Jump to content

Talk:Prince Nicholas Romanov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87v7t76fc4iguwevf7657436253yd4fug754ws67dtfugiy67t8576 (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 22 August 2011 (→Prince of Russia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

A membership in the "patronage committee" of Almanach de Gotha does not mean that one necessarily is head of the house. Has anyone checked the actual contents of AdG??? Sjostrom 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, I must warn that the AdG today is not highly authoritative. It is not the same as the AdG of same name in 1800's. It is even possible it recognizes headship of house because someone supports it in patronage committee and so on.

Almanach de Gotha does recognize Nicholas Romanov as Head of the Imperial Family

In answer to the first question above, the actual text of the "revived" Almanach de Gotha recognizes Nicholas Romanov as the rightful head of the Imperial House of Russia (Romanov). This has been true of all editions issued since 1998. I do not know how to post the actual written text here, but anyone can consult a copy in a library. Certainly the new version of the Gotha leaves much to be desired. I am not sure, however, that the original was actually any better. Such publications are always dependent to some extend on their patrons. The value of such things is very much in the eye of the beholder. Whatever its faults, it is difficult to dismiss the Gotha as irrelevant when one considers that it enjoys the support of H.M. King Juan Carlos of Spain and and representatives of most of the former Royal families of Europe. In the end, it is a well-known reference source with a reputation as the arbiter of all things "Royal." As such, the Gotha's support of Nicholas is certainly relevant to an article about him. Noting that support is particularly important in light of the fact that most wikipedia articles on the Romanovs after 1917 tend to support Grand Duchess Maria and dismiss Nicholas. Reading the article on Grand Duchess Maria,I would assume that the Romanov Family Association consisted solely of Nicholas and that he was the only one to doubt Maria's claims. That is not the case so noting the position of the Gotha is certainly relevant as a counter-balance. By the way, if you search the internet for information on the Russian Succession you find that most of the "expert" opinions circulating in support of Grand Duchess Maria's claim were actually written by or rely on the work of her personal lawyer, Brien Horan. Is he a more reliable source than the Gotha? Would anyone really expect Maria's family lawyer to write articles questioning her rights? By the way, if wikipedia is supposed to be neutral why is the article on one claimant titled "Nicholas Romanov" and the article on the other titled "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia?" At best, the succession is disputed and neither one actually rules Russia or has any prospect of living in the Kremlin. --64.12.116.66 08:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot regard AdG as high arbiter of anything. It is a register. I trust usually on its data on dates: births and so on. Claims to thrones are hopefully to be decided elsewhere. Personally, I would prefer the article Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia to be moved and titled as Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, since we should not use nobility titles in article titles - in my opinion. Perhaps we can give her that "of Russia", not forcing her to "Maria Romanov" as those people did not use surnames in the pre-revolution era. (She claims to be "of Russia", be it properly "grand duchess" or "princess". Her equivalents did not use surname Romanov. Whereas those from so-called morganatic marriages, as Nicholas, use them often.) Her claims should be stated/ explained in the article text, not in the title.

There have been allegations that RFA is one-person lead, where a bunch of others are passive, and several bunches of others are not with. The names of ölast-mentioned category are used in membership lists, but it is not acceptable. Membership in an association is based on voluntary joining, no one should be regarded as member without own expressed desire. These points should be explained when pleading the "authority" of RFA.

Membership of a house is based on genealogy, and it is certainly no association. It is not voluntary, but it neither forces those individuals to other memberships. And, membership of a house usually is not regarded as entitled to choose the head of the house.

I am not appreciative of Nicholas' claims. It is highly true that no proper order of succession puts him first.

Nor am I very supportive of Maria's claims. I cannot appreciate that her father regarded himself as the only entitled to marry a princess of subjugated family. I accept that he was entitled to marry, but his marriage should be treated according to same criteria as marriages of others.

I cannot regard the claim of anyone in that house and its descendants as number one over all others. Therefore, no one cannot be treated here as self-evident, uncontestable heir.

One of the reasons is that as dynasty law was changed by whim, the Russian tradition shuld also be taken into account. Russian rulers succeeded in old tradition by line "from brother to next brother". Russians may feel also that sort of succession as natural.

Regarding the authoritativeness of any expert opinions or such, I believe that most people can see the truth and value and weight of all those arguments when seeing the arguments neutrally explained. The truth, of course, to which I have arrived, is that no one is fully entitled to succeed because of some problems in each one's claims, but a handful of persons have a claim which could be sufficient. Identify such persons and let the possible Russian monarchists to group themselves behind whomever they value highest. If one of those groups ever succeeds in restoring monarchy, good luck.

Do you happen to be Nichols Romanov's supporter? 62.78.124.63 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I consider this article to be quite biased and poorly written. The truth is that no one alive today meets the criteria for succession in place before the Revolution. That includes Grand Duchess Maria, not least because the throne could not pass to or through a woman. Prince Nicholas, who has made it clear that he understands this and would have no interest in the throne for himself or his descendants were it to be revived, has correctly pointed out that Maria is not in a position to claim that she and her son George possess inheritance rights that the other family members do not. This article should not, in any case, involve a debate on who is or isn't "the rightful heir" but rather biographical facts only. A separate article on the "Russian Succession" should discuss these matters.

Introduction

I think we should style Romanov in the introduction as His Highness Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia, and then later clarify this style is somewhat unconventional. My reasoning for this is that Maria Vladimirovna's article introduces her with an Imperial title, even though her title is as disputed as Nicholas's. I'm changing it now; if anyone has an objection, please feel free to change it back and leave a comment here on the issue. --Matjlav 01:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Roman Petrovich was known as HH Prince RP of Russia, and I believe his two sons were also styled this way. I think it's correct to keep Nicholas at HH Prince Nicholas Romanovitch. Morhange 04:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Petrovich (who is not the individual of this article) was conventionally Prince of Russia. The unconventionality is that his (allegedly morganatic) son Nicholas, the individual of THIS article, also uses the title Prince of Russia (see his website). I agree that both Maria and this Nicholas should be treated symmterically as to their title of pretension and therefore this article should be Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia. Shilkanni 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almanach de Gotha

The Almanach de Gotha recognises Nicholas Romanov as head Imperial House of Romanov - FACT. It’s so called lack of reliability does nothing to affect the FACT that it recognises him as the head of the House.-dwc lr 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withhold my comments on intelligence and possible substance abuse because they would breach WP:NPA. Seriously, what are you thinking? How about we admit the Almanach de Saxe-Gotha and "Prince Karl Fredericke von Deutschland" for Christ's sake. Absolutely and frightfully unbelievable. Charles 15:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Almanach de Gotha recognises him as head of the house that statement is a fact -it does. One minute you ask for a reference [1] and when one is provided you don't like it. Why not remove the statement when you first came across it if you think the Gotha is unreliable which is irrelevant because the fact is it recognises him as head of the house. - dwc lr —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
As close as I may come to it, I'm not perfect. Close, but definitely not perfect. Now, however, I have done the right thing and removed the reference. I mistakenly thought it was a reference to The Almanach de Gotha, not the cheap, new rag by the same name. Charles 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

The Almanach de Gotha recognises Nicholas Romanov as the head of the Imperial House of Romanov. This is not a pov statement saying he is the head of the house just that the Almanach de Gotha regards him as such. Its inclusion in the article is disputed. - dwc lr 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, as Noel S McFerran has said, as Guy Stair Sainty's essay says, and as all other royal genealogists have said, the "new" "Almanach de Gotha" is, more or less and in as many words, literally garbage and not a reputable source to cite. Charles 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the “new” Almanach de Gotha is “literally garbage” as you put it recognises him as head of the Imperial House that is a FACT in the Gotha he is listed as the head of the house. Please I know it extremely difficult for you to not push your pov on articles but facts are facts and mentioning that the Gotha recognises him as head of the house is a legitimate statement. - dwc lr 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to push my POV on these articles, you would surely know it. The act of you accusing me of being a POV-monger is no better, and is worse, than what you accuse me of because you are taking it upon yourself to comment on me as a person. Your Wikipedia where anything is admitted as a reliable (note that word!) source would be a Wikipedia few people would want to read. Wikipedia already has it tough as it is without needing to rely on the unreliable! Tell me, honestly, is the new Gotha reliable? Does it equal the Gothas up to 1944? Really. Charles 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m well aware of you pushing your pov like when you tired to stop Nicholas Romanov being listed as a successor to Vladimir Cyrillovich.[2] I see you repeated your claim about Nicholas Romanov admitting he is not a dynast at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pov pushing in spite of the fact that you only have to look at the article Russian Imperial Succession by Brien Purcell Horan, (Vladimir Cyrillovich‘s personal lawyer) which is used as a reference in the article, to know ignorant that statement is. On the reliability of the Gotha, well you didn’t have a problem with it until recently. But then you say that you “mistakenly thought it was a reference to The Almanach de Gotha, not the cheap, new rag by the same name“. so you thought that the Nicholas Romanov was accepted as the head of the House of Romanov in 1944? didn’t think so. - dwc lr 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People make errors, except you, apparently. Charles 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the current "Almanach de Gotha", published under the direction of John Kennedy, asserts that Prince Nicholas Romanov is Head of the Imperial House of Russia. Nonetheless there are several problems with citing it as a reliable or authoritative source in this article:
  1. The "Almanach de Gotha" that has been using that name since 1998 is not the same publication that was world-renowned for nearly two centuries under that name until ceasing publication in 1944. Nor is it the publication that most genealogists and monarchists referred to after 1950 and at least until 1998 as "the Gotha": That publication is the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. The Kennedy Almanach has been embroiled in public controversy for the means by which it acquired the original Gotha's name Inclusion of Kennedy's endorsement of a particular Romanov pretender lends Prince Nicholas undue credence because of name association, prompting readers to believe he was recognized as rightful heir by the original Gotha which is not true.
  2. The Kennedy Almanach is held in notoriously low regard for the excessive number of errors it contains. More genealogists, monarchists and other knowledgeable users appear to have expressed lack of confidence in its reliability than otherwise.
  3. On the Russian succession in particular, the Kennedy Gotha became controversial prior to first publication. By contrast, in 1968 the Handbuch included Maria Vladimirovna Romanov in its dynastic entry on Russia as "Grand Duchess". The Handbuch excluded Nicholas Romanovich Romanov from that entry, and listed him in its third section on the non-dynastic princely family of Romanov. As is customary once internal disputes among descendants of dynastic families come to its attention, the Handbuch omits further entries on that dynasty until the matter is resolved by the family -- rather than foist its own interpretation upon readers. So the 1968 entry was the last to be published in the Handbuch. There is no consensus on the sometimes bitter disputes among royalist pretenders and their supporters. All the more reason to tread carefully in this area, if at all. But Kennedy's Gotha gives the appearance of making inexplicable decisions in recognizing pretenders engaged in dynastic disputes, giving rise to the suspicion that those decisions are made unilaterally and arbitrarily by publisher Kennedy. He is alleged not to follow any consistent formula for his endorsements (such as heeding the advice of an editorial board, research body, or the last monarch's designations), and/or to have come to the data with pre-existing bias. Lethiere 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, [3] why can't we do the same in this article with regard to the mention of the gotha?.-dwc lr 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do it if you want, but the reason for that citation, rather than removal, is because all hell will possibly break loose if certain editors find issue with it (this relates to your note at the ANB regarding another user and myself). The fact that it is present in that article (I don't think it should be, but I explained that) has no bearing on this article and the use of it to substantiate a name change won't work since the citation for the citation (!!) essentially nullifies its use. An extreme example of the case is, "A is a lie, but A supports B so B must be true". Charles 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Gotha on dynastic claims

Kennedy's Almanach de Gotha (published 1998-2004) does not have a reputation as a reliable source on dynastic facts in general, and not in the specific case of the rivalry over the defunct Romanov throne. It can't properly be cited in Wikipedia as grounds for the assertion that he is the "senior" member of the Romanov family, for five reasons: 1. Nicholas is an admitted rival with Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia (and perhaps others) for headship of the Romanov dynasty, and the Kennedy Gotha is being cited in a way that tends to bolster his claim relative to hers in that rivalry 2. The Kennedy book has a reputation for being inaccurate which, in a reference work -- whose only function is as an authority on dynastic data -- renders it unreliable ipso facto 3. The datum for which this book is cited relates to headship of the House of Romanov, yet the Kennedy book's stance on that issue has been questioned. Specifically, how and why it makes the claim that it does has been the subject of an open, online dispute among genealogists, monarchists, and historians such that there are at least two contradictory allegations about the provenance of its position, one claiming that the book's editor was told the information authoritatively by Nicholas and his brother, the other that the book's allegation derives from the publisher's a priori bias. How are we to know who to believe about the book's contents? Since the Kennedy book is cited as source of the claim that two votes were taken declaring Nicholas Romanov the "senior" member of the Romanov family by the Romanoff Family Association, yet that Association's website states that its by-laws have always forbidden it to take sides concerning dynastic claims to Russia's defunct throne, what was the meaning and purpose of the vote? The allegation of such a vote is an extraordinary claim for which Wikipedia requires extraordinary substantiation -- beyond what can be provided by a source with a reputation for inaccuracy. 5. Wikipedia's rule is that the burden of substantiating the reliability of a challenged source rests upon the person who cites it, not upon those who challenge it; I called for an unrelated, reputable source to verify the claims for which the Kennedy book is cited, yet no back-up source has been offered. Therefore the Kennedy book can't be deemed reliable in this instance or acceptable for this purpose. Surely there's got to be a better source that we can agree is reliable for these two claims? FactStraight (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes there are two people who claim the headship, Nicholas Romanovich and Maria Vladimirovna I have provided numerous references showing him refer to himself as head of the dynasty/Imperial Family as I have been told that he "admits that he is not a dyanst" by another user on Wikipedia. The Gotha is used for two dates for Nicholas Romanovich being recognised by the RFA as senior male and the Gotha website is used saying it recognises his as head of the house why have you removed that, why were you asking for another source just to say that in the Gotha he is listed as the head?
  2. With all due respect your saying the Gotha is an unreliable sources and your citing from a newsgroup posting! we can all do that [4] It doesn't sound like its particularly unreliable and that nothing can be trusted within its pages to me but its a rather wasted exercise as its not like we can use it as a source. Most of what you've posted is from discussions (gossip and hearsay) on Alt Talk Royalty and you appear to be familiar with WP:RS so I imagine you don't need me to tell you that a newsgroup posting is most certainly not a reliable source. I have first hand experience here on Wikipedia of someone citing from a posting on this newsgroup before and they were mislead as the information in the posting was utterly wrong.
  3. "Kennedy book's stance on that issue has been questioned" again a posting from a newsgroup. Guy Stair Sainty has published on his website an argument in favour of the claims of Maria Vladimirovna so no wonder he is upset considering he supports her claims. How and why it takes the stance it does may well have been the "subject of an open, online dispute among genealogists, monarchists, and historians" that is what newsgroups, forums, message boards are for but there not acceptable sources. One could question why the Gotha takes the stance it does regarding the Houses of Lippe or Bonaparte it's irrelevant though here on Wikipedia the disputes are noted with regards to those houses (and Romanov). But really though, it takes a stance on an issue so what? What does it matter?
  4. I'm surprised you consider it an "extraordinary" claim regarding the recognition (The Romanov Family Association list the Almanach de Gotha in there Select Bibliography) but I am aware of other sources [5][6] but as far as I'm aware the reference given is perfectly acceptable. Indeed I have cited from it in other articles, I don't know if you would consider them "extraordinary" claims as I'm surprised you do in this case so you never know. - dwc lr (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My fundamental objection, as we've discussed at Talk: Almanach de Gotha, is to the misappropriation of the gravitas of the original Almanach de Gotha -- which built up a par excellence reputation for dynastic accuracy & authoritativeness over a period of nearly 250 years -- by and for the Kennedy version (published 1998-2004) which is riddled with errors and anomalies to a degree that is notoriously inconsistent with the original's reputation. Here it strikes me that the original's reputation is again being misused to bolster a claim supported by Kennedy's Gotha in direct opposition to the position taken in the original Gotha's final publication (1944), as well as in opposition to the position taken (in 1968) by the publication which is widely considered by genealogists and monarchists to be the Gotha's real successor, the Fürstliche Hauser series of the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. The point is not that Nicholas's claim is untenable, but that the Kennedy AdG has no business being cited in Wikipedia in support of that claim.
  2. Newsgroup commentaries in general may not be cited in Wiki articles to substantiate an allegation, but there is no ban on their use as sources of information on the reliabilty of published sources. Whether or not a source is reliable is significantly dependent upon its reputation among experts & scholars. Alt.Talk.Royalty (ATR) happens to be where several of them have expressed their opinion on the source in question. In this case, ATR (and gen.medieval.genealogy and, perhaps, rec.heraldry) was, until a few years ago, a place where some of the most respected and published royal genealogists and monarchists habitually analyzed and debated royalty-related matters. Your ATR cite, above, of the distinguished royal genealogist William A. Reitwiesner is a perfectly germane and valid defense of Kennedy's Gotha. The problem is that WAR's opinion is outnumbered by most other reputable genealogists who've expressed an opinion. Most not only consider Kennedy's Gotha unacceptably error-prone, but several have enumerated examples of inaccuracy, sloppiness and unprofessionalism. Posted on ATR immediately above the Reitwiesner comment to which you chose to link, is a typical critical comment by the much respected royal genealogist Daniel Willis, whose works are often cited in Wikipedia's royalty articles.
  3. Experts often disagree with a non-fiction work's conclusions while still considering it a reputable effort. That is not the case with the Kennedy Gotha, which is criticized predominantly for excessive errors of fact. Still, if you dismiss Guy Stair Sainty's critique of the book as biased because he disagrees with its entry on the Romanovs (although he contributed to many of its other articles), you must also dimiss William A. Reitwiesner's -- who also contributed to the book and minimizes criticisms of it because it takes what he calls a "non-standard" position on Russia's dynastic rivalry. That only cancels out two "critics". But Kennedy's Gotha has also been rejected as a reputable source by several regular editors of Wiki's royalty articles (see here and here and here), whereas its reliability has been asserted mostly by, well, you. We're all entitled to our opinions, but this work's reliability has been sufficiently challenged that other less disputed sources should be relied upon -- particularly to substantiate controversial claims -- rather than an attempt be made to compel acceptance of this particular source.
  4. The peculiarity of the Kennedy Gotha's reference to the status of Prince Nicholas is illustrated by the alternative sources given above to substantiate Kennedy's usage: neither, in fact, does so. Kennedy's Gotha states that the Prince was twice elected as "senior male representative" of the Romanoff Family Association (in which he already held the elected office of president) by that organization's members. But the Belgian Knights Templar website (and, in self-contradiction, the Kennedy Gotha's website) states rather that he was chosen "head of the imperial house" (chef de la maison impériale), while the French Genroy website says that he was chosen "claimant to the Russian throne" (prétendant au trône de Russie). Yet these are 3 different assertions. The confusion was inevitable (and deliberate?) given the vagueness of the phrase "senior male representative", which sounds like the usual term for a dynastic and genealogical concept/position which is, however, inherited and to which one cannot be elected. That's why extraordinary substantiation for this "election" is called for, given the Association's by-laws forbidding it from favoring any one claimant to the Russian throne.
  5. Finally, in light of the above challenges to the Kennedy Gotha's reliability as a source, the burden of evidence in defence of its suitability as a Wikipedia source rests upon whoever cites it -- not its challengers. Asserting that one personally considers it reliable is neither convincing nor sufficient. FactStraight (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the point of talking about newsgroup postings or citing them like you've done again. This is about what you regard as an "exceptional claim" so if I was call that at any time I would expect numerous sources but like I said before I'm amazed you consider this issue with two dates one. The RFA themselves recommend the Almanach de Gotha on there website for people interested in finding out more about the Imperial Family. You know most Romanov's were in Russia in July 1998. What is the comment by Daniel Willis in the newsgroup you want me to take note that its not "entirely horrible" very damming indeed. I imagine I could go and find positive comments on the work but what's the point it's makes no difference here on wikipedia what is posted on there. I've posted at WP:RS.Noticeboard no one there has said it can't be cited in general I will continue to do so if someone disputes something and uses the "exceptional claim" card I will have to look for alternatives these books are not banned as a reference. I'm pleased you mentioned Borwin of Mecklenburg [7] a good example I imagine of why Wikipedia doesn't allow newsgroup postings to be cited. Even the Gotha has the right information. As for the section above you linked, what is cited again, that's right it's Alt Talk Royalty and Sainty's self published review of Vol 2.
The reference to the Gotha recognising him was originally added in the very first edit three years ago ([8] when the page was created). User:Charles asked for a citation regarding such recognition [9] I using the wayback machine gave it to him [10]. He then decided that all though he requested the cite, actually he would like to remove all reference to it [11]. A bit like he tried to remove any cite request relating to the claims of Grand Duchess Maria.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Anyway he later said the Gotha reference can be included so the consensus was that it can be included so I don't see a problem. Finally with all due respect you've "dismissed" it as a source by citing from postings on a newsgroup. You can spend all day digging out posts to support your position, indeed we both can, but what difference does that make? none. - dwc lr (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved to the suggested title per discussion. It's possible there's a better name than the current one, perhaps including the patronymic, but it would be best to have a separate conversation about that, as this discussion has not produced a clear consensus for any particular title. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia → Nicholas Romanov – Relisted. There appears to be no current consensus for this move, but there may be consensus for an alternative such as "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov". Ucucha 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC) He was born 5 years after the end of the russian monarchy so logically can not be a prince. Dbpjmuf (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidnece is there for 'plain' "Nicholas Romanov"? Name, Title is the form he uses for himself.[26] If someone wanted to find information on him through Google I doubt they would search for "Nicholas Romanov" which would give you worthless results most likely about the last Emperor. A Google news archive or book search will show he is known as something like 'Prince Nicholas/Nikolai Romanov/Romanoff', a title is used. - dwc lr (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But neither of those is the present title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The present title is what he uses himself Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia.[27] At any rate I very much doubt he is the primary use for plain 'Nicholas Romanov'. - dwc lr (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to adopt the subject's POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I prefer "Nicholas Romanov" to remain the disambiguation page as there are other people called that, some very famous. Instead of the current title, I would prefer "Nicholas Romanovich Romanov" as his real name, or "Prince Nicholas Romanov" as his common name. DrKiernan (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Prince of Russia

My understanding is we left "prince of Russia" in the title to disambiguate this person from the last tsar, not because anyone thought it is was part of his name, or even argued that it was a correct title. A disambiguator certainly doesn't belong in the opening. If you pull open his Swiss passport, do you think it will say, "prince of Russia"? I don't see anything in the New York Times article that would suggest that "prince" is part of his name. It is not a title of nobility if it is not recognized by law. Did he exercise his prerogative as a sovereign in granting himself the title? If "prince of Russia" is just a fancy way to say that he is a pretender, which how I would interpret the NYT article, that kind of title doesn't get treated as part of the name. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deposed royals don't just stop having titles attributed to them, or using them themselves because a country has become a republic. I have no idea what his Swiss passport will say, if he even has one, and I don't see what relevance it has either. I very much doubt someone would think think a title 'Prince of Russia' is part of his name. Titles and names are clearly distinct and separate. - dwc lr (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't a deposed royal. He was born after the revolution, so never had anything to be deposed from. His father was a deposed royal, but he is not. Dbpjmuf (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he is a member of a deposed dynasty. - dwc lr (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To run the name and the title together implies he is a noble. We don't say, "Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company", at least not in boldface. IMO, the Otto von Habsburg article is a good model. Otto was a bona fide crown prince, at least until was he was six years old. Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very POV statement to say he is not noble. On Wikipedia titles have always been used for members of royal houses, both reigning and non reigning. Otto von Habsburg is a rare example of a royal who is not known by a title. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the reference section, it seems that this is all based on his own Web site, as well as statements by the Romanov Family Association. Nobility is an objective, verifiable fact, a matter of law. Kauffner (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of cites to his website or the RFA are about his life and his claims to the headship of the family, as you see the headship is disputed between him and his cousin Maria. I would imagine expect for die hard republicans or supporters of his rival he is royalty (from a non reigning royal family). I don't know why some people get upset about giving titles to non reigning royals on Wikipedia this is the general, normal practice that you find in sources if people bothered to look. - dwc lr (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even Tsar Nicholas II's page doesn't include titles in the article title, and he was an actual royal. Dbpjmuf (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NCNT. Most kings and emperors are under the format "Name of Place". - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NCNT does not apply to non-royals. Dbpjmuf (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Prince of Korea" was just removed from the article for the Korean pretender, Yi Seok. Unlike the subject of this article, Yi Seok was an actual prince when he was a child. So I think we are making progress. To me, the issue is just that someone should be not be described as royal or noble if that is not in fact their status. Kauffner (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but sources that refer to members of non reigning houses do not just overnight referring to them by their families titles. If he is not royalty why does the Danish Royal Family and other sources attribute the princely title to him? I suppose you think its his first name. - dwc lr (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
European royal families, and the descendants of former royal families, are highly intermarried and related, as well as having strong social links to each other. Simply because a friend or relative humours ones desire to be royal or noble does not make one so. Dbpjmuf (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You regard the New York Times as a reliable source. Why does this source say he 'bears the title Prince of Russia'. - dwc lr (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This title is very thinly documented and quite dodgy all away around. It's mentioned only once on Google Books, as the way he gives his own name as the author of some essay. Besides the New York Times article, there is also an article in the Washington Times that gives him this way. That seems to be about it. But, hey, if your family association names you prince of Russia, and the Times runs with it, that's good enough for me. But it's no different than Mulally having the title "CEO", Martin Luther King being "Dr.", or John Green bearing the title "president of the Little League Baseball Association". That is to say, it does not justify writing him up as if he was a noble or a royal. Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were in fact other sources cited but Dbpjmuf removed them and I really can't be bothered to edit war with them over it when the title is there anyway. This and other other articles fully conform to the Manual of Style (biographies) and Naming conventions. The fact that academic titles are not given in the initial sentence is irrelevant. Styles for instance are not allowed so thats why we don't have His Highness Nicholas Romanovich Romanov, Prince of Russia. - dwc lr (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were not reliable sources. Dbpjmuf (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Nicholas_Romanov&oldid=446231652"