Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[pamela18335]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

Yes, but what about GD Maria's ancestors repudiating the Tsar when the revolution began? Doesn't that make them traitors to the throne and shouldn't they and their family line be barred from now asserting the claim to the throne?

I know that I'm joining this discussion rather late in the day, but I must agree with Vasillisos. After Nicholas II abdicated for himself and Alexei, and Michael refused to accept the crown unless it was the will of the people, Kyrill was the first (and only, to my knowledge) Romanov who took his regiment to the Provincial Government, wearing the red band of revolution on his arm, and swearing allegiance to the Provincial Government.

Consider what would have been Kyrill's fate had the Civil War ended with the Whites victorious. The man had committed a treasonous act. This would hardly have been rewarded with the vacant throne of Russia!

Kyrill's eligibility is also shadowed by the fact that his mother, Maria Pavlovna, was not a member of the Orthodox Church at the time of Kyrill's birth.

There is an excellent discussion of the Russian Succession here:

Article01

which takes the discussion further, dealing with the legitimacy of Vladimir Kyrillovich's claim, and the claims of his decendents.

[vsriCo]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

You guys have lost me totally. I don't understand the rules of succession. Since there are so many many people involved, it gets very tangled.

GD Maria didn't grow up in Russia. Although it's no longer a communist country, the communist influence is still there and communism is anti-royal. If you have ever read Russian historians writing about the Czar during the time of communism, they are very hostile towards royalty. They (royalty) are basically blamed for every social ill or problem Russia has had in the last several hundred years.

This is totally wrong. Read the news article I posted. Russian's have the most favorable view of Queen Elizabeth II of any country polled. This hardly sounds like a society with communist views on royalty. Forget about what historians wrote about Russian monarchs during communism. Thousands of books have come out in the last 20 years reassessing the country's history, there are wide views ranging from very positive to extremely negative with respect to the Romanov family.

Originally Posted by pamela18335

Consider what would have been Kyrill's fate had the Civil War ended with the Whites victorious. The man had committed a treasonous act. This would hardly have been rewarded with the vacant throne of Russia!

Catherine the Great committed a treasonous act and was rewarded with the throne. I personally don't think it matters. The Russian throne's succession throughout the centuries was plagued with disloyalty and shifting shadow alliances, with many legitimate rulers being killed and replaced by conniving siblings/relatives.

Pamela, I would suggesting having a look at these articles:

THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL SUCCESSION
THE RUSSIAN SUCCESSION
The Quest for a Czar

I think in the event of restoration, the line of Grand Duke Kirill is preferable.

EDIT: I would really like to see the Russian government implicity/explicitly recognize one of the Romanov's as de facto heir, similar to the Spanish government and Juan Carlos, just to put an end to this dicussion.

[branchg]

This issue has been debated many times, but basically comes down to the fact that Vladimir Cyrilovich, as the Head of the Imperial House, was the sole arbitrator of whether any marriage contracted by a member of the family was equal or not. He declared his marriage to Leonida equal and that was the end of that.

From a practical point of view, any restoration of the monarchy in Russia would be decided by the Government and they could choose any Romanov or other royal they wanted for the throne.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by pamela18335

Kyrill was the first (and only, to my knowledge) Romanov who took his regiment to the Provincial Government, wearing the red band of revolution on his arm, and swearing allegiance to the Provincial Government.

Consider what would have been Kyrill's fate had the Civil War ended with the Whites victorious. The man had committed a treasonous act. This would hardly have been rewarded with the vacant throne of Russia!

Pamela, have you read "A Fatal passion"? It's about Ducky. The author, who obviously highly favored his subject, explained the act of treason Kyrill committed as a way to protect himself and his family. The rest of the family consider it treason.

[PRINCEDEMONTREAL]

Why not, Russia has always had a Father (or Mother) Tsar or Traritsa. A country needs a Father or a Mother in this case with Maria. Stricly constitutional monarchy to become Russia's emblem.

[Russophile]

I think that's really up to the people of Russia if they want a monarchy back.

[COUNTESS]

Absolutely, Russo, you are right. And, by the way, they have lived without, no better or worse for all these years. If they need an emblem invest in a new flag.

[pamela18335]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Pamela, have you read "A Fatal passion"? It's about Ducky. The author, who obviously highly favored his subject, explained the act of treason Kyrill committed as a way to protect himself and his family. The rest of the family consider it treason.

Russo, no, I haven't read that one. I checked Amazon for it, and found that most of those who reviewed the book commented (rather negatively) about the author's very public bias in favor of Victoria Melita. I hate reading books wherein the author doesn't at least make an attempt at neutrality, so I decided to buy Van der Kiste's biography instead as part of my vacation reading. I'll let you know how it is

As to Grand Duke Kyrill's action with respect to the Provisional Government, I agree with the family. Kyrill was certainly not the only Romanov in peril; they all were. None of the others (to my knowledge) perpetrated such a treasonous (and in my opinion, cowardly) act. How he could pledge his allegiance and support to the Provisional Government, and then have the audacity to claim his right to inherit the Throne once he achieved the safety of exile in France, is quite beyond me. No sense of honor, this one, and his ambitions were only rivaled by those of his mother.

[nascarlucy]

It possible that the Russian Monarchy if it is restored would be someone similiar to that of England. Because there is so much fighting over who would be the monarch, it would take years to resolve. What I read on the subject has either be pro this faction and pro that faction. I take it people have strong opinions on this. No middle ground.

[vsriCo]

As to Grand Duke Kyrill's action with respect to the Provisional Government, I agree with the family. Kyrill was certainly not the only Romanov in peril; they all were. None of the others (to my knowledge) perpetrated such a treasonous (and in my opinion, cowardly) act. How he could pledge his allegiance and support to the Provisional Government, and then have the audacity to claim his right to inherit the Throne once he achieved the safety of exile in France, is quite beyond me. No sense of honor, this one, and his ambitions were only rivaled by those of his mother.

This isn't how it works with respect to succession though. It's according to the Pauline Laws. If we hold that the Pauline Laws are irrelevant now then anyone can be Tsar. The argument that because Kirill acted in his own self-interest, or cowardly as you say, is ridiculous. The reign of the Romanov's saw some of the most extraordinary acts of betrayal, for instance:

- Catherine the Great's complicity in the overthrow of her husband Peter III, the legitimate ruler and possible culpability for his murder
- Paul I murdered by his own officers
- Peter I killing his own heir
- Empress Anna's murder of Emperor Ivan VI

In fact, prior to the Romanov's during the Rurikid dynasty this is how the succession worked. It was survival of the fittest. The strongest would rule.

[Kasumi]

Originally Posted by vsriCo

prior to the Romanov's during the Rurikid dynasty this is how the succession worked. It was survival of the fittest. The strongest would rule.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are mistaken. The Rurikid succession laws were very effective and worked irreproachably. Try to read some more info on the agnatic seniority.
It was Peter the Great Romanov who had broken the usual succession laws, not Rurikids or their descendants.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by pamela18335

Russo, no, I haven't read that one. I checked Amazon for it, and found that most of those who reviewed the book commented (rather negatively) about the author's very public bias in favor of Victoria Melita. I hate reading books wherein the author doesn't at least make an attempt at neutrality, so I decided to buy Van der Kiste's biography instead as part of my vacation reading. I'll let you know how it is

Cool Beans! Thanks! My library hasn't any Van Der Kiste and many of the books I've read (Michael and Natasha, Ella: Princess, St. Martyr, Little Mother of Russis) quote from him quite liberally.

[pamela18335]

Originally Posted by vsriCo

This isn't how it works with respect to succession though. It's according to the Pauline Laws. If we hold that the Pauline Laws are irrelevant now then anyone can be Tsar. The argument that because Kirill acted in his own self-interest, or cowardly as you say, is ridiculous. The reign of the Romanov's saw some of the most extraordinary acts of betrayal, for instance:

- Catherine the Great's complicity in the overthrow of her husband Peter III, the legitimate ruler and possible culpability for his murder
- Paul I murdered by his own officers
- Peter I killing his own heir
- Empress Anna's murder of Emperor Ivan VI

Four wrongs (and I must question the last) don't make a right. That some Russian emperors or empresses succeeded to the throne by virtue of treachery does not bless or sanction Kyrill's actions.

As to Empress Anna (Ivanovna), she was actually succeeded by Ivan VI (her great nephew) at her own designation, so I don't see how Anna could have "murder"ed him! As he was only an infant, his mother, Anna (Leopoldovna), acted as regent and she was exceedingly unpopular. It was Elizabeth Petrovna (daughter of Peter I The Great) who executed the coup that removed Ivan VI from the throne which she then assumed, and he actually met his death at the hands of Catherine II, based on instructions left by Elizabeth.

[Vasillisos Markos]

I am reading Lili Dehn's biography of Alexandra and in it, Dehn mentions that the Garde Equipage, who apparently protected the Royal Family, were summoned away by Grand Duke Cyril. Now, Dehn does not mention that Cyril intended to leave the Royal Family without protection but . . . it does seem like an act of treason.

The other thing which strikes me is that Dehn was the one who suggested that Alexandra destroy her personal diaries and papers. They did so to protect the Empress from people taking her words out of context and using them against her but what a shame! It would be wonderful to have access to these first hand accounts. Beatrice's destruction of Queen Victoria's diaries leave me with the same sense of disappointment.

[Russophile]

Oh I know! When I read about Beatrice and Alexandra I was just as disappointed. I wished they would have just done something like Roddy McDowell and had them in a safe deposit box for 100 years so they wouldn't "hurt" anybody and could be put in proper context and then read (and devoured! ) by those of us obsessed with this sort of thing!

[Vasillisos Markos]

Right you are, my dear! I love reading first hand accounts and it is a shame these diaries are lost forever, even if some entries are mundane.

[Russophile]

Those diaries have me enthralled! I wonder how many other diaries of the RIF were destroyed.

[pamela18335]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Oh I know! When I read about Beatrice and Alexandra I was just as disappointed. I wished they would have just done something like Roddy McDowell and had them in a safe deposit box for 100 years so they wouldn't "hurt" anybody and could be put in proper context...

Russo, is it possible that Beatrice was acting on Victoria's instructions?

[Russophile]

She very well could have been. Imagine how scandalous it was that the monarch actually was in love with her husband and ENJOYED having "relations" with aforesaid husband!

[nascarlucy]

I'm wondering if there were secrets in the diaries and that was why they were destroyed? There probably was things in the diary which would have given historical insight into various events.