Who is the Head of the Imperial Family?

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Per Peter Kurth who spoke to Ian Liliburn who knew Olga, he said she wasn't very bright. So I don't think she would have made a very good Empress.

Well, her brother (Nicholas) wasn't very bright either.

[Anna was Franziska]

I was talking about Olga Nikolaievna. I think Olga A. was very bright. Peter Kurth and his associates just don't like her because she denied AA.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I was talking about Olga Nikolaievna. I think Olga A. was very bright. Peter Kurth and his associates just don't like her because she denied AA.

Good to know since we were discussing current claimants.
I highly doubt that about Peter, but then again, I can't answer for him.
So, carry on!

[branchg]

There is no dispute that Grand Duke Cyril and Grand Duke Vladimir were the rightful successors under the Pauline Law with the death of Nicholas II, The Tsarevitch and Grand Duke Michael.

The controversy with the other branches of the family is whether Vladimir had the right to declare Maria took precedence over other male descendants of dynasts because he married equally, while his cousins did not. On this point, it certainly can be argued that Leonida Bagration was not of a reigning, sovereign family, as required by the Pauline Law, since the dynasty was absorbed into the Russian Nobility after Georgia was annexed and never considered to be of equal rank to the imperial family when the Tsar still reigned.

On the other hand, Vladimir was already the Head of the Imperial House when he married Leonida and he had declared her brother to be of royal rank when Infante Ferdinand inquired as to the status of the family. Given that point, the matter was closed once he had made his decision as Head of the House.

Either way, Maria Vladimirovna is recognized by the Russian Government and the Church as being the Head of the Imperial House, so the point is really moot.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Would Vladimirs marriage have been considered ebenburtig normally, as the Bragations were not a reigning dynasty. I believe one of the princesses in the Constantine branch married a Bragation too, with the blessing of the Tsar (though women did not have succession rights so he could be more forgivving here, as was the case with his niece marrying a Youssoupov.

It would not have been considered an equal marriage and the children born of the marriage would not have been dynasts. However, Vladimir was already the de-jure Tsar and ruled it was.

Princess Tatiana, daughter of Grand Duke Constantine, married a Bagration prince in 1911 with the blessing of Nicholas II. She renounced her rights to the throne (female dynasts have rights to the throne if there are no eligible males left) prior to the marriage.

Privately, Nicholas II supposedly assured his uncle the marriage would not be considered morganatic and encouraged the bridegroom to sign the registry as "Prince of Georgia". But he never issued a manifesto or ruling from the Imperial Senate one way or another.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Not quite. If he wants to call himself a Prince and pretend he's Head of the House etc then that's fine but when he says he's representing the Romanov Dynasty then he's actually committing a form of fraud and cheating the public. And some of the Russian public look to the Romanovs for guidance -thats obvious from the reception Maria always gets there. There's a certain amount of responsibility attached.

He is not the Head of the Family under any interpretation of the Pauline Law nor does he have the right to style himself a Prince of Russia. He is morganatic without question, even if everyone agreed they hold equal status, and the senior male morganaut would be Dimitri Ilyinsky, son of Paul Ilyinsky (HSH Prince Paul Romanovsky-Ilyinsky) and grandson of Grand Duke Dimitri Palovich and Audrey Emery (cr. Princess Romanovsky-Iliyinsky by Grand Duke Cyril).

[lexi4]

Thank you branchg! That pretty well sums it up.

[Marengo]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Well, her brother (Nicholas) wasn't very bright either.

I don't think a monarch has to be very bright, in some cases it is even preferable if he/she is not, just get some good counsilors and let them do the job, like the Marques de Pombal in Portugal etc.

[Marengo]

Originally Posted by branchg

There is no dispute that Grand Duke Cyril and Grand Duke Vladimir were the rightful successors under the Pauline Law with the death of Nicholas II, The Tsarevitch and Grand Duke Michael.

But there was! I am not aware how legitemate these discussions were but I have seen it mentioned many times that Vladimir could not have succeeded as he was not born from an Orthodox mother. And added to that, many considered him to be a traitor too, though the succession laws say nothing about that.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Marengo

But there was! I am not aware how legitemate these discussions were but I have seen it mentioned many times that Vladimir could not have succeeded as he was not born from an Orthodox mother. And added to that, many considered him to be a traitor too, though the succession laws say nothing about that.

You're speaking about Vladimir's father, Cyril, and the fact his mother, Marie Pavlovna was not born Orthodox. In 1908, she did convert to Orthodoxy and this was confirmed by the Tsar. Given that point, there was nothing under the Pauline Law barring Cyril from the throne.

The ridiculous notion of Cyril betraying the Empress and imperial children was debunked many times.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by Jason R Maier esq

Yeah I also think that Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna is viewed as the pretender and quite popular . . .

But all 4 of your ideas have merit to them . . .

A pretender she is allright.....

She's not halve as popular,within a large part of the Russian Orthodox Church,maybe,but in general?
People hardly know she's there at all,nor care quite frankly.

[COUNTESS]

A constitutional monarch does not have to be bright, as he has elected officials who know how to run things, such as George V, who was the sole monarch to survive WWI. Autocrats best be smart and competent, because they are running the show. Nicky was neither smart nor competent. Neither was Wilhem II, which is why at the end of WWI, they were gone.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

A constitutional monarch does not have to be bright, as he has elected officials who know how to run things, such as George V, who was the sole monarch to survive WWI. Autocrats best be smart and competent, because they are running the show. Nicky was neither smart nor competent. Neither was Wilhem II, which is why at the end of WWI, they were gone.

You bring up a very good point my pointing out the distinction between a monarch and an autocrat. For most of his reign, I would consider Nicholas an autocrat. And his lack of judgment and intelligence (among many other things) led to his fall. Nicholas didn't listen to his counselors.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by branchg

You're speaking about Vladimir's father, Cyril, and the fact his mother, Marie Pavlovna was not born Orthodox. In 1908, she did convert to Orthodoxy and this was confirmed by the Tsar. Given that point, there was nothing under the Pauline Law barring Cyril from the throne.

The ridiculous notion of Cyril betraying the Empress and imperial children was debunked many times.

Could you please give your source for the conversion of Marie Pavlovna? I've been trying to locate that information.
Thank you,
Lexi

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Could you please give your source for the conversion of Marie Pavlovna? I've been trying to locate that information.
Thank you,
Lexi

Ditto. Lex and I have been looking for that for a while now. . .
I'd rather have an intelligent ruler than one that was just competent, but that's just me. .

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Ditto. Lex and I have been looking for that for a while now. . .
I'd rather have an intelligent ruler than one that was just competent, but that's just me. .

I have asked for this source from other posters, but no luck. Hopefully we will get a source this time.
Lexi

[Marengo]

Now that other poster would be me... I will try to have a look threw my books this weekend!

[branchg]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Could you please give your source for the conversion of Marie Pavlovna? I've been trying to locate that information.
Thank you,
Lexi

From "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter", Robert Massie, p.265,

"Cyril's mother, Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna, a German princess from Mecklenburg-Schwerin, had insisted on remaining Lutheran when she married Cyril's father, Grand Duke Vladimir. She remained Lutheran for thirty-four years after her marriage. In 1908, she realized that, because of the illness of the little Tsarevitch Alexis, her husband and her son Cyril were close in line of succession to the throne. In order to promote their chances, Marie Pavlovna belatedly converted to Orthodoxy."

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by branchg

From "The Romanovs: The Final Chapter", Robert Massie, p.265,

"Cyril's mother, Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna, a German princess from Mecklenburg-Schwerin, had insisted on remaining Lutheran when she married Cyril's father, Grand Duke Vladimir. She remained Lutheran for thirty-four years after her marriage. In 1908, she realized that, because of the illness of the little Tsarevitch Alexis, her husband and her son Cyril were close in line of succession to the throne. In order to promote their chances, Marie Pavlovna belatedly converted to Orthodoxy."

Thank you. I have that book. Hopefully Massie sourced that information. Thank you again.

[Tsarina Anastasia]

First of all, most of the heirs either abdicated or signed over their rights for themselves and/or their heirs. GD Cyril was actually next in line after Alexei and Michael Alexandrovitch were executed. Other claimants were Dmitri Pavlovich and GD Nicholas Nicholaevitch, but their support was limited and the supporters gradually shifted to Cyril. Cyril's son, Vladimir, married a divorcee which is what has made Maria's claim disputed. Another pretender, Nicholas Romanov, was president of the Romanov Family Association and has proclaimed himself the head of the House of Romanov.
Ultimately, there is no longer a throne and even if a monarchy was restored, it would not be any of these claimants. It would be more like an experienced leader elected to the title.