Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[SirGyamfi1]

I'm assuming the right to use the dynastic surname Romanoff* is decided by whoever is the head of the family of pretenders. In the case of the Romanovs, the amount of family quarrels is their worst enemy since there's no united front. Reminds me a bit on the 19th century French restoration quarrels between the House of Bourbon vs House Orleans.

* Footnote - the last Romanov by blood was Empress Elizabeth and her then nephew Peter III. After Catherine the Great the surname was used by her surviving descendant from Sergei Saltykov, she had two miscarriages and then Czar Paul I with Saltikov. Catherine also had three other children after Paul.

In regards on whom I give the upper hand in terms of lineage, hands down to Grand Duchess Maria. Her mother was a Bagration royal princess whose family had to scale down to serene highness when they were absorbed by the Russian Empire. I recall reading ages ago some article that the reason why princes in Russia, from independent pre-Rurik and Romanov estates, did not meet equal status with the German princes of the Holy Roman Empire was caused by the Almanac de Gotha system to catalog the titled royal houses and nobility.

Like if a Russian prince that ruled over an independent pre-Romanov territory was not equal to a German/Holy Roman Empire prince, duke or grand duke that also had an independent territory in Central Europe. Don't know if the reasoning was the Holy Roman ruler was elected by the equivalent today of state governors but titled kings, grand dukes, dukes, princes et al. While in Russia one family, the Rurik and later the Romanovs, made it hereditary but absorbed all these independent states.

This reminds me Spain was formed by the union of many kingdoms and people who descended from these small kingdoms today became Dukes and Grandes like the Dukes of Medinaceli instead of being addressed as Prince of Medinaceli, etc. as they did in Russia, the Holy Roman and later German empires.

In terms of Maria, from her mother's side if she was installed as Czarina today, she and her son and grandson's dynasty would be older than the Danish royals since the Bagration dynasty was around as far as the Roman and Byzantine empires while the Danish line started, I recall, since the year 900s (?)

Article about the on-going family drama, first published in 1998: The Romanoffs and the Bagrations

But Maria’s mother’s branch doesn’t belong to the ruling branch of the Bagration family and some say her mother was a divorced woman.

 

[Toledo]

But Maria’s mother’s branch doesn’t belong to the ruling branch of the Bagration family and some say her mother was a divorced woman.

The Bagration had many branches and found themselves ruling several independent regions in the Caucasus. Is interesting that there are regions all over Europe that developed into independent mini kingdoms thanks to geography like ancient Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany/Central Europe and the Caucasus northeast between todays' Turkey and south Russia.

That bears the question if her family line descended from one of these kings do they validate her as royal or as serene highness after incorporation into the Russian Empire?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Again, I am not addressing the claims (or absence thereof) of the Hohenbergs. I am addressing the claims of royal watchers who accept Otto's declarations but argue that it would be hypocritical if Maria hypothetically were to make the same declarations in the future. (And again, to be clear, their point of view differs from your point of view, and I am addressing their point of view.)




Yes, and the Ilyinskys are morganatic but senior descendants of the Romanov family who were legally declared non-dynasts during the pretended "monarchy" and cannot claim to be heads of the family, according to the same argument.

I am aware of your point that the Hohenbergs were declared non-dynasts while the monarchy was still reigning and the Ilyinskys were declared non-dynasts after the monarchy was abolished. However, that is irrelevant to arguments which rely on all sides believing that the families continue to be "royal" and the heads of the family continue to exercise dynastic authority even after the monarchy is abolished. If the family members were to all recognize that they are all plain Mr. Habsburg and Mrs. Romanov in the republics of Austria and Russia then there would be no dynastic claims, disputed or undisputed.




And Maria wasn't the one who made the Ilyinskys non-dynastic morganauts.



And by the same logic (with which I agree), just because Maria's only son didn't make a dynastic marriage doesn't mean the headship would revert to a morganatic but senior (according to semi-Salic male preference) non-dynastic branch.




I doubt the headship would be disputed if his second son had married unequally.




Again, it doesn't bear on the more moderate version of the argument which I was addressing, but I suppose I'm curious as to what she would need to do in order to be "publicly unaccepting" of the marriage in your eyes, or how you believe she could prevent her son from giving an imperial style to his family after she is dead.

Maria and the late Crown Prince Otto are/were in two different circumstances so I’m not going to continue because I have exhausted the facts in that.

You can interpret the Habsburg dynastic issues vs the Romanov one any way you like, I have stated and stated but no matter everyone sees this differently.

Again, Otto had two sons one of whom made an obvious equal marriage the elder didn’t so the claims Otto’s branch won’t go to other branches and the House laws have relaxed by Otto who was the undisputed Head. I’m not going over this again.
I never said or implied that Maria would have to die for George to give Imperial titles and styles, I’m basing the claim based on the fact that his wife was made serene highness not Imperial. The only way she could be openly against is by either publicly denouncing her son or making a statement that implies that her son cannot be Head of the family because of his marriage but she can’t and won’t do that for personal reasons which is understandable but hypocritical.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The Bagration had many branches and found themselves ruling several independent regions in the Caucasus. Is interesting that there are regions all over Europe that developed into independent mini kingdoms thanks to geography like ancient Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany/Central Europe and the Caucasus northeast between todays' Turkey and south Russia.

That bears the question if her family line descended from one of these kings do they validate her as royal or as serene highness after incorporation into the Russian Empire?

Initially the Bagrations were accepted as a ruling dynasty but later on, 1783 treaty that guaranteed their status was broken and Georgia was fully annexed so the answer is tricky. From a German gotha POV it would be dynastic, but from the Russian understanding probably not.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Maria and the late Crown Prince Otto are/were in two different circumstances so I’m not going to continue because I have exhausted the facts in that.

You can interpret the Habsburg dynastic issues vs the Romanov one any way you like, I have stated and stated but no matter everyone sees this differently.

I am glad we agree there is no need to repeat statements which have already been addressed. In my previous post I acknowledged and responded to all of your material statements, pointing out the equivalencies between the Hohenberg and Ilyinsky marriage situations but also acknowledging the one marriage-related difference which you pointed out (i.e., whether the unequal marriage occurred before or after the abolition of the monarchy). I also explained why I did not consider that difference to be material to the specific argument made by other royal watchers (not you) that I was addressing.

Indeed we seem to more or less agree on the facts, so I agree there is no point in continuing unless there are other unaddressed facts which someone wishes to raise.

Again, Otto had two sons one of whom made an obvious equal marriage the elder didn’t so the claims Otto’s branch won’t go to other branches and the House laws have relaxed by Otto who was the undisputed Head. I’m not going over this again.

Again, the argument I addressed was about making relaxation of marriage requirements retroactive (as that is what some argue Maria must do to not be hypocritical), i.e., affecting earlier non-dynastic marriages and elevating their descendants to dynastic status. So if Otto had made his changes retroactive (which he did not), elevating the Hohenbergs to dynasts, then the claim of Otto's branch would indeed go to the Hohenbergs (as they descend from an older son than Otto's branch), regardless of whom Otto's sons married.

I never said or implied that Maria would have to die for George to give Imperial titles and styles,

I never said you said that (though I haven't seen anyone suggest George would give out titles and styles while his mother is still alive). You commented "she’s simply going to allow her son to give an Imperial style and title to her son’s family", and I replied by asking you how she could possibly prevent it. Your comment implies she is capable of stopping her son from giving an imperial style and title to his family, but she is "allowing" him to do so (in the future). But I do not see how she could possibly "allow" or "disallow" her son from doing whatever he wishes after she is dead. It is beyond her control.

The only way she could be openly against is by either publicly denouncing her son or making a statement that implies that her son cannot be Head of the family because of his marriage but she can’t and won’t do that for personal reasons which is understandable but hypocritical.

Thank you for answering the question. I will make two points.

First, "her son cannot be Head of the family because of his marriage" is not how the laws of the Russian monarchy worked. A legally valid but unequal marriage never affected the succession rights of the prince who married unequally, it only excluded the descendants from the marriage. For example, in the time of the monarchy, Emperor Alexander II contracted an unequal and morganatic marriage, but he remained on the throne. After the abolition of the monarchy, Maria and her father and grandfather continued to recognize "princes" who married unequally as belonging to the line of succession. Only their descendants were considered morganatic non-dynasts.

Second, I don't think Maria Vladimirovna has publicly denounced other Romanovs for marrying "unequally" (correct me if I am wrong). She simply has not recognized their descendants as dynasts. Her treatment of her son is thus similar to her treatment of other members of the family in the same situation.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I am glad we agree there is no need to repeat statements which have already been addressed. In my previous post I acknowledged and responded to all of your material statements, pointing out the equivalencies between the Hohenberg and Ilyinsky marriage situations but also acknowledging the one marriage-related difference which you pointed out (i.e., whether the unequal marriage occurred before or after the abolition of the monarchy). I also explained why I did not consider that difference to be material to the specific argument made by other royal watchers (not you) that I was addressing.

Indeed we seem to more or less agree on the facts, so I agree there is no point in continuing unless there are other unaddressed facts which someone wishes to raise.




Again, the argument I addressed was about making relaxation of marriage requirements retroactive (as that is what some argue Maria must do to not be hypocritical), i.e., affecting earlier non-dynastic marriages and elevating their descendants to dynastic status. So if Otto had made his changes retroactive (which he did not), elevating the Hohenbergs to dynasts, then the claim of Otto's branch would indeed go to the Hohenbergs (as they descend from an older son than Otto's branch), regardless of whom Otto's sons married.




I never said you said that (though I haven't seen anyone suggest George would give out titles and styles while his mother is still alive). You commented "she’s simply going to allow her son to give an Imperial style and title to her son’s family", and I replied by asking you how she could possibly prevent it. Your comment implies she is capable of stopping her son from giving an imperial style and title to his family, but she is "allowing" him to do so (in the future). But I do not see how she could possibly "allow" or "disallow" her son from doing whatever he wishes after she is dead. It is beyond her control.




Thank you for answering the question. I will make two points.

First, "her son cannot be Head of the family because of his marriage" is not how the laws of the Russian monarchy worked. A legally valid but unequal marriage never affected the succession rights of the prince who married unequally, it only excluded the descendants from the marriage. For example, in the time of the monarchy, Emperor Alexander II contracted an unequal and morganatic marriage, but he remained on the throne. After the abolition of the monarchy, Maria and her father and grandfather continued to recognize "princes" who married unequally as belonging to the line of succession. Only their descendants were considered morganatic non-dynasts.

Second, I don't think Maria Vladimirovna has publicly denounced other Romanovs for marrying "unequally" (correct me if I am wrong). She simply has not recognized their descendants as dynasts. Her treatment of her son is thus similar to her treatment of other members of the family in the same situation.

I’m moving on the Habsburg vs Hohenberg issue. Not repeating anything and I have closed the door on that chapter.

The difference with Alexander II was that he had already made a dynastic marriage and had successors so his morganatic marriage didnt mean him renouncing anything and he was Emperor.

I never said Maria denounced the morganatic family members, what I said was that she was upholding the Pauline laws for her claims until her son married against those rules. In royal houses with similar rules, sons who make non-dynastic marriages literally renounce their successions for making those types of marriages. In any case, none of the living Romanov descendants have marriages according to Pauline laws.

 

[Benjamin]

But Maria’s mother’s branch doesn’t belong to the ruling branch of the Bagration family and some say her mother was a divorced woman.

It is a fact that Grand Duchess Leonida was divorced from her first husband, who died in a German concentration camp in 1945. Regardless, the then Princess Leonida and Grand Duke Vladimir were religiously married in a Greek Orthodox Church in Switzerland in 1948.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

It is a fact that Grand Duchess Leonida was divorced from her first husband, who died in a German concentration camp in 1945. Regardless, the then Princess Leonida and Grand Duke Vladimir were religiously married in a Greek Orthodox Church in Switzerland in 1948.

The issue was whether a divorced spouse would be a good wife for the Head of the family and that’s most likely No.

 

[Benjamin]

The issue was whether a divorced spouse would be a good wife for the Head of the family and that’s most likely No.

Grand Duke Vladimir was the Head of the Imperial House, and he alone could make the decision whether his marriage was equal, which he did.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

First, "her son cannot be Head of the family because of his marriage" is not how the laws of the Russian monarchy worked. A legally valid but unequal marriage never affected the succession rights of the prince who married unequally, it only excluded the descendants from the marriage. For example, in the time of the monarchy, Emperor Alexander II contracted an unequal and morganatic marriage, but he remained on the throne. After the abolition of the monarchy, Maria and her father and grandfather continued to recognize "princes" who married unequally as belonging to the line of succession. Only their descendants were considered morganatic non-dynasts.

The difference with Alexander II was that he had already made a dynastic marriage and had successors so his morganatic marriage didnt mean him renouncing anything and he was Emperor.

It made no difference whether the house member had a previous dynastic marriage/successors or not, or whether they were a prince or an emperor. In either case, the rules allowed the dynast to retain his own rights, but he could not pass those rights to the children from the unequal marriage.

"[...] if any person of the Imperial Family enters into a marriage with a person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to any Royal or Ruling House, in such a case the person of the Imperial Family cannot pass on to the other person the rights which belong to Members of the Imperial Family, and the children issuing from such a marriage have no right of succession to the Throne."​

I never said Maria denounced the morganatic family members,

And I never said you did. Again, you stated your opinion that it was hypocritical of her not to denounce her son ("The only way she could be openly against is by either publicly denouncing her son [...] but she can’t and won’t do that for personal reasons which is understandable but hypocritical."), thus I pointed out that she is being consistent because she has also not denounced the other family members in her son's position.

what I said was that she was upholding the Pauline laws for her claims until her son married against those rules. In royal houses with similar rules, sons who make non-dynastic marriages literally renounce their successions for making those types of marriages.

She continues to uphold them. The Pauline laws do not require sons who make non-dynastic marriages to renounce their succession rights, regardless of what other royal houses may do. (As you often make a point of saying, there are differences between royal houses.)

(However, the Austrian marriage rules functioned in the same way, so even if Otto had not relaxed them, his son Karl would still have succeeded him to the headship. Only Karl's descendants would have been barred.)

 

[Benjamin]

For context, it would be helpful to review the full decree of Grand Duchess Maria upon announcing her son's marriage:

WE
GRAND DUCHESS MARIA OF RUSSIA
BY THE GRACE OF GOD
HEAD OF THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL HOUSE

make it known to all that

Asking the Lord’s blessing, We are pleased to grant Our permission to Our beloved son and heir, His Imperial Highness The Tsesarevich and Grand Duke GEORGE of Russia, to enter into marriage with his chosen bride, the hereditary noblewoman Rebecca Virginia Bettarini, who, on 29 June / 12 July 2020, the Feast of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul, in the Cathedral of Ss. Peter and Paul in St. Petersburg, was received into Holy Orthodoxy with the name VICTORIA ROMANOVNA.

We deem it proper that VICTORIA ROMANOVNA should, from the moment of her marriage with Our son, have the right to use the dynastic surname Romanoff with the title of Princess and the predicate of Serene Highness.

Announcing this event, so joyful for Our heart, and entrusting the future of our Most August son and heir, H.I.H. The Grand Duke George of Russia, and his future wife to the almighty protection of the Heavenly King, with firm faith in His mercy, We have every confidence that Our countrymen will join their prayers with Ours to Almighty God for a happy marriage, prosperity, and the blessing of children.

Issued in Madrid on the 20th day of January in the year of Our Lord 2021, and in the thirtieth year since Our succession to the rights and duties of Our Most August Ancestors—the Emperors and Empresses of Russia.

The original is signed in Her Imperial Highness’s own hand:

MARIA

As Head of House, Grand Duchess Maria granted her permission for the marriage to take place, in accordance with the Fundamental Laws. Princess Victoria had already converted to Russian Orthodoxy, so she met the religious requirement. Grand Duchess Maria then went on to implicitly state that her daughter-in-law would bear the dynastic surname. These are very clear indications that the marriage is not regarded as unequal.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As Head of House, Grand Duchess Maria granted her permission for the marriage to take place, in accordance with the Fundamental Laws. Princess Victoria had already converted to Russian Orthodoxy, so she met the religious requirement. Grand Duchess Maria then went on to implicitly state that her daughter-in-law would bear the dynastic surname. These are very clear indications that the marriage is not regarded as unequal.

I understand your point of view, but there is also the contraindication of Maria not bestowing the titles of Grand Duchess/Duke and Imperial Highness on her son's wife and child following the precedent of past equal marriages, and the absence of a public announcement about amendments to the equality rules. But if she has secretly made modifications or exceptions to her house rules, then I am sure they will be made public in due course.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

For context, it would be helpful to review the full decree of Grand Duchess Maria upon announcing her son's marriage:

WE
GRAND DUCHESS MARIA OF RUSSIA
BY THE GRACE OF GOD
HEAD OF THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL HOUSE

make it known to all that

Asking the Lord’s blessing, We are pleased to grant Our permission to Our beloved son and heir, His Imperial Highness The Tsesarevich and Grand Duke GEORGE of Russia, to enter into marriage with his chosen bride, the hereditary noblewoman Rebecca Virginia Bettarini, who, on 29 June / 12 July 2020, the Feast of the Holy Chief Apostles Peter and Paul, in the Cathedral of Ss. Peter and Paul in St. Petersburg, was received into Holy Orthodoxy with the name VICTORIA ROMANOVNA.

We deem it proper that VICTORIA ROMANOVNA should, from the moment of her marriage with Our son, have the right to use the dynastic surname Romanoff with the title of Princess and the predicate of Serene Highness.

Announcing this event, so joyful for Our heart, and entrusting the future of our Most August son and heir, H.I.H. The Grand Duke George of Russia, and his future wife to the almighty protection of the Heavenly King, with firm faith in His mercy, We have every confidence that Our countrymen will join their prayers with Ours to Almighty God for a happy marriage, prosperity, and the blessing of children.

Issued in Madrid on the 20th day of January in the year of Our Lord 2021, and in the thirtieth year since Our succession to the rights and duties of Our Most August Ancestors—the Emperors and Empresses of Russia.

The original is signed in Her Imperial Highness’s own hand:

MARIA

As Head of House, Grand Duchess Maria granted her permission for the marriage to take place, in accordance with the Fundamental Laws. Princess Victoria had already converted to Russian Orthodoxy, so she met the religious requirement. Grand Duchess Maria then went on to implicitly state that her daughter-in-law would bear the dynastic surname. These are very clear indications that the marriage is not regarded as unequal.

Equal marriage has nothing to do with her taking the last name of the family or not, but the “title and style” she would be addressed as wife of the “head of the family”. Plus I’m not going over the marriage being equal or not because everyone knows the answer to that.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I understand your point of view, but there is also the contraindication of Maria not bestowing the titles of Grand Duchess/Duke and Imperial Highness on her son's wife and child following the precedent of past equal marriages, and the absence of a public announcement about amendments to the equality rules. But if she has secretly made modifications or exceptions to her house rules, then I am sure they will be made public in due course.

I agree with you here, thank you very much for saying it better than I could.

 

[Benjamin]

Equal marriage has nothing to do with her taking the last name of the family or not, but the “title and style” she would be addressed as wife of the “head of the family”. Plus I’m not going over the marriage being equal or not because everyone knows the answer to that.

In the Russian Imperial House, being able to bear the dynastic surname is intrinsically tied to being a member of the house. This is the reason why the morganauts are Romanovskys, Ilynskys, etc., and not Romanoff - in the eyes of the head of the house.