Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[BrazilianEmpire]

King Juan Carlos ascension to the Throne was not a democratic, nor legitimate, process, so I don't why you used this as an example.
Well, there wasn't any Pretender to the Norwegian Throne in 1905, in fact, Parliament elected King Haakon VII.

The Head of a Royal or a Imperial House is infinitaly more legitimate than a Republic that was proclaimed by a coup.
And, in fact, their families didn't lost their Thrones. The Throne were taken from them, by dictators and murderers.
.

[NGalitzine]

I used the Spanish example because lets face it.....monarchies do not get restored.
However JC was certainly chosen by Franco with the approval of Queen Victoria Eugenie who was willing to sacrifice her son in order to see the family back in Madrid.
If Norway and the Norwegian people in 1905 had wanted to see an order of succession followed presumably they would have chosen a younger son of the King of Sweden, former King of Norway. No one wanted that so a Danish prince, Carl, was chosen but being a democratic state a referendum was also held to confirm his election
If the monarchies had been successful and popular with their people it is doubtful too many of them would have been overthrown as in Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austro Hungary,Russia. Revolutions succeed because there is unrest and dissatisfaction amongst the people or else the coup fails or is itself overthrown by counter coups and public uprisings.

The bottom line is that people should always have a say in their form of government, and if that form should change they should have a say in who is to be the new President or who is to be the new monarch and founder of the new reigning family. Even if a monarchy is to be restored why do people assume it is the old royal family the people would want back? They might very well chose a new family they like and respect to place on the throne and represent their nation.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Of course they will choose anyone they like. And then it will be called "Republic" and not "Monarchy".

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

Of course they will choose anyone they like. And then it will be called "Republic" and not "Monarchy".

And yet, oddly enough Norway is a Kingdom.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

And yet, oddly enough Norway is a Kingdom.

Norway was a completely different case. There wasn't no Head of the Norwegian Royal House, the country was becoming Independent after centuries of personal union with Sweden. In a case like that, it's very plausible that there was a referendum.

But for Portugal, Brazil and Russia, choose who would be the Monarch is ridiculous, because it's very clear who is the rightful heir to those Thrones.

[NGalitzine]

Well there is no more "By The Grace of God", "Divine Right" crap any more so the idea of chosing a new reigning family does not seem anymore ridiculous that the idea of restoring monarchies that were abolished more than a century ago and no one is alive to remember when they were on they still had a throne.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Well, you made your point, and I made mine. It's obvious that we're not going to agree.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Ish

Except it's debatable whether or not Vladimir Kirillovich's marriage was morganatic or not - or whether his father's marriage was.

Vladimir's marriage was arguably morganatic, but Cyril's most certainly was not. Victoria Melita was born a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and her mother was a Russian Grand Duchess. The issue was one of Empress Alexandra disapproving of Victoria's divorce of her brother, Ernst of Hesse-Darmstadt. Nicholas II later announced his recognition of the marriage and Victoria was granted the rank and title of HIH Grand Duchess of Russia.

The last surviving male dynast was Vladimir. With his death, the closest female relative meeting the criteria of the Pauline Laws was his cousin, Princess Olga of Greece & Denmark, eldest child of Vladimir's aunt, Grand Duchess Helen Vladimirovna. Olga's eldest son, Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, would arguably be the rightful heir today in terms of Orthodoxy and equal marriages.

Vladimir was the de-jure Emperor when he married and only he could determine whether any marriage met the requirements. Given that point and fact the male-lines of all the other dynasts were also morganatic by 1992, Maria would still have the strongest claim if the throne returned to a Romanov.
.

[AristoCat]

I wonder who it would take to get the factions to agree on. All of them want one thing, or everything, but object to one aspect or another about each rival involved in this constant struggle for headship of the house.

[nithsdale]

Originally Posted by branchg

Vladimir's marriage was arguably morganatic, but Cyril's most certainly was not.

Vladimir's marriage wasn't so morganatic as those of other Romanovs after 1918. Family of Gr Dss Leonida was once reigning in Kingdom of Georgia. So, taking this into account and strong willness of Maria to serve her Motherland Russia - there can be no regarding of Alexander of Yugoslavia at all.
Only Empress Maria I of All the Russia is the rightful heir to the throne.
.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by nithsdale

Vladimir's marriage wasn't so morganatic as those of other Romanovs after 1918. Family of Gr Dss Leonida was once reigning in Kingdom of Georgia.

Its not that easy. Leonida belonged to the non reigning branch of a family that had once reigned but were incorporated into the Russian nobility, thus they were noble and not royal. When Princess Tatiana married a Bagration she was required to formally give up her distant claim on the Russian throne because she was marrying unequally to a mamber of the Russian nobility. I cannot see anything that happened between Tatianas marriage and Vladimirs marriage to make the Bagrations suddenly royal again.

[nithsdale]

Yes, you are right about Bagration belonging to Russian nobility (its upper level, as being ex-royals in the nearest past). But excluding Tatiana from succession rights happened at that period time (golden age of European Royal houses and multiple marriages between them). At this point marriage of Gr Duke Vladimir to Pss Leonida in period when all other remaining Romanovs married far, very far from equal marriages - their union seems to be almost appropriate for continuing legal branch of the Imperial House
.

[branchg]

Other dynasts also married female Russian nobles after the Revolution and those unions were deemed morganatic. The Bagration-Mouhkransky family was nobility in the Kingdom of Georgia for centuries before 1800, so I think that argument is very weak.

The male-lines of the Imperial House are all extinct under the Laws and no one can be considered a dynast today.
.

[nithsdale]

There can be no comparison between Russian noble families and the Bagration-Mouhkransky family because other Russian noble families were never reigning but Bagration-Mouhkransky family had reigned till 1800. There is a great difference!
The Bagration-Mouhkransky family is almost Royal - unlike ordinary Russian nobility.
Maria and Georgi cannot be considered as ideal and perfect dynasts - but all the other Romanovs cannot be considered a dynasts AT ALL completely
.

[branchg]

The Gruzinsky line reigned in Georgia up until 1800, not the Moukhrani. While both lines are now united in marriage and there is a male heir to the Georgian Royal House, the Moukhrani had not reigned in centuries and were considered nobility in Georgia.

I agree Maria Vladimirovna still has the strongest claim in terms of compliance under the Fundamental Laws. Her father was the last surviving male dynast and indisputably the Head of the Imperial House.
.

[AristoCat]

I wonder what on earth will make all of this stop and the entire Romanov family come together.

[Blog Real]

Tsar-fetched? Almost a third of Russians favor return of monarchy
Tsar-fetched? Almost a third of Russians favor return of monarchy ? RT Russian politics

[Al_bina]

28% paired with obvious lack of likable pretenders means that there will be no restoration.

[Furienna]

And after 95 years, I guess many would be see a restoration of monarchy as totally unnecessary.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

28% paired with obvious lack of likable pretenders means that there will be no restoration.

Also consider that this 28% includes both those who are favourable to the restoration and those who are indifferent. This means that the supporters of the restoration are far less than 28%.