The Law and Politic of the disputed Succession to
the Headship of the
Imperial Russian Family
and
The Romanov Agenda 2000
-A Plan of Reconciliation -
By
Regierungsdirektor
Klaus J. Meyer (see note 1)
(MPA Harvard 1998)
The
end of the Communist regimes in
central and Eastern Europe opened the gates as well for
the former ruling houses. King Michael I of Romania and
King Simon II of Bulgaria - both have ruled in their
countries before being ousted by the Communist regimes -
have paid visits to their home countries. The center of
attention however lies with Russia and the Romanovs. The
burial of the remains of the last Imperial Family (see note 2) on July 17th
, 1998 in St. Petersburg and previously of other
members of the Imperial House (see note
3), the controversy about the funeral within the Romanov
- Family and the Orthodox Church (see note
4)and the effects on the Anastasia - Saga (see note 5) have received wide spread and popular
interest. President Yeltsin himself has taken an active
interest and attended the St. Petersburg ceremonies (see
note 6). It is reported that the two
missing corps of the last Tzarevitch and the Grand Duchess
Maria has been found (see note 7).
The
ceremonies in St. Petersburg have
drawn attention as well to the dispute within the Romanov
- Family about the Headship of the Imperial House. The
general public was astonished to learn that the funeral
ceremonies were presided over by Prince Nicholas
Romanovitch Romanov, while a the remembrance ceremony
held by the Patriarch of all Russia, Alexei II, was
attended by the Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna. These
two ceremonies have given the impression of an isolated
Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and a Prince Nicolas
firmly in charge of the Imperial House. However, this was
only the last and very public chapter in the dispute
within the Imperial Family over the Headship. Since 1992
Maria Vladimirovna and Nicolas Petrovitch claim to be the
legitimate Head of the Imperial House. At
the heart of the controversy lies
the question of the requirements for a dynastic marriage.
Only those members of the Imperial Family contracting a
dynastic valid marriage can preserve their rights and the
rights of their descendants in the line of succession.
Disputes over the succession are not unknown in Royal and
Imperial Families around the globe. The Romanovs share
here same fate for example with the Imperial Families of
Brazil, Germany (Hohenzollern), Austria-Hungary
(Habsburg) and France (Bonaparte) and in the Royal
Families of France (Bourbon-Orleans). Questions
of marriage have rocked the Windsor's throne twice this
century. The future marriages of the Crown Princes of the
Netherlands, of Denmark and Norway seem to cause of such
rifts. Each dynasty has its own set of rules governing
the marriage of its members. The most famous act in this
regard is possibly the British Royal Marriage Act.
Marriages of members of the Imperial House of Russia were
and still governed by a set of rules laid down between
1797 and 1911. This article will examine whether the
rules were kept and therefore the rights to Headship of
the Imperial House preserved either by Maria Vladimirovna
or Nicholas Romanovitch. Further this article will look
to the politics surrounding this seemingly mere legal
question and the implications for the future of the
Romanov Dynasty.
This
article will
argue
In order to understand the present dispute it is helpful to look into the succession after Nicholas II by a simplified family tree as relevant to the succession question.
|
Nicholas I 1825 - 1855 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Alexander II 1855 - 1881 |
GD Nicholas = 1891 |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Alexander III 1881 - 1894 |
GD Vladimir = 1909 |
GD Peter = 1931 |
|||
|
|
|||||
Nicholas II
1894-1917 = 1918 |
GD Michael
= 1918
|
GD Cyril
= 1938
|
P. Roman
= 1978
|
||
| |
| |
||||
Vladimir
= 1992 |
Nicholas
T 1922
|
||||
|
|
T 1953
T 1981
|
|||||
| Legend: | ||
| Blue | Czars and their reigns | |
| Green | Heads of the Imperial Family since the Revolution | |
| Red | The Present Pretenders | |
| GD | Grand Duke | |
| P | Prince |
Czar
Nicholas II renounced for himself and his son
Alexei the throne on March 2nd, 1917 in favor of his only surviving
brother Grand Duke Michael. Grand Duke Michael, sometimes styled
Michael II, did not accept the throne and "abdicated" the next day
(see note 8). Both Nicolas II and Michael II were
murdered in 1918. Therefore the line of male descendants of Alexander
III became extinct and the succession passed into the next male line
of Alexander II. Grand Duke Cyril, who declared himself Curator of
the Throne in 1922 and Emperor in 1924 (see note
9), represented this line. After his death in 1938 his only son
Grand Duke Vladimir became Head of the House (see note 10). While this was widely accept at the time,
however the Headship of neither Cyril nor Vladimir was totally
undisputed. With the death of Grand Duke Vladimir in 1992 his
daughter Maria and Nicolas Romanov claimed the Headship. Not only
the Headship but as well the titels are matters of dispute. For
that reason I have used titles in the family tree only if they
are not in dispute.
The
laws of succession to the
Imperial throne have been laid down been 1797 and 1911. These
sets of rules determine not only who the Czar is but as well the
membership, position and titles of the Imperial Family. In order
to understand and interpret the rules fully one has to look as
well at the background, the time when they were enacted and
intention lying behind these rules.
Since
the times of Peter the Great the succession to
the Russian throne had not been a very stable one. Several coup
d' etats had undermined aspects of legitimacy in favor of mere power.
Catherine I and Catherine II the Great had no blood claim whatsoever
to the throne, except that they were the consorts of Peter the Great
and Peter III respectively. Catherine II ousted her husband and put
aside her own son's rights during her lifetime. Insofar it does not
come as a surprise that this son, Paul I, enacted on April 4
th, 1797 the so-called Pauline Laws of Succession.
The intention behind this order of succession was that law itself
determines the succession and that there will be not the slightest
doubt as to the successor (see note 12). The
Pauline Laws were amended by a Manifesto of Nicolas I, dating August
22nd, 1826, the family statute of Alexander III
(July 2nd, 1886), the Fundamental Laws of the
Empire (April 25, 1906) and the Imperial Ukase No. 1289 of August 8
th, 1911 by Emperor Nicholas II. These constitute
the norms and regulations for the succession to the Imperial throne by
the end of the Romanov's rule over Russia.
According
to these rules only the descendants of Czar
Michael I from the House of Romanov were entitled to succeed to
the Russian throne (Article 25 Fundamental Laws). The Czar and
his spouse had to be of Orthodox faith. The succession is
determined by the rules of primogeniture (Article 26 of the
Fundamental Laws). Male and female dynasts are entitled to
succeed; female members of the Imperial House however only in the
case that there is no male dynast whatsoever (Articles 26 to 29).
In such a case of female succession the rules of primogeniture
apply and the succession lies with the oldest female dynast of
the last male Czar. On the demise of an Emperor, his heir accedes
to the throne by virtue of the law; his accession counts from the
demise of his predecessor (Article 53).
Marriages
of members of the Imperial
Family need the consent of the Emperor (Article 183 Pauline Law).
With the Emperor's consent the members of the family are allowed
to marry spouses who are not member of the Orthodox Church
(Article 184 Pauline Law). Male dynast in the line of succession
however can only marry if their future consorts adhere to the
orthodox faith before marriage (Article 185 Pauline Laws). Only
marriages with spouses of corresponding rank (ebenbuertig or
standesgemaess) are allowed (Article 188). Corresponding rank
derives from the membership to a Royal or Sovereign House
(Article 36 Fundamental laws). Only those born of such a
"ebenbuertigen" marriage are Members of the Imperial
Family with the right to the succession. (Article 126) Those born
of not "standegemaeesse" marriage have no right to the
succession. (Article 36) hey are not dynasts and not members of
the Imperial Family. Entering a child's name on the order of the
Emperor (Article 137) into the Genealogical Book of the Imperial
Family serves as proof of the membership in the Imperial House
(Article 142). The Imperial Ukase of 1911 stated that no grand
duke or grand duchess might contract a marriage with a person of
unequal birth, that is, not belonging to a royal or sovereign
house. This is interpreted by some that the Ukase allows
marriages of Princes and Princesses of Russia with persons of
good standing, who do not fulfill the requirements of
corresponding rank.
The
titles of the members of the Imperial House
were set forth in the Family Statute of Alexander III in 1886.
Children and grandchildren in the male line of an Emperor were
entitled to the style and title of His/Her Imperial Highness
Grand Duke/Duchess of Russia. Great- grandchildren in the male
line of an Emperor bear the style and title of His/Her Highness
Prince/Princess of Russia. Other members of the Imperial House
bore the style and title of His/Her Serene Highness
Prince/Princess of Russia. Only the eldest son of an Emperor's
great grandchild was entitled to the style of Highness. The
Emperor is entitled to regulate the style and title of spouses
and children of a morganatic marriage.
The
Emperor ruled the Imperial Family as
autocratic and supreme as the country. All the members of the
Imperial Family had to be committed to the Emperor with complete
respect, obedience and allegiance (Article 219 Fundamental Laws).
It was his and only his decision whether to grant or withhold his
authorization for a marriage (see Article 7 of the Ukase of
1911). No judicial recourse was provided for. For whatever reason
the Emperor saw fit he could withhold his consent. Marriages of
members of the Imperial House were not mere private affaires, but
affaires of state and the Emperor had to have complete control of
that kind of marriage policy. The rules governing Imperial
marriage there set forth under which circumstances the members of
the Imperial House could ask the Emperor for his consent. But
still the Emperor could withhold his consent even if the spouse
fulfilled all requirements for example if the marriage was
political not opportune or the Emperor viewed this persona as not
acceptable for more personal reasons. Only marriages having
received the Emperor's authorization were dynastic valid and
trigged the rights to the succession.
It
is interesting to notice that
these rules regulate the marriages of members of the Imperial
Family, but there are no direct rules regulating the marriage of
the Emperor himself. It seems that it was rather envisioned that
the Emperor would come to the throne having already married when
being still the Heir to the Throne. During the Imperial time only
twice an Emperor married. In 1880 Alexander II married after the
death of his Empress Maria, born Princess of Hesse and by Rhine,
his long-standing mistress Princess Catherine Dolgurukaya (see
note 13). This marriage was a morganatic
marriage and Alexander II created her Princess Jurievskaya. Just
after his accession Nicolas II married Princess Alix of Hesse and
by Rhine, who had converted to the orthodox faith prior to the
marriage and received on that occasion the title of Grand Duchess
Alexandra Feodorovna. However, Alexander III had approved this
marriage before his untimely death (see note
14). None of these marriages can therefore serve as a precedent
what kind of rules applies to the marriage of Emperor himself. It
seems however that to me logic that the Czar himself conforms to
the rules set forth in the rules and laws governing
the succession. Otherwise it would be hard for other members to
accept his authority. Nevertheless because of the supreme power
over the Imperial Family it is the Emperor's sole and only
decision to decide whether his very own marriage fulfills all
requirements and is political convenient. It is not for the
members of the Family to question the Imperial decision and therefore
calling into questions the succession. This lies in the logic of the
supreme authority the Emperor holds with regards to the Imperial House.
MacDonnald
(see note 15) pointed
in her article to the fact that the rules of succession always speak
of the succession after the demise of the Emperor. After the fall of
the Empire there was no Imperial throne and the last ruling emperor
abdicated. She seems to indicate by these statements that the
rules do not apply anymore. The wording of the laws governing the
succession of course do not mention that in case of a revolution
or loss of the throne different rules should apply. It is hardly
feasible that any of the monarchs could foresee the events
leading to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. However, in all
royal and sovereign families after they lost their throne the
their rules of succession applied. Whatever the title was, it was
replaced by the Headship of the House. This lies in the logic and
rationale of a dynasty. It seems to me rather curious and bizarre
to follow a different pace.
Nicolas
Romanovitch Romanov was born in 1922 and is
the son of H.H. Prince Roman Petrovitch of Russia (1896-1978) and
his wife Countess Prascovia Dimitrievna Chewremetev (1901-1980).
He married in 1952 the Italian Countess Sveva Della Gherardesca
and is father of three daughters. He called himself first Prince
Romanov and now Prince of Russia. As the eldest great great
grandson of Nicolas I he would be indeed entitled to the style
and title of H.H. Prince of Russia, but only if he would be
dynast. He is the President of the Romanov Family Association
(see note 16). In 1992 he laid claim
to the Headship of the Imperial Family after the death of Vladimir
Cyrilovitch as the eldest male agnate (see
note 17).
His
claims depend on whether he
is dynast that is to say a member of the Imperial Family and not
just of the wider Romanov Family. This depends on the question
whether his father, Prince Roman Petrovitch of Russia, contracted
in 1921 a marriage with Countess Prascovia Dimitrievna
Chewremetev that fulfilled the legal requirements. Obviously, a
Countess Chewremetev is not a member of a Royal or Sovereign
House. But in the case of Prince Roman the provision of the Ukase
of 1911 have to be taken into account. However, the impact of the
Ukase-provisions is open to questions.
Prince
Nicolas claims that by virtue of the Ukase the
Princes of Russia were free to marry whomever they liked (see note 18) and that would not negatively
effect their and their descendants' position in the succession.
In support of his argument he points to the marriages of two
Romanov princesses. In 1911 Princess Tatiana Constantinova
(1890-1970) married Prince Constantine Alexandrovitch
Bagration-Mukhransky. In 1914 Princess Irene Alexandrovna
(1895-1970) married Prince Felix Youssoupov. Both princesses had
to renounce their rights to the succession before the Emperor
authorized their marriages (see note 19).
Therefore, so Nicholas Romanov's argument goes, the marriages were
regarded as dynastically valid and the princesses and their offspring
would have retained their position in the succession. Otherwise the
renunciations would have made no sense. Therefore, so he claims, the
marriage of his parents were valid and he in the line of succession.
This
has however not remained unchallenged. Horan (see
note 20) states that the Ukases of 1911
does not mean that these marriages were dynast and the descendants of
these marriages member of the Imperial Family, but were still
morganatic marriages. Marlene Eilers (see
note 21) argues that morganatic marriages of Princes of Russia
did not confer rights to the succession to
their descendants and that the Ukase of 1911 did not change this.
It would otherwise mean that the children of grand dukes of
morganatic marriages would not be dynasts while those of Princes
of Russia would be. This defies not only common sense but would
confer on junior dynasts special rights which senior dynasts do
not enjoy. This is quite an alien concept for dynasties. Horan
(see note 22)
believes that the impetus of the renunciations was to prevent a
female dynast marrying into foreign dynasty to preserve her
rights and that of her descendents to the Russian succession. It
should be noted that the Ukase deals not directly with the
marriages of Princes of Russia, but with those of Grand Dukes.
While Grand Dukes could not sought the Emperor’s consent for
a morganatic marriage, the Princes could now. But the marriage
would remain a morganatic one. Here the Emperor reacted to the
marriage of his brother, the Grand Duke Michael, who had ask the
his brother to authorize his marriage to his mistress, the twice
divorced Mrs. Wulfert, later to be Countess/Princess Brassova.
The Emperor refused and the Grand Duke married nevertheless. He
was stripped of his rank and band from Russia. He returned only
when the World War broke (see note 23).
It was common for a female dynast to renounce her rights before
marrying into a foreign dynasty. In the diaries of Grand Duke
Constantine Contantinovitch (see note
24), father of the Princess Tatiana, is found a passage that
the Emperor told him that "he would never look upon her
(Tatiana's) marriage to a Bagration as morganatic, because this
House …, is descended from a once ruling dynasty". A
further explanation for the renunciations could be that it simply
clarified the intended consequences of the Ukase of 1911. This is
a typical legal concept that even if the legal provision have a
certain effect, one can - without a legal necessity - confirm the
impact by another act in order to avoid any disputes. Furthermore,
after the death of the Grand Duke Cyril in 1938 a list of the
succession (see note 25) was
established. While Prince Roman took his place in the succession
list, his two sons, Nicholas and Roman, were not listed. A further
indication is that in 1951 Vladimir Cyrilovitch conferred on the
wife and children of Prince Roman the style and title of Serene
Highness Prince/Princess Romanowsky (see
note 26) in accordance with the Ukase of July 28th
, 1938. This act demonstrates that the Head of the
House did regard the marriage of Prince Roman as morganatic.
However
the dispute what the impact
of the Ukase of 1911 may be does not be decided here, because the
marriage of Prince Roman and Countess Prascovia lacked the
authorization of the Emperor/Head of the Imperial House.Without
a shadow of doubt all marriages of members of the Imperial Family
- whether the Ukase of 1911 applied or not - needed the consent
of the Emperor as Head of the Family (Article 183). Both, the
marriage of the Princess Tatiana and of the Princess Irene,
received the authorization of Nicholas II. This, even Prince
Nicolas does not deny. His parents were aware of that because
they thought the authorization of the Empress Mother, Maria
Feodorovna, the widow of Alexander III and mother of Nicholas II,
who had survived the Revolution. The Empress Mother approved of
the marriage, however that had no legal consequences. Maria
Feodorovna commanded great respect within the migrs community
and had great moral authority. But as Empress Consort and Empress
Mother she was never head of the Family and therefore not in
command of the legal powers of the Head of the Imperial Family.
Prince Nicholas recognizes that by stating that the consent of
the Empress Mother was of no legal consequences (see note 27). In 1921 the
situation was difficult because Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovitch
had not yet claimed the Headship. In 1922 he did and in 1924 he
declared himself Emperor. But it needs to be noted that the
Headship passed by virtue of the rules of succession with the
death of the previous Emperor/Head of the Family automatically to
the next Heir (Articles 53). Latest with the execution of
Nicholas II and his brother Michael in 1918, Cyril was the Head
of the Family. Prince Roman could and should have asked for his
permission in 1921. Latest in 1922/1924 should have sought
Cyril’s consent. But he did no such thing. Here the conflict
within the Romanov Family over the succession after Nicholas II
comes into play. At this time the Grand Duke Nicolas
Nikolaievitch, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army
and widely respected figure in the migr circles had
aspiration to the Headship. He never declared himself officially,
but a lot of Russians were quite favorable. This of course meant
to set a side the rights of Grand Duke Cyril. Prince Roman was
the nephew of Grand Duke Nicholas and his heir because the Grand
Duke did not have legitimate children. If he had asked Grand Duke
Cyril for his authorization in 1921 or later he would have
recognized him as the Head of the Family. That he wanted to
avoid. The fact is that because of these political aspirations of
this branch of the Romanov Family the legal requirements for a
dynastic marriage were not fulfilled and the therefore the
marriage of Prince Roman and Countess Prascovia a morganatic one.
The descendants of this marriage very not dynasts and do not have
rights to the succession. Nicholas Romanov recognizes Cyril
Vladimirovitch and Vladimir Cyrilovitch as the Heads of the
Family. The succession list of 1938 and the conference of the
title Prince Romanovsky in 1951 clearly shows that the Head of
the Family did not recognize the marriage as dynastic valid.
Because the Head of the Family commands autocratic power over the
Imperial Family this decision is binding and can not be disputed.
Otherwise the line of succession becomes unclear. In order to avoid
any such thing Paul I had enacted the Pauline Laws. The present
dispute, initiated by Prince Nicholas, is in clear violation to the
intent of the Pauline Laws.
In conclusion,
Nicholas Romanov is not entitled to claim the Headship of the
Imperial House. He is not entitled to the style and titles of
H.H. Prince of Russia, but merely to the style and title of
H.S.H. Prince Romanovsky.
Having
determined the position of Nicholas Romanov does
not automatically mean that the claims of the other pretender to
the Headship of the Imperial Family are valid. Therefore we need
to look closely at the claims Maria Vladimirovna makes.
Maria
was born in 1953 as the only
child of Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovitch, the Head of the
Imperial House since 1938, and his wife Princess Leonida
Gregorievna Bagration-Mukhransky. In 1970 her father declared her
Guardian of the Throne (see note 28)
and therefore indicating that she will be Head of the House after
the last male dynasts dies. When in 1989
the next and last male heir, Prince Vassily of Russia, died,
Maria became according to Grand Duke Vladimir the Heiress to the
Throne, because all other male Romanovs in the wider sense were
not dynasts due to morganatic marriages. Maria was married from
1976 to 1982 to Prince Francis William of Prussia, who converted
to the Orthodox Faith and was received the style and title of
H.I.H. Grand Duke Michael Pavlovitsch (see
note 29). After the divorce he reverted back to his Prussian
title, but remain orthodox. Their only child is George
Michailovitch, born in 1981. After the death of her father in 1992,
Maria laid claim to the headship of the Imperial House.
On
four levels the rights of Maria and her son
and heir are called into question. The rights of her grandfather
Cyril Vladimirovitch and of her father Vladimir Cyrilovitch to
the Headship of the Imperial House are denied. If they were
already not entitled to be Head of the House, then Maria and her
son - though the argument goes - can not be entitled to the
Headship. There are arguments against Maria herself. Here lies
the heart of the controversy. Furthermore there are arguments
against her son George. One has to look at all these levels in
order to determine the position of Maria and her son.
The
case against Grand Duke Cyril is based on
legal and political-moral arguments.
The
main argument against him is that his mother
Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna (1854 - 1920) was not a member of
the Orthodox Church at the time of his birth (see note 30). This seems to violate Article 185 of the
Pauline Laws. This provision demands that male dynast in the line
of succession can only marry if their non-orthodox future consorts
adhere to the orthodox faith before marriage. There is no dispute
that Maria Pavlovna, born a Duchess of Mecklenburg-Schwerin,
became orthodox only in 1908 (see note
31). On that occasion Nicholas II conferred on her the title of
"Orthodox Grand Duchess" (see note 32).
On a first glance that there seems to be a case against the Grand Duke.
But
a closer examination does not sustain this.
Article 185 is not understood that all male dynasts are obliged
to marry only orthodox princesses. The provision was interpreted
that only the heirs to the throne and the next male or the next
two males in the line of succession have to comply with the
requirement of Article 185 (see note
33). When Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovitch married Maria
Pavlovna in 1874 and when his oldest son Cyril was born in 1876
he was not one of those direct heirs to the throne. In 1874 his
brother, the future Alexander III, and his sons, the future
Nicolas II and his brother Grand Duke George were next in line.
Therefore article 185 did not apply. That this was indeed the
understanding of Article 185 prove several grand ducal marriages
(see note 34). In 1884 Grand Duke Sergei
Alexandrovitch (1857-1905), a younger brother to Alexander III and
Grand Duke Vladimir, married Princess Elisabeth of Hesse and by
Rhine, the elder sister of the last Empress. She converted only
in 1891. Later after her husband assassination in 1905 she founded
an Orthodox order and was even canonized (see note 35). In the same year the Grand Duke Constantine
Constantinovitch married Princess Elisabeth of Saxe-Altenburg. She
never converted, but neither her position as a Grand Duchess or the
position of her children as Princes/Princess of Russia in the line
of succession were ever called into question (see note 36). Further, it should be noted that Alexander
II authorized the marriage of his son without demanding a
conversion and granted Maria the styles and titles of H.I.H Grand
Duchess of Russia (see note 37). The
children born out of this marriage were never denied their dynastic
rights during the reigns of Alexander II, Alexander III or Nicholas II.
Further
it is argued that Grand Duke Cyril married in 1905
Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha without the consent of
the Emperor and without her converting to the Orthodox faith (see
note 38). This
marriage is supposed to violate as well the rules of the
Orthodox Church on marriages of consanguinity. It is true
that the marriage took place in 1905 without the
Emperor's authorization. Cyril was stripped of his
styles, titles and income and banned from Russia. This
clearly shows that the Emperor has supreme power whether
to grant his permission or not. Victoria Melita fulfilled
the requirements of corresponding rank. She belonged to a
sovereign house, was the daughter of the sovereign Duke
of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and indeed a grand daughter of Queen
Victoria on her father's side and of Czar Alexander II of
her mother's side. However, the real motives behind the
Emperor's refusal were neither Article 185 nor religious
doubts. Victoria Melita was the former wife of Grand Duke
Ernst of Hesse and by Rhine, the very brother of the
Empress. In a quite unprecedented and scandalous step
Victoria Melita divorced the Grand Duke of Hesse, a
slight to her family the Empress was not willing to
forget or forgive (see note 39).
In 1909, Nicholas II however reversed his decision and reinstated
Cyril in his previous position. Victoria Melita became the Grand
Duchess Victoria Fedeorovna (see note 40).
In 1907 she had already converted to the Orthodox faith (see note 41). Article 185 did not applied because
Grand Duke Cyril was in 1905 not one of the direct heirs.
In the line of succession were the Tsarevitch Alexei, the
Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch (Michael II), the
younger brother of Nicholas II, and Grand Duke Vladimir
Alexandrovitch. With regards to the religious
implications I would like to quote in full Horan's (see
note 42) statement which argues convincingly:
"… the Russian church rarely
enforced the traditional canonical
rules against marriage within certain degrees of
consanguinity. It is important to note that not only
first cousin marriages technically violated the
consanguinity rules, but also marriages between first
cousins once removed and even between second cousins:
there was no such thing as different "degrees of
validity", so all such unions would equally
transgress the strict letter of Orthodox rules.
Nonetheless, there were innumerable valid marriages in
the history of the Russian monarchy that technically
violated the consanguinity rules of the Orthodox church,
including the unions of Tsar Ivan III in 1472 to Zoe
Paleologa; of Emperor Peter III to Empress Catherine II
(second cousins); and, after promulgation in 1797 of the
Pauline laws, of Emperor Nicholas I in 1817 to Princess
Charlotte of Prussia (second cousins); of Grand Duke
Michael Pavlovich in 1824 to Princess Charlotte of
Wurttemberg (first cousins once removed); of Grand Duke
Constantine Nikolayevich in 1848 to Princess Alexandra of
Saxe-Altenburg (second cousins); of Grand Duchess Helen
Wladimirovna in 1882 to Prince Nicholas of Greece (second
cousins); of Grand Duke Serge Alexandrovich (assassinated
1905) in 1884 to Princess Elizabeth of Hesse and the
Rhine (murdered 1918) (first cousins once removed); of
Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich in 1889 to Princess
Alexandra of Greece (first cousins once removed); of
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich in 1894 to Grand
Duchess Xenia (first cousins once removed); of Grand Duke
George Mikhailovich in 1900 to Princess Marie of Greece
(first cousins once removed); and even of Emperor
Nicholas II in 1894 to Empress Alexandra (second cousins)
….The present writer is unaware of opposition of any
kind on the part of the Holy Synod to imperial approval
of the marriage. Records establish that the Empress
Alexandra nursed a lingering resentment against her first
cousin and ex-sister-in-law, Princess Victoria Melita,
for having divorced Alexandra's German brother, but even
Father Yanysheff, the Confessor of the Empress, expressed
the view that the degree of kinship between the betrothed
posed no significant obstacle to an eventual marriage.
The marriage ultimately was performed in an Orthodox
chapel by a Russian Orthodox priest. … a corollary
of the Orthodox church's view of marriage as a sacrament
is the notion that once an Orthodox marriage has been
performed and the sacrament dispensed, the sacrament is
deemed to be dispensed for all time. In other words, the
marriage is valid and cannot be canonically attacked
after the fact."
Therefore,
the arguments
surrounding the marriage of Cyril Vladimirovitch and
Victoria Feodorovna fall short. Their daughters, born
during the reign of Nicholas II were included in the
Genealogical Book of the Imperial Family as Princess of
Russia (see note 43). Inspite of the clash of wills in 1905, Cyril's own
the Emperor never called position in the succession into
question. If this argument would be taken serious, it
would lead to the conclusion that none of the Romanows
descending from Nicholas I would have had a right to
succeed because his marriage to the Princess Charlotte of
Prussia would be in contradiction to the rules of the
Orthodox Church. That of course borders on the notion of
ridicule. But this is an interesting case of the politics
and partly defamatory method used in the whole
discussion.
Criticism
has been
often leveled upon the Grand Duke Cyril that he broke his
the oath of allegiance to the Emperor Nicholas II in 1917 (see
note 44) and his assumption of the
Imperial title in 1924 which was against the express wishes of the
Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna (see note
45) and as Petrov/Lysenko and Egorov (see
note 46)claim "without taking into account the opinions of
the empire's defenders". In their view no automatic
succession was appropriate.
The
first criticism refers to the
incident of March 1st,
1917 when the Grand Duke while commanding the Marine of
the Guard, the elite troop guarding Tsarskoe Selo, then
the residence of the Empress and her children, took his
remaining troops to the Duma and declared its allegiance
to the Duma (see note 47). The different
interpretation of this act and
the rationale behind it are open to dispute. I believe it
is worth to notice that at the very day the Grand Duke
Nicholas Nikolaievitch, the former commander-in-chief,
and so highly valued by Petrov/Lysenko and Egorov asked
the Emperor to abdicate (see note 48).
Nicholas II regarded that as a betrayal (see
note 49). Less then 24 hours later Nicholas II abdicated.
The Romanov rule came to an end after a bit more then 304
years. So this is all about 24 hours and the act had no
consequences whatsoever. In my view neither the act of
Cyril nor the act of Grand Duke Nicholas need to be
judged in this way. Both responded to a desperate and
utterly new and unique situation. The Emperor has lost
long control over the events. They did what they thought
fit to save the dynasty. The claim that no automatic
succession was appropriate in 1922/1924 contradicts the
intent of the rules of
succession. The law itself as Paul I put it should
determine the succession. It might have been political
more appropriate or wiser to proceed differently, but
that is of no legal importance. The Russian migr's
organizations hold different view. If the rules of
succession still applied and none of the Romanovs thought
differently, there is no room for "taking into
account the opinions of the empire's defenders",
whoever these might have been.
It
is indeed true that the Dowager
Empress did not support the declaration of the Grand
Duke (see note 50). She believed until
her death that Nicholas II and his family were still alive and kept
in Russia (see note 51). The
Dowager Empress commanded great moral authority but the
rules of succession do not depend on this. Whatever the
Dowager Empress felt about the acts by the Grand Duke the
succession was not effected by that. The law itself
determines the succession, not the will or the wishes of
any member of the Imperial Family may his/her position as
exhaled as the one of the Dowager Empress. This is of no
legal consequences.
All in all
there are no legal reasons to deny Grand Duke Cyril
Vladimirovitch the Headship of the Imperial House. Whatever view one
takes on certain political acts of the Grand Duke, regards them as wise
or unwise, this judgement does not effect the succession. Prince Nicholas
recognized that too (see note 52).
One
argument against Vladimir is that he was
not born in 1917 as the son of Orthodox parents. But as seen
above both his parents were in 1917 orthodox. His mother had
converted in 1907. In the end, even those who oppose the claims
of Maria Vladimirovna recognize Vladimir as the Head of the
Family. As Broek (see note 53) puts
it " … genealogically speaking
with the death of the Grand Duke Kirill his son Prince Vladimir
Kirillovich was the senior male and as such head of the
family".
Controversial
is however to which title he could lay claim
to. According to the Family Statute of Alexander III at birth his
style and title was H.H. Prince of Russia as a great grand child
of Alexander II. When his father proclaimed himself Emperor in
1924 he conferred on Vladimir the title and style of H.I.H. Grand
Duke - Tsarevitch and on his two daughters Maria (1906-1951)
(see note 54) and Kira (1909-1967)
(see note 55) the style and titles
H.I.H. Grand Duchess. Some argue that Cyril was not entitled to
confer these titles (see note 56). Raising
them from prince/princess of Russia to the rank of grand duke /grand
duchess Cyril violated the Family Statute of Alexander III. On
the other hand, Van der Kiste (see note
57) argues that Cyril as the self -
proclaimed Czar could regard that Statute as null and void. It
seems to me that Cyril neither regarded the Ukase of Alexander
III as null and void nor did he violate the provisions. Rather
he kept within the logic and rational of the very Ukase. When
assuming the Imperial Powers and Positions as Emperor and Head of
the Family his children became in the sense of the Ukase children of
the Emperor and were therefore entitled to the grand ducal style and
title. It seems to me totally in the logic and
rational of the Ukase that in the case of the succession of a
Grand Duke – whether he styles himself Emperor or just Head
of the Family - his children are by the very Ukase Grand Dukes or
Grand Duchesses.
Therefore,
Vladimir Cyrillovitch was indeed entitled to
style himself H.I.H. Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovitch of Russia.
Maria
Vladimirovna can only claim the Headship of
the House if there was no male dynasts living and she herself is
dynast. As seen above, after the death of Prince Vassily no male
dynasts remained. Therefore, the key question is whether her
father has contracted a dynastic valid marriage that preserved
her rights to the succession. This question lies at core of the
family feud.
In
1948 Vladimir married Princess Leonida Geogrievna
Bagration-Mukhransky, daughter of the Prince George Bagration-Mukhransky
(1884-1957). The Princess Leonida, born 1914, was previously married to
the American Millionaire Summer Kirby. The marriage ended in divorce. It is
claimed that this marriage is not in accordance with Article 1888 because
the Princess Leonida is not of equal standing. Therefore the marriage is
morganatic and Maria not entitled to the Headship of the Imperial House.
Broek (see note 58) argues as follows:
“However, this claim (of equal rank) is
obviously incorrect and inconsistent. This is proven by the
marriage of Princess Tatiana Constantinovna of Russia to Prince
Constantine Bagration-Mukhransky a cousin of Princess Leonida in
1911. If in 1911 the Bagration-Mukhransky family was not
considered of equal rank why should have been such in 1948? Their
claim to headship of the Royal House of Georgia which had anyway
passed to the Emperor of Russia is based on the possible but not
certain extinction of the House of Grouzinsky in 1931. Furthermore,
the House of Grouszinsky itself was not recognized in Imperial
Russia as being of equal rank to the Imperial Family. Therefore,
Prince Vladimir Kirillovich's claim for his wife's equal rank is
incorrect and rather more wishful thinking than fact. Indeed, if
the Bagration-Mukhansky's claim to equal rank as descendants of
the early Kings of Georgia is given credence this would also
pertain to various wives of the later Princes of Russia such as
the Galitzines who themselves are of royal descent. It must be
obvious from the above that this is not the case.”
The
House Bagration-Mukhransky is a younger branch of the
Royal House of Georgia. Sargis (see note 59)
has described in his Essay on “The Romanovs and the Bagration”
the history of the Royal House of Georgia in great detail. The Treaty of
Georgievsk (see note 60) on July 24,1783
between Catherine the Great and the King Irakli II of Georgia is a treaty
between two sovereign monarchs, even with very different power. But it is
not a treaty between the Russian Empress and one of her subjects. In this
sense the treaty is prove of the EbenbĆrtigkeit (equal rank) of the
two monarchs. In 1797, when Paul I enacted his Laws on the succession and
introduced the notion of corresponding rank, the Treaty of Georgiesvk was
still in force. If in 1783 the Kings of Georgia were of equal standing in
a dynastic sense, why should they not be of equal standing in 1797?
Especially if one takes into account that at that times Georgia was the
only other Orthodox monarchy. However, in 1800 the independent Kingdom of
Georgia disappeared by the annexation of Paul I in violation of the Treaty
of Georgiesvk. The descendants of the last Georgian king, George XII,
received the style and title of H.S.H. Prince/Princess Grouzinsky (means
of Georgia) (see note 61). The last Prince
Grouzinsky died in 1931. The younger Branch received the style and title
of H.S.H. Prince/Princess Bagration-Mukhransky. The Bragtaions were listed
in the V. Part of the Book of the Noble Families of the Russian Empire.
The Marquis de Rubigny (see note 62) lists
the Bagration in the Part about the mediatisied princely and noble Houses.
After the death of the last Prince Grouzinsky the Princes
Bagration-Mukhransky became the older Branch and there represents the
Royal House of Georgia (see note 63).
As
already seen, the marriage of Princess Tatiana of
Russia to a Prince Bagration in 1911 serves hardly as a convincing prove
that the Emperor regarded the marriage of not of equal standing (see
note 64). The diaries of the Princess’
father (see note 65) do speak a different
language. And the renunciation of her rights in the succession seems to
indicate that she was marrying into a foreign dynasty. Of great interest
however is the marriage of the Infanta Maria de Las Mercedes of Spain
(1911-1953) to Prince Irakli Bragration-Mukhransky in 1946 (see note 66). Before the marriage could take place
Infant Don Ferdinand, the Infanta’s father asked Grand Duke Vladimir
whether the groom was of corresponding rank to that of his daughter. The
Family Laws of the Spanish Bourbons allowed only marriages of equal
standing; otherwise the Infant would have been required to relinquish her
rights to the succession. After careful investigation and consultation,
especially with Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovitch, the Grand Duke stated in
a letter to the Infant that the Bagration were of equal rank and the groom
entitled to the style of His Royal Highness. The letter reads as follows
(see note 67):
Act of the Head of the Imperial House, 5th
December 1946:
His Royal Highness the
Infante don Ferdinand…, when his daughter the Infanta Maria
Mercedes was about to contract a marriage with Prince Irakly
Bagration of Moukhrani, asked me whether…I could consider
the proposed marriage to be an equal one. My reply, which was
conveyed to the Infante through the intermediary of the Spanish
minister in Berne, the Conde de Bailen, was in the affirmative,
in as much as, after prolonged and diligent study of the history
of Georgia and the Georgian question, and after consulting my
uncle, His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Andrew, brother of my
late Father,…I consider it right and proper to recognise the
royal status of the senior branch of the Bagration family, as
well as the right of the members to bear the title of Prince of
Georgia and the style of Royal Highness. The present head of the
family is Prince George. If Almighty God, in His Mercy, allows
the rebirth of our great empire, I consider it right that the
Georgian language should be restored for use in the internal
administration of Georgia and in her educational establishments.
The Russian language should be obligatory for general relations
within the Empire. (Signed) Wladimir.'
The Infanta was not asked to renounce
her rights in the succession. Brook’s statement that if the
Bagration are of corresponding rank then families as the Princes
Galitzine are as well because they are of royal descent misjudges
the notion of equal rank. Equal rank derives from the notion of
being member of a royal or sovereign house. It does not derive
from “having same royal blood in one’s veins”.
Royal House are Sovereign Houses, but not every Sovereign Houses
are royal as the Princes of Monaco or Liechtenstein prove. The
Galitzine might have royal blood in their veins, but they were
never a sovereign house. Once the status of sovereignty was
acquired it could not be lost. The former sovereign houses of the
Holy Roman Empire that lost their sovereignty and were
mediatisied were still regarded as of equal standing. When the
rulers of Hannover, France, Naples, Tuscany, Parma, Brazil,
Portugal or the Balkan monarchies were ousted, their dynasties
did not loose the standing of being of equal rank. Eilers (see note 68) rights
compares the statute of the former Georgian Royal Family with
those former sovereign families mediatised after the collapse of
the Holy Roman Empire or during the reunification of Germany and
Italy. Broek is wrong to state that by the annexation of Georgia
in 1800 the Headship of the Royal House of Georgia passed to the
Russian Emperor. In all cases, were a dynasty was expelled from
their territories and their states incorporated into another
state, the dynasty just lost their territory, but neither their
status as a sovereign family nor the their dynastic independence.
In
should be further taken into consideration
that Vladimir Cyrillovitch married the Princess when he was
already Head of the Imperial Family. As stated above, the rules
did not provide directly for marriages of the Head of the Family.
However, it could be expected and would lie within the logic and
rational of these provisions that the Head of the Family complies
with the rules. But as already pointed out, it is the Head of the
Family who determines whether the rules are observed or not. That
lies in the very nature of the autocratic powers the Emperor/Head
of the Family holds. That ensured furthermore a secure
succession. It is not to the members of the Family to question
the Head’s decision. As seen, Nicholas II withhold his
consent to the marriage of Cyril and Victoria Melita for the only
reason that Victoria Melita had offended the Empress by divorcing
the Empress’s brother. As hard as this may seen, but this
lies in the nature of the supreme and
autocratic power the Head of the Family commands over the
Imperial Clan. Therefore, if Vladimir Cyrillovitch was satisfied
that his marriage would fulfill the requirement of corresponding
rank, this decision had to be accepted. As the previous
paragraphs have shown this decision was not just based as Broek
puts in “wishful thinking”, but on careful
investigation and consultation. If an argument arises over the
rank of a spouse, it is the Head of the Family who settles the
matter, not the Romanov Family as whole or individual members of
the Family.
This
leads to the conclusion that the marriage of
Grand Duke Vladimir and Princess Leonida was valid and therefore
their only daughter dynast. Because no male dynasts are still
alive in 1992, the Headship of the Imperial Family passed to the
next female in the line of succession in accordance with the
principle of primogeniture. The next female in the line of
succession is Maria Vladimirovana. As the daughter and
granddaughter of the Czar/Head of the Family and as Head of the
Family she is furthermore to be styled and titled H.I.H. Grand
Duchess of Russia (see note 69).
But
lets view the rights of Maria Vladimirovana
from the side represented by Prince Nicholas. According to this
views Vladimir Cyrillovitch was only entitled to the style and
title of H.H. Prince of Russia. The marriage between Vladimir and
Leonida would therefore fall under the provisions of the Ukase of
1911 and would dynastic valid according to Nicholas’s own
understand of the Ukase. No renunciation of rights took place.
Therefore Maria would be as a great great grand daughter of an
Emperor entitled to the style and title of H.S.H. Princess of
Russia and would hold a perfect dynastic position. That however,
does not make Nicholas Head of the Family because still the Head
of the Family did not endorse his parent’s marriage and
therefore the descendents of that very marriage are not in the
line of succession. All these arguments about the equal rank of a
Princess Bagration do not help to compensate for this flaw in his
argument. However, it helps to distract and shifts the focus of
attention to the question of corresponding rank. But according to
his very own arguments Nicholas must recognize Maria Vladimirovna
as Head of the Family, even though just with the style and title
of a Princess of Russia.
Conclusion:
All this proves that Maria Vladimirovna is the only
legitimate Head of the Imperial Russian Family. Even if her adversaries
- if they take their own arguments seriously - must recognize her as
the Head of the Romanov Dynasty as does the Russian Assembly of Nobility
(see note 70).
George
Michailovitch is the only son of Maria Vladimirovna
and Prince Francis William of Prussia, who was created H.I.H. Grand Duke
Michael Pavlovitch. After the divorce from the Grand Duke in 1982 Francis
William reverted to his Prussian titles (see note
71). After his mother became Head of the Imperial Family, he became
Heir of the Throne.
It
is claimed that George is not a Romanov dynast but a
dynast of the Prussian Royal House. Massie (see
note 72) cites Prince Francis William with the following as follows:
“ Ich habe einen deutschen Pass hier …. Dort steht, daß er
Prinz Georg von Preußen ist.” (I have a German passport
here… There is said that he is Prince George of Prussia).
This
is however a very highly emotional argument,
because it states that the heir is not Russian, but a German
prince of the Hohenzollern dynasty. But it is an argument of no
substance. If Maria Vladimirovna is the lawful head of the
Imperial Family she is bound by the family statute to marry a
prince of a royal or sovereign house, that is to say another
member of another dynasty. Otherwise she would have forfeited the
rights to the succession for her descendants. Therefore, it is
within the logic and rational of the Romanov Family rules which
provides for female succession that this might lead to a change
of the family name and dynasty. It should be noted here that the
last real Romanov was Elisabeht I who died in 1761. Peter III was
a son of a Romanov Grand Duchess but he was rather a German Duke
of Holstein-Gottrop. This proves that this does not lead to a
change of the name of the dynasty. History provides for precedents. Most
recently with the accession of Elisabeth II (see
note 73) in the United Kingdom the House of Windsor remained and was
not replaced by the House Mountbatten. In the Netherlands the Queens
Wilhelmina (see note 74), Juliana (see
note 75) and Beatrix (see note 76) married German nobles, who were created Princes
of the Netherlands. But the dynasty remained the House of Orange. In
Monaco the House Grimaldi still reins, if though the heiress, Princess
Charlotte, mother of the present sovereign Prince Rainer IIII, married a
Comte Pierre de Polignac (see note 77). It
seems to me that in modern times the marriage of an
heiress does not lead to a change of the dynasty. But even if
this would be the case, it would not undermine the rights of
George Michailovitch. The “mystery” of the German
passport is easily solved. First, Prince Francis William is a
German citizen and therefore his son entitled to a German
passport. The passport can hardly state that he is Prince George
of Prussia because Germany is since 1918 a Republic, not
recognizing titles. The former titles were transformed into names
and the former title Prince of Prussia is now just a mere family
name. The correct form therefore has to read George Prinz von
Preussen. A passport issued by the Federal Republic of Germany
does not deal at all with questions of rank and titles or to
which dynasty a person belongs. These are purely private matters.
Therefore,
these arguments have no legal substance. But
it draws the attention to the politics surrounding the succession
question. To state that the Heir is not Russian is however of
political and emotional appeal. In my view this defamatory note
is highly deplorable and it is even more deplorable that the very
own father lends support to such claims. I can help the
impression that this is directed rather against the Grand Duchess
then Grand Duke George because of the break down of the marriage.
But whatever grievances the Prince has against his former wife,
he should not make his son his tool for revenge.
As
the son of the Head of the family, George
Michailovitch is to be styled and titled H.I.H. Grand Duke of
Russia.
While
writing this article I found myself more and
more frustrated. The arguments set forth are basically not new,
may highlight certain aspects previously not paid much attention
to and expose parts of the politics. However, I do not have not
much hope that one of the pretenders will relinquish its claim.
Therefore not much progress can be expected and the family feud
is likely to continue.
This
can be neither in the interest of the parties
involved, the Romanov Family as a whole and the monarchical idea
as such or for Russia. The Russian people in their present state
when they have to master the transition from communist rule to a
modern society the majority can care less about this feud and why
should they? It is in our egalitarian times hardly acceptable and
even hardly understandable that a marriage to a person is
unacceptable because that person lacks “equal
standing”. The world has changed since 1797 and even the
monarchies have changed. Sweden and Norway have Queens born a
commoner. The British monarchy welcomes commoners in their ranks.
The former rules on dynastic marriages are hopelessly outdated
and most Royal Houses have changed. The Romanovs need a young and
modern view on things and face to go with that. If the idea of
constitutional monarchy should gain any hold in Russia, the
Romanov family needs to be united behind one and only one Head of
the Family. There should be lessons learned from the Pre –
Revolution times when the Roman Family unity broke down. The
Romanov legacy is one of obligations, not of rights. In our times
monarchical rule is not anymore indispensable. If
the monarchs and their families forget that they will have to
serve their nations and will be out of touch with reality they
will forfeit sooner or later the right to rule. Dynastic family
feuds may be attractive to tabloids, but they are not attractive
on a political level. The role of constitutional monarchs is one
of unity, keeping and bringing a nation together beyond the day
to day arguments of the elected politicians and the party line
distinctions. But how can one unit a nation if even one’s
own family is not united? Russia, with all its problems and the
deeply divided party lines may need an institution which will
represent the nation and its history as such and is not just
representative of one of the political parties. Here the Romanovs
can play an active part. There is a historical obligation, a name
and a tradition in the service of Russia.
The
Romanovs need to be represented by a young and
modern face that can lead the Family and maybe one-day the nation
into the future. Prince Nicholas is in his late Seventies, the
Grand Duchess Maria in her late Forties, both somehow too much
connected with the Family feud over the Headship. Both parties
have to compromise, compromise for the sake of their historical
mission and in recognition of their historical obligations and
for the sake of a greater goal then personal ambitions and pride.
I recall here the example of the Count of Barcelona, who gave up
his rights to throne and later the headship of the Spanish
Bourbon Family for his son in order to enable the Family to
return to the Spanish throne. This is not an easy task and asks
for forgiveness and understanding, because they still need to
work together. Let by-gones be by-gones and look forward not
backwards. Do not fight the family wars of the past all over
again, but join forces to tackle the challenges of the past, be
of help for the Russian people, show yourself capable of meeting
the demands of your historical obligations. The Romanovs need a
convincing political program for the future. The corner stone of
the Romanov Agenda 2000 that must be a Family Pact. This family pact should solve the question of
the Headship, should set forth the modern rules governing
marriages and regulate the membership of the family and the
titles and styles. The key elements of the Romanov Family Pact
should be:
Elements
of the Romanov Family Pact Both present pretenders should renounce their rights
in his favor. He is a young man, brought up in the Romanov
tradition, but not compromised by the family feud. He is
already known in Russia and can receive his further education
in Russia, can be the first Romanov who can take up residence
permanently in Russia. He belongs to a new generation and can
represent the family in these demanding and challenging times
for Russia. In
recognition of their renunciations and as sign of
the mutual reconciliation and trust both Maria
Vladimirovna and Nicholas Romanovitch will be ad
persona H.I.H. Grand Duchess / Grand Duke of
Russia. Nicholas’s consort will be known as
H.H. Princess of Russia. Princess Leonida should
out of respect for the former head of the Family,
her work for the Romanow Family and as the
grandmother of the Head of the Family retains her
style and title of H.I.H. Grand Duchess of
Russia.
While
examining the
various legal and political positions taken in the dispute over
the succession question, I felt more and more that it is time to
move on from the these legalistic battles to a reconciliation
within the whole Romanov Family. This has become indeed the main
point of my article. All legal arguments should be put aside and
in a true family spirit jointly solutions should be explored. I
hope that these branches of the family will start to speak with
each. I have developed some ideas, which might show a way to a
compromise might build a golden bridge, serve as first base for a
discussion. Maybe a neutral mediator can be found who serves as a
catalyst for reconciliation. This dispute is neither dignified
nor helpful. The great name and historic responsibilities of the
Romanovs deserve better then the present sad state of affairs.
Notes 3 Imperial Russian Journal 1995 (Vol.2
No. 4 page 151)
4 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
21.2.1997
5 Robert K. Massie,Die Romanovs -
Das letzte Kapitel ; John Klier, The Quest for Anastasia (1995)
7 Royalty Magazine, 1998, page 37
8 on the abdication: Ferro,Nicholas
II, pages 199-202;Radzinsky,The Last Tsar, pages 186-190
9 Grande Duke Cyril , My Life in
Russia's Service- Then and Now, pages 245 - 248
10 Horan, The Russian Imperial
Succession, page 6
12 Brian P. Horan, The Russian Imperial
Succession, footnote 20
13 Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, page 14
14 Ferro, Nicholas II, pages 27-32
15 Kyle MacDonnald, Who is the Heir?
21 Eilers, Queen Victoria's Descendants,
page 81
22 Horan, supra
23 Radzinsky, The Last Tsar;
Horan, supra
24 Horan, supra, page 10; Sargis,
The Romanoffs & The Bagrations, 1996
25 de Cugnac/de Saisseva, Le Petit
Gotha, page 647
27 Interview of Prince Nicholas
in Point de Vue-Image du Monde, 1994
29 de Cugnac/de Saisseval, Le
Petit Gotha, page 652
31 Alexander von Russland, Einst
war ich ein Grossfuerst, page 141
32 Manifesto of Nicholas II of
10. April 1908
33 de Cugnac/de Saisseva, Le
Petit Gotha, page 646
34 Eilers, Queen Victoria's
Descendants, page 80
36 de Cognac/ de Saisseva, supra,
page 669; Broek, A Genealogy of the Romanov Dynasty
39 Mager, Elisabeth Grand Duchess of
Russia, pages 183/184
41 de Cugnac/de Saisseva, Le Petit
Gotha page 665; van der Kiste, supra, page 96
42 Horan, The Russian Imperial
Succession, footnote 17
45 Broek supra; Massie, Die Romanovs
– Das letzte Kapitel, pages 321-323
46 Petrov/Lysenko/Egorov, The Escape of
Alexei, page 132
47 Petrov/Lysenko/Egorov, supra, page
22; Radzinsky, The Last Tsar
48 Telegram of Grand Duke Nicholas to
the Emperor, published in Petrov/Lysenko/Egorov, supra, page 23
49 Horan, The Russian Imperial
Succession, footnote 33
52 Letter of Prince Nicholas to Point
de Vue-Image du Monde, 12.5.1992
53 Broek, The Succession Question,
page 1
54 later married to the Prince
(Fürst) Charles of Leiningen
56 Broek, supra and in A Genealogy of
the Romanov Dynasty
57 van der Kiste, Princess Victoria
Melita, page 153
58 Broek, The Russian Imperial
Succession, page 2; see as well Kyle MacDonnald, Who is the Heir?
59 Sargis, The Romanoffs & The
Bagrations, 1996
60 Martin, The Treaty of Georgievsk,
1783
61 Burke's Royal Families of the
World, Vol II (1980), Georgia, page 56
62 The Titled Nobility of Europe
(1914), page 288
64 see page 10
66 de Cugnac/ de Saisseval Le Petit
Gotha, page 338
68 Eilers, Queen Victoria's Descendants,
pages 82/83
71 see page 12
72 Massie, Die Romanovs — Das
letzte Kapitel, page 325
74 married Duke Henry of
Mecklenburg-Schwerin
75 married Prince Bernhard of
Lippe-Biesterfeld
76 married Freiherr Claus von Amsberg
77 he was created a Prince of Monaco
(see note 11)
This page is hosted on Dimitry Macedonsky's site Russian Succession since April 5, 1999