Talk:Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Andrewa 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Duke Vladimir of Russia → Vladimir Cyrillovich, Grand Duke of Russia – This form is generally more used for pretenders. Also, I'm pretty sure that Vladimir used his patronymic. If the spelling is off, another form is okay. Charles 22:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support As nominator. Charles 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't believe I've ever heard Vladimir described as "the Grand Duke of Russia," which would be the only thing that would justify this format. I would support a move to Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrilovich of Russia or Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia (or "Wladimir," as the Grand Duke himself apparently spelled it), as there is no reason he should have primary subject status as opposed to his grandfather. john k 03:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per John Kenney. Hi, guys; fancy meeting you here. Septentrionalis 21:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - there seem to be better alternatives. Deb 16:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  Hello! Have you a suggestion as to an appropriate title (i.e, to include Cyrillovich and the spellings use)? Charles 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'd go with Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia. john k 22:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose. Per other articles on people, this article should be titled with his name: Vladimir Kirillovich, "Grand Duke" should be in the lead sentence: ::"Vladimir Kirillovich Romanov (Влад́имир Кир́иллович Ром́анов) (August 30 (N.S.), 1917 - April 21, 1992) was a Grand Duke of Russia, Head of the Imperial Family of Russia, and Titular Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias from 1938 to his death." I also can't find any other articles that start with "Duke" followed by the name. —Chidom ^talk  15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, Grand Duke George Alexandrovich of Russia, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia, Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich of Russia, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich of Russia, Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich of Russia, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich of Russia, and any number of other articles. john k 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::I was only searching on articles that began with "Duke". Per Wikipedia convention, I believe that all the articles you list also need to be renamed as I have set forth, along with any additional articles whose titles are named with the person's rank/title, etc. in the title. ::Your comment also brings up another reason for the renaming: it is highly unlikely that someone will enter "Grand Duke" before the person's name in the search box, given the way searches for other people work. :::Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes:::See Henry VIII of England and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ::In short, honorific titles should not be included in article titles. ::Obviously, I stand by my comments above. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, only titles of King and Emperor are not included in the titles. Charles 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would support a name change to Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia.

Discussion

Okay, it looks like we have some choices:

Vladimir Cyrillovich, Grand Duke of Russia

• Support My personal opinion is to use Cyrillovich rather than Kirillovich. Also, optimally, I would place the title at the end of the name. Charles 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Wiki-style manual to suggest that personal opinions are the way to determine names. The Naming conventions say to use "the most common form of the name used in English". That is overwhelmingly Vladimir Kirillovich (in the newspaper archive Factiva it's about 194 to 5). Noel S McFerran 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the use of Wladimir? Charles 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be amazed if Wladimir were more common in English than Vladimir, especially for a Russian prince. But feel free to amaze me with evidence. Septentrionalis 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for it, but I was told that the Grand Duke used it and that it was used frequently. Other than that, I do not know. Charles 22:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Factiva, there is minimal use in English-language works (about 5) of Wladimir (either with or without Kirillovich or Cyrillovich). Noel S McFerran 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support

See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles item 5:

"European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g. Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg." (emphasis added)

I think this pretty much settles the issue. For me, either spelling would be fine, as long as it's consistent throughout. The alternative spelling should be given in the first sentence of the article, however.—Chidom ^talk  16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A grand duke of Luxemburg is a sovereign; a grand duke of Russia is a cadet member of the Romanov dynasty. They are in no way comparable. Please don't vote about a name change of a topic with which you have little or no familiarity. Noel S McFerran 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an oppose vote. This is important, as apart from it we may even have had a consensus.

Perhaps, people would like to clearly give their opinions on each of the proposed names (including the current one), on the basis of preferred, acceptable or opposed? Feel free to have multiple preferred choices if that's what you think. Andrewa 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer "Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia" among the options currently under consideration. However, those choices divert us from considering the fact that by attributing to him the grandducal title in any form, Wiki implicitly endorses to some degree his contested claim as Russia's rightful pretender -- particularly to anyone consulting Wiki who is familiar with the rival claims but is unfamiliar with Wiki's "most-common-in-English-even-if-disputed/inaccurate" policy on naming articles. (Vladimir may only be considered a Russian grand duke if his father is recognized as having succeeded to Russia's throne after the deaths of Nicholas II, Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolayevich and/or Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich. Without his father having ascended the throne de jure, Vladimir would only have been the great-grandson of a Russian emperor, and as such a prince of the Blood Imperial rather than a grand duke. These issues and titles always have been and remain a matter of fierce dispute among Russian monarchists and some dynasts.) However, I would feel comfortable with this move if it is concurrent to a move of Nicholas Romanoff to "Nicholas, Prince of Russia" to preserve Wiki's NPOV. Otherwise, I would recommend that Vladimir, his daughter, and grandson be listed simply as "(Firstname)(Patronymic)" as previously, and that Nicholas be styled in an exactly comparable way. Indeed, those who find themselves referring to both rivals often omit titles in discussion of their claims precisely to avoid the appearance of taking sides. Lethiere 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the responsibility of Wiki-editors to determine who has the better claim to something. We merely summarize what the published record says. It is pretty clear that Vladimir is usually referred to in published sources as "Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia". I haven't done a thorough study, but I think it probable that Nicholas is most commonly called "Prince Nicholas Romanov" (even though I personally think that he is no more than Prince Nikolai Romanovsky-Sheremetyev, or some variant spelling). Noel S McFerran 03:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was drawing attention to a practical problem for which I don't think there's an ideal solution, but which I nevertheless think we should be conscious of. Because attribution of the grandducal title to Vladimir and his descendants is often construed as endorsement of their claim over rival claims, strict application of Wiki's "most common usage" guideline can inadvertently give the appearance of conflict with Wiki's policy of NPOV. The vast majority of people come to a Wiki article to read it, not edit it. So most will not know and never learn that Wiki attempts to anticipate/resolve POV by using the "most common name". Rather, readers aware of or seeking information on the Romanov rivalry are likely to conclude that if Wiki is calling Vladimir, Maria and George by the titles of pretence they claim, while not according the title of pretence to Nicholas Romanoff that he claims, Wiki has 1. found more merit in the former's claim than the latter's, or 2. Wiki's editors are ignorant or biased, and Wiki cannot detect or correct the problem. Either conclusion injures Wiki as a neutral purveyor of information. NPOV is policy, whereas "most common usage" is a guideline. If the two conflict, the latter should yield. I am frankly undecided whether they do actually conflict here, so I thought it reasonable to bring it to the group's attention for each to weigh as s/he sees fit. I am so accustomed to referring to "Vladimir Kirilovich" and "Nicholas Romanovich" to steer clear of Scylla and Charybdis that I'd prefer that they be left that way, but realize that's not happening.Lethiere 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas doesn't use the grand ducal title at all. That being said, I would be fine with him being titled Nicholas Romanovich, Prince of Russia so long as the move to a grand ducal title for Vladimir goes through. After all, then it will reflect that they both claimed certain titles. Charles 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Kirillovich, Grand Duke of Russia

Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich of Russia (per Wikipedia style, not an option)

Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia (per Wikipedia style, not an option)

Why not? Septentrionalis 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Chidom, with "expertise" in other areas, muddled it up, but I'll try to sort the mess out. Charles 19:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Old talk

Only about the RFA would seriously consider that a Bagration marriage should be considered morganatic. Moreson, this is an association headed by a morganatic claimant. Snapdragonfly 17:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

See morganatic marriage. The exact significance of Bagration is not clear to me. Andrewa 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bagrations were the former ruling House of Georgia, even if Leonida only comes from a sub-branch of that house. Such was one basis for the marriage not being morganatic. Charles 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The marriage of Princess Tatiana Consantinovna with a Bagration in 1911 was considered unequal, however, as she had to give up her succession rights in exactly the same manner that Princess Irina (who married Prince Yussupov, clearly unequal) did, and unlike, as I understand it, grand duchesses and princesses who clearly married equally. Vladimir, of course, changed this when he declared that his marriage was equal, but it was, nonetheless, a change from earlier practice. john k 21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. So what Snapdragonfly was saying was that, in their opinion, the Bagrations wouldn't have entered into morganatic marriages. Andrewa 01:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact the Bagrations did contract marriages that were deemed morganatic, e.g. a younger son of the Prince Regent Levan of Kartli (1660-1709), Prince Svimeon (known in Russia, where he died in 1740, as Tsarevich Simon Levanovich Gruzinsky) morganatically married Anna Potapovaafter the death in 1717 of his first wife, Princess Gulkhan of Aragvi. Rather, Snapdragonfly seems to have been saying that only current members of the Romanoff Family Association (RFA), whose president was considered a rival claimant to Vladimir Kirillovich after 1987, would contend that Vladimir's marriage to a Bagration princess must be morganatic, since all of their mothers were designated as morganatic by Vladimir's father, Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich -- even those who were Rurikid or Gedyminian princesses by birth. Snapdragonfly is dismissing their argument against Vladimir's marriage as a case of spiteful tit-for-tat.Lethiere 02:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Very interesting! I suppose that heir is a lot more impressive than claimant if someone's thinking of inviting you or one of your relatives to speak at a conference or dinner or to marry them or many other things. So the distinctions are potentially worth a great deal of money, and probably more valuable still in terms of social prestige (the two are not unrelated), even if there's no great chance of anyone actually reigning as a result. Andrewa 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Where to now

Another editor has closed the requested move, citing the poll as lost 4 to 1.

There seems to be a vague consensus that some sort of move is needed. I suggest that we discuss specific proposals here.

IMO the basis of these discussions shouldn't be the perfect solution. We may get to that, I hope we do, but for now we need to work towards a consensus on a solution that is acceptable to everyone, or failing that to nearly everyone. This raises the prospect that there may be more than one such solution. If we get to that stage, then we start considering which is the preferred solution of the acceptable ones. And then, having reached consensus on all of this, we go back to requested moves.

It probably won't be a short process. But keep it as concise as possible is my advice. Andrewa 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A few words listing the reasons you propose, support or oppose a specific name would be good, to save us dredging through the archives. But a this stage, I'd resist the temptation to justify any of these reasons. State your point don't prove it. Andrewa 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia

I propose Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia. john k 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If there is no further comment on this, I suppose we should go back to requested moves with it. I didn't expect it to be so easy. I'll wait a few more days. Andrewa 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

John K's proposal is acceptable, although Cyrillovich is preferential to me... It is more "English" in appearance and forms of this are less numerous than forms of the Russian transliteration. But if all else fails, I will vote with John. Charles 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(No significant history to complicate things... this is looking good. Andrewa 03:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

Guy Stair Sainty

Guy Stair Sainty owns an art gallery in New York- hardly the basis for using him as a citation or quoting him as a scholar. 12.146.101.146 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not the basis of Guy Stair Sainty being quoted as a scholar. You might notice one day that not everyone on this earth leads a one-track life. [[User talk:Charles|Charles]] 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis then? Anyone can call themselves a scholar. Research into his background shows no education or formal training in Russian dynastic law.68.3.36.214 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this anonymous editor does not recognise the scholarship of Guy Stair Sainty says a great deal. There are very few people (if any) who have written more in English about the legal arguments regarding the succession to various European thrones than Sainty. He is definitely more of an expert about certain other successions, but his opinion about the Russian one is still noteworthy. Noel S McFerran 12:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Said editor is "I vonH" or something to the effect, judging from the "mediation request" on my talk page where the discussion he started is peppered with the word "vandal" in reference to me. I sense someone with an agenda. Mr. McFerran is, of course, correct about Mr. Sainty. Charles 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that McFerran does not recognize that Guy Stair Sainty's scholarship is in art and chivalry says a great deal. Sainty may have written about succession but he has not PUBLISHED anything about it. His books encompass chivalric orders as stated above. Therefore under Wikipedia's rules he does not qualify as a citation. As stated above- he has no expertise in Russian dynastic law. So, Mr. McFerran is incorrect about Mr. Sainty- at least as far as Wikipedia criteria goes. I vonH 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy Stair Sainty's published scholarship may be chiefly in the areas of art and chivalry, but he has also published in other areas. Here is an essay published by Sainty specifically on the Russian succession [1]. He has also written extensively on the thrones of France and the Two Sicilies. Noel S McFerran 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an essay on a website- not a published work. I vonH 20:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is published on the web. That's the way lots of things are published in the year 2007. Noel S McFerran 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And in the year 2007 still does not meet the criteria for citation for Wikipedia. I vonH 02:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's now 2013. Did you guys come to a mutually satisfactory decision yet? 81.131.6.253 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)