Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna: June 2008-

[TomBert]

I do not see anything contradictory in Grand Duchess Maria's recent statement. Of course the comments about monarchy being divinely ordained are an example of her wonderfully old fashioned approach to her heritage. But it is not as if she is calling for a restoration of the autocracy, just reminding us of the spiritual aspect a monarchy can have, and of course the Russian Orthodox Church always had a close relationship with the Imperial House.

As to a restoration she makes her position quite clear. If it does happen it should only be by the will of the Russian people i.e. a new monarchical constitution approved by the Russian Duma, or by a majority of Russians in a referendum. She is ruling out support for any hair-brained schemes to force a monarchy on the Russian Federation (e.g. military coup, or support of fringe extremest organisations). The Grand Duchess is also quite realistic that a restoration is unlikely, but just in case, the Imperial House will be ready. What is so contradictory about that?

I find it amusing that some of the poster here who take exception to the Grand Duchess, and accuse her of forcing her opinions on others, are doing exactly that with their ridiculous generalisations and offensive rudeness. I fully understand why some people do not support her position, her actions, and her beliefs; but it is beyond me why this inspires such vitriol. I think you are right, Madame Royale, that it says more about them than the Grand Duchess.

[AristoCat]

Maybe the reason it rubs people the wrong way, is because she often comes off as if she has the right to decide if whether or not a monarchy would be restored, or best for Russia.

The thing is, that she sometimes keeps reiterating it, as if she really wants to start screeching "RESTORE ME TO THE THRONE AND LET ME RUN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!" She conveniently forgets that Rostislav is far closer to the lineage of Nicholas II and would in the event that the Romanovs would even be contenders, that Rostislav would in fact be closer, House Laws or no House Laws. She might not insult the rest of them openly, but quite frankly she is in many ways antagonistic.

[Madame Royale]

That still does not justify the vitriol often expressed in this subforum. Snide comments about her weight, breath and appearance are disgraceful and lend no relevance to the conversation. That those who call themselves adults are the ones who happily engage in the said offensive should perhaps take a long hard look in the mirror and work on whatever it is that's making them as bitter and jaded as they are.

For various reasons the contending faction are content to live private lives and go about private enterprise. Fair enough, and good for them. It's a decision they have all made and is to be respected.

Maria, on the other hand, has openly and willfully endeavoured, with the apparent (be it unofficial) support of the Russian Orthodox Church, to take on a public role as hereditary claimant. There has been no resistance to her involvement in society and that she has been, imo, a great ambassador for Russian culture (which is something she feels passionate about acknowledging and preserving) is a true testiment to her resolve. She is a remembered figure in royal circles and is often spied at various royal engagements on the continent. From being invited to tea at Buckingham Palace with Queen Elizabeth II some time ago to attending the Asturias wedding, the Monaco wedding and taking place alongside the Danish Crown Princely couple at the reburial of the Dowager Empress but to name a few occasions. For all intents and purposes, she is a well regarded woman who is facilitating a representative role for the instituton she wholeheartedly believes in.

Maria believes fervently in the recognition of the martyrdom of the Imperial Family and has lead the charge in terms of their rehabilitation. It is something she is passionate about, which does not appear the case for those who jointly dismiss her.

Maria has also engaged with Russia's politician's at the highest level and who also appear to happily accept her role as claimant to the extinct throne.

Maria also secures the permission of the church before undertaking any official representative role abroad, i.e: to Australia, the Vatican etc and so forth.

Here is a woman who stands by her conviction and is who is content and willing to devote her time to the cause she believes in (and no, I do not mean herself) instead of sitting idely by doing nothing because she is unsure about her place. She has made clear that it shall only ever be at the will of the Russian people, as to whether or not the monarchy is restored to Russia. Whether some wish to believe that or not, is entirely up to them and naturally, there are those who wont believe a damn thing the woman has to say because it doesn't fit with their ill conceived image of her. That is their problem, not hers.

[COUNTESS]

Sorry, Maria is an opportunist. She is, also, cleaver. So, if there is a hair of a chance of restoring her and her son to some sort of power, she would kiss anyone's anything. She will be at the "will" the Russian people, because, she can't do anything else. I, think, the Russian politcicians find her amusing and publicly, will not be rude to a Romanov, to glean some extra votes.

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Maybe the reason it rubs people the wrong way, is because she often comes off as if she has the right to decide if whether or not a monarchy would be restored, or best for Russia.

The thing is, that she sometimes keeps reiterating it, as if she really wants to start screeching "RESTORE ME TO THE THRONE AND LET ME RUN THIS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!" She conveniently forgets that Rostislav is far closer to the lineage of Nicholas II and would in the event that the Romanovs would even be contenders, that Rostislav would in fact be closer, House Laws or no House Laws. She might not insult the rest of them openly, but quite frankly she is in many ways antagonistic.

It sounds more like you find House Laws antagonistic for excluding Rostislav and others and are taking it out on Maria for following them and thus referring the herself and George as the only dynasts. Even if you believed that she does not qualify under house laws, there is no denying Rostislav is definately excluded under house laws. The fomer Tsars made the laws - blame them.

I do not see the attacks on other claimnants, monarchs, or heirs in other countries because their laws excluded them from succession due to sex or morgantic marriage even when the laws get changed for younger generations. Elena and Cristina of Spain, Martha of Norway, Caroline of Monaco, Marie Astrid of Luxembourg, etc or even Sophie of Liechtenstein or her 4 Bavarian sisters or the other 52 closer relatives excluded in favour of distant male relatives Luitpold and Ludwig in Bavaria do not treat their relatives this way. The german and Brazilian royal families seem close happy families at their royal weddings despite many being passed over for morgantic marriages. I can only think of the Italians fighting like this - cause I have seen the French claimnants together civilly at events. I am not saying that some people may not be happy with their countries' house laws - but they do not seem to take it out on their relatives like the Romanovs attack Maria .

[Al_bina]

True, the royal ladies mentioned are not excluded from the succession line. However, the chances they ever succeed the throne are non-existent. In case of Caroline of Monaco, the late Prince Rainier had no choice, but to appoint her and her children to succeed Prince Albert. Given the current situation, there is a good probability that Caroline's son does not succeed his uncle.
European royalty and nobility proved flexible and attuned their succession rules to the spirit of times. Paul I of Russia ensured a strict adherence to the succession laws because of what his mother did. We can engage into a never-ending futile discussion, but all goes back to the Russian history.

[Ceallach]

What I said was that those women are older than their brothers, but unlike Sweden, it is boys before girls - but they do not fuss even when the rules in some cases (Norway, Lux, etc) are changed for future generations. In Norway for example Haakon will inherit before his older sister but his daughter Ingrid inherits ahead of her brother due to when the house laws were changed.

Rostislav may be closer, but like with other monarchies I mentioned, house laws determine succession not closeness or birth order.

[TomBert]

Nicely put Madame Royale and Ceallach. It seems there is no point trying to put forward rational arguments to refute the venom directed against Grand Duchess Maria. I suppose what I find most interesting is why people who so obviously despise a person go out of their way to visit a forum headed "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna", and even establish new threads devoted to this branch of the Imperial Family. If I supported young Rostislav I would start a thread devoted to him, and simply ignore Maria Vladimirovna. Much in the same way I ignore any forums devoted to Nicholas Romanovich and the Romanov Family Association.

Now, just to annoy those who despise this fine lady, here is a photo of Grand Duchess Maria on her Official Visit to Australia in 2007. She was guest of honour at the Victorian Shrine of Remembrance where she unveiled a memorial to the Russians who joined the Australian armed forces during World War I.



Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

[Al_bina]

You are free to post as many photos of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna as you wish. It is not annoying. You like her. It is fine.

Originally Posted by Ceallach

What I said was that those women are older than their brothers, but unlike Sweden, it is boys before girls - but they do not fuss even when the rules in some cases (Norway, Lux, etc) are changed for future generations. In Norway for example Haakon will inherit before his older sister but his daughter Ingrid inherits ahead of her brother due to when the house laws were changed.
Rostislav may be closer, but like with other monarchies I mentioned, house laws determine succession not closeness or birth order.

The European reigning royal houses has to bow the external pressure and change the succession laws. This may not be true for non-reigning houses. It is sad that Prince Carl Philip was stripped off his title though.

[branchg]

Cyril and Vladimir both had indisputable rights to be the Head of the Imperial House under the Pauline Laws. There is no question about that under any of the Articles.

With Vladimir's death in 1992, however, all the surviving lines became defunct of dynasts due to morganatic marriages, including Vladimir's own. That's where the rift really began and has remained due to Maria's insistence (as her father did) that she is royal and the rest of her relatives are not.

In reality, they are all morganatic and their claims are dead.

[branchg]

Maria has done an admirable and honourable job of upholding the traditions and legacy of the Imperial House throughout her life. She deserves credit for that unquestionably.

Whether or not there is ever a restoration is irrelevant because all sides recognize it can only happen when and if Russia wants to restore the monarchy. Which is highly unlikely.

[Next Star]

Maria Vladimirovna is not head of the imperial house and she is not grandduchess either.
She is just a princess and trying to get a postion she can't get only men are allowed to
be in the succession to the headship.This dream that she has very hard to accomplish
espically according to what happened back in history many years ago.

[Alfin Ware Withrow]

My BA is in History with a Double major in Religious Studies from Chaminade University. Czar Peter the Great Emperor of All Europe would put the poor duchess in her place, and the Church would support the Czar. I'm sorry grand duchess Maria Vladimirovna, but Church Law would examine the Lineages of those next in line. So, you may find that you and your house has no claim.
In this day and age, people are better educated and select the status-quot over any Monarchy of the past. The one thing people forget the most is the Curse of King given to the Jews in selection of a king to be their Representative to other countries instead of God Himself. That Curse is that the people with suffer for the Sins which their kings commit. And, Let me be clear, that goes for all elected officials not just kings. So, be careful what you do in electing any person to office, that leader's sins could like that of Katrina in the U.S. because of Bush's election in 2000.
The Inuit Elder, and by Biblical Law, the Crown Prince of the House of Withrow.

[Ceallach]

If there are no male dynasts left, the headship passes to the closest female dynast to the last head of the house, and can then pass through male and female lines with male preference.

Maria's father considered her to be his heir as his daughter and closest female dynast since the other male Romanovs married morgantically and were no longer dynasts.

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by Alfin Ware Withrow

My BA is in History with a Double major in Religious Studies from Chaminade University. Czar Peter the Great Emperor of All Europe would put the poor duchess in her place, and the Church would support the Czar. I'm sorry grand duchess Maria Vladimirovna, but Church Law would examine the Lineages of those next in line. So, you may find that you and your house has no claim. .

Huh? Peter the Great was succeeded by a woman - his morgantic wife, and eventually his legitimized daughter Elizabeth, and grandson in the female line by his legitimized daughter Anna. It was later on, after Catherine the Great, that Paul put in the present house laws. Unless you are talking about some other Tsar Petar?

She also seems to have the support of the Church who know her lineage.

[windsorbrides1]

HM Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, presently the leader of the monarchies of Europe, curtseyed to Prince Nicholas Romanov, thereby recognizing him as Head of the Imperial Family. HM Queen Elizabeth rarely curtseys to anyone as shown when she arrived at the marriage of HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. She did not curtsey to anyone, and there were several monarchs present. However, when Prince Nicholas was invited to an event where she was, she curtseyed to him. She has given no such courtesy to Maria. You can find that in Robert K. Massie's book The Romanov's: The Final Chapter.

[TomBert]

The Queen of Great Britain would never curtsy to Nicholas Romanovich. She curtseys to nobody, and certainly not to the head of a private family association. She would also stay well clear of publicly taking sides in any sort of dynastic dispute. There are stories that she once stood up when he entered a room (that is the story recounted in Massie's book if I recall correctly) but I have yet to see a first hand account of this supposed silent recognition. Even if she did stand up it does not necessarily mean recognition; maybe she felt like stretching her legs.

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by TomBert

The Queen of Great Britain would never curtsy to Nicholas Romanovich. She curtseys to nobody, and certainly not to the head of a private family association. She would also stay well clear of publicly taking sides in any sort of dynastic dispute. There are stories that she once stood up when he entered a room (that is the story recounted in Massie's book if I recall correctly) but I have yet to see a first hand account of this supposed silent recognition. Even if she did stand up it does not necessarily mean recognition; maybe she felt like stretching her legs.

I suspect she happened to be getting up anyway when he entered a room and it went to his head. I doubt she even knew who he was.

[Kataryn]

One question: was Georgia, where Maria's mother was from, still occupied and included in the Russian realm when the marriage took place?

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

One question: was Georgia, where Maria's mother was from, still occupied and included in the Russian realm when the marriage took place?

Not in Russian realm (since the Empire no longer existed), but at the time of the wedding, in 1948, Georgia was part of the Soviet Union.
Georgia gained independence along with other former soviet Republics in 1990's.

Georgia was part of the Russian Empire from 1800 to 1917.
It briefly gained independence from 1918 to 1921, after the collapse of the Empire and before entering Soviet Union.
Georgia finally become an independent republic in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.