the dynasty "Romanov/Romanoff". This almanach is not as good a source (yet) as the old almanach.

Are you content with this? Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is no reason for a quarrel, a redirect and a few explanations (these Germans from Gottorp, a branch of the Oldenburg family, wanted to be Russian in the eyes of their people) should satisfy everyone. The House of Windsor a.k.a Saxen-Coburg-Gotha is a similar case... Robert Prummel (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep meaning to tend to this dispute. The conflict isn't over the name, it's over the dating for now. The other user seems to want to date the House simply to when the Holstein-Gottorp joined with the Romanovs. My position is that without the Romanovs there would not be a Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp House and thus the date must be pushed back to the inception of the Romanov Dynasty. --Strothra (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Almanach says: "Souche de la Maison Romanov: Michaël Feidorovitsch né 12 juillet 1596".

I think that settles it. Robert Prummel (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, how is it dating the dynasty back to 1596? The first Romanov doesn't sit on the throne until 1613. In fact, 1596 was the year Michael was born. --Strothra (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you've got to start somewhere... the birth of the founding father, his conception, his enthronement, it is all viable. The Almanach gave his birhdate. I would go for the election of Michael. In 1913 the Romanovs celebrated the 300th. anniversary of their dynasty with great pomp.Robert Prummel (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern day

It has been believed that the Romanov family is all but extinct.

"All but" is not good enough, they're either entirely extinct or we need to list a modern day potential heir, no matter how obscure, this sentence is just ambigious and leaves things in an unclear state. - Gennarous (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)