Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[ThePrincessRoyal]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Some of these statistics are not staistics, but some made up numbers foisted upon some unaware peole. I dobut that 80% of the French wants a monarchy. nd, who to restore in Russia. Lackluster wannabes. Please, you can do much better than that.

If you had read all of the above posts you would have read that it was brought to my attention that my private all women's seminary has failed me in education much like everything else in the US.... so OBVIOUSLY I admit I was given WRONG information.

[Chiron]

Frankly, I think it's immaterial whether Prince Michael of Kent and Lord Frederick Windsor are interested in the Russian throne: they would be unlikely to be offered it given their nonexistent claims and the tension between the UK and Russia. Even if they were offered such a throne, it's even more unlikely that the British Government would allow them to accept it. In a similar case, the British Government of the day didn't allow Queen Victoria's son, Prince Alfred, to accept the Greek throne when it was offered. That turned out for the best.

In any case, it isn't for the Russian Government to alter the Fundamental Laws of the House of Romanov; that would be the prerogative of the Head of the House. That said, obviously the Russians could offer a reconstituted throne to whomever they chose. I wouldn't envision them looking outside the Romanov family in such a case.

[Chiron]

Originally Posted by ThePrincessRoyal

So how many people/families exactly claim to be heirs to the Russian throne? Names and facts please!!

ThePrincessRoyal, that's a tall order but I'll take you up on it. There are only two claimants. The one, is Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, daughter of the last undisputed claimant, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, who died in 1992. The other, is Prince Nicholas Romanovich, grandson of Grand Duke Peter Nicolaievich, himself a grandson of Emperor Nicholas I.

In short, GD Maria's claim is based on the extinction of the male line Romanovs with rights of succession (i.e., who married other royals to maintain their rights) under Romanov House Law after the death of her father in 1992. Pce Nicholas's claim is based on his assertion that he is the senior living male Romanov. He is the also the President of the Romanov Family Association, to which nearly all living Romanov descendants belong with the exception of GD Maria and her son Grand Duke George Mikhailovich.

In my opinion, GD Maria Vladimirovna is the legitimate claimant under Romanov House Law. The only argument that can be made against her is that her parents' marriage was unequal because her mother, the late Grand Duchess Leonida, was not royal. Leonida, in fact, belonged to the recognized Royal House of Georgia and was the sister of the last Head of the House of Georgia and the aunt of the current Head. The claims of Prince Nicholas are simply without merit as they do not in any way conform to Romanov House Law.

[MAfan]

Prince Nicholas claims that in 1911 the Pauline Laws were amended by Nicholas II, and that this amendment maintained the obligation to marry to women of equal rank only for Grand Dukes (and to men of equal rank only for Grand Duchesses). Therefore, he claims, since his father Roman Petrovic wasn't a Grand Duke but just a Prince of Russia (as great-grandson of Tsar Nicholas I), his marriage to the noble but non-royal Countess Prascovia Cheremeteva didn't affect his rights to the succession to the Russian Throne. This - again according to his claims - applies to all the Princes of Russia, who are most of the members of Romanov Family. And being he the closest male relative, with rights to the Throne, to the late Grand Duke Vladimir, he claims to be his successor as Head of the Imperial Family since women can succeed only in case of total lack of male heirs.

[ThePrincessRoyal]

Thanks for taking it up!! Very interesting, I'll have to digest it all and conclude my own opinion.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Prince Nicholas claims that in 1911 the Pauline Laws were amended by Nicholas II, .

I don't remember reading that anywhere MAFan, is there any record of this? I'd like to read up on that. Thanks!

[MAfan]

It's all explained in the website of the Romanov Family Association:

With the young generation of Princes and Princesses growing up, the problem of marriages became an actual worry. A partial solution was found in 1911 when the Pauline Laws were amended (11 August 1911, Decree nº1489) maintaining the obligation to seek Equal Rank spouses only to Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses, freeing Princes and Princesses from that obligation.

Succession of the Imperial House of Russia

[branchg]

The Pauline Laws are clear that all Princes of the Imperial Blood had to marry equally in order to preserve their rights to the throne. Nicholas II refused to consider amending the House Laws to allow Princes of the Blood to marry unequally and retain their right of succession.

He did, however, permit a change in which Princes of Russia were permitted to marry unequally (with permission from the Tsar) to a woman of good-standing who was not necessarily royal (i.e. the Russian noblility). However, any children were not recognized as dynasts and were granted a lesser title. Grand Dukes of Russia were not permitted to marry unequally under any circumstances.

In exile, Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich did indeed grant permission for Princes of the Blood to marry unequally, with morganatic styles granted to the wife and children (HSH Prince/Princess Romanovsky/Romanovskaya). Nicholas' father, Prince Roman Petrovich, married without permission, which automatically results in loss of all succession rights under the House Laws.

Nicholas is most certainly not royal nor is he the rightful claimant. With the death of Grand Duke Vladimir in 1992, the male line of the Romanovs went extinct due to morganatic marriages, leaving his daughter, Maria Vladimirovna, as the only remaining dynast.

[reginalix]

Nikolaï II allowed Princess Tatiana to wed with Prince Bagration-Mukhranski but she had to give up her rights for the throne. She made it.

The Grand Duke Vladimir decided to proclaim his equal marriage and thus dynast with Bagration - Mukhranski. He didn’t thus follow the imperial law and the case law. He doubtless thought that considering as Czar he could change the dynastic laws.
Without offering to best born princes from royal Riukhikides family, royal Tatar family, royal lithuanian family... the same rights as the noble Mukhranski family.
He imposed "autocratically" on Bagration-Gruzinski heirs of the Georgian royal throne (Georgia become independent after) Mukhranski on the same rank, scoffing at the Russian traditions and even at the Georgian rules.

[branchg]

Princess Tatiana renounced her rights to the throne prior the marriage, which was perfectly acceptable to Nicholas II as a marriage of good-standing for a female dynast and standard practice for a princess marrying outside the imperial family. He did not consider the marriage to be equal under the Pauline Laws.

Grand Duke Vladimir was the Head of the Imperial House and he alone had the right to determine whether any marriage was equal or not. He declared the Bagrations to be of royal rank in 1946 via decree when questioned about their status.

That was the end of it.

[kell]

with that argueement then why would nicolhas pass the throne to his brother mikal theres precendant which people choose to forget

[PrincessKaimi]

Lots of great information on the last couple of pages of this thread - thank you especially to branchg. Who is current Grand Duke?

[branchg]

Originally Posted by kell

with that argueement then why would nicolhas pass the throne to his brother mikal theres precendant which people choose to forget

By the time Nicholas II abdicated, Russia was crumbling due to the war, famine and falling industrial production. The fall of the monarchy had become inevitable and he renounced the throne on behalf of his son, Alexis, in favor of Grand Duke Michael. But it was too late to save the throne.

Michael refused to accept, formally passing his sovereign powers to the Provisional Government pending a referendum on what form of government the Russian people wanted, and if they wanted another Tsar, who that person should be. The monarchy had definitively ended.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi

Lots of great information on the last couple of pages of this thread - thank you especially to branchg. Who is current Grand Duke?

The current Head of the Imperial House is Vladimir's daughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna. Next in-line is her son, Grand Duke Gregori (also HRH Prince George of Prussia).

Keep in mind this doesn't mean The Grand Duchess or her son would ever be called to the throne in the event of a restoration of the monarchy. The Russians are free to pick anyone they choose as Tsar.

[PrincessKaimi]

For centuries, the dynasty that ruled Russia was Rurik (since 862). The founder of the Romanovs, as far as I can tell, was - Andrei Kobyla. who was in the service of a Ruric Grand Prince, Simeon Ivanovich (reigned 1340-1353) and elevated by Simeon to boyar. Many invented genealogies exist for Andrei Kobyla, but it seems clear he was a commoner made a boyar in the 14th century. His family history indicates that they were equerries at that time and for some time afterwards.

One of Kobyla (means "mare") changed his name to Koshkin (apparently a cat lover) and another descendant took up the name Zakharin. Then the family changed its name to Yakovlev while Ivan the Terrible/ Grozny/ Thunderlike reigned, (and Ivan is a Rurik).

The grandchildren of the Zakharin-Yakovlev branch had changed their name to Romanov. Throughout this time, they seem to have been in the service of the Rurik Grand Princes/Tsars. I can't find other examples of boyars changing their names so frequently, that seems unusual.

Then, everything changed when one of their daughters, Anastasia, married Ivan IV (aka the Terrible/ Thunderlike/ Awe-Inspiring; reigned 1533-1584). While it is often said that Ivan killed his only heir, that doesn't seem to be true - the Romanov woman was the mother of the next Tsar, Feodor (still a Rurik). But now, he had Romanov cousins, who were very much interested in taking over.

In the style of Il Moro, Feodor's brother-in-law, Boris Godunov, who was also a boyar and of Tartar origin (partly), began to usurp power after being appointed one of three men to act as counsel/regent to Feodor (one of the other members of that counsel was a Romanov).

Feodor is often called mentally defective, etc., and Boris Godunov is of course famous for grabbing power.

Ivan IV had another son, Dmitri who was also in the official line of succession. It seems likely that Dmitri was murdered by Godunov's operatives. Had he survived, after the death of the childless Feodor I, Dmitri would have been Tsar.

The weakling Tsar, Feodor, still had a Romanov uncle (his mother's brother), to be dealt with by the new Tsar Godunov. When Nikita Romanov died two years after Feodor's coronation, there was nothing to stand in Godunov's way. Godunov had arranged a marriage between Feodor and his own sister, but it remained unproductive of an heir. But, Godunov still had the role of Tsar's father-in-law. Godunov was apparently instrumental in banishing as many Romanovs as possible from Moscow and environs, mostly to the north, where many languished, others waited to come back into royal service.

At any rate, after Feodor's death (still childless), Godunov of course seized the throne. But, given the vast size of the Rurik dynasty, clearly a Rurik heir could have been found, had the effort been made (not that anyone in power wanted to; Godunov was by then known as an able military decision-maker and defender of Russia/Moscow).

Naturally, having taken the title of Tsar, Boris left the crown to his own son, also named Feodor (Feodor II). But both Feodor II and his mother were murdered. After that, a person claiming to be a Rurik (the youngest son of Ivan IV) appeared and falsely took the throne.

The point is: amidst all this chaos, the Romanovs did rise to power, but how can they claim that they did so under monarchic principles?

The Rurik pretender False Dmitry resurrected the Romanov's power (after they had been dispersed by Godunov who justly feared their influence), and Filaret Romanov was made Metropolitan (of Moscow I believe) and eventually a Patriarch of the Church (by the pretender). In some ways, it looks like False Dmitry may have been a Romanov invention or plant.

Eventually Filaret's young son, Mikhail, was offered the crown. These are the Times of Troubles in Russia - no one wanted the throne, apparently people were grateful to Mikhail for taking it, he sought the advice of Ruriks, but the Ruriks essentially wished to be demoted to a position less than Tsar of All Russia (which was a relatively new position, after all). It's also unclear as to whether the offers made to legitimate Ruriks were done in a spirit of optimism, or whether the Romanovs had already decided to take the throne, and merely made gestures of finding legitimate heirs. What amazes me is that Russia thought at the time that a true son of Ivan IV was on the throne (False Dmitry), naturally, it was mostly citizens of Moscow or other large cities that would have heard the whole story.

Whether or not False Dmitry was truly supported by Romanovs, he certainly was supported by Poles. After his marriage to a non-Orthodox (Catholic) woman, the Kremlin was stormed and he was killed. Vasili IV (a Rurik) did take the throne, briefly, until 1612. Two more Dmitri imposters did or tried to as well. Vasili IV had not opposed Tsar Boris, instead, Boris relied upon him and his family to try and ensure that Boris stayed on the throne. When Vasili IV was abandoned by his supporters, a Polish-Swedish Prince was elected by a council of 7 boyars, while other boyars supported the attempt to find another Rurik to rule.

So, by the mid-17th century, the Romanovs were on the throne, but Ruriks still existed (and still do exist). It's obvious that some of Russia's most glorious monarchs were Romanovs and they did a great job of ruling Russia (Peter the Great is one of my favorite rulers), but in terms of questions about monarchic succession, it doesn't seem that only Romanovs should be included in the question.

Shouldn't the Ruriks be taken into consideration? It is quite natural that these houses (of which there are several), should have kept a very low profile in the 20th century, for obvious reasons. I'm just curious, now that Russia is becoming so thoroughly Orthodox again, if the few monarchists in Russia ever consider the Ruriks as possible alternatives to the Romanovs?

Does precedence go to the Romanovs because they accepted the crown and kept it until the lineal heirs were all murdered?

Anyway, I realize that the idea of a monarchy in Russia is incredibly far-fetched. Russia is interesting in the small number of dynasties that have ruled such a large nation, the Ruriks (for 800 years) and the Romanovs (250 years) are practically the only ones (the Godunov branch would be the third - for two generations).

One prominent Rurik family are the Bulgakovs, who do not use their titles at present (and I do not know if the beloved Mikhail Bulgakov is related, but I believe he is).

Does anyone know more about the Rurik-Bulgakovs? I believe that one of them was a Metropolitan of Moscow within the last 150 years or so. The Gediminids of Lithuania are another branch, and I wonder what happened to them after the Soviet revolution.

The Ruriks, btw, are ancestral to Edward III of England (according to wikipedia and an Australian genealogical site), but I can't figure out how. Back in the early days of Rurik rule, they intermarried successfully and frequently with crowned heads of other lands, which is amazing, considering the distances and the difficulties of messaging and traveling.

In Tolstoi's time, Ruriks were still boyars and active in the military (like Denisov), but perhaps they had forgotten their claims to the throne?

Anyway, Ruriks are definitely "non-reigning royals"! I'd be happy to hear more about what became of their various branches, they are spread everywhere (and I suppose that's how some authors have claimed that monarchs of Britain - through Euphrosyne of Kiev - are claimants to a throne in Russia, although I imagine there are several other connections as well).

I sure wish we could have DNA analysis on all those false Dmitris (at the time, it was quite confusing, and Boris Godunov clearly was surprised to find claims that Dmitri was not dead - he sent a Romanov to investigate the circumstance, and that person decided Dmitri had truly died, although the death remained suspicious).

If there are other threads on this topic, please direct me (I'm a bit exhausted looking through the site, which is still very new to me).

[Lenora]

Interesting topic,nearly 10 years ago a Russian historian supposed that the second False Dmitriy was not false ,but real Dmitry,real son of Ivan the Terrible from his last wife.After he was killed,his widow Marina Mnishek was deported to monastery and then died in suspicious circumstances,one of her little sons was killed by a crowd,the second one escaped due to the intervention of Lituanian knight.

[Vasillisos Markos]

The Ruriks, btw, are ancestral to Edward III of England (according to wikipedia and an Australian genealogical site), but I can't figure out how. Back in the early days of Rurik rule, they intermarried successfully and frequently with crowned heads of other lands, which is amazing, considering the distances and the difficulties of messaging and traveling.



I believe a princess of Kiev, descendant of Rurik, married into the Capet family in France and from that bloodline Edward was descended.

[Lenora]

Exactly,Anna Yaroslavna (or Anne of Kiev),(1024-1075) ,daughter of Yaroslav I of Kiev and his wife,Princess of Sweden Ingegerd ,was the Queen Consort of France as the wife of Henry I and then regent for her son Philip I. Anne's sister married the king of Norway. It was glorious time when Ruric princesses married into most famous royal families of Europe. But these alliances stopped closer to XV century when Russian principialities became more and more subdued by Tataro-Mongolians and had many battles with them.

[PrincessKaimi]

Thank you! It seems there are several connections between the Ruriks and the Monarchs of England. Apparently one of the daughters of Euphrosyne of Kiev (married to King Géza of Hungary) produced a child whose line ended up on the throne of England. (I'm trying to trace all the connections).

Also, interestingly, Harold of England's daughter, Gytha of Wessex, married a Russian Prince (of Kiev, I believe, I'm spacing on who it was - but I've got the notes somewhere).

I'll keep trying to figure it out (there may be better information on the English side).

One reason those alliances stopped is that the Princes of Russia saw fit to marry their daughters into the leaders of the Golden Horde, for obvious reasons. I was unaware until very recently that there had been an earlier strong set of connections with Western Europe. Also, in the same period, Russian Princes decided to try and marry women from Constantinople, for the same reasons, as compared to marrying into Scandinavian, other Slavic and Hungarian houses.

[Somersby Tulip]

Originally Posted by aj00192557

so after these developments, do you guys think that russia will ever restore the monarchy?

they have a few members in america and some members of aristocracy in russia from what i understand