Talk:Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability challenge[edit]

This article has just been recommended for deletion from Wikipedia on the grounds of eliminating "royalty cruft", because no article about a baby boy belonging to a family that has not reigned in 200+ years can be "notable". Nonetheless, this article includes 18 citations to media coverage in several languages, including English. The Primate of the Georgian Orthodox Christian Church Ilia II called for restoration of Georgia's native monarchy and dynasty, abolished and exiled unilaterally when Russia annexed Georgia in 1800. The problem was that two different branches of the historical dynasty (the House of Gruzinsky and the House of Mukhrani) came forth to claim the throne, and promptly became the source of an ongoing, vociferous rivalry to lead the active monarchist movement. This boy constitutes the eventual joining of their claims in his person, so that neither claim is adequately represented by or in an article on either of his respective parents. To quote his father's article, "marriage united the Gruzinsky (Kakheti) and Moukhransky (Mukhraneli) branches of the Georgian royal family, and drew a crowd of 3,000 spectators, officials, and foreign diplomats, as well as extensive coverage by the Georgian media. The dynastic significance of the wedding lay in the fact that, amidst the turmoil in political partisanship that has roiled Georgia since its independence in 1991, Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia publicly called for restoration of the monarchy as a path toward national unity in October 2007. Although this led some politicians and parties to entertain the notion of a Georgian constitutional monarchy, competition arose among the old dynasty's princes and supporters, as historians and jurists debated which Bagration has the strongest hereditary right to a throne that has been vacant for two centuries...But the marriage between Nugzar Gruzinsky's heiress and the Mukhrani heir resolves their rivalry for the claim to the throne, which has divided Georgian monarchists. A son born of this marriage is apt to eventually become both the heir male of the House of Bagration and the heir general of George XII of Georgia...Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili stated in an interview published by Russian newspaper Kommersant on 7 April 2010 that the marital union of Prince David Bagration-Muhkransky and Princess Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky was arranged with the primary purpose of promoting the restoration of the Georgian monarchy under the Bagrationi. Therefore, according to Merabishvili, Princess Anna was forced to divorce her first husband Grigoriy Malania in order to allow her to wed Prince David. Merabishvili maintained that the Bagrationi couple were no longer married. However it was rumoured by the Georgian press that the couple had reconciled and was expecting their first child. The royal couple's first child, Prince George Bagration-Bagrationi was born in Madrid on 27 September 2011." The child is regarded as a royal prince by many Georgians, and royalty is -- as much as the fact is nowadays disdained or resented by some -- notable not merely for what they do individually, but for what they incarnate symbolically, historically, culturally and/or politically. The baby Prince Giorgi Bagration is a classic example of this phenomenon which Wikipedia would be elitest and short-sighted to ignore. FactStraight (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Heir general[edit]

Wouldn't the descendants of Prince Grigol of Georgia's daughter Ketevan be the heir general to George XII?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unclear, because we lack documentation on the operation of female rights of succession to the Bagrationi thrones. Also unclear because "heir general" is a term of law in the UK (having different definitions in England and Scotland), but is also an English language term of art in heraldry and genealogy. A legitimate, living descendant of Princess Ketevan (d. 1891) by her marriage to Prince Mikeli Sumbatashvili (1822-1885) would undoubtedly be the heir general of Grigol and his father, Prince Ioane (1768-1839), the second son of King George XII of Kartli-Kakheti. But George XII had 12 sons and although his legitimate male-line descent in the 21st century consists of only two elderly males (the senior of whom by masculine primogeniture is the pretender, Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) so long as one lives George XII's heir male must be among them. Once that line fails, the nearest female relative of the last of those male heirs becomes the heir general of that dynast. Georgian public interest and dynastic dispute around the Bagrationis' claim to the throne of Georgia centers on the head of the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli line as the heir male of the entire Georgian Bagrationi dynasty versus the head of the Bagrationi-Gruzinsky line as the heir male of George XII's east Georgian kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti -- and on Nukzar's daughter Princess Anna as heiress eventual of the latter claim. Western dynastic laws varied by country but (influenced by the claim to be rightful heiress of the extinct Habsburgs that was settled in favour of Maria Theresa in 1745) by World War I most European monarchies recognised the claims of the "nearest female relative of the last male dynast" over those of the so-called Regredienterbinnen (daughters of a senior male dynast passed over for succession in favour of a less senior dynast that is male). But even in Western Europe this wasn't a universal rule in every monarchy. So in this case "heir general of George XII" may well be more dynastically than genealogically correct; that is, more accurate as a pragmatic way of assessing perceived inheritance rights of family members than as a way of identifying who is most genealogical senior by primogeniture among George XII's descendants. The fact is no one mentions identifying or upholding the claim of Ketevan's Sumbatashvili heir, whomever that might be, which suggests that Georgian dynastic/genealogical thinking is not that far from traditional Western thinking when it comes to evaluating the relative claims of royal pretenders. But the strictly correct answer to your question is that we need to know more details about old Georgian succession laws. FactStraight (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


How can we upload the picture of Giorgi? It seems that there is no free image of him so far.

By the way here is the newest picture of Prince Giorgi published couple of weeks ago. georgianJORJADZE 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


Please note that "Bagration Bagrationi" is not an accepted family and is not his official name. As his status should be discussed between Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and his father David Bagration. Currently the child has no official name nor surname. Bagration Bagrationi is used by "some" online magazines and is not used or was not used even 1 time by the Patriarch or the other officials about Giorgi. Even the "Bagration Bagrationi" which is nonsense in a way that there were many Georgian monarchs who were Bagrationi on both parents none of them had such surname and is totally strange to use such title for the prince. Let it be this way until we will know how the process between the two branches will go and what his real status and real surname will be. I doubt that it will be "Bagration Bagrationi". For the moment, he is quoted mostly everywhere as just "Prince Giorgi". Jaqeli (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Official website of his father refers to the kid as "Prince Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi, The Prince of Mukhrani". The website of his grandfather Nugzar says that "Prince Giorgi, is currently only the continuation of the princely line of Bagration-Mukhranski. He is therefore not a royal successor of the Royal Bagrationi-Gruzinski line", but this page has not been updated since February 2012. "Prince Giorgi" as the article title sounds weird. Doesn't this kid have a surname at all? --KoberTalk 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Currently he is recognized as de facto heir apparent to the Georgian throne and the christening underlined that fact. The thing is that if no agreement will be met with his father after that we can give him the surname ending "of Mukhrani". But his grandfather says that he will be most probably a heir apparent but ONLY from her mother's side which is Gruzinsky like so in the present moment "Bagration Bagrationi" thing does not exist as such and is even rediculous frankly. If there will be an agreement this kid by no means will neither be "of Mukhrani" nor "Gruzinsky" but something else though of course he will bear officially "Gruzinsky" lineage from his mother. Jaqeli (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Putting all these monarchist intrigues aside, does this mean that this poor kid has no registered surname? Is this possible under the current Spanish or Georgian law?--KoberTalk 17:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea. Maybe he was born just Giorgi Bagrationi? Thing is he was born in Spain and maybe his father gave him "of Mukhrani" but his mother would definitely be against such move so I don't know. Jaqeli (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
And what about his father's website? It clearly refers to the kid by his double Bagration-Bagrationi surname. --KoberTalk 17:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, there is a disagreement between these two branches. He cannot be Bagration-Bagrationi and he could not be born with that surname because his mother who in her position is representing his father Nugzar would not agree on such naming. If you ask me David Bagration of Mukhrani is just a princely line and does not hold any royal lineage which is very true if you look at his family line. Nugzar is definitely a royal prince who by all means can call himself a heir apparent. So I would not trust his father's site at all. Let's see what happens in future. I'll try to get more info and will post here as well. Jaqeli (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You are correct. The Mukhranians are only a princely line and Nugzar is descended from the royal branch. But I just want to know the kid's surname to have it in the title of this article. If David's website cannot be trusted on this (and this means that the father has faked his son's surname for propaganda purposes), then we should either apply WP:COMMONNAME or, following a simple logic, assign to the kid his father's surname. An encyclopedic article with the current title about the person born in 2011 sound way too much weird. Any thoughts? --KoberTalk 17:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes I agree. I just moved it to Prince Giorgi because he was called by the Patriarch and Prince Nugzar in that way. We can move it to just "Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011)"? Jaqeli (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be a reasonable option. --KoberTalk 18:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'll move it to that. Jaqeli (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Kober: I have news from Georgian royal house. Jaqeli (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. :) Is this surname controversy worth of being mentioned in the article? Also, have David and Anna rejoined or do they continue to live separately? I have not been following the news about the family for a while.--KoberTalk 15:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I will get more info soon. The family is going to live in Saguramo soon.
It seems that the kid's father is engaged in the propagandist war with Nugzar even about the surname. So maybe we should mention it? Do you think we should? Jaqeli (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

While the candor of contributors to this article about their belief that the Gruzinsky branch of the Bagrationis is dynastic but that the Mukhraneli line is not is appreciated and clarifying, this article must be neutral in the matter, since we know that the matter is disputed. It is not for us to say that Giorgi's name "cannot" be "Bagration-Bagration" -- nor for his grandparents to make that decision, nor can we edit this article on the presumption that we know what his mother's views are on the issue. In Spain, his name would be "Giorgi Bagration y Gruzinsky" or "Giorgi Bagration y Bagration" if both parents now use "Bagration" as their legal surnames -- which is why I suspect that the child has been surnamed "Bagration-Bagration". We are justified in changing that if the child's legal guardian(s) have announced a change: otherwise we are engaging in partisanship, foisting on the child a name not used by his parent(s). "Prince Giorgi" sounds absurd (either a surname or a territorial designation would seem to be necessary). But if that is in fact how he is most widely known it may indeed be the best and most neutral name we can ascribe to him at present. What we can't do is say that he can't use the name given him by either or both parents because it is not neutral in the opinions of parties who have no legal right to give the boy a name. If the parents have publicly disagreed, we should stick to what they agree upon ("Prince Giorgi"). But if only one parent has publicly declared his name, we can't presume that parent's spouse disagrees unless that disagreement has been publicly expressed. A grandparent cannot claim to speak for a child who is a living, married adult, nor for that child's child. FactStraight (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've put the information above it is from the Georgian royal house and they are saying that the boy's name is not "Bagration-Bagrationi". I cannot agree about the thing that grandfather cannot claim to speak for a kid. I think you forget the fact that his mother is the child of Nugzar so how do you think will his daughter give persmission to his father to name the kid as he wants? Nonsense. The kid's surname is not "Bagration-Bagrationi" and is pure propagandist move from his father which wants to show that both Bagrationi families of David and Anna are equal which in reality is not. This kid has the future as the possible king only from his mother and his father's "of Mikhrani" has no chances as such at all. That is a well-known fact. Jaqeli (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way I want to post here the info his father's site published about the christening of Prince Giorgi. Jaqeli (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Jaqeli, please stop making unilateral changes to the name of this article, which has been done without consensus despite the fact that you acknowledged above that there is apparent controversy about the child's name. His name has already been announced and he has been publicly christened, which facts are relevant yet not decisive: Wikipedia names biographical articles on royalty according to the most common name, pursuant to NCROY, in English -- not according to the wishes of the maternal grandfather, or even the wishes of the parents. As I write, I am listening to Mark Mullen's 4 November telecast about this birth, in English, on "Georgian News TV": He explicitly states that the prince's "official" name is "Giorgi Bagration-Bagrationi", and he explains that this is because his parents have united the two branches of Georgia's historic royal family. That explanation had first been given in "Georgian News TV on 6 October 2011: "Bagrationi branches were happy with the development [Giorgi's birth] because it finally enabled convergence of the two Bagrationi branches -- Gruzinski and Mukhraneli. That's why little Giorgi bears the surname of Bagration-Bagrationi, not Bagration-Gruzinski or Bagration-Mukhraneli." On the other hand, on 6 November "Vestnik Kavkaza" referred to him, in English, as "Prince Georgy Bagration". Today's article in "Georgian News TV", "King, Democracy and the Future", includes an interview with Chairman Levan Vasadze of Georgia's Demographic Fund Council, one of the prince's new godfathers, and calls him "Giorgi Bagration-Bagrationi". In addition, the Royal House of Georgia website, which gazettes Georgian dynastic news from the point of view of the Mukhraneli faction loyal to the boy's father, emphatically states, on 28 September 2011 and again, on 4 November 2013, following his christening by Patriarch Patriarch Ilia II, that the boy is named "Prince Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi", the latter also attributing to him (as Jaqeli noted above), the title "Prince of Mukhrani": custodial fathers do have a legal right to share with custodial mothers in the naming of their own child -- yet I have not seen any public expression that the boy's mother has sided with her father rather than with her husband in this matter. Given these facts, I do not believe that the move of this article to "Giorgi Bagrationi" was or is justified, because although I would have supported a compromise (see above, where I tentatively approved "Prince Giorgi") in the name of neutrality if we did not have clear expressions of how the baby prince is named in English, since we do have that information, the name of this article is not the one most commonly used. Finally, Jaqeli you continue to edit this (and most Bagrationi-related) articles as though Prince Nugzar were the sole and rightful claimant to Georgia's royal legacy. While I understand that this is a deeply held conviction for you, please understand that Wikipedia must be neutral and cannot share your preference: Nugzar's declarations are not decisive with respect to the minor son of David Bagration-Mukhraneli, nor with respect to the Bagrationi dynasty, nor in Wikipedia. It is clear in the excerpt you took (above) from David Mukhraneli's statement about his own baby, that you disagree with his views, but it is a violation of BLP for you to label his comments a "lie", even here on the talk page. Please stop. FactStraight (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all. This is not my opinion that Nugzar is the head of Bagrationi dynasty, but this is the opinion of all Bagrations in Georgia, all historians and scholars and nobility of Georgia. No one supports the claims of the self-proclaimed "Prince" David of Mukhrani. He was not, is not and never will be a "royal" because none of his ancestors were "royals". They were the second-class Bagrations like Bagration-Davitishvili, Babadishvili and etc. They never pretended for the Georgian throne, not because they did not want to but they could not as they were not royals. They just were princes of a Mukhrani which is not even a city as such. Please bother yourself and see the family tree of David of Mukhrani. How can here be any neutrality when this person never was a "royal". Will Bagration-Davitishvilis become royals if they start their website and claim they are the royals and heirs to the Georgian throne? This is laughable. The Patriarch never mentioned him with "Bagration-Bagrationi" and honelstly all the other people you named I have no idea who they are meaning about some Mr Malny who is as far from the Georgian royals and the information about them as I am from China right now. Jaqeli (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And as I've said read this:

Google Translate or something as I have no time for this to translate. It clearly states that royal house headed by Nugzar does not call the kid "Bagration-Bagrationi" and does not recognize that surname. Jaqeli (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I accept that Prince Nugzar's website does not call his grandson "Bagration-Bagrationi". I do not accept that is decisive. Nor do I know, beyond what has been already said above, to explain that Wikipedia cannot take sides in a dynastic dispute in Georgia, but must neutrally reflect the variety of opinions in this matter giving due weight as reported in reliable sources. English language sources certainly acknowledge that, prior to David and Anna's wedding, there was a dispute with two different branches of the Bagrationi dynasty claiming the royal throne in the event of restoration. Since that marriage and the birth of Prince Giorgi, it appears to me that a number of royalists and contributors to Georgian dynastic articles in English Wikipedia actively seek to keep alive the rivalry, even at the expense of the monarchist cause championed by Patriarch Ilia II. That is sad: at enormous personal sacrifice, two Bagrationis have married and are parenting a son in order to end this feud, yet English Wikipedia is being used to fan its flames. Regardless of my personal opinions or yours, however, Wikipedia must be neutral in this matter and cannot promote the Gruzinskys' claim and denigrate that of the Mukhranelis. FactStraight (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand that this child has a mother? Do you know what mother means? This kid is not "Bagration-Bagrationi" and yes his father can not make decisions without the mother of this kid. Comprendo? The kid's mother is a royal, the father is a 2nd or 3rd class Bagration meaning he's lower in the status with kid's mother and there can no be one way decision from kid's father in this case. As I've said the kid was not called by that name by any official on any official events. "Bagration-Bagrationi" is not his surname and stop putting it back. If there will be no agreement with Nugzar and kid's father then we can name this article as we wish but for the current moment the kid has no official name and is only referred as "Prince Giorgi" by everyone, it is his godfathers or Patriarch himself or the media, not meaning some sourceless magazines who have no idea about the details just like some foreigners out there who think they know more than us Georgians what's going on here. Jaqeli (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop being uncivil: yes, I know what "mother" means. Nor does your presence in Georgia or Georgian nationality entitle you to more authority in editing English Wikipedia than anyone else. Even if "Bagration-Bagrationi" had not been used in "official" Georgian sources, recent English-language sources ascribe that surname to Prince Giorgi, and English Wikipedia articles are named based on how he is referred to in English-language sources, not "official" or Georgian sources, per general naming conventions and royalty naming conventions. FactStraight (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The kid's parents got divorced[edit]

Giorgi's parents got divorced couple of days ago. Jaqeli (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

FactStraight edit warring[edit]

@FactStraight: You are engaged into a constant edit war over this child and keep removing all the improvements made into an article by all users and reverting to your prefered one. Please stop your disrupted editing and edit warring and your so called neutral point of view is in fact your pushing of things as you want us to see regarding Mukhrani-Gruzinsky claims. Jaqeli (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again I restored the version of the article which recognizes Nugzar as head of the Gruzinskys' Kartli-Kakheti lineage, but not as head of the entire dynasty. There is a dispute. You have repeatedly edited Bagrationi articles to express your pov, but not that expressed in the cited texts. Moreover, I corrected a number of grammar errors that you re-inserted. FactStraight (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You're still continuing your edit war. You're reverting things without having a consensus. You're removing the royalty template from Princess Ana and edit war on Batonishvili article. Again I am asking you to stop your behaviour right now and discuss and explain your reasoning of removing all those changes as you call them errors. Jaqeli (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You are in no position to accuse anyone else of engaging in edit wars. Your edits on these Bagrationi-related articles continue to tilt the article in a pov manner, and you restored bad grammar which I corrected. FactStraight (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You keep adding the biased content with "Bagration Bagrationi" everywhere around the topic which is biased and very controversial. You have to reach consensus first and discuss your changes here please. Jaqeli (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you believe that you don't need to discuss your edits before making them, but that I do: you make dozens of undiscussed edits and article moves daily, and you have substantially exercised ownership of Bagrationi articles to the extent that I and others do not have the time to challenge your thousands of edits. I have repeatedly explained the rationale for the corrections I make: you have been very candid about your belief that Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky is the only "legitimate" claimant to the defunct Georgian throne and is the dynastic head of the entire Bagrationi dynasty, and you continue to edit Bagrationi-related articles to make Wikipedia reflect and support that pov. I think there are strong arguments in support of Prince Nugzar and I entirely understand why you support his claim. Yet it has been thoroughly documented that there is an ongoing dispute over these claims expressed in multiple, cited reliable sources (see the sources I cited at the bottom of the discussion here, in response to your pro-Nugzar assertions) and that Wikipedia must reflect neutrality between the rival pretenders. I edit accordingly, and when you edit to tilt these articles in favor of your preferred candidate, I edit to restore neutrality. FactStraight (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)