Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[AristoCat]

A lot of royals live jet set lives and seem to disown their royal patrimony; talking all the time about 'normal' lives and such. As if they're ashamed of having historical ancestors.

 

[COUNTESS]

Some of their ancestors are shameful. Many caused more problems than not. Most know that their lives, today, are what they are. The use their names and styles to jet here and there. They, obviously, retained money, or work and they live well. Some others not so fortunate.

 

[Ish]

A lot of royals live jet set lives and seem to disown their royal patrimony; talking all the time about 'normal' lives and such. As if they're ashamed of having historical ancestors.

Hmm... I'm not sure I would agree with you here, although I do see where you're coming from in this belief.

I think we as humans have a tendency to glorify the past and the people of previous generations - as such our failures today are always held in comparison to the successes, or beliefs of success, of those who lived before.

Historic royals often lived equivalent jet setting lives. A common theme in royal history is monarchs whose lives are too flamboyant and expensive in comparison to the much harder lives of the people - it's a common cause of revolts and revolutions.

I don't think a lot of royals live "jet set lives and seem to disown their royal patrimony" as you put it. I think some royals who aren't in their countries direct line of succession have sought to establish for themselves lives that aren't entirely royal, but this isn't necessarily disowning their royal patrimony (or matrimony) as it is trying to live in the world. Princess Eugenie of York comes to mind here - she seems to have realized that her position in the succession has made it so that it is possible she will never be wanted to carry out full time royal duties and so she has sought out a career for herself so that she's not entirely dependent on others. Her sister does seem to try to do the same, but with less success - I think Beatrice has the problem that what she wants to do is royal duties, but there's no position for her, and she's struggling like any other 20-something to find her way. Unfortunately for her, when the public does see her it's when she's on vacation, so she looks as though that's all she does. During the reign of King George the Kents and Gloucesters were in similar positions, with the then younger generation mostly looking to make careers for themselves. This only changed when they became needed as full time royals due to a lack of other royals.

Other royals closer in the succession have been criticized for their reluctance to take up full time duties - even by me, a point which I stand by. At the same time though, at least to a point they're still doing what is common among royals. In Britain we've seen William and Harry embark on military careers, and this is in line with what the sons and grandsons of British monarchs have been doing for generations now. I think you could criticize William for not stepping up more now, but his RAF career and his brother's career are comparable to what's happened before.

The desire for a "normal" life is also a bit... Well it's both understandable and a potential disaster. Previous royals have long had a superiority complex about them, even when they had a fascination with the common people. We've now entered into a period where it's no longer really acceptable for the royals to act as though they're better than the rest of us, while we have developed more ways of invading their lives. It's no longer possible for them to separate their royals lives from their private lives - their phones have been hacked, their servants, friends, and families bribed for information, and they're photographed everywhere they go. They don't actually know what it's like to be normal - the struggles that we deal with aren't something they've ever had - but can you blame them for wanting some kind of normalcy? To want a place where they're not hounded by photographers? To know that the only person listening in on their phone calls is the person they called? To be able to make decisions without being criticized?

I think in royal watching we often make the mistake of comparing them to celebrities, but there is a very important difference. Celebrities for the most part chose to be famous. Even the ones who are children of celebrities or are/where child celebrities at some point get to make that choice - the world doesn't care about the adult children of celebs or former child stars who chose to live private lives. This isn't the same of royals. From the moment they're conceived they're important to the world. Prince George of Cambridge had a Wikipedia page before he was born. A host of reporters camped outside of the hospital he was to be born in for the better part of a month waiting for him to be born. He did his first engagement with the press a day after his birth. This wasn't a life he chose. And if, in 20-30 years he says how he wishes he could have a more normal life, can we really fault him?

But back to Duc's original words:

... With this the Grand Duchess and her son are not different from all these many illustrious German, Austrian, French and Italian families doing their utmost best to preserve their family heritage and history. And I praise them for doing so. All these families could have sold their ancestral homes, art collections, etc. and go to Marbella and live a jet-set life. Families who do all efforts to preserve their immense patrimonim and try to prevent sinking away in obscurity deserve my respect.

First of all - these families do not have the wealth of the reigning families. Many of them lost their wealth when the families were deposed, saving only what they could spirit away with when they ran for their lives. Some of that has been sold, some preserved, some recouped, some lost with the passage of time. Some families have been able to gain wealth through other means - others lived on the charity of those who would help them. I do agree we should praise those who have tried to hold on to their family antiquities without selling them, but I also don't think we should criticize those who haven't, as I doubt any did so in order to live a jet set life.

That said, for reigning royals the option isn't keep the antiquities or go on a vacation. They have immense wealth, often independently of what is owned by the state in their name. They can afford the vacations without selling the family jewels. They probably can't even sell the jewels even if they wanted - as most of why we associate with them is actually owned by the state.

Furthermore, while they are all working to preserve their families' histories - and I wouldn't limit it to just the German/French/Austrian/Italian/Russian families, but to most deposed European families, as well as the Brazilians - they're also working to maintain a legacy. This isn't just of their families but of their states, both those that exist now and those that once existed. It's not always a good history - no history is - but it's the history of that place and that people. The Romanovs are a hugely important part of Russia's history, so why shouldn't Maria try to carry on some of that legacy - to act in some way as a living history comparable to, if not the same as, the British or Norwegian or Spanish or any other constitutional monarch?

 

[AristoCat]

I just think royals should start looking at who they are realistically. A lot of these princes and princesses wouldn't have their pick of people in a relationship if in fact they were not titled.

As for the Romanovs, I think Maria is a little too zealous in promoting herself.

It's just so odd how cray-cray Maria vs. the rest of the Romanovs are against each other over these issues. The Hapsburgs are united and the only other fractured dethroned RF is the French.

 

[Ish]

That's not true.

There are 4 claimants to the French throne, 2 to the Russian, 2 to the Serbian, 5 to the Spanish (including Felipe), 2 to the Saxon, 2 to Lippe, 2 to the Italian, 2 to the Two Scicilian, and 2 to the Jacobite claim (not including Elizabeth II).

And that's just with the current crop of claimants, as it is always possible that more will sprout when each one dies. For example, when Michael I dies it is entirely possible that there will be up to 4 claimants to take his place - his eldest daughter, his second daughter's son, this half-cousin through his father's first, morganatic marriage, and a member of the House of Hohenzollern, who have the right to claim the throne through Salic law.

 

[AristoCat]

I am surprised that Felipe is not accepted by some; the reigning dynasties as far as I know are set in who is and isn't the rightful holder of the title Sovereign. I do think that it's odd how the dethroned families are so fractious and are disunited. They cherish their ancestry and are more royal than the reigning dynasties.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Who do not accept Don Felipe as King of Spain? The Houses of Habsburg, Bonaparte and Wittelsbach make no any claim to the throne of Spain.

The claim laid down by the House of Bourbon-Parma can not be taken au sérieux. When in 1830 the Infante Don Carlos de Borbón y Borbón-Parma was shoven away by his brother, the King, in favour of the King's daughter the Infanta Doña Isabel, they had a strong claim since the change of the succession was seen as "illegal".

In 1936 Don Alfonso Carlos de Borbón y Austria-Este, the last male male-line descendant of this Infante Carlos, died without issue. With his death the position of the most senior male descendant of the Spanish Borbóns passed to King Alfonso XIII of Spain. His great-grandson Don Felipe de Borbón y Grecia nowadays is the rightful King of Spain.

It is true that the present Duke of Parma (Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme) regards himself as King of Spain but this apparently must be seen as the King of Spain seeing himself as Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant or King of Jerusalem. Just historical relics and no actual claim.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

...As for the Romanovs, I think Maria is a little too zealous in promoting herself...

I think that is inevitable when you consider yourself the only rightful head and curator of the Romanov dynasty.... Let us simply see today's Romanovs in the line of succession (according the Romanov Family Association) and see why Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna dismisses them as non-dynastic:
Article 36 ("Children born of a marriage between a member of the Imperial Family and a person not of corresponding rank, that is, not belonging to a (former) Royal or Ruling House, shall have no right of succession to the Throne"

1. Dimitri Romanovich Romanov (1926)
The marriage of his father Roman Petrovich Romanov with Countess Praskiova Sheremeteva was seen as not meeting the requirements. Dimitri himself married twice: with Johanna von Kaufmann and with Dorrit Reventlow, both were seen as not meeting the requirements. No male issue.

2. Andrey Andreyevich Romanov (1923)
The marriage of his father Andrey Alexandrovich Romanov with Donna Elisabetta of the dukes Sasso Ruffo was seen as not meeting the requirements. Andrey himself married three times with Helena Dourneva, with Kathleen Norris and with Inez von Bachelin. None of these were seen as meeting the requirements.

3. Alexis Andreyevich Romanov (1953)
The marriage of his father Andrey Andreyevich Romanov with Helena Dourneva was seen as not meeting the requirements. Alexis himself married Zoetta Leisy, not seen as meeting the requirements. No male issue.

4. Pyotr Andreyevich Romanov (1961)
The marriage of his father Andrey Andreyevitch Romanov with Kathleen Norris was seen as not meeting the requirements. Pyotr himself is unmarried.

5. Andrey Andreyevich Romanov (1963)
The marriage of his father Andrey Andreyevich Romanov with Kathleen Norris was seen as not meeting the requirements. Andrey himself married Elizabeth Flores, not seen as meeting the requirements. No male issue.

6. Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov (1985)
The marriage of his father Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov with Christina Ipsen was seen as not meeting the requirements. Rostislav himself has a son-out-of-wedlock. His son Michael (2013) is therefore not in line of succession.

7. Nikita Rostislavovich Romanov (1985)
The marriage of his father Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov with Christina Ipsen was seen as not meeting the requirements. Nikita himself is unmarried.

8. Nicholas Nicholayevich Romanov (1968)
The marriage of his father Nicholas Rostislavovich Romanov with Pamela Kuzinowski was seen as not meeting the requirements. Nicholas himself has a son-out-of-wedlock. His son Cory (1994) is therefore not in line of succession.



Then we look to the line of Maria Vladimirovna, let us see if her line qualifies for the line of succession. Article 36 ("Children born of a marriage between a member of the Imperial Family and a person not of corresponding rank, that is, not belonging to a (former) Royal or Ruling House, shall have no right of succession to the Throne"

1. Maria Vladmirovna Romanova (1953)
The marriage of her father Vladimir Cyrillovich Romanov with Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya is seen as meeting the requirements by supporters and seen as not exactly meeting the requirements by non-supporters. Maria herself married Franz Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia. That marriage did meet the requirements.

2. Georgy Mikhailovich Romanov, Prince of Prussia (1981)
The marriage of his mother Maria Vladimirovna Romanova with Franz Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia did meet the requirements. Georgy himself is unmarried.

3. Andreas zu Leiningen, Prince of Leiningen (1955)
The marriage of his mother Maria Cyrillovna Romanova to Emich zu Leiningen, Prince of Leiningen did meet the requirements. (Leiningen has a former sovereign status).

4. Ferdinand zu Leiningen, Herditary Prince of Leiningen (1982)
The marriage of his father Andreas zu Leiningen, Prince of Leiningen with Princess Alexandra of Hannover did meet the requirements. (Leiningen has a former sovereign status).

5. Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia (1976)
The marriage of his father Louis Ferdinand von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia with Donata Countess von Castell-Rüdenhausen is seen as meeting the requirements by supporters and seen as not exactly meeting the requirements by non-supporters.

6. Carl Friedrich von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia (2013)
The marriage of his father Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia with Princess Sophie von Isenburg did meet the requirements. (Isenburg has a former sovereign status).

7. Louis Ferdinand von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia (2013)
The marriage of his father Georg Friedrich von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia with Princess Sophie von Isenburg did meet the requirements. (Isenburg has a former sovereign status).



From an objective viewpoint one can hardly disagree that the line of succession from Maria Vladimirovna does meet the requirements quite a lot more than the rival line of succession. We have to be honest about that...

 

[AristoCat]

She meets the requirements of being of a royal line, but bluntly put, they're all largely German and allegedly there's a residue of resentment because of WWII against Germans.

6. Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov (1985)

The marriage of his father Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov with Christina Ipsen was seen as not meeting the requirements. Rostislav himself has a son-out-of-wedlock. His son Michael (2013) is therefore not in line of succession

I admit I'm shocked at the fact that he had a child out of wedlock via a mistress; I was shocked when I heard about it and frankly it was a surprise to know that he ended upeven having a mistress in the first place.

 

[JR76]

He had a baby with his girlfriend. Nothing unusual or wrong about that. At least not in my eyes.

 

[branchg]

And not everyone agrees Maria is born of an equal marriage as her mother was not royal under the Pauline Laws. The Bagration-Moukhransky line of the Georgian Royal House was nobility in Imperial Russia and never considered to be equal to the Romanovs.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And not everyone agrees Maria is born of an equal marriage as her mother was not royal under the Pauline Laws. The Bagration-Moukhransky line of the Georgian Royal House was nobility in Imperial Russia and never considered to be equal to the Romanovs.

Sure, the supporters regard her as dynastical and the non-supporters do not. But when you see her line of succession (Russia, Leiningen, Prussia) one can not deny it is all darkblue blood and that can not be said from the other line with "Prince Cory" born out of wedlock. In that sense Maria Vladimirovna's pretension is superior.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

She meets the requirements of being of a royal line, but bluntly put, they're all largely German and allegedly there's a residue of resentment because of WWII against Germans.



I admit I'm shocked at the fact that he had a child out of wedlock via a mistress; I was shocked when I heard about it and frankly it was a surprise to know that he ended upeven having a mistress in the first place.

There are two Romanovs considering themselves a successor with a child out of wedlock:
- Rostislav Rostislavovich Romanov (1985) has a son with a (former) girlfriend. His son Michael (2013) is therefore not in line of succession but dad himself considers him a Prince Romanov;
- Nicholas Nicholayevich Romanov (1968) has a son with a (former) girlfriend. His son Cory (1994) is therefore not in line of succession but also this dad himself considers him a Prince Romanov.



It is hollow when the rivalling branch dares to doubt the suitability of Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya, discussing if she was meeting the requirements exactly or not. I am okay with that but not while the "rivals" themselves all, one by one, have thrown all possible standards out of the window. Come on, where is the reciprocity in the blaming here? Do the rivals themselves have any stand to criticize the Ebenbürtigkeit of Princess Leonida?

 

[Warren]

She meets the requirements of being of a royal line, but bluntly put, they're all largely German and allegedly there's a residue of resentment because of WWII against Germans.

Ah, an acknowledgement that the Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has the superior royal claim, but then you immediately attempt to discount it by moving the goalposts.

I'm sure there remains a great deal of resentment in Russia (and elsewhere) against what Germany/Germans inflicted upon the country and its people during WWII, but that has little relevance to who carries the mantle of Headship of the Romanov dynasty.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I can understand when the one branch says that for an example the marriage of Grand Duke Roman Petrovich Romanov with Countess Praskiova Sheremeteva or the marriage of Grand Duke Andrey Alexandrovich Romanov with Donna Elisabetta of the dukes Sasso Ruffo are 100% dynastic in case the marriage with Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya is seen as dynastic. D'accord... then the two blue-blooded marriages can have a catfight with the other blue-blooded marriage.

But how can the other branch ever dispute if Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya was yes or no exactly meeting the dynastic requirements when they themselved have married partners as Miss Kathleen Norris, Miss Zoetta Leisy, Miss Lizzy Flores, Miss Christina Ipsen, Miss Pamela Kuzinowski, etc.? I am really fine with that but there is absurdity in claiming that the other branch is "not meeting the requirements" (not deep blue-blooded enough) while the own branch has the one break after the other break of the dynastic marriage requirements. Allez....

 

[branchg]

Sure, the supporters regard her as dynastical and the non-supporters do not. But when you see her line of succession (Russia, Leiningen, Prussia) one can not deny it is all darkblue blood and that can not be said from the other line with "Prince Cory" born out of wedlock. In that sense Maria Vladimirovna's pretension is superior.

I think the strength of Maria's claim lies more in the fact her father was unmarried when he became Head of the Imperial House. Since only the Tsar could determine whether any marriage was equal or not, obviously Vladimir declared his own marriage as dynastic.

Vladimir also was the last surviving male dynast when he died in 1992. Maria married equally and she is the senior male-line descendant of Alexander II.

 

[Benjamin]

Cory Romanov died at the age of 3 in 1998 in quite tragic circumstances.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Cory Romanov died at the age of 3 in 1998 in quite tragic circumstances.

Ow I missed that in the Romanov genealogical tree, his death was not mentioned,. What happened to the young boy?

 

[DWC]

But how can the other branch ever dispute if Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya was yes or no exactly meeting the dynastic requirements when they themselved have married partners as Miss Kathleen Norris, Miss Zoetta Leisy, Miss Lizzy Flores, Miss Christina Ipsen, Miss Pamela Kuzinowski, etc.? I am really fine with that but there is absurdity in claiming that the other branch is "not meeting the requirements" (not deep blue-blooded enough) while the own branch has the one break after the other break of the dynastic marriage requirements. Allez....

I think the worst that the older members of the rival branch have said is that Princess Leonida was no more equal than their own mothers who also came from the Russian nobility. The headship of the other line is based on their interpretation of the House Laws and an Imperial Ukase from 1911, believing that only Grand Duke’s have to marry equally and that Princes of Russia could marry people of “good standing” and transmit their rights to their children.

For this reason Prince Nicholas Romanovich assumed the headship of the Imperial House after Vladimir’s death instead of his cousin Prince Paul Romanovsky-Ilyinsky, who although senior by primogeniture because his father Dimitri was a Grand Duke and married unequally he could not transmit succession rights to his children.

So I believe Prince Nicholas Romanovich and the other Romanov’s, although they probably aren't very fond of her, regard their cousin Maria as a Princess of Russia as they only recognised her father by his birth title Prince of Russia. And as a Prince of Russia he married a woman of “good standing”.

 

[branchg]

Nicholas Romanovich's interpretation of the Pauline Laws is ridiculous. While it's true Nicholas II issued a Ukase allowing Princes and Princesses of the Imperial Blood to marry unequally (with the approval of the Emperor), he made it clear these individuals were required to relinquish their succession rights beforehand and their children would not be dynasts.

The Laws also required dynasts to seek and receive permission of the Emperor before marrying, something Nicholas Romanovich's father, Prince Roman, failed to do. That resulted in the automatic loss of succession rights.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Maybe, following the most rigid interpretation and without an Emperor to allow exceptions, we can say that all Russian dynasts have outmanoeuvred themselves with their marriages? Result: there are no dynasts anymore?



With accepting the union with Princess Leonida as dynastic, following the "Germanic" system that when not Ebenbürtig (= of equal rank) at least it should be Standesgemäß (= belonging to the same level in society) then also the unions with the Countess Praskiova Sheremeteva and with Donna Elisabetta of the dukes Sasso Ruffo were dynastic too. The descendants of the last two ladies however all married not Standesgemäß.

Then the line of Maria Vladimirovna and her son remains superior (and after them Leiningen and Prussia) because they are all Standesgemäß. It will collapse down when Grand Duke Georgy does not meet his mother's standards, which are the base for her pretension....

 

[branchg]

All of the current descendants are morganatic and there are no surviving dynasts under the Pauline Laws. Maria is more or less accepted as Head of the Imperial House on the basis of the fact her father alone had the right to accept any marriage as equal or not, she was raised Orthodox, her mother was born Orthodox, and she married equally.

The other descendants are not in compliance with the Laws on many counts, while Maria is only questionable in terms of whether her mother should be considered royal. It seems reasonable to say Leonida was of sufficient rank for Vladimir to declare her equal.

 

[Benjamin]

Ow I missed that in the Romanov genealogical tree, his death was not mentioned,. What happened to the young boy?

He died at the hands of his mother's lover after the divorce of his parents.

Russia

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

He died at the hands of his mother's lover after the divorce of his parents.

Russia

I found this: "Young Nick, who lives in San Diego, has been married and divorced twice. He had a son, Cory Christopher, born in 1994, by his first wife, Lisa. After their divorce, she moved with Cory and her boyfriend, Richard Tiarks, to Memphis, Tennessee. On January 5, 1998, Tiarks killed the little boy, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison."

 

[Lee-Z]

I found this: "Young Nick, who lies in San Diego, has been married and divorced twice. He had a son, Cory Christopher, born in 1994, by his first wife, Lisa. After their divorce, she moved with Cory and her boyfriend, Richard Tiarks, to Memphis, Tennessee. On January 5, 1998, Tiarks killed the little boy, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison."

Oh...how incredibely horrible and sad....

 

[Benjamin]

Royal Russia News: Legitimist Addresses Succession Issues

 

[eya]

Kiribati mulls proposal to 'restore Russian monarchy' - BBC News

"Most Russians do not want monarchy to be restored in Russia. As many as 68 percent of respondents said that they were opposed to having a czar on the throne in Russia.Most Russians consider republic to be the most optimal form of government "

Most Russians opposed to monarchy - PravdaReport

 

[Blog Real]

Putin opposes restoring monarchy in Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin is not in favor of a debate over the return of the monarchy, the Kremlin said on Wednesday, completing a century after the abdication of the last tsar, Nicholas II.


"In the last five years, (Putin) has been asked several times about this issue and has had to respond in one context or another. Putin is unthinkingly faced with similar ideas, "Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov told reporters on the advisability of restoring the monarchy to Russia.

Shortly before, the head of the annexed Crimea, Sergei Axionov, assured that "Russia needs the monarchy".

"We do not need a democracy like the one promoted by the Western media. We have our traditional, orthodox values. Under the present conditions, in which we face an external enemy, democracy remains. I refer to this debauchery that many understand as democracy, "said the leader of the Crimea.

Peskov commented that Axionov's words reflect only his personal opinion and joked that "there can be no monarchy in a certain region of Russia."

One hundred years ago, the last monarch of the Romanov dynasty renounced the throne, after the February Revolution was able to bring together workers, bourgeois and soldiers on the same side, and demonstrators hoisted a red flag in the royal palace as they sang the Marseillaise and the word " republic".

From then on, the tsarism had its days numbered, but no one imagined that the events would end with the arrival to the power of the Bolsheviks in October of that same year and the firing of the royal family in 1918.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church sanctified the royal family and both Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically elected president in Russian history, and Putin, were participants in the new creed.

However, there are few Russians who would support the restoration of the monarchy, and in fact a third of the population still values ​​positively the work of Soviet leaders such as Lenin, whose mausoleum still remains in Red Square, and Stalin.

Putin se opõe a restituir monarquia na Rússia | EXAME.com - Negócios, economia, tecnologia e carreira

 

[victor1319]

I wonder, what that means:"opposed to having a czar on the throne in Russia".

Are they against a Czar, an autocratic ruler?
Are they against a constitutional monarchy?

"Monarchy"...

As a German, I don't want an Emperor to rule alone and autocratic over Germany neither... but: Our Georg Friedrich of Prussia would be much better, than the federal Presidents we have here in Germany as ceremonial kings!

 

[AristoCat]

I think the Romanovs have to be the only dethroned family that is still arguing over succession issues. Rostislav is considered the Head of the House of Romanov by everyone but Maria and Georgi.