Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[Ish]

I had to look this up and am dumbfounded.

I would think that he had to wait so long because from a technical standpoint he has no claim over Maria or the other Nicholas. His claim isn't through any form of traditional succession rules but rather because the Monarchist Party of Russia declared him their candidate for the throne not last year (they were only founded the year before).

[AristoCat]

^I don't know how else to say this, but if a reality television series were done about the Romanovs and their drama surrounding the claiming of the Headship of the House of Romanov and of course, the "Throne," I am certain that it would get massive ratings. Sheer, pure, entertainment.

As for Asia, I am certain that the Emperor of Japan and the Chinese and the people of Thailand might have a problem with that.

[Ish]

There would be no mention of Asia because the Russian, Byzantium, and Roman Empires were all European and Asian in scope.

If he's claiming to be the rightful ruler of Russia then that extends in a physical sense to Russia and, possibly, the former Russian Empire. His claims beyond that seem to be more of a theological one, in a position similar to that of the Pope.

[AristoCat]

Very interesting; I wonder, what is it about the Headship of the House of Romanov and "Throne" (I use that very loosely) that is so attractive? It's like the Romanovs are going crazy over this, at least Vladimirovna did.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Very interesting; I wonder, what is it about the Headship of the House of Romanov and "Throne" (I use that very loosely) that is so attractive? It's like the Romanovs are going crazy over this, at least Vladimirovna did.

Prestige. For an example Maria Vladimirovna Romanova and her son are regular guests at major royal events. They are meeting the high and the mighty. They are treated with égards. The same with other pretenders like the Duke of Bragança or the Prince of Prussia. They have access to the high and mighty. They get seats of honour. They are treated with respect and égards. Purely because they are head of the House which played such an important role in the history of their respective countries.

Apart from the claim of Maria Vladimirovna Romanova, no one can deny the energy, the commitment and the zest she and her son always have shown for their ultimate goal. We can not say the same about the members of the Romanov Family Association whom all seem to miss the nose for publicity, media-attention and public visibility. The Grand Dukes Dimitri and Andrew are very old and frail gentlemen. Prince Andrew's sons are simply invisible, not to mention the other Romanovs.

[COUNTESS]

Most of them have gone on with their lives and accepted that restoration is not a real possibility. So, they live their lives as they are today.

[Chubb Fuddler]

Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna also lives her life as it is today, and what a blast she seems to have. I wish I had half the energy and enthusiasm she shows on her official visits and tours.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Most of them have gone on with their lives and accepted that restoration is not a real possibility. So, they live their lives as they are today.

It is not only about restoration. All know that this chance is purely theoretical. It is also about the headship of the House, being the guardian and representant of one of the most illustrious and powerful families ever in Europe. And as said, it brings prestige, it brings VIP-treatment, etc. The average Russian will not meet President Putin or the King of the Netherlands. The average Russian will not be interviewed by television channels. 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.

[AristoCat]

I wonder why so many reigning dynasties don't have the same respect for their ancestors.

[Ish]

What do you mean?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

... 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]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

...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.