Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[Ceallach]

While I forgot about Karl and Lavinia's marriages not meeting standards, while his maternal grandparents are both not, the parents of Dimitri wre both probably and that might be good enough. Prince Dimitri of Serbia (1965) - son of Kira of Leiningen - daughter of Grand Duchess Maria - daughter of Kirill - son of Vladimir - is the closest orthodox relative.

Then Alexander (1924) and his unmarried sons Dimitri (1958), Michael (1958), and Dushan (1977), then Michael of Romania (1921), Peter (1980), Alexander (1982) and Philip of Serbia (1982) (if mother's status holds up), then Constantine of Greece (1940), Philippos (1986), Theodora (1983), and Irene (1942).

Of course, this all based on the fact the ones under 72 on this list have not married unlike their relatives and it is probable considering some of their ages will not marry. If we are being that stingent - without considering conversions - the men will have to either marry Theodora if not too close (ie Philippos), Maria of Serbia (dimitri 65, peter, alexander, philip), or Mafalda (1994) or Olimpia (1995) of Bulgaria, unless Michael of Romania promotes Karina (1989). That is if you aren't counting Georgia which has Ines (1980). So until one of the under 72 set weds an approprite match - royal with preferable russian ancestry, there is no point really considering them.

Whether it be George or the others finding a suitable match is hard part - his dad was a convert.

I would not discount the non-orthodox royals in between or potential unorthodox spouses cause getting an already orthodox royal heir wed to an already orthodox royal is near impossible without it arranged. Good luck getting Theodora to give up acting to wed one of this lot. You only need to be orthodox when you take on the job not at birth.

Still I can't see any scenario that makes any of them more acceptable to the Russians than Maria or George.

[branchg]

None of the descendants alive today are acceptable to Russians. There is no chance of the monarchy being restored under a Romanov.

[Artemisia]

None of the choices currently available are even known to most Russians, let alone acceptable.

[Daz_Voz]

It is probably fair to say that
1/ the restoration of the monarchy in Russia is unlikely
2/ in the event of the restoration of the monarchy in Russia, the new monarchy is likely to be a "reboot" and may not be created with any regard to the Pauline laws
3/ discussions about succession with regard to the Russian monarchy are probably effectively only about the identity of the head of the House of Romanov and the distribution of titles therewithin.

By their public statements, the senior members of the Romanov family seem to understand this.

[NGalitzine]

Despite all of the problems faced by Russia and its people I can see why someone might want the job of Tsar. Apparently being Tsar, even an elected one like Putin still offers a very nice lifestyle.

Putin on the Ritz: Report takes aim at President

[Daz_Voz]

On the topic generally, I guess that only two (or, arguably, three) of the extant European monarchies were restored after having been abolished: the English (later, British) monarchy, the Spanish and (arguably) the Dutch.

The restoration of the Spanish monarchy was a fairly unsual case in that it was effectively restored, with considerable powers, by a dictator: after that dictator's demise, the monarch divested himself of much of his power and quite smoothly effected Spain's transition to a modern constitutional monarchy. While this was most commendable, it is quite a different case from a democratic republic* deciding to bring back the monarchy.


Polls indicate a small but significant fraction of Romanians favour restoration of the monarchy. The last King of Romania (Michael) is still alive: he appears to be well regarded generally as a kind of elder statesman but he doesn't push the monarchist barrow.

The last Tsar of Bulgaria is also still with us. Simeon had a term as Prime Minister from 2001-2004. Although he personally also remains well regarded, he doesn't appear to hold ambitions of restoration and any popular support for the idea appears to have faded.

Alexander of Yugoslavia is, on the other hand, very popular and is an outspoken advocate of restoration (in Serbia). His father was the last King. Alexander himself was born in London. Might be one to watch. Monarchism seems to be becoming more popular in Serbia, and there could be no dispute about the succession.

In all of these cases, the monarchies were abolished "in living memory", as they say, and some old people may even reflect positively on their young lives under the monarchy before Communism, and even people who are not so old will have been influenced by their parents.

This isn't really the case for Russia's monarchy, which was abolished a generation before those of Eastern Europe.



*in the sense of a republic that is democratic, not a Democratic Republic such as North Korea...

[NGalitzine]

Spain was also different in the sense that the monarchy was not actually abolished. Under Franco Spain was simply a kingdom without a reigning king. Franco then selected a suitable heir, supervised his education, saw him suitably married, and then officially proclaimed him as heir so that everything was in place when Franco met his end. The infrastructure of monarchy was already in place when JC took his oath as King.

The same cannot be said of Russia which has gone from Tsarist regime to communist dictatorship, to the break up of the USSR to todays pseudo "democratic" Russian Federation in less than 100 years. Doubtful if anyone alive today remembers living under the Tsar and if then did would their memories be fond ones? Not likely.

[branchg]

You also have the fact that many Russians today were educated during the Soviet era and do not have warm feelings towards their imperial past. Particularly, the role of the Romanovs during World War I.

Russia's main problems today are the lack of transition from the Soviet dictatorship and related corruption to a true democracy with strong institutions. Putin is just another statist in different clothing. Even though Russians have more prosperity and freedom than they ever did during the Soviet Union, they still lack a government elected by the people.

[Al_bina]

I have yet to see any government elected by people in any country of the world, but not illusions of a fair electoral process.

[Daz_Voz]

Alexander, King of Serbia = Alexander IV of Russia? He'd be quite busy...

[Artemisia]

If I understood your post correctly, you are probably confusing Alexander II, Crown Prince of Serbia and Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia.
Crown Prince Alexander is pretender to the Throne of Serbia (Yugoslavia), while Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia is the son of Prince Paul of Yugoslavia,, the Prince Regent and an (possible) heir to the claims to the Russian Imperial Throne.

Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia (b. 1924) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Daz_Voz]

"If I understood your post correctly, you are probably confusing Alexander II, Crown Prince of Serbia and Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia."

You're correct, I misunderstood.

And there's another Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia ... (Alexander II's son) ... I'm bound to get confused.

[Mariel]

I know less about this than anyone posting, but what I've read on the Forums indicates to me that some monarchies were simply appointed. One of these was the Norwegian. Norway was part of Sweden, but then separated, and the people voted in monarchy over republic. They appointed Queen Maud, a British princess who had married the second son of the Danish king, who had one son, Olaf, who succeeded Maud and her Danish husband whose name I can't remember, because he changed it when he became king of Norway. Neither Maud nor her husband had expected to be sovereign of any country.
Seems to me Sweden elected a King, too, Count Bernadotte? I don't remember what happened to the previous royal family of Sweden.
I read on the Forums that there was a Protestant/Catholic crisis involving the sovereign in Holland, and so a female became queen in Holland (which accepted queens) and a male became king in the new spinoff of Luxembourg, which accepted only male sovereigns. Not that Luxembourg did not previously exist in some form, but it underwent a metamorphosis and got a "royal family" at that critical juncture.

If Scotland became separate from England, they could vote in a new monarch, perhaps a king or queen from one of the older royal lines, the Stuarts or the Bruces or the McAlpines before that, going clear back to sovereigns of Ireland lost in the mists. Because Scotland elected her sovereign in the Middle Ages up until the point where the Stuarts became hereditary monarchs, there are several lines to choose from. I think that would be a very good idea. I think Scotland deserves its own king if it wants one, but probably they would vote for a Republic under QEII, which I think is a bad idea if one knows the history of Scotland vs. England. England ravaged Scotland in the Middle Ages and afterwards. I didn't know until I started reading history. One of my family lines goes back to medieval Scotland and so I was looking at the descent.

[Daz_Voz]

Seems to me Sweden elected a King, too, Count Bernadotte?

Apparently to his great surprise!

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Mariel

Seems to me Sweden elected a King, too, Count Bernadotte? I don't remember what happened to the previous royal family of Sweden.

One of our kings, Gustav IV Adolf, lost Finland to Russia and was forced to abdicate and leave the country. And his children also lost their places in the succession. And thus, the throne went to his uncle, Carl XIII, who had no legitimate children. So he adopted Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, the later Carl XIV Johan.

[Alexey 1904]

Also, Mariel 1, Princess Maud of Britain married Prince Carl and they became King Haakon VII( I think) and Queen Maud. Their only child, Olaf(whose birth name I don't recall), married Princess Martha Louise and were the parents of the currenct King Harald of NorwaY. Furienna, the original Count Bernadotte wasn't Swedish anyway, was he?

[MarkUK]

Jean Bernadotte was French, one of Napoleon's famous Marshals. He impressed the Swedes with his humanity when he was Governor of French-occupied Swedish Pomerania. When it became apparent that the line of Swedish Kings would die out Bernadotte was chosen as Crown Prince by Parliament, with the aged King's approval.

And King Olav V of Norway was born Prince Alexander of Denmark.

[Cory]

A Meeting was held between the Chancellery of the House of Romanoff and the leaders and representatives of several national Legitimist Organizations and of regional Committees for the Celebration of the 400th Anniversary of the Ending of the Time of

[AristoCat]

2/ in the event of the restoration of the monarchy in Russia, the new monarchy is likely to be a "reboot" and may not be created with any regard to the Pauline laws

I believe the Pauline Laws are pointless at this juncture mainly because the butchery of the revolution complicated things considerably and now go figure, it makes agreeing on a candidate impossible. So realistically, the Pauline Laws are obsolete and irrelevant. To me the most important aspect is who is more closely descended, which is Rostislav and I do not think that the rules are still relevant in any area.

3/ discussions about succession with regard to the Russian monarchy are probably effectively only about the identity of the head of the House of Romanov and the distribution of titles therewithin.

Well, according to protocol, titles are not usually given out (stuff like knighthoods, etc.) and you wouldnt' know that the way that Maria V. acts.

By their public statements, the senior members of the Romanov family seem to understand this.

To be honest, the Romanov Family Association seems to understand, not Maria and Porky Prince. All of them are content in life (dining off of plate or not) and I believe that they are glad enough that Russia is getting on it's feet and is a republic, not a monarchy. Many of them seem a lot happier than they would if the Romanovs were reigning.

[kell]

Kremlin Throws Imperial Artifacts into Putin Conference Goodie Bag - Emerging Europe Real Time - WSJ ok this a lil werid didnt know where else to post it

More than 1,200 reporters accredited to Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s giant press conference Thursday each received a puzzling bag of gifts, with imperial overtones.
A huge wall calendar depicted the Russian czars of the Romanov dynasty, which would be celebrating their 400 years in power in 2013 if not for the 1917 revolution that saw the last czar and his family killed. The bag also had a set of post cards with all the Russian czars starting from the early 17th century.
The president’s press conference usually lasts several hours, with journalists asking mostly benign questions. It was expected at the Kremlin this year, but was moved to a conference hall on the banks of Moskva River due to a renovation.
Reporters will be able to take notes with three pencils with the event’s logo, nicely packed in a wooden box, also with the logo, in a notebook with the logo, together with pictures of the Romanovs in a large black box, also with the same memorable inscription.
A clipboard that came with the goodie bad says “Made in Poland,” the central European country with which Russia has had an uneasy relationship over the past centuries, recently marred with disputes over business, influence in Eastern Europe, 20th century history, and a crash in Russia of a Polish government jet, in which Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski died in 2010.
Last year Dmitry Medvedev, president of Russia at the time, held his press conference for about 800 reporters in his cherished Skolkovo, a government-funded technology hub and business school