Who is the Head of the Imperial Family?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

The Emperor of Russia is His Imperial Majesty Emperor Leo Lvovitch.

Wow. That really throws a monkey wrench in things, doesn't it?
I didn't see THAT ONE coming!

[chancellor]

http://russianwelfare.org.au/pdf/imperial.pdf


Again l ask interested people to read this recent PDF and see what it says on the memorial head stone --what is the name on it ? according to the Russian Comunity ?

the file is both in English and Russian -- great photos too !

Stepan

[Warren]

This is a very well-presented album of Grand Duchess Maria's visit to Australia in September 2007. Noteworthy is the semi-official nature of the visit which included meeting with various State Governors and accommodation at Government House in both Brisbane and Melbourne, formal visit to the Australian Parliament, and a formal reception given by the Russian Ambassador.

[SIDOROFF]

I am Orthodox, but it is not the prerogative of the Patriarch of All the Russias to decide who is the Emperor of Russia.

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Lev Lvovitch Kishkin resides in Kovrov, Russia. When the rightful Emperor of Russia Ivan VI was massacred on the orders of Catherine II, his rights passed successively to his brother Peter, and then to his nephew Ilya Ivanovitch Kishkin, who was the son of his sister Elizaveta and her husband, lieutenant Ivan Dmitrievitch Kishkin. Ilya Ivanovitch Kishkin had no issue and willed all his rights to his paternal brother Nicholai Ivanovitch Kishkin. Lev Lvovitch Kishkin is the senior direct descendant through the male line of Nicholai Ivanovitch Kishkin. The Kishkins were a noble family of ancient Polish linage in Shuya, Russia. Their ancestor Asenbech Kishka moved from Poland to Russia in the 14th century. This statement is proved by the documents in the Kovrov City Archive.

His Imperial Majesty Lev Lvovitch is the rightful Emperor of Russia, as he inherited his rights from the Emperor Ivan VI, who ruled before all the coups took place.

[chancellor]

l dont think any one would run with you on that, its hard enough with all the knockers on better claims, what does this person do today for the disadvanted, for the hungry etc, show me their social profile, news paper articles, Church interaction, l want to see more concrete proof

Stepan

[chancellor]

Èíòåðíåò ïîðòàë "Ìîíàðõèñò.ÐÓ"

here is a whole lot of news

[Warren]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

When the rightful Emperor of Russia Ivan VI was massacred on the orders of Catherine II, his rights passed successively to his brother Peter, and then to his nephew Ilya Ivanovitch Kishkin, who was the son of his sister Elizabeth and her husband, lieutenant Ivan Dmitrievitch Kishkin.

So you're saying that every Emperor and reigning Empress after Ivan VI were illegitimate usurpers? You may as well argue that the Duke of Bavaria is the rightful King of England.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

I
His Imperial Majesty Emperor Leo Lvovitch Kishkin resides in Kovrov, Russia. When the rightful Emperor of Russia Ivan VI was massacred on the orders of Catherine II, his rights passed successively to his brother Peter, and then to his nephew Ilya Ivanovitch Kishkin, who was the son of his sister Elizabeth and her husband, lieutenant Ivan Dmitrievitch Kishkin. Ilya Ivanovitch Kishkin had no issue and willed all his rights to his paternal brother Nicholas Ivanovitch Kishkin. .

Do I understand it right that this "paternal brother" was no blood relative of Ivan VI.? Why should he then have a better claim than the Romanows?

[SIDOROFF]

Whether someone is the Emperor of Russia is not decided by what he "does today for the disadvanted, for the hungry etc." It is a modern fashion invented in the West, His Imperial Majesty Emperor Lev Lvovitch does not have to follow it. There are some articles on him in the Kovrov newspaper "Kovrovskie Vesti" ("Ковровские вести"). Only the heir of the rightful Emperor Ivan VI can be the real Emperor of Russia.

[SIDOROFF]

Yes. I would say that the Duke of Brunswick is the rightful King of the United Kingdom.

[Warren]

There is no 'Grand Duke of Brunswick'. Brunswick was a Duchy and in any case the Prince of Hanover's claim to the British throne can only be sustained by application of the Salic Law, which never applied in Britain.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Warren

There is no 'Grand Duke of Brunswick'. Brunswick was a Duchy and in any case the Prince of Hanover's claim to the British throne can only be sustained by application of the Salic Law, which never applied in Britain.

The line of the Dukes of Braunschweig died out in 1884, the lands were inherited by their cousins of Hannover of which Ernst August is the current Head of the family. Ernst August accepts queen Elizabeth II. as the souverain of the UK.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

The line of the Dukes of Braunschweig died out in 1884, the lands were inherited by their cousins of Hannover of which Ernst August is the current Head of the family. Ernst August accepts queen Elizabeth II. as the souverain of the UK.

I do not insist he is waging a war against her. I just say he could have a rightful claim.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

I do not insist he is waging a war against her. I just say he could have a rightful claim.

Yes, he has one. Or better, he had. He was I think about nr. 200 in line to the throne according to the laws of succession valid in the Uk, but lost his place when he married a Catholic.

[SIDOROFF]

The Salic Law most closely corresponds to the laws of nature and common sense.

[Warren]

I have no wish to enter into a ridiculous argument, but I will re-state the fact that Brunswick was a Duchy, ruled by a Duke.
ETA.. I see that you have changed your original and follow-up posts to remove your insistence that Brunswick was a Grand Duchy.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

The Salic Law most closely corresponds to the laws of nature and common sense.

Come on, try to arrive in the 21.st century where men and women have equal rights.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Do I understand it right that this "paternal brother" was no blood relative of Ivan VI.? Why should he then have a better claim than the Romanows?

Yes, you understand it right. But he was a blood relative of his paternal brother Ilya, who was the rightful Emperor. People you call "Romanows" are also not such, but Holstein-Gottorps.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

Yes, you understand it right. But he was a blood relative of his paternal brother Ilya I, who was the rightful Emperor. People you call "Romanows" are also not such, but Holstein-Hottorps.

On the one hand you accept that there was inheritance through the female line to this Ilya, on the other hand you make fun of the same case of inheritance through the wife of a duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Sounds strange to me.

[SIDOROFF]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

On the one hand you accept that there was inheritance through the female line to this Ilya, on the other hand you make fun of the same case of inheritance through the wife of a duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Sounds strange to me.

I do not make fun. I point out to the rightfulness of the Kishkins' claim, as they inherited their rights, contrary to Holstein-Gottorps, who wrestled it from each other in coups.