Talk:Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Old unilateral move discussion 2 Cut-and-paste moves are against Wikipedia policy 3 Name 4 Requested move 4.1 Survey 4.2 Discussion 5 Life 6 Nicholas' alleged statement supportive of Maria 7 Line of succession for British throne

[edit] Old unilateral move discussion

Today's abrupt move of this article from Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia to Maria Romanov was, in my opinion, too hasty and also bad. We know that she does not use the surname Romanov, and we know that she has an almost uncontested right to use "of Russia", also apparently accorded to her by her opponents in the Romanov Family Association.

I support that the title "Grand duchess" was removed, and hopefully will be, from the title of the article. Such titles have no place, in my opinion, in article titling: for brevity's sake, but also for avoiding quarrels about what are pretensions and what are true rights. Such titles and stules are explained in the text of the article.

Maria Romanov is too generic. It will probably later serve as disambiguation page.

Patronymic is a part of their namings. Thus, Maria Vladimirovna is good and NPOV.

We should defer to actual usage of her and of the meaningful others. After all, this is no place for artificial naming. And if artificial naming, as apparently here, is intended to express a political opinion of her claims, is doubly not good. It is POV.

I believe the actual usage for her is widely "of Russia". Thus, I vote that soon this article be moved under Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. 62.78.124.63 20:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. mikka (t) 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Her actual usage is "of Russia". I will revert now to the version that we have all consented to. Watercool 09:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this as well- let's change it back to Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.I vonH 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-and-paste moves are against Wikipedia policy

Whatever is to happen, no one must do a cut-and-paste move. 84.251.186.14 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Maria is known by the name which she uses for herself, which includes the title of Grand Duchess of Russia. The current name is unacceptable. "Standard" naming for pretenders is to affix the title to the end of their name. In this case, that would be Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia (as she would the the Grand Duchess of Russia as opposed to just a Grand Duchess of Russia). Otherwise, she is at Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. I prefer the former. Charles 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Charles, have it moved. Gryffindor 13:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is untrue- the Danish monarchy's website coverage of the funeral of the Empress Marie lists Maria as a Princess of Russia- not a Grand Duchess.68.3.32.53

That is the Danish Royal Court's opinion. Maria Vladimirovna uses the title of Grand Duchess for herself. Charles 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet no other member of the Romanov family nor the royal family closest to them does. Usage of a title and entitlement to do so are two very different things. 12.146.101.146 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the point of the matter is she is not "known" by all as a Grand Duchess- anyone can call themselves anything they like- it doesn't make it correct. 12.146.101.146 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all, so there is no point. Some people refuse to recognize Elizabeth II as queen and call her Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark. Others refuse to call Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon HRH The Duke of Anjou. The fact of the matter is, and the only point of the matter, is that a pretender here on Wikipedia and in general are known by the names and titles which they themselves use. For those that even acknowledge her as titled, it's either Princess or Grand Duchess. She uses the grand ducal title. Charles 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter at all then why must you argue your POV every chance you get rather than let people list a source or a fact without your constant, endless, and uninformed badgering? And pretenders on Wikipedia are not all known by their titles of pretense. In the future please do your research before you make such broad and usually incorrect statements12.146.101.146 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh? My "POV" is the POV taken by pretenders and supported by Wikipedia. I support and change what I can if it's right. In the mean time, why don't you get a name and stop hiding behind an IP address if you're going to tell me that I'm always incorrect? Until then, you don't deserve my consideration. Charles 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Charles, I would tend to agree with our unnamed friend above-you do tend to attack rather than address the issue when pressed. Why is that? Your POV may be supported by self-serving pretenders but you do not speak for Wikipedia. And if you had looked in Wikipedia you would see that your statement about pretenders is wrong, and is not supported by Wikipedia. For your consideration.I vonH 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, an editor with only one contribution. The one above. Charles 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a rebuttal? As it addresses none of the salient points above one can only assume.I vonH 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles is correct. --Counter-revolutionary 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

About what Counter-revolutionary? He has addressed none of the points made above. Unless you intend to address them for him perhaps you should keep your opinion to yourself. I vonH 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles is incorrect.Tim Foxworth 04:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP".

As his occupation, education and published work meet none of the above requirements this rules out Sainty. Purcell is out as well as he was Vladimir's personal attorney, therefore biased. Purcell is also self-published (web). Per Wikipedia- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This means you Charles.

Please source the statements made in this article using the guidelines above.I vonH 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

External links do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for citation- see above.I vonH 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia- "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources".I vonH 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life

Does anyone know anything about her life? Beyond the succession issue. Biography should mention some information about a person's life.BorisG 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas' alleged statement supportive of Maria

I removed the following today, January 8, 2006:

Her rival Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, has -perhaps unwittingly- offered an argument that supports Maria's dynastically as daughter of Leonida, by citing in a published statement in October 1995, 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 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."

The statement was used to suggest that Nicholas recognized the equality of the Bragation Dynasty to the Romanov's and the inheritance rights of females. That is not the case.

Nicholas' claim is that the equal marriage rules only applied to Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses. Since Princess Tatiana and Princess Irina were not of grand ducal rank they were not required to marry equally. This position is the basis of Nicholas' own claim to be head of the Romanov Family. Since his father, Prince Roman, was not of grand ducal rank, he could make an unequal marriage and retain succession rights for himself and pass them to his descendants (i.e. Nicholas). In contrast, Nicholas argues that those of grand ducal rank who made unequal marriages could not pass succession rights to their descendants. Thus the male line descended from Grand Duke Dimitri, which is genealogically senior to the line of Prince Roman, is excluded from the throne because Dimitri was a grand duke who made an unequal marriage.

As regards Maria, Nicholas' arguments are twofold. Either Maria's father was required to marry equally and failed to do so by marrying a Bagration, or his marriage was acceptable but Maria is not the head of the family because Nicholas takes precedence over her as a male. Basically, Nicholas' claim does not turn on the equality of the marriage of Maria's parents but on his contention that as a mere Prince of Russia (instead of a Grand Duke) his father, Prince Roman, was exempt from the equal marriage rules. His interest in the Bagration's status is not because his own claims turn on that issue but because he wants to accuse Maria, and her father, of hypocrisy by asserting that Maria's father married unequally at the same time he condemned the marriages of the remaining Romanovs.

This whole argument is convoluted, and somewhat silly, but it is the basis for Nicholas' claim to the Russian crown. To twist it into an endorsement of Maria is a mistake. Nicholas is not suggesting that Princess Tatiana retained her rights because her marriage to a Bagration was equal but because, as a Princess of Russia instead of a Grand Duchess, Tatiana was not required to make an equal marriage. He is suggesting that the Bagration marriage was clearly unequal, but that Tatiana would have retained her rights except for her voluntary renunciation. The point is proven by the fact that he refers to Princess Irina in the same way. No one suggests that the Yusopovs were equal to the Romanovs but Nicholas points out that Irina was required to sign a renunciation of her rights. To him that means that Irina would have retained all her rights despite marrying unequally had she not renounced them.

63.215.28.165 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Line of succession for British throne

Line of succession to the British Throne lists Maria as #109, so I've changed this article to match. Presumably a few new births have moved her down since she was listed here as #107. Since that's likely to happen relatively frequently, I suggest that the sentence be reworded to remove the reference to a particular number. I'd suggest "Maria Vladimirovna of Russia is in the line of succession to the British Throne.", but since this can be a sensitive subject I'll leave that change to somebody more familiar with the sensitivities. Jordan Brown 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)