Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[Ish]

I think if such a person were to appear their claim would be disputed on the grounds of "how have you avoided being known until now?" I don't think it's possible for there to be an undisputed claimant here.

 

[AristoCat]

I wonder how on earth the Romanovs have ever survived; so much relentless friction and so much endless hot headed accustions, one after another.

 

[Ish]

Well, on the one hand, one can argue that the reason why they've continued to exist is because it is no longer considered fashionable to simply overthrow your opponents to a throne and then have them killed (especially when said throne doesn't technically exist anymore and all claimants are pretenders).

On the other hand, one can argue that from a technical standpoint they don't actually exist anymore - descendants do, but the Imperial Romanov house was destroyed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. And that can be said to have happened not because of the overthrowall of the monarchy or the executions of Nicholas II and his family, but because the criteria for succession in the house is to complicated, particularly in a time when there are fewer imperial houses in general and the throne itself no longer exists.

In order to inherit the Russian Imperial seat of power one has to be descended from the Romanovs through equal marriages - something that has proven to be rather difficult for a House to do when in exile. This dispute exists because from various argumentative points of view, neither claimant nor their direct ancestors meet this criteria. As such, the fighting happens because everyone wants the power but no one can prove without a doubt that it belongs to them - or that it doesn't belong to another claimant. The fighting will continue until one line dies without any possible claimants.

When you look at thrones that have less complicated rules for succession, the claimants become clearer. Even though it's been over 300 years since the Glorious Revolution, there is still a widely agreed upon Stuart heir, Franz of Bavaria. Were the British throne to be abolished now, it's easy to believe that in 100+ years the Windsor heir will not be as easily identifiable, owing to the fact that there are more criteria to be a legitimate heir -much like how it's more complicated in Russia. It's worse in France, where there are 4 different pretenders, through 3 different houses, or Spain where there are 3 pretenders (through 1 house) plus the actual monarch.

 

[branchg]

I really do not think it is that complicated. Vladimir Kirillovich was indisputably the last surviving dynast and Head of the Imperial House and he died in 1992. He only had one child, Maria Vladimirovna, and she has an heir, George of Prussia.

The issue of equal marriages is really moot in my opinion. While it's true Leonida was unquestionably of a noble house at the time of her marriage to Vladimir, both branches of the Georgian Royal House are now reunited in marriage and there is a male heir. Arguably, Vladimir certainly married a woman of sufficient rank and his daughter also married equally.

The other descendants are not in compliance with the Laws on many counts, while Maria is only disputable from the point of her mother's status. There really is no question she is rightfully the Head of the Imperial House.

 

[NGalitzine]

But it is exactly this point that is arguable....Leonida was from a noble family, and a branch of the former royal family that was incorporated into the nobility. What has happened since has no bearing on the matter at all unless MV is planning on launching a claim to the former Georgian throne. Her own subesquent marriage to a Prussian prince also has no bearing on her claimed position except to give her son a place in the succession to the former Prussian throne. Having a Prussian prince as a father certainly does not benefit any claim her son might make to the former Russian throne.
.

 

[Ish]

I really do not think it is that complicated. Vladimir Kirillovich was indisputably the last surviving dynast and Head of the Imperial House and he died in 1992. He only had one child, Maria Vladimirovna, and she has an heir, George of Prussia.

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

The issue of equal marriage here is not of a moot point. Leonida was of a house that was not royal in accordance to Russian belief - following Georgia's incorporation into the Russian Empire it was regarded as a noble, not royal, house, by the Russian imperial house. Thus it can be argued that the marriage is not equal.

Going back further than that, Cyril Vladimirovich's marriage is considered by some to not have been within House Laws, eliminating both him and his son from having been the last surviving male dynast.

The way the succession in the Romanov House works is that it goes from one male dynast to the next closest related male dynast - typically father-to-son, but it can also go brother-to-brother, uncle-to-nephew, or nephew-to-uncle. When the Romanovs were overthrown it went Nicholas II - Alexei Nikolaevich - Michael Alexandrovich. From there, it's debatable as to who the proper head was, and there were 3 claimants as early as 1918, including Cyril.

In order to determine the line of succession first you must determine who the last surviving male dynast is (and if he still lives, then he's the claimant). Then you determine who his closest female relative is, and she (or her heirs) become the successor. The problem is, because of the issue of equal marriage it is debatable whether or not Cyril or Vladimir were dynasts at all, and as such the claimant to the throne becomes debatable.

 

[AristoCat]

It's such a mess.

On the hand of the Imperial House being destroyed, Nicholas did abdicate, but often abdications under duress are not recognized as legal and the immediate family was obliterated in what was essentially murder.

Realistically, the Bolsheviks and Communists were never a legitimate government and never really recognized by too many countries.

Then the fall of Communism came, but then Russia was plunged into chaos and hasn't really recovered from it. So really, Russia has never had a real government.

If a monarchy were to end up being restored, it would probably end up being the first legitimate government that Russians have had in a long time and a stabilizing factor.

It would in fact end up being a stabilizing factor while a republic is worked on, then it would in fact be the finest example of how a monarchy is supposed to work.

Realistically, it would take someone exceptionally unambitious to agree to take on the mantle of the throne, be a steadying force, and then end up abdicating once a republic is established.

Realistically, Russia has no had a universally recognized unquestionably legitimate government for almost an entire century since 1918.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I wonder why some people believes that, when a Monarchy is overthrown, the Line of Succession simply disapears, and no one can be the rightful heir to the Throne, and, if the Monarchy is to be restored, people, or the Parliament, has to choose a the Monarch. Well, when the Head of State is elected, we call Republic, not Monarchy.

Lines of Succession do not disapears, they still going on, even centuries after the overthrown of the Monarchy. You just have to look the line of Succession in order to see who is the Head of the House and heir to the Throne. In the Russian case, is Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich was the Head of the Imperial House by the time he married Princess Lonida. Only he had the power to declare his marriage as dynastic one.

As Prince Antônio of Brazil always says: "The best Monarch will always be the the rightful heir".

Messing up with the Line of Succession will make no good.

 

[AristoCat]

Oh no my firend, you misinterpret what I'm saying.

The line continues, but the official legal reinforcement of the monarchy might actually still exist in my mind.

Murder wasn't a way of resolving or ending the monarchy, I've never believed in that. Louis XVI was murdered and so was Marie Antoinette and it has been a curse on the nation of France ever since. Same with Russia; if none of them had been executed, I am certain that things would have been much different.

I believe that if any legitimate nation wants to end their monarchy and be credible and avoid bloodshed, there is no reason to end up making a maockery of justice with a show trial and then an inevitable execution via firing squad or the guillotine.

Each time a nation becomes a republic after tossing off a monarchy, how they treat the monarchs sets the precedent for how people who dislike the new regime will be treated.

After the murder of the French monarchs, anyone who was suspected of disliking the new regime was arrested, tried (in the most mocking sense of the word), then killed. Notice I said killed, not executed, which indicates that there was a legitimate trial.

Now, in Greece, the royals were deposed and then rescued and anyone who was against the new regime, pretty much left of their own accord if they could get out.

IN the US, anyone who disliked the new government was left alone to their own opinions. This is why I believe that the Bolshevik government was never legitimate and in a way, the monarchy is still very much a force in Russia and it's the same with France. Neither institution never really went away because of the brutal circumstances of their removal and the mockery of the so called 'justice system.'

The succession is important, even if there is no reigning family and it is important to maintain that link with the past and ensure that something is still there.

 

[NGalitzine]

I wonder why some people believes that, when a Monarchy is overthrown, the Line of Succession simply disapears, and no one can be the rightful heir to the Throne, and, if the Monarchy is to be restored, people, or the Parliament, has to choose a the Monarch. Well, when the Head of State is elected, we call Republic, not Monarchy.

.

Actually yes, I do firmly believe if monarchy were to be restored that the people and the parliament should have a say in who they place on the throne assuming the restoration is in a democratic society and not put in place by a military coup. Having a historic claim on the throne does not mean that you are necessarily the right person to be on the throne in a restored monarchy or the right person to re-establish the reigning family in the mids of the public.
Spain, although not a true democracy at the time, saw Juan Carlos named as heir ahead of his own father and in 1975 accend the throne while his father still lived. It took a few more years before his father resigned his own claims in favour of Juan Carlos.
In 1905 Norway had both election by parliament and a referendum to elect Prince Carl of Denmark to their throne.
In 2013 I do believe such debates are pretty pointless and that the "pretenders" have a better chance of winning the lottery than they do of sitting on thrones lost by their families a century or more ago. .

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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%.