Talk:Line of succession to the former Russian throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Orthodox persons in the Leiningen family[edit]

the more I look at the Leiningen princely family, for this purpose limited to descendants of Maria Kirilovna of Russia, the more I see Orthodox traits. Are they waiting carefully for succession rights in some Orthodox country? There are a bunch of Slavonic first names. There are marriages, Karl of Leiningen (Karl Wladimir Ernst Heinrich) had been married with a Bulgarian princess, presumably Orthodox (did she raise her children as Orthodox?), one of their sons Boris of Leiningen was married with a Bulgarian (Milena Manov), presumably Orthodox. And Milena's son is prince Nicholas Alexander of Leiningen (born Philadelphia 25.10.1991), and I would be surprised if the boy's mother will not raise him in her own creed. Then, additionally, there are the two sons of the late Kira Melita of Leiningen, who are princes of Yugoslavia, and presumably Orthodox. Could somebody check from somewhere the hopefully exact details of the religion of each individual who descends from the late Princess Dowager of Leiningen (Maria Kirilovna). Shilkanni 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You might post a query on this issue to john k 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The Leiningen descendants would be ineligable due to morgantic marriage. The Leiningen princely family was a mediatized, non-ruling family within the German Empire. Tim Foxworth 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "mediatized" actually, in these contexts, means just the thing that they were promised and guaranteed the equality although they lost their sovereign state.At least, they should be regarded as monarchical pretender family's worth. It is totally true that Leiningen was a tiny slice and worth almost nothing compared with the Russian empire, or even its smallest autonomy (the Grand Duchy of Finland, Europe's fifth- or whatever largest country today measured by area) - but so were Mecklenbrg-Strelitz, Hesse-Darmstadt and Montenegro. They just were regarded equal for marriage purposes. I would require clear proof of a publication, or a monarchical proclamation, that Maria's Leiningen marriage was to be morganatic, before going forward with that suggestion. And, at most, we will probably then add just something like "There is a disagreement over whether the Leiningen marriage was dynastic".... which means two sets of heirs from that nodepoint onwards. Shilkanni 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Hessen-Darmstadt were Grand Duchies and still regnant until 1918. Montenegro was a Kingdom and still regnant until 1918. Leiningen was no longer regnant and had not been since 1801, and had only been princely since 1779- before that they were Grafs (Counts). A Princely family to be sure- noble, but hardly royal. Tim Foxworth 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim Foxworth clearly doesn't understand what "mediatized" means. He needs to do so to understand this debate. A mediatized family is equal to a ruling family for marriage purposes. Mediatization retains their "royal" (for lack of a better term) status while their superior rules their assimilated territory "through" them. The title is irrelevant: be it count, prince, duke or whatever. It is their mediatized status that is relevant for marriage purposes. The daughter of the lowliest, most obscure mediatized count or lord can marry a king or emperor and the marriage is dynastically equal and non-morganatic. (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC) clearly doesn't understand what "mediatized" means. He needs to do so to understand this debate. A mediatized family is NOT equal to a ruling family for marriage purposes.

German Empress Augusta Viktoria was a member of a mediatized family before marrying Kaiser Wilhelm II (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Auguste Viktoria was a member of a regnant, royal house- not a mediatized house. really has no idea what he is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, marriage to a mediatized family is not morganatic, it is equal. Auguste Viktoria's "regnant" house was high noble, not sovereign. Any claim to be regnant in Schleswig-Holstein was a pretense as that territory had been mediatized into Prussia. At best their status was mediatized. I do understand this debate. (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request and question[edit]

1. Could somebody fix the HTML in the notes? It's sufficiently convoluted that I don't want to try, but there are HTML codes and all kinds of weird things going on in the notes about Maria Vladimirovna and below that.

Done. There was an extra ref tag which was messing up things. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Could Nicholas II legally have changed the rules of succession? Were there practical reasons why he couldn't? --NellieBly (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone asked about this on another site (they're apparently writing an alternative history novel where Things Go Differently) and I thought this was a good place to ask. If you don't mind my asking, what were the practical reasons, and could they have been overcome? --NellieBly (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
First, in the Russian Constitution of 1906 the Emperor, State Council & Duma jointly reformed Russia's governance to the extent that the Emperor could no longer unilaterally change all laws. He retained power to change some, but the succession was explicitly not among them: a change required approval of the Council & Duma. Second, each Romanov male upon attaining his age of majority swore to uphold Russia's law of succession unchanged as enacted by Paul I of Russia in 1797 (and amended by Nicholas I in 1820). Also, each emperor was required by law to repeat a similar oath publicly upon inheriting the throne, and again during the coronation. FactStraight (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Tsar Paul's law did not prohibit unequal marriages, then obviously the later-enacted prohibition against unequal marriages violated the sworn prohibition to change the succession law. It is clear that to take away the Paul-sanctioned succession rights from such descendants who were born of lower mothers, is a substantial change to the rules of succession. Alexander I enacted the requirement of equal marriages - but (1) he had himself sworn not to change the succession law, and (2) the laws forbade him from changing them. Well, Alexander I did this - but any future generation could argue that he had not right to do that, and that the equality requirement was invalid, due to the unalterable fundament of Tsar Paul's law on succession. Tsar Paul wanted to ensutre that his dynasty will in all circumstances have enough heirs, and he wanted to ensure that the unaltered succession law always provides for who will be the successor. The equality clause is dcetrimental to both of his these intentions, because the equality requirement adds much controversy.... making the otherwise-clear line of succession very disputable. (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is poorly written, erratic and unbalanced, openly speculative, and under-sourced, but it has been fairly stable for almost exactly three years. Until a decent re-write with reliable sources is undertaken, there's no point in butchering it piecemeal and re-initiating old edit wars, so I've reverted recent changes based on known inaccuracies (Paul's 1797 law guaranteed succession rights to women on a semi-Salic basis rather than eliminated them; Cyril Toumanov, a Georgian prince, upheld rather than denied the equality of birth of Georgia's forcibly Russianized princely families, including the Bagrationi-Mukhranelis; and the Romanov Family Association's president is Prince Nicholas Romanov, but its charter has always prohibited that organization from endorsing any candidate's claim to be rightful successor to the Russian crown). Here another point that needs clarification is being raised; Russia was an autocracy until 1906, so there was no law deemed binding upon any of its de jure emperors (as distinct from other Romanov dynasts), including the Pauline laws. Nor was all of the Pauline law considered "unchangeable". Rather, 11 of its 200+ clauses were declared "inviolable articles" of law. Only one of these, establishing the requirement for equality of blood, was added to that category after Paul's reign. Far from making the succession "controversial", at the time it was accepted by the Romanovs as the means of solving the problem which arose when Alexander I died leaving two brothers, Constantine & Nicholas, the elder of whom had renounced upon marrying a non-royal. The confusion which resulted over whether Constantine or Nicholas was the new emperor encouraged the Decembrist revolt, which the equality requirement was supposed to prevent from recurring. Paul could not "compel" his heirs to leave these laws unchanged. But he shrewdly enjoined that future tsars treat them as binding by swearing an oath to uphold them at the time of accession and at the coronation. Each tsar (and the Vladimirovich claimant) has so sworn ever since; but it was their sense of honor -- not enforceable law -- which bound each Head of House to enforce the inviolable articles unchanged. At least until the October Manifesto led to the Russian Constitution of 1906 in which the 11 articles were codified and made alterable only by joint decision of the Emperor, State Council and Duma, whereas the other Pauline laws were left within the Emperor's discretion to apply or alter at will. Equality of birth was included from 1906 in the laws which the Emperor could not unilaterally dispense with, and for nearly a century that principle was enforced by Paul's successors as each interpreted it. FactStraight (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Someone has made the article Karcovitz-romanov, which I guess is about a modern branch of the Romanov family in Spain. That article badly needs someone with some domain knowledge to look over it (it's just a couple of sentences) and either turn it into a worthwhile stub or send it the way of all flesh. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put it up for speedy deletion as vandalism no such family is mentioned in any Romanov genealogy. - dwc lr (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

de jure royalist legal fantasy?[edit]

Isn't the government of Russia in the hands of the internationally recognised sovereign government of Russia? haven't all laws providing for the succession of Tsars in Russia been repealed by the internationally recognised sovereign authority in Russia? If that's the case, how can there be a "de jure" Tsar when the relevant "jus", that of Russia, says there is no Tsar? Qemist (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In Imperial Russia the Tzar was the souvereign ruler of all Russias. Nobody except God had any power over him. Supra national organisations like the UN dereive their power from the fact that part of individual nations souvereignty was transferred to them through treaties. Since the Romanov's never ratified any such treaty, nor empowered any legislative body to do so, they do not consider themselves bound by petty things such as international recognition. As such, the Romanovs believe they are still the "de jure" rulers of Russia.
It has long been standing practice of the international community to ignore this jurisdiction problem. It is the stated position of the UN that souvereignty resides in a nation, not it's ruler. And as such a nation can choose who governs it. This is however a problem since it has long been widely accepted that it was instead the monarch who held souvereignty over the nation. In only a few countries this souvereignty has been officially transfered to it's legislative bodies (for example: UK (magna carta & glorious revolution), Netherlands (Peace of Westphalia), USA (Treaty of Paris of 1783)) by the ruling monarch, whilst in many more countries the monarchs were forcibly driven out without any formal transfer of power (for example: Germany, France, Russia, China, Turkey). If power was seized and there is no higher authority (other than God) to approve such a usurption, how then can any of that power rightfully derive to supranational organisations? I.e. how can an international organisation, or community, ever hold any jurisdiction over a souvereign state, nation or ruler if it was never justfully given that power?
Former Yugoslav (and Serb) president Milosevich used this as his main defense during his trial for the former Yugoslav warcrimes tribunal in the Hague. He stated that the Federal republic of Yugoslavia was a souvereign state with him as it's president and as such the UN held no jurisdiction over his actions at the time. Unfortunately for him, Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the charter of the UN, thus transferring part of it's souvereignty. The court therefore ruled that it did hold jurisdiction over him.

Is a marriage to a member of a non-ruling house really morganatic?[edit]

The Romanov's have been forced out of power in 1917. The last Tzar abdicated first in favour of his son, later he changed this in favou of his brother, neither of which accepted and both were murdered. As such the Romanov's are no longer a ruling house. The Romanov's might still consider themselves the royal house of Russia, but so do the Bagrations consider themselves the royal house of Georgia. How then can a marriage between offsprings of these houses be morganatic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing the obvious[edit]

The article suggests that all the marriages of dynasts post-revolution were morganatic and indeed none of them was to a family ruling anywhere except perhaps in their own imagination. None of Prussia, Georgia and the obscure district in Italy the Ruffos came from was a sovereign nation or a monarchy at the times the relevant marriages were entered into, so none had a sovereign or a royal house. The logical conclusion is that no-one satisifies the 1906 Constitution and the Russian Romanov succession, even in pretence, went extinct with the death of Prince Vasili Alexandrovich. The article ignores this uncomfortable conclusion and is mostly a record of debates about relative levels of failure to meet the royal or ruling standard. Qemist (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be true if there were a dynasty, currently or formerly, reigning in Europe which ever morganatized marriages or de-dynasticized royals yet which refused to accept brides of formerly sovereign families as equal in birth. But I know of no such dynasty. Certainly Russia's Romanovs could not meet this test since the 1839 marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (1819–1876) to a mere Beauharnais, whose blood relatives never reigned by hereditary right anywhere and whose tenuous claim to royal status terminated, technically, upon the fall of Napoléon I, would have disqualified the issue of that marriage from dynastic status in Russia if your interpretation were correct. But we know that the issue of that marriage continued to hold Imperial rank and succession rights in Russia as Princes Romanovsky, to wed Romanovs and members of other reigning dynasties until morganatic marriages rendered them extinct. But the Romanovs weren't alone: Swedish law forbade its royal dynasts from marrying "the daughter of a private man" at the time that future King Gustaf VI Adolf wed Lady Louise Mountbatten in 1923. And how did Gustaf's future daughter-in-law, Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, become Crown Princess of Sweden by marriage since at the time of her wedding in 1932 the Saxe-Coburgs had been stripped of their royal rank in both Germany and the UK and were, according to by-the-letter law, commoners? The Spanish Bourbons also had a strict law morganatizing marriages to non-royals, yet in 1906 they too accepted a Battenberg morganaut as Queen consort. Italy's dynasty, the House of Savoy, likewise had a law morganatizing marriages into unequal families when they allowed Prince Amedeo, 1st Duke of Aosta (and future King, briefly, of Spain) to wed the wealthy Piedmontese heiress, Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo, Principessa della Cisterna in 1867, whose princely title -- like that of Russia's Rurikid knyazim -- did not carry dynastic status. Yet by decision of the King, she and her offspring were fully accepted as members of the Italian royal family. Ditto Princess Maria Letizia Napoléon who, after Duchess Maria Vittoria's death, wed her uncle, Duke Amedeo of Aosta, dynastically in 1888, 18 years after Napoléon III and his dynasty had been returned, legally, to commoner status. And just in case you want to explain this apparent non-compliance of the Savoys with their own equality rule as an exception unique to the Aosta branch, in 1938 Prince Ferdinando, Duke of Genoa was allowed to dynastically wed Maria Luigia Alliaga Gandolfi ((1899-1986), daughter of a mere Conte di Ricaldone. Germany's dynasties had laws on the books every bit as strict as Russia's, yet the marriage of the future Emperor Charles of Austria-Hungary to Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma in 1911 was, strictly, a marriage into a deposed dynasty -- yet was deemed entirely dynastic and Zita was coronated with the crown matrimonial. Even deposed kings who kept their royal dignity in exile could not extend it to their unequally-born wives, e.g. Henriette d'Oultremont, Countess of Nassau and wife of ex-King William I, Count of Nassau and, most infamously, Mrs. Simpson aka Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor, wife of HRH the Duke of Windsor, previously Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. Usually Emperor Wilhelm II tolerated no morganatic marriages in the House of Hohenzollern, but the Kaiser succumbed to the entreaties of his only daughter, Viktoria-Luise, to grant "permission for Oskar to marry the countess!" The countess in question, Ina Marie von Bassewitz, was at first allowed no elevation in title, simply substituting von Ruppin for von Bassewitz with the same comital rank. But no sooner were the Hohenzollerns reduced, legally, to commoners in 1919 than Willy, as Head of the House, recognized Ina as a full Princess of Prussia. On the other hand, from the fact that Alexander II of Russia's marriage to an undoubted Rurikid princess in 1880, Princess Catherine Mikhailovna Dolgouroky, made her neither Tsarina nor Empress, it is clear that 1. Every daughter of a family that reigned once-upon-a-time could not successfully claim equality of birth with the Romanovs, just as Auguste von Harrach, aka the Princess von Lignitz (but never as the Queen of Prussia), although a member of a mediatized family theoretically entitled to inter-marry with royalty pursuant to the international treaty signed at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, could not do so. 2. The Head of the House retained authority to exercise discretion with respect to marriages in his or her own dynasty, and 3. Since then, every de-throned dynasty in Europe has lowered its marital standards to accept as ebenburtig brides whom it had once rejected as of insufficient birth rank. However none of the other major exiled dynasties went overnight from morganatizing all non-royal brides to automatic dynastic approval of every bride. Nor did Russia. So in exile the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, Savoys, Wettins, Guelphs, Spanish & Neapolitan Bourbons have all done exactly as have the Romanovs: accepted some brides as dynastic whom they would have rejected under the monarchy, while continuing to reject other brides as unequal. Given that overwhelming trend, on what grounds can it be argued that the Romanovs have impermissably violated some legal or traditional standard in being selective about which wives are accepted as dynastic and which are not -- since that is precisely what all of them have done? It is, in fact, universally the case that in every monarchy which required equal marriages, brides from formerly ruling families are legally acceptable provided that the Head of House authorizes the marriage as dynastic. By 1948 when Vladimir Kirilovich Romanov married Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani, there was only one adult male Romanov dynast living who had not formally recognized Vladimir (or his late father, Cyril Vladimirovich) as rightful claimant to the Russian throne: Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia, whose morganatic son Prince Nicholas Romanovich subsequently admitted in an interview published in Point de Vue that Cyril had "unquestionably" been the rightful claimant to Russia's throne. Vladimir was the last male dynast born in Russia, so all post-Revolution marriages of dynasts that begat issue, beside his own, were authorized -- or not-- by Cyril. Thus the decision not to recognize as dynastic the marriage of Nicholas's father Roman to a Countess Sheremetyev was within his traditional prerogative -- and who had standing to deny Vladimir the marital authority and discretion, exercised as a matter of course by the Head of House of every other deposed dynasty, to render a decision in favour of the dynasticity of Georgia's House of Bagration based on its antiquity, its reign in the Caucasus into the 19th century, and its annexation by the Romanovs in violation of the Treaty of Georgievsk? The absurd result is that Vladimir's daughter, Maria Vladimirovna Romanova, finds herself in the position of being told that her claim to Russia's throne is flawed because her Bagration mother wasn't of a royal house, even as her cousin Prince Davit Bagration-Mukhraneli is now widely regarded as having a better shot in Tbilisi than either Maria or her son Georgy Mikhailovich has in St. Petersburg of royal restoration (or at least of the kind of dynastic Joyeuse Entrée and historical rehabilitation that other Eastern European nations are bestowing upon the Hohenzollerns, Coburgs, Karadjordjevics, Petrovich Njegoschs and Zogus of, respectively, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Albania). FactStraight (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


In late 2010, added Jackson Daniel to the succession list. The reference used was a thread on The Russian Imperial and Noble Message Board. This person has not yet been added to the website, which purports to list _all_ extant descendants of Nicholas I, even those who are not members. Does there exist a reliable reference regarding this person? Ordinary Person (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line of succession to the former Russian throne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Line of succession to the former Russian throne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)