Romanov Pretenders and Imposters

[Vasillisos Markos]

Originally Posted by Alexey 1904

Vasillisos, sorry for the misspelling of your name. Thanks also to Russophile for explaining what they know about 'Toscany's' claims

My dear Alexey,

No need to apologize; just use VM like the others if you wish I want to thank you, Warren, and my lovely Russo for explaining Toscany to me. I was not aware of his claims. Russo was instrumental in getting me to read Michael and Natasha which I enjoyed. I know I should post this on the thread devoted to them but if anyone else read it, do you get the idea that Natasha was a little bit upset that Michael did not push more for his royal prerogatives which she could then enjoy as well?

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

Russo was instrumental in getting me to read Michael and Natasha which I enjoyed. I know I should post this on the thread devoted to them but if anyone else read it, do you get the idea that Natasha was a little bit upset that Michael did not push more for his royal prerogatives which she could then enjoy as well?

I love the book Michael and Natasha and my copy is dog-eared and ready to fall apart. I agree with this assessment. When I think of Michael and Natasha, I remember the incredible movie "The Shooting Party." The master of the house, portrayed by James Mason, writes in his diary "My wife is fond of society...." and he goes on to muse about his preferences for a quieter life. Had Michael and Natasha been married many years, I can see him writing that in his own diaries. I do believe that Natasha would have enjoyed being the power behind the throne, even without the title, and reading her letters, she certainly seems to know how to push Michael's buttons, and direct his actions.

"The Shooting Party" was filmed at Knebworth, where Michael and Natasha lived for about a year.

To the thread topic, I think it terribly unlikely that Michael & Natasha had a child in 1916 that could be a Romanov/Romanov imposter. I believe that they would have celebrated and rejoiced in another child, not hidden the child away. While their son George was legitimized after his birth, a child born in 1916 would have been their first legitimately-born child.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

But there are descendants of Xenia who was Nicholas' sister so why not use them? Only thing I can think of is Philip being so old has a closer blood link to a woman who died in 1918.

UPDATE
I'm re-reading Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chpt" and there is a long explanation about why Philip was the best candidate for the DNA test because the DNA he got from his mother would be present in his grandmother his great aunt ( Alexandra) his great grandmother (Princess Alice) and perhaps also his great great grandmother (Victoria).

When it comes to genetic genealogy, it's usually the maternal mitochondrial DNA that is checked when it comes to old material, as that's always inherited from mother to child, regardless of the sex of the child. When it comes to paternal mitochondrial DNA, it has only been found in one single case of a human male. It's more difficult to find a connections between paternal relatives if thers's only bones left, while it's easy to find the mitochondrial DNA that's present between individuals that share a common female ancestress. In this case there is a line through the maternal mitochondrial DNA from queen Victoria to her daughters, granddaughers and to her great-grandson.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

WoW, I knew they decided to go through the females, but I didn't know this is how it is almost always done. I wonder why it is virtually impossible (or so it seems) to go through the males. I guess it is a good thing Philip was still alive because from what you just said, it wouldn't have worked with his children. BTW just browsing through various facilities and I have come across that more than just Philip was tested, but also Elizabeth and some other fairly famous royals. I apologize for not knowing the exact details of these rumors.

[CyrilVladisla]

Inspector Franz Grunberg contacted Anastasia's aunt, Princess Irene of Prussia. He scheduled dinner for Irene and Anna Anderson at his home. Irene was introduced to Anna with a false name and sat opposite Anna at the dining table. Irene gave no sign of recognizing her.

[Blog Real]

Romanov Empire (micronation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romano...e_(micronation)

I didn't know this micronation

[victoriaalix]

There was an article that ran in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (one of the major broadsheets in the Philippines) last 2011 about a Filipina's grandmother who was supposedly identified by the journalist who interviewed her as Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna. To be clear, the woman's grandmother never claimed to be Anastasia and her granddaughter never claimed that her grandmother was Anastasia. The "Anastasia claim" angle came from the journalist who wrote the article.

All the woman who was interviewed wanted to know was whether or not her grandmother had living relatives in Russia. It didn't even matter to her on whether or not her relatives were the Romanovs. Rather, it's the people who helped her investigate who would constantly point out that she could very well be a Romanov.

This is pretty much reminiscent to Eleonora Kruger, in which people claimed that she is Anastasia Nikolaevna and yet, she herself did not make such claim (in fact, her claim was different - she claimed to be Polish nobility).

[Lady Daly]

Eurohistory has just reported on an Italian social media influencer Alberto Maccan going by Carlo Alberto Maccan Romanoff in a paid partnership on Instagram, Facebook and his personal website. He claims to be a descendant of a Prince Inaco Maccanovič Romanov (born in 1950) in Italy.

"The Imperial House of Russia is currently engaged in a legal battle in Italy to prevent a social media influencer from using the Romanoff surname for commercial gain, among other concerns. Grand Duke George of Russia, the heir to the Headship of the Imperial House, is the plaintiff; Mr. Alberto Maccan (also known as "Carlo Alberto Maccan Romanoff"), a social media influencer, is the defendant."

Eurohistory: Exposé: The Russian Imperial House Versus the Social Media Influencer Pretending to be a Romanoff

The reporting is exhaustive and thorough thanking the "Chancellery of H.I.H. Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia for their kind assistance"

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Lady Daly

Carlo Alberto Maccan Romanoff in a paid partnership on Instagram, Facebook and his personal website. He claims to be a descendant of a Prince Inaco Maccanovič Romanov (born in 1950) in Italy.

Eurohistory: Exposé: The Russian Imperial House Versus the Social Media Influencer Pretending to be a Romanoff

Well, he looks like a Disney Prince at least - one has to give him that.

But interesting, that the Romanovs are stepping up this harshly against him!

[Alison H]

I'm fairly sure that there's no such person as Inaco Maccanovich Romanov! But I don't know why the Romanovs don't just ignore this Carlo guy - if he's after publicity, that's exactly what they're giving him.

[Lady Daly]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I'm fairly sure that there's no such person as Inaco Maccanovich Romanov! But I don't know why the Romanovs don't just ignore this Carlo guy - if he's after publicity, that's exactly what they're giving him.

I think if you read this article https://eurohistoryjournal.blogspot....ersus.html?m=1 it becomes clear why Grand Duke George of Russia has brought forward legal action. For one thing, the imposter is profiting off the use of the Romanoff name, he is using it for commercial gain. Using the Romanoff name it appears is also a breach of copyright law as only real family members of the Imperial Family can use the Romanoff name. The article is very thorough explaining why the lawsuit has been brought forward. This guy claims to be a member of a nonexisting branch of the Romanoff family. It's very shady plus it appears his actions are also illegal. I hope the The Grand Duke George is successful!

[Lady Daly]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Well, he looks like a Disney Prince at least - one has to give him that.

But interesting, that the Romanovs are stepping up this harshly against him!

Victor, this guy does look like a Disney prince, too funny The guy is profiting in a number of very big ways by pretending to be a member of the Romanoff family. Enough is probably enough.

[CyrilVladisla]

Anastasia Tchaikovsky arrived in New York aboard the S. S. Beregiain in 1928. She claimed to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mme...-52435700.html

[CyrilVladisla]

People thought she was Anastasia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESv4F0gFW_c

[Duc_et_Pair]

The stance of Maria Vladimirovna's line is in tatters: how to claim that a Romanov marrying Praskovia Dimitriyevna countess Sheremeteva, or a Romanov marrying Donna Sveva countess Della Gherardesca is morganatic - and a "Romanov" marrying a Ms Bettarini is not?

Maria and Georg now fall in between the quay and the ship:

1.
The claim that the more senior male-line Romanovs are excluded because of "morganatic" marriages

2.
The claim that only fruit of dynastic alliances are successors

About 1.
If "morganatic marriages" are no longer a reason to cease to be a dynast, then the US citizens Andrew Andreyevich Romanov and his sons Peter Andreyevich Romanov and Andrew Andreyevich Romanov are the pretenders with the strongest claim.

About 2.
If it is about "dynastic marriages" then Karl Emich Prinz von Leiningen and his brother, Andreas Fürst von Leiningen are the pretenders with the strongest claim, now Maria/Georg can no longer use this as an argument since the alliance with non-blue blooded Ms Bettarini.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The stance of Maria Vladimirovna's line is in tatters: how to claim that a Romanov marrying Praskovia Dimitriyevna countess Sheremeteva, or a Romanov marrying Donna Sveva countess Della Gherardesca is morganatic - and a "Romanov" marrying a Ms Bettarini is not?

There are many who set out this argument, and it is not without logic. However, following precisely the same reasoning, one should argue that:

• The claim of Otto von Habsburg's line to be the successors to the Emperors of Austria is invalid because the more senior Hohenberg line can no longer be excluded: How can one claim a Habsburg marrying Countess Sophie Chotek is morganatic, and a Habsburg marrying a "Baroness" Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza is not?
  
  
• The claim of Don Felipe VI's line to be the successors to the Kingdom of Spain is invalid because the more senior line of Luis Alfonso de Borbón can no longer be excluded: How can one claim that a Borbón marrying Emanuela de Dampierre (daughter of a viscount) is morganatic, and a Borbón marrying Letizia Ortiz is not?

People can legitimately disagree on the issue of whether alterations to the principles governing succession should be treated as retroactive. What I do not understand is why the same behavior which is accepted from pretenders to other European thrones, or even reigning monarchies, is treated as unacceptable when it comes from Maria Vladimirovna and her line.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The stance of Maria Vladimirovna's line is in tatters: how to claim that a Romanov marrying Praskovia Dimitriyevna countess Sheremeteva, or a Romanov marrying Donna Sveva countess Della Gherardesca is morganatic - and a "Romanov" marrying a Ms Bettarini is not?

Maria and Georg now fall in between the quay and the ship:

1.
The claim that the more senior male-line Romanovs are excluded because of "morganatic" marriages

2.
The claim that only fruit of dynastic alliances are successors

About 1.
If "morganatic marriages" are no longer a reason to cease to be a dynast, then the US citizens Andrew Andreyevich Romanov and his sons Peter Andreyevich Romanov and Andrew Andreyevich Romanov are the pretenders with the strongest claim.

About 2.
If it is about "dynastic marriages" then Karl Emich Prinz von Leiningen and his brother, Andreas Fürst von Leiningen are the pretenders with the strongest claim, now Maria/Georg can no longer use this as an argument since the alliance with non-blue blooded Ms Bettarini.

But so far the marriage of Grand Duke Georg and Rebecca Bettarini is not dynastic as she did not become a Grand Duchess. It remains to be seen which Title the expected child of the couple will be get.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

There are many who set out this argument, and it is not without logic. However, following precisely the same reasoning, one should argue that:

• The claim of Otto von Habsburg's line to be the successors to the Emperors of Austria is invalid because the more senior Hohenberg line can no longer be excluded: How can one claim a Habsburg marrying Countess Sophie Chotek is morganatic, and a Habsburg marrying a "Baroness" Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza is not?
  
  
• The claim of Don Felipe VI's line to be the successors to the Kingdom of Spain is invalid because the more senior line of Luis Alfonso de Borbón can no longer be excluded: How can one claim that a Borbón marrying Emanuela de Dampierre (daughter of a count) is morganatic, and a Borbón marrying Letizia Ortiz is not?

People can legitimately disagree on the issue of whether alterations to the principles governing succession should be treated as retroactive. What I do not understand is why the same behavior which is accepted from pretenders to other European thrones, or even reigning monarchies, is treated as unacceptable when it comes from Maria Vladimirovna and her line.

By my understanding the line of Don Luis Alfonso de Borbón was not excluded because of a non-dynastic marriage but because his grandfather, the Infante Don Jaime de Borbón - Duque de Cádiz renounced his rights (because he was deaf and mute). Two years later the Duque de Cádiz married Emanuelle de Dampierre (daughter of Roger, vicomte de Dampierre and of Vittoria of the princes Ruspoli).

[BriarRose]

Regarding the Spanish throne, my understanding is the same as Duc et Pair. Jaime de Borbon unequivocally renounced his rights to the throne under the laws of Spain, and that renouncement included his descendants. Thus, all of his descendants have no standing in the order of succession. Jaime later regretted his decision, and his son challenged it when Franco was in power. (Infamously, Jaime's son also married Franco's daughter at El Pardo.)

It was not the status of Jaime's wife that removed him or his descendants from the succession to the Spanish throne.

My very amateurish understanding of the Russian pretenders to the throne is that there is no current way to amend the House Laws of Romanov. Thus, the requirements for an equal marriage remain, giving the von Leiningen branch the strongest claim. Today Georg and any children of Georg and Rebecca will not have any claim to the Romanov line of succession. Eventually, there could very well be no claimants in a few generations, as dynastic marriages are dwindling.

[Tatiana Maria]

I respectfully disagree on the basis of the evidence I am familiar with, but I am interested in learning more about the opposing arguments, and have continued the discussion in the Spanish forum here:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I am no legal expert, but it would seem to me that on the basis of history, there is more force in the unequal (and thus non-dynastic at the time under the Pragmatic Sanction) marriage than the renunciation as a reason for excluding Jaime's line. King Felipe V effected his claim to the Spanish crowns in spite of his grandmother's renunciation. But the "unequal marriage" laws had already been enforced to exclude numerous Borbón descendants from royal status in the decades before Jaime's renunciation.

I think the fact that Jaime was pressed to marry unequally, and the following quotation, also suggests that the family saw the non-dynastic marriage as making the exclusion of Jaime's descendants more legally sufficient.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/roy...c.htm#juan1972



However, I would be very interested to hear why most people appear to feel that the renunciation is more significant than the non-dynastic marriage.

Originally Posted by BriarRose

My very amateurish understanding of the Russian pretenders to the throne is that there is no current way to amend the House Laws of Romanov.

My understanding is that the Romanovs lack any official standing in the republic of Russia, as Georgy is simply Georgy Romanoff in his Russian passport, and consequently their house laws are purely private family rules.