Who is the Head of the Imperial Family?

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Just my opinion, which still doesn't matter because Im not Russian, but Georgi is still a descendant of C. Vladimir. As long as descendants of Xenia and Olga Romanov are alive, I will always think they should be the Heads. What is your opinion on the question you asked AristoCat?

[AristoCat]

I think that the children to descend from Xenia and Olga should be the heads since after all, they are of the most direct line and closest relation to Nicholas II after all. But something has to be done to neutralize Maria Vladimirovna and someone has to liberate Georgi from under his mother's thumb. Maria keeps rubbing shoulders with Putin, Medvedev, and making an increasing fool of herself in the eyes of the Russian people who don't view her or her son as some rightful rulers or representatives over them. Maria is making a fool of the Romanov name and also she keeps pushing herself into a position of power, or influence even, and it's kind of pathetic.

Considering what the Russians did to the Romanovs, the fact that Maria's mother and father are buried there and had an honorable funeral, I would say she has qutie a bit already and her pushing to have the Imperial Family have an honorable burial is quite frankly great. But she needs to stop pushing for a restoration in the old way, with herself as head, which isn't going to happen by a longshot. Not at all with her as head and not via Georgi and a foreign princess with no Russian lineage.

[Lenora]

Totally agree,when I first knew about how distant was Maria Vladimirovna from the last Tsar in the matter of blood lines,I was very surprised that the sisters of Tsar hadn't been taken into consideration,while they were the closest relatives of him.

[AristoCat]

So was I really. It's like Cyril snatched it right away and then completely shoved Xenia and Olga to the side with no consideration. It's no wonder really that he was so resented by the rest and so is Maria. Maria is parading around rights and making declarations she has no business making while she pretty much keeps her son a hostage to her delusions. She has lineage, yes, but she does not at all have right by relation to run things according to her will and wishes. Xenia and Olga have had kids and I personally think that while Rotislav has the correct and entirely legitimate claim, she would be such an asset if she could exorcise that relentless ambition of hers. And let her son have a life of his own as well.

[BaronessMary]

Originally Posted by Next Star

No she is not a woman cannot hold headship when their is other males that are close or distant cousin who follow all the laws she does not even
follow one being she is not a man this takes her out of the equation.

If you read the laws of succession, a woman can take head of the house ONLY when all other eligible male heirs are extinct.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

All other male heirs aren't extinct. And a few of them are closer to Nicholas II than she is.

[NGalitzine]

I think Maria, and her father and grandfather before her, have backed the family into a corner by insisting on the equal marriages after they went into exile and long after the reigning families abandoned the same rules. They effectively have said all other branches of the family are no longer Romanoffs because of this, ignoring questions about Leonidas own Bagration family status. What will she do if Georgi falls in love with a nice secretary whose father is a hardworking mechanic with no aristocratic links at all? If he married her the Romanoff dynasty as determined by Marias clan would cease to exist. Would she suddenly then decide that the rules need to be changed? If so then there would be a lot of male Romanoffs who might say they have a better claim to heading the family.

[BaronessMary]

Originally Posted by vorky

I am confused a little bit. I will quote author of that study



It seems that Vladimir (de iure Emperor) claimed that Bagrations and cadet branch were royals. It could be seen as interpretation of Law by Emperor. I dont know, Does anybody have original of this Treaty about Bagrations?

The Bagrations never actually succeeded their claim on Georgia to the Romanovs. Therefore, they are officially a House in Exile. As a result this is an equal marriage on a technicality. With other houses not sticking to the rules of succession, and no legitimate male heir remaining, Maria is the only one left. Being from the House of Kyrill she would have made sure she complied.
I have heard that to change this, the monarchy would have to have been restored and a royal decree issued. I highly doubt this, personally.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Lenora

Totally agree,when I first knew about how distant was Maria Vladimirovna from the last Tsar in the matter of blood lines,I was very surprised that the sisters of Tsar hadn't been taken into consideration,while they were the closest relatives of him.

Because there whee still other male dynasts and the closest in relation to the Nikoluas II. was Cyril. In 1992 when Vladimir died all other males had lost their dyastic rights because of unequal marriages.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by BaronessMary

The Bagrations never actually succeeded their claim on Georgia to the Romanovs. Therefore, they are officially a House in Exile. As a result this is an equal marriage on a technicality. With other houses not sticking to the rules of succession, and no legitimate male heir remaining, Maria is the only one left. Being from the House of Kyrill she would have made sure she complied.
I have heard that to change this, the monarchy would have to have been restored and a royal decree issued. I highly doubt this, personally.

Guess it is open to interpretation. When Princess Tatiana of Russia married a Prince Bagration she officially lost he admittedly distant right of succession to the throne because it was not an equal marriage. The Emperor said some very kind things about his regard and estimation of the Bagrations but Tatiana still lost he rights to the throne. Vladimir and Cryil gave a different interpretation on the status of the Bagration family when it came to Leonida.

[branchg]

The claim to the Georgian throne rested with the Gruzinsky line, not the Mouhkrani, which hadn't reigned in hundreds of years. Tsar Paul declared the Treaty null and void and all branches became part of the Russian nobility when Georgia was annexed to the Empire in 1800.

Maria's claim is no better than other members of the family who also descend from a marriage of a dynast and a female Russian noble. Given equality on that point, there are males left that take precedence over her as a female.

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

...When Princess Tatiana of Russia married a Prince Bagration she officially lost he admittedly distant right of succession to the throne because it was not an equal marriage.

Tatiana renounced her rights to the throne as standard practice for a female dynast marrying outside the family. Nicholas II never asked her to renounce the succession. It was well-understood at the time that a marriage to a Bagration prince was not equal, but one of good standing for a female dynast in very distant succession to the throne. Nothing more or less.

[NGalitzine]

"It was well-understood at the time that a marriage to a Bagration prince was not equal"

Well if Tatiana's marriage to a Bagration was understood to be uneqaul, the Vladimir's marriage to a Bagration was also unequal. That throws open the question of headship of the former Imperial Family.

[AristoCat]

All this quarreling goes to show that being a Russian royal can't be such a bad thing. Refreshing as compared to the constant self-martyrdom that so many royals subject the public to.

[AristoCat]

I have to say it's a pity that Maria's clan and the rest of the Romanovs can't come to some sort of rational agreement.I wonder if the two factions could somehow unite through a marriage and then have common cause for the couple. Georgi seems like a nice enough fellow and I am hopeful that there is a nice girl that can be found.

[Nicolas of Albania]

I have heard two claims of who the righftul heir to Russia's throne is. Some say it is Maria Vladimirovna Romanov and others claim it is Nicholas Romanovich Romanov. Maria claims the throne based on the fact that her father was the Czar's closest male relative and with his death, the eligible male bloodline is extinct, so she is the rightful Empress. Nicholas claims he is the rightful heir as he is the closest male dynast not excluded by the morganatic marriage clause in the House Laws. There are arguements against both.
Arguements against Maria:
Her mother, Leonida Bagration-Mukhransky, was of the Bagrationi Dynasty which ruled in Georgia. As that line was a cadet branch, when Russia took over Georgia, they became noblity and so Leonida was not of royalty, thus Vladmir violated House Laws and Maria is ineligible.

Maria's grandfather,Cyril, married without the approval of Emperor Alexander III, thus, all descendants of his line are ineligible.

Victoria, Maria's grandmother, was a Protestant and Cyril's 1st cousin, both forbidden by the Church to marry a dynast.

Maria's great-grandfather married a Lutheran

Cyril was not recognized by The Dowager Empress Marie or any senior members of the family.

Cyril joined the revolutionaries who toppled his family, thus hurting his legitimacy for the throne.

Arguements against Nicholas;
Nicholas argued all other people of elder branches had lost their rights to the throne by unequal marriages to non-royal wives, however, his mother was not of royal blood, so he was ineligible.

Counters:
The Mukhransky family is indeed royalty and since it was approved by the recognized Head of the family at the time, the marriage is equal

Cyril and Victoria's marriage was approved by Emperor Nicholas II, eliminating any arguements based against Maria due to their marriage

Cyril and his brothers were never excluded from the succession, so the arguement against Cyril's mother is invalid.

Nicholas claims the House Law only disqualifies the heirs of Grand Dukes who marry a non-royal. His father was a Prince, so the Law doesn't apply.

Counters to Counters

If Vladmir's marriage is valid, so are some other marriages said not to be, and that would require a revision to the succession.

Nicholas' parents' marriage was said to be invalid in the Almanach de Gotha, meaning he is not eligible.

based on all this, who is the rightful dynast?

[AristoCat]

Put frankly, the reason for all the 'unequal' marriages is that there was never really an anticipation for the Romanovs to return, since no one anticipated just how short Communist rule would actually be. The Vladimir branch collaborated, which pretty much means that in a sick way, they were more than happy that tens of millions of Russians get butchered as long as they were recognized by the ruling politboro. They antagonized the rest of the Romanovs by punishing the other family members, by decalring them 'non-Romanovs' in the Imperial sense, and then proceeded to reward their toadies with titles in excahnge for support.

[branchg]

The main problem with Maria's claim is her father's marriage to Princess Leonida Bagration-Moukhransky was not equal under the Pauline Law, as her branch of the Bagrids was not regnant in the Kingdom of Georgia, and all branches of the family were absorbed into the Russian nobility after Tsar Paul annexed Georgia in 1800.

However, the other branches of the family also married unequally, leaving the male lines defunct of dynasts under the Pauline Law. Therefore, under the Pauline Law, the succession would pass to the next eligible female line of the last regining Emperor. With Grand Duke Vladimir's death in 1992 (the last undisputed Head of the Imperial House), this would be through his aunt, Grand Duchess Helen Vladimirovna.

His sisters, Kira and Marie, also married equally under the Pauline Laws, however, they married German royals and did not raise their children Orthodox, another requirement of the Pauline Laws. Those female lines are ineligible.

Grand Duchess Helen married Prince Nicholas of Greece & Denmark. Her eldest daughter, Princess Olga, married Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, an equal and Orthodox marriage. Olga's eldest son, Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, would arguably be the rightful successor if the monarchy was ever restored.

However, I do believe Maria Vladimirovna is the Head of the Imperial House. The fact is her father alone had the right to declare any marriage equal or not. Maria married equally to Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia and her son is royal.

[RubyPrincess168]

Maria and Georgi's claim is invalidated way back with Maria's grandfather Grand Duke Cyril, the first pretender to the throne.


The Russian Law of Succession established by Emperor Paul in 1797 states that:

1. The monarch must be Orthodox.
2. The monarch must be male as long as there are any eligible males in the Imperial house.
3. The mother and wife of the male monarch or male heir must be Orthodox at the time of marriage.
4. The monarch must make an equal marriage to a woman from another ruling house.
5. The future monarch can only marry with the permission of the reigning Tsar.

Grand Duke Cyril failed to meet two of these requirements: Neither his wife nor his mother were Orthodox when they were married. And Cyril married without the permission of - indeed, defiance of - Tsar Nicholas II.
Cyril probably wasn't eligible for succession before he got married and he certainly wasn't after he married Victoria Melita. He knocked himself and his descendants out of the line of succession while the law was still in effect! For them to continue to insist otherwise just makes them look silly!

[branchg]

Cyril's marriage was in compliance with the Pauline Laws and his daughters were listed as dynasts in the Court Circular of 1917. The Tsar could waive any religious requirements of marriage and his mother, Maria Pavlovna, converted to Orthodoxy in 1905. His wife, Victoria Melita of Edinburgh, was recognized by Nicholas II as a Grand Duchess and Orthodox.

[BeatrixFan]

For my two-penneth, there's an issue here which has been previously unexplored and that is the whole concept of having a royal family. Monarchy survives because one man gives his loyalty to another as his King. In 1908 when Nicholas II restored Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich's ranks and titles, he was third in line to the throne. The Tsar also recognised Victoria Melita and made her a Grand Duchess of Russia and so whatever the views of the Tsar and the Tsarina on the marriage between Cyril and Ducky before 1908, we know that they changed at least legally at that time. In 1907, Ducky converted to Orthodoxy, she was of equal standing being from a ruling royal house and the union was legitimised by the Tsar. Therefore, anyone who counts himself as a monarchist would be duty bound by his loyalty to the Russian crown to accept that Cyril Vladimirovich was not only third in line when it comes to the succession but that his marriage was equal and legitimate in the eyes of the Tsar and therefore should be regarded as equal and legitimate to us. (Or rather to those who are monarchists and I understand not everyone who contributes to the board is!)

So when Nicholas II and Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich were dead, Cyril Vladimirovich became Tsar to those who wanted there to be a Tsar. By which I mean that although the Tsar no longer held any political power, the loyalty invested in reigning monarchs was deferred to him. Many people throw up the fact that Cyril swore allegiance to the Russian Provisional Government as a negating cause for him to be replaced but once again, the idea of monarchy is that a person doesn't choose his monarch and that there is no guarantee that the monarch will make the right decision all of the time. Let's not get confused, Cyril wasn't swearing loyalty to the Bolsheviks who had murdered Nicholas and Alexandra, Elisabeth etc etc - this was in fact something that other monarchs have done in order to try and secure their positions. Constantine II of the Hellenes could be said to have tried something similar. In both cases, exile was still the end result.

So, to those Russians who saw Cyril as the legitimate Tsar in exile there is almost certainly no reason why anyone other than Maria Vladimirovna is the rightful heir - because with Cyril as the head of the house, he could change laws and legitimize marriages just as Nicholas II had done. If Cyril regarded the marriage between Vladimir and Leonida as equal then it was equal and acceptable, just as Nicholas II recognised the marriage between Cyril and Ducky and put their children in the line of succession to the Russian throne. And similarly, when Vladimir decided that his daughter would be his heir, she was just that. This is where Nicholas and Dmitri Romanov's case totally collapses. They want people to ignore the decision of a reigning monarch (Nicholas II) which goes against the whole idea of monarchy.

Add to all this the fact that the likes of Nicholas and Dmitri have said they don't want to see a monarchy restored (yet still use the title of Prince?) and that they do very little for Russia whereas Maria has now dedicated her entire life to working for the Russian people in whatever way she can and I think the case gets sewn up pretty quickly. Even if we put aside the old house laws for a moment, the fact that it's Maria the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church recognise as the head of the Imperial Family and it's Maria all the way.