Who is the Head of the Imperial Family?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
26,842
City
São Paulo
Country
Brazil
In this thread we can discuss the various claims on the headship of the Russian Imperial Family after 1917.

eagle_fc_biw.jpg
 
As far as I know there are these possibilities:

1) GD Kyril became head of the IF, after him his son Vladimir and now Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

2) GD Kyril became head of the IF, after him his son Vladimir. As women do not have succession rights according to the Pauline laws after Maria the headship went to Prince Nicholas Romanovitch Romanov

3) GD Kyril did not succeed as his mother was not Orthodox at the time of his birth. So the first in line was Prince Vsevelod Ivanovitch Romanov. He was succeeded by Nicholas Romanovitch Romanov.

4) There is no head of the IF, Kyril and descendents can not succeed due tyo the reasons stated above while the other princess all married morganatically and lost there rights too.

--

Am I missing a few possibilities here? And which claim has the most support among monarchists in Russia or among other royal families?
 
As far as I'm aware, Marengo, Grand Duchess Marija Vladimirovna has much support in Russia and is viewed as pretender to the throne. A clear example of this was during the reburial of the Dowager Tsarina Marija Fyodorovna in September of 2006.
 
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 . . .
 
I believe Maria's claim was disputed by Nicholas Romanovich Romanov, head of the Romanov Family Association.
 
There is another possibility. I belive Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich changed the succession law to allow females to succeed, in order for his daughter to become the next claimant and head of the family. If that change is not accepted, these interpretations are possible:

There are no male heirs, since they all have married morganatically. Therefore the line should continue through the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the last rightful head of the family. If the rightful heir is GD Vladimir, then his eldest (only) daughter's, eldest son, GD Georgi, would now be the head.
If GD Vladimir would be considered disqualified because of his marriage, then the line would continue through GD Cyrill's eldest daughter, making Prince Andreas of Leiningen the current head of the family.

I'm sure this just goes on and on. Everything comes down to different interpretations of the same law, and the family might never agree on one solution. Too bad for them, they would be stronger if they were united and striving for the same goal, which, I suppose, is bringing back the Russian monarchy.
 
Vladimir had no right to change the House Laws, mostly because Paul created the House Laws as part of Imperial Decree making it a legal matter instead of a private one and seeing as Vladimir had no legaling standing he could not change the laws.

There are two camps.
1. Maria Vladimirovna (sometimes styled Grand Duchess, though in reality she is a Princess).
2. Prince Nicholas Romanovitch Romanov is the head of the Romanov Family Assosiation which says that no living person has the right to claim the title Tsar (which is pretty much dead on) and they recognize no individual as Head of the Family. Though many people (myself included) see him as head of the family.

My reasoning for supporting Nicholas Romanovitch is that there is precedent for ignoring morganatic marriages but there is no precedent for a woman becoming Head of the Family since Catherine II. Michael Aleksandrovitch married morganatically and Nicholas named him Tsar in his abdication document, changing House Law (de facto) to ignore Morganatic marriages. The Russian people would much more likely have adopted a system in which morganatic marriages no longer played a part before they would have allowed a woman to be Tsarina. (I hope no one thinks I'm being sexist. Believe it or not I'm an enormous feminist. My dislike of Maria Vladimirovna comes from a general distain for the greedy and presumptuous nature of Vladimirovichi in general. She's no better than Kyrill when it comes to lusting after the throne.)

In essence, there is no good answer to your question. Other than, perhaps, that there is no Head of the Imperial House.

Hope this was helpful,
 
The bottom line is that there is no throne.
 
Yes, lexi4, you hit the nail on the head. These are all good exercises for stimulation, but there is no throne. So, greed over a non-throne is a non-event.
 
Exactly Countess. It's not like there is going to be a throne any time soon.
 
Well that doesn't really matter, the Imperial House had a chef, like the other non-reigning RF in Europe. The interesting thing is that for non-reigning families these things usually ends up in disputes as there is no government anymore who has the authority to settle these matters. This resulted in disputed heads of the Brazilian and French Imperial family, of the French, Italian, Sicilian, Roumanian and even Portuguese royal houses.

---
Thanks for the explanation Jphinala, I suppose that Vladimir was an Emperor-de-jure so in that light his children (and grand children in the male line) would have been entitiled to the HIH Grand Duke/Duchess.

I think the position that Prince Nicholas Romanovich takes is a rather sensible one, esp. since the chances of restauration are extremely small. Do you know which point of view is supported by Russias monarchist associations? I believe Maria Vladimirovna has been very busy in getting the support of them and at least of the church.

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.
 
I think the position that Prince Nicholas Romanovich takes is a rather sensible one, esp. since the chances of restauration are extremely small.

I agree with him. The old dynasty is over, so are the old rules. By the British rules of succession, he'd have it. He is the oldest son of the oldest son of Xenia and Sandro. Xenia was Nicholas's oldest sister, so on the death of her brothers and nephew, would have been next in line for the throne by the British standard. So the oldest son of her oldest son is certainly the 'heir'. Since Sandro, her second cousin, was her husband, her children were double Romanov. This is a much stronger claim than Maria V.'s IMO.

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.

The Tsar may have accepted those marriages, but Irina and the other princess had to sign over their rights (which were admittedly extremely small, even with the deaths of so many in the revolution they would STILL have been far down the line) and marry morgatanically.
 
Nicholas can't just throw out the old rules because it suits him. He can't just take up British rules of succession because it puts him as top dog.
 
Actually, he can do anything he wants, as this is all pretend.
 
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.
 
Caveat Emptor. Since, it is the responsibilty of people to know what they are buying, the same falls sure for this. There is not going to be a restoration of the Russian throne, so whatever he represents, may be fraud, and I agree with you on that, but the whole idea is fraudulent. If they are giving him money, that they are fools. And, if, there is a truer "Head of the Romanov Dynasty, let them argue it out. You can put a crown on a goat, but it will still be a goat.
 
I agree with him. The old dynasty is over, so are the old rules. By the British rules of succession, he'd have it. He is the oldest son of the oldest son of Xenia and Sandro. Xenia was Nicholas's oldest sister, so on the death of her brothers and nephew, would have been next in line for the throne by the British standard. So the oldest son of her oldest son is certainly the 'heir'. Since Sandro, her second cousin, was her husband, her children were double Romanov. This is a much stronger claim than Maria V.'s IMO.



The Tsar may have accepted those marriages, but Irina and the other princess had to sign over their rights (which were admittedly extremely small, even with the deaths of so many in the revolution they would STILL have been far down the line) and marry morgatanically.
Wait a second, I thought we were addressing Nicholas Romanov from the Nicholas I line, not Sandro's line. ????
Massie's book "The Romanov's: The Final Chapter" states that HM acknowledges Nicholas Romanov as the heir to the throne, though Nicholas, himself has stated that it doesn't matter anymore.
 
What I mean to say is that Xenia's children are the most direct descendants of Alexander III and the closest relation left alive to Nicholas II, making them in my opinion a lot more worthy in the line of succession than going back to Nicholas I or even Alexander II. By the British laws the 'throne' would have gone to Xenia after the deaths of Nicholas, Misha and Alexei, so her sons would be the heirs. I don't believe in the old laws of succession for Russia since the dynasty is dead. The Pauline law was always silly anyway, if one Tsar decreed it, couldnt' another denounce it? Nicholas II should have done just that. In case Alexei didn't survive or was unable to rule due to his health, Olga would have made a fine Tsarina.
 
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.
 
What I mean to say is that Xenia's children are the most direct descendants of Alexander III and the closest relation left alive to Nicholas II, making them in my opinion a lot more worthy in the line of succession than going back to Nicholas I or even Alexander II. By the British laws the 'throne' would have gone to Xenia after the deaths of Nicholas, Misha and Alexei, so her sons would be the heirs. I don't believe in the old laws of succession for Russia since the dynasty is dead. The Pauline law was always silly anyway, if one Tsar decreed it, couldnt' another denounce it? Nicholas II should have done just that. In case Alexei didn't survive or was unable to rule due to his health, Olga would have made a fine Tsarina.

I think he showed that he could pretty much do whatever he wanted regarding succession when he adbicated for Alexei. That (supposedly) wasn't legal either. But if he was an "absolute" autocrat of the Muscovite tradition, which he was, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted to do.
 
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. :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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! :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
Thank you branchg! That pretty well sums it up.
 
Well, her brother (Nicholas) wasn't very bright either. :rolleyes:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom