Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna: June 2008- - Page 30

wyevale · #**581** 08-31-2013, 02:40 PM

Could someone explain to me why Nicholas 11 and his Empress were omitted from the list of Romanov monarchs read out at the Commemoration. Were they not anointed Monarchs of the Russian Empire ?

To 'delete' them in this way is an act reminiscent {and worthy} of Stalin..

Andolini · #**582** 08-31-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale

Could someone explain to me why Nicholas 11 and his Empress were omitted from the list of Romanov monarchs read out at the Commemoration. Were they not anointed Monarchs of the Russian Empire ?

To 'delete' them in this way is an act reminiscent {and worthy} of Stalin..

Weren't they canonized? Worthy of Stalin? Oh please, chill out

wyevale · #**583** 08-31-2013, 02:59 PM

[QUOTEWorthy of Stalin?][/QUOTE]

Re-writing history IS what he did... so is this. And i assure you i am perfectly 'chilled out'...

Andolini · #**584** 08-31-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale

[QUOTEWorthy of Stalin?]

Re-writing history IS what he did... so is this. And i assure you i am perfectly 'chilled out'...[/QUOTE]

From what I learned at university the Tsar and his wife were not the best "leaders" in the world, that's for sure.

Ish · #**585** 08-31-2013, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andolini

Re-writing history IS what he did... so is this. And i assure you i am perfectly 'chilled out'...

From what I learned at university the Tsar and his wife were not the best "leaders" in the world, that's for sure.[/QUOTE]

Many monarchs weren't the best leaders. That doesn't mean that they should be omitted in a list commemorating monarchs.

Andolini · #**586** 08-31-2013, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

From what I learned at university the Tsar and his wife were not the best "leaders" in the world, that's for sure.

Many monarchs weren't the best leaders. That doesn't mean that they should be omitted in a list commemorating monarchs.[/QUOTE]

True enough, I stand corrected.

Benjamin · #**587** 08-31-2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale

Could someone explain to me why Nicholas 11 and his Empress were omitted from the list of Romanov monarchs read out at the Commemoration. Were they not anointed Monarchs of the Russian Empire ?

To 'delete' them in this way is an act reminiscent {and worthy} of Stalin..

You would have to ask the Russian Orthodox Church since it was the organizer of the commemmoration.

AristoCat · #**588** 08-31-2013, 04:20 PM

I'm beginning to think that the current officials in that Church are corrupt. They dislike the idea of these remains being of the Imperial family, now they have no problems with Vladimirovna deliberately usurping the Imperial status via replacing Nicholas with her ancestors as the legitimate Imperial Line.

Ish · #**589** 08-31-2013, 04:30 PM

The thing is that Maria doesn't have to usurp Nicholas II in order to promote her line.

The line of Nicholas II is completely dead. Therefore other lines - including that of Maria's - take prominence because they're what's remains. I can understand if Maria was trying to cut people out to push her claim forward over the claims of others, but there's no need to cut out Nicholas.

Andolini · #**590** 08-31-2013, 04:31 PM

I will admit ignorance here - what is the significance of them leaving out Nicholas and Alexandra? Are they trying to make a point?

Ish · #**591** 08-31-2013, 04:36 PM

I honestly have no clue, and would be interested in hearing if someone does know.

AristoCat · #**592** 08-31-2013, 04:39 PM

It's significant because Nicholas II was the last reigning Tsar and the most famous of them because of it. If she had put Nicholas II and then her relations, it would be somewhat understandable that she is trying to promote her own line of relations, but she omitted Nicholas as if he didn't matter at all, that it was all about her line and ancestors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

The thing is that Maria doesn't have to usurp Nicholas II in order to promote her line.

The line of Nicholas II is completely dead. Therefore other lines - including that of Maria's - take prominence because they're what's remains. I can understand if Maria was trying to cut people out to push her claim forward over the claims of others, but there's no need to cut out Nicholas.

Maybe usurpation isn't quite the right way to go about it, but realistically, she's hardly 'forgot' to mention Nicholas, to me it was a deliberate omission. If she could get away with it I think she would have ended up putting both Cyril and his father as the rightful Tsars.

Andolini · #**593** 08-31-2013, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat

It's significant because Nicholas II was the last reigning Tsar and the most famous of them because of it. If she had put Nicholas II and then her relations, it would be somewhat understandable that she is trying to promote her own line of relations, but she omitted Nicholas as if he didn't matter at all, that it was all about her line and ancestors.

Maybe usurpation isn't quite the right way to go about it, but realistically, she's hardly 'forgot' to mention Nicholas, to me it was a deliberate omission. If she could get away with it I think she would have ended up putting both Cyril and his father as the rightful Tsars.

Oh, okay. Thanks much!

Lee-Z · #**594** 08-31-2013, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Maybe usurpation isn't quite the right way to go about it, but realistically, she's hardly 'forgot' to mention Nicholas, to me it was a deliberate omission. If she could get away with it I think she would have ended up putting both Cyril and his father as the rightful Tsars.

Okay, now i'm being ignorant here, but with all the media we have nowadays (and had for the past 100 years), how on earth can you ever manage to skip the last known tzar from a list of tzars?
These are not the middle-ages, were you could just recall all (=few) publications in existance and rewrite them...

AristoCat · #**595** 08-31-2013, 05:13 PM

She can't obviously erase Nicholas from history, but she can make modern generations think that HER line is the Imperial Line, not the reality that the line ended with Nicholas nad that she is only one branch that is contending for authority over the Romanov family. There is another fairly solid claimant (Rostislav), but that is omitted.

Andolini · #**596** 08-31-2013, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AristoCat

She can't obviously erase Nicholas from history, but she can make modern generations think that HER line is the Imperial Line, not the reality that the line ended with Nicholas nad that she is only one branch that is contending for authority over the Romanov family. There is another fairly solid claimant (Rostislav), but that is omitted.

I am not trying to be a troll, but the majority of people know who Nicholas and Alexandra were and their place in history. But I get what you're saying about how they should not have been omitted.

AristoCat · #**597** 08-31-2013, 05:30 PM

I don't think you're a troll at all. Omitting it is a brazen act, even for her; what on earth made her do this, I do not know. I wonder if she's going to get more aggressive about asserting her view of her claim.

Ish · #**598** 08-31-2013, 05:34 PM

What I find particularly interesting is this quote:

Quote:

A Litany for the Departed included the names of "the ever-memorable rulers of Holy Russia, pious princes and princesses, tsars and tsaritsas," with the name of all the rulers of the Romanoff dynasty and their spouses...

Except, Nicholas II and Alix are omitted, almost implying that he wasn't a ruler of the Romanoff dynasty. Kirill is listed as a ruler when he's not, he was a pretender (likewise with Vladimir), and other pretenders are omitted.

To me, the way it's done seems like it's attempting to make Kirill the heir of Alexander III, almost implying that he was Alexander's son (instead of his nephew). While people do (or at least should) know that Nicholas II reigned, this does seem like it's an attempt at rewriting history.

Lee-Z · #**599** 08-31-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

While people do (or at least should) know that Nicholas II reigned, this does seem like it's an attempt at rewriting history.

just had a mental image of GD.Maria frantically 'correcting' wikipedia articles

Warren · #**600** 08-31-2013, 06:09 PM

I'm not sure if some members are being deliberately obtuse, or just enjoy whipping themselves into a state of frenzied indignation.
As Benjamin has alredy pointed out, the service was organised and conducted by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Therefore, "she" didn't omit or delete anything. "They" [meaning the Church officials responsible for the liturgy and prayers] did.
Could everyone please stick to the known facts rather than the stock standard emotional spleen and false attribution so common in this subforum.

thanks,

Warren
Non-Reigning Houses moderator