Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[Ish]

I'm pretty sure the French are doing it too.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

First of all, Rostislav is not even the head of the Romanov Family Association, so I don't see how he is the head of the house. And I'm pretty sure the only people that support the RFA's line is the RFA and a small band of supporters. Maria has the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, most likely the Russian government and other royal families.


Other royal families fighting over succession include the Georgians, French, as aforementioned, Italians, Spanish(Carlists, more one-sided), Bourbon-Sicilians, and Brazilians.

 

[AristoCat]

I've always wondered why so many people want the headship of the House of Romanov; I'm surprised really at how much infighting these dethroned families are engaged in. It's unreal.

 

[Furienna]

Well, there would be a lot of prestige to gain from becoming an emperor or empress. Even within a constitutional monarchy. So I don't blame them.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I'd take anyone but Maria. As long as she's still around I say no to restoration.

 

[Furienna]

I'd take anyone but Maria. As long as she's still around I say no to restoration.

This might be a stupid question, but what is so bad about Maria?

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Honestly I'd say forget about Grand Duchess Maria right now because she isn't really the biggest obstacle when it comes to the possibility of restoration, right now the two biggest obstacles are Vladimir Putin and the Russians that still adhere to the old Soviet/Republican ideology who are decreasing in numbers now but still.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[lucien]

This might be a stupid question, but what is so bad about Maria?

Oh,oh no,not a stupid question at all...Oh well,neither one of us here at the forum has time of life enough to explain that...

And,NO restoration with the lady from Madrid NOR her son.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Oh,oh no,not a stupid question at all...Oh well,neither one of us here at the forum has time of life enough to explain that...

And,NO restoration with the lady from Madrid NOR her son.

Is there any alternative for Maria Vladimirovna?

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Other Alternatives to the Russian Throne Besides Maria Vladimirovna

What about Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen or Prince Andrew Andreyevich Romanov? I understand they're aren't exactly popular but they are part of the line of succession to the former Russian Throne.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. I'm not saying I'm a supporter of those two, I'm a supporter of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna despite what impression my previous comment may have given, but I am addressing those two because of what Duc_et_Pair said.

 

[Al_bina]

I doubt that Russians would like to have a foreigner as a Tsar. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her son are disliked by large public.

Honestly I'd say forget about Grand Duchess Maria right now because she isn't really the biggest obstacle when it comes to the possibility of restoration, right now the two biggest obstacles are Vladimir Putin and the Russians that still adhere to the old Soviet/Republican ideology who are decreasing in numbers now but still ... [snipped]

Unlike the Romanovs, the Soviet Republicans in question did do amazing things for people. They did build the Empire the Romanovs wanted to have.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Okay so maybe a new dynasty deemed appropriate by the Russian Orthodox Church then, considering how hard it'd be its looking increasingly like the monarchist's only option if they ever want to see a Tsar in Russia again.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

Unlike the Romanovs, the Soviet Republicans in question did do amazing things for people. They did build the Empire the Romanovs wanted to have.

Funny. I have a total opposite view. The Soviets actually destroyed the gigantic Empire the Romanovs build... Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, name them all, were part of the Tsarist Empire.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What about Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen or Prince Andrew Andreyevich Romanov? I understand they're aren't exactly popular but they are part of the line of succession to the former Russian Throne.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. I'm not saying I'm a supporter of those two, I'm a supporter of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna despite what impression my previous comment may have given, but I am addressing those two because of what Duc_et_Pair said.

I can not see how Prince Karl Emich zu Leiningen can have a better claim as Maria Vladimirovna (he and she share the same grandfather) is the most senior agnate, and let that precizely be the way the succession works (with due respect for additional rules). The claim of Prince Karl Emich is soleley based on the fact that he does not accept Maria Vladimirovna Romanova or the late Nicholas Romanovich Romanov as dynasts.

These claims are based on the fact that Maria Vladimirovna's father married a partner whom did not meet the requirements (Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Mukhraneli)

The same about the father of Nicholas Romanovich who married a partner whom did not mee the requirements either (Countess Praskovia Dmitrievna Sheremeteva).

It is only funny that Prince Karl Emich, the junior agnate, himself has hardly any foot to stand on since his marriage to Frau Gabriele Homey (best known from her second marriage to the Aga Khan). After all Maria Vladmirovna herself married a Prince of Prussia and Nicholas himself married an Italian Countess.

 

[Gladaman]

I think the people of Russia have always been governed by totalitarian regimes, Imperial, Soviet OR Putin. I suspect their access to information is so tailored to the interests of the current regime to be responsible for almost ANY national consensus, validly held or feigned. What I'm saying is, that if Putin was in favour of a transfer of power to a Romanov restoration, then so would his people, at least publicly. I think he might very well follow a similar example as did Franco in 1970s Spain. Why not. There's no indication that he is likely to live more than a decade or two at the most. I don't think he maintains any loyalty to any ideology, beyond self interest than perhaps Pride in Russia's Imperial past.

I go even further.. who's to say Putin wouldn't like to marry his daughter or granddaughter to Grand Duke George? Seriously, I think Putin's sense of personal worth might actually seem to justify such a legacy for himself. The rules of succession or dynastic inclusion rules are entirely within the discretion of any official actions that involve restoration, Romanov, Leiningen, Rurik OR, for that matter, Kent.

I can not see how Prince Karl Emich zu Leiningen can have a better claim as Maria Vladimirovna (he and she share the same grandfather) is the most senior agnate, and let that precizely be the way the succession works (with due respect for additional rules). The claim of Prince Karl Emich is soleley based on the fact that he does not accept Maria Vladimirovna Romanova or the late Nicholas Romanovich Romanov as dynasts.

These claims are based on the fact that Maria Vladimirovna's father married a partner whom did not meet the requirements (Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Mukhraneli)

The same about the father of Nicholas Romanovich who married a partner whom did not mee the requirements either (Countess Praskovia Dmitrievna Sheremeteva).

It is only funny that Prince Karl Emich, the junior agnate, himself has hardly any foot to stand on since his marriage to Frau Gabriele Homey (best known from her second marriage to the Aga Khan). After all Maria Vladmirovna herself married a Prince of Prussia and Nicholas himself married an Italian Countess.

I agree that Maria & her son George are definitely dynasts in the most senior line BUT don't understand how she was calculated as top ranked, all males being disqualified, while senior representatives of the Leiningen, Serbian & Greek dynasties seem, to me, to have qualified, as do some of their descendents.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree that Maria & her son George are definitely dynasts in the most senior line BUT don't understand how she was calculated as top ranked, all males being disqualified, while senior representatives of the Leiningen, Serbian & Greek dynasties seem, to me, to have qualified, as do some of their descendents.

The Leiningen, Serbian and Greek descendants are lower in the pecking order of the male-preferred agnatic succession.

 

[LadyRohan]

https://www.aftenposten.no/verden/i...for-a-sjarmere-russere-PR-showet-endte-darlig


A Norwegian newspaper reported the stunt that H.I.H Grand Duchess Maria and her son staged when they traveled to Crimea in a Lada Largus while being filmed live on Russian TV as something that was ridiculed by most Russians, including those supporting the monarchy and the idea of a royal restoration in parliament.
A survey that was published last year show the most recent numbers and views on the monarchy, and the results can be seen as both good and bad, with the perspective being chances of restoration. Russians have answered these questions on 3 separate occasions, in 2006, 2013 and 2017. Here are some of the key stats, translated:


'I'm for a Russian monarchy, but cannot name a potential czar'
19% (2006) 24% (2013) 22 (2017)
'I'm for a Russian monarchy, and can name a potential czar'
3% (2006) 4% (2013) 6% (2017)
'I'm against Russia restoring the monarchy'
66% (2006) 67% (2013) 68% (2017)


In 2017, 28% are open to the idea of restoring the monarchy, while only 6% can name a candidate to the throne. In my view, that opens a large room for a well-organized and visible PR-campaign to raise awareness of the potential of the Russian Royal Family. Having support from 1/3rd of such a vast nation without almost all of them being able to name or point out a potential sovereign, is a very good starting point for a monarchical campaign. That being said ..


Novaya Gazeta https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2016/06/08/68861-mama-monarhiya, one of the largest and most politically critical newspapers in Russia, called the Grand Duchess and her son 'comical figures' that have claimed no aspirations to either restore the monarchy or even be moral leaders in Russian society, and in large parts of the country, the Romanov family is today seen as foreign, as most of its members were born, raised and live abroad.

The lack of unity within the Russian Royal Family is an obstacle to any restoration process, and the Grand Duchess could do with better advisors, but it seems that the ground is still there, within the large realm in the East, to re-plant the monarchy, if a slow and focused process of information, visibility and good work is undertaken by those who claim to represent the dynasty, both historically and into the future.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The problem with she herself just declaring them invalid means that she goes back on what she had her father have been saying for decades. That they are the only true dynasts of the House because they married equally and thus the heirs. If she says they don't matter any more then there are several other branches of the family she has to say are ahead of her or that her claim is more disputed.

The problem hasn't dissuaded many other heads of ex-royal families from doing exactly that. For instance, the Hohenberg branch from Archduke Franz Ferdinand could claim to be the true dynasts of the House of Austria if one consistently applies the changes the junior branch made to the house laws.

The difference with the Habsburg’s is that there are many branches with many sons to continue the successions. Plus the Hohenbergs can’t actually claim themselves as Head of the house of Habsburg because the marriage ofArchduke Franz Ferdinand was officially declared morganatic. The issue with the Romanovs right now is that there aren’t many males left or anyone who has seriously taken the Pauline laws.

Not sure what the number of branches with sons has to do with the dynastic-marriage debate, unless you are stating that the arguments over dynastic marriages are merely an excuse to undermine a female claimant.

The marriages of the various other Romanov sons were also "officially" declared morganatic or dynastically invalid by the senior-line pretenders under the Pauline laws.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Not sure what the number of branches with sons has to do with the dynastic-marriage debate, unless you are stating that the arguments over dynastic marriages are merely an excuse to undermine a female claimant.

The marriages of the various other Romanov sons were also "officially" declared morganatic or dynastically invalid by the senior-line pretenders under the Pauline laws.

But Maria’s claims have fallen by the wayside the moment her son married Rebecca Bettarini and none of the morganatic descendants claim the non-existent throne or want it anyways. Maria’s claims are disputed because there are claims that her ancestress Grand Duchess Pavlovna the Elder didn’t convert to Orthodoxy, also her father’s marriage to a member of the non ruling branch of the Bagration family of Georgia who was divorced.
I‘m sorry but you don’t have a point on the Habsburgs because the Hohenbergs might be senior descendants but they were legally declared morganatic descendants during the time of the monarchy so they can’t claim to be Head of the family and the late Crown Prince Otto von Habsburg relaxed the house laws. Also I was simply stating the difference in the situation of the claims in the respective Houses

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But Maria’s claims have fallen by the wayside the moment her son married Rebecca Bettarini

and the late Crown Prince Otto von Habsburg relaxed the house laws. Also I was simply stating the difference in the situation of the claims in the respective Houses

And the point I was stating is that following the same logic regarding a head of the house relaxing the marriage rules in virtue of which they claimed the headship, Otto's claims likewise fell by the wayside the moment his son married Francesca Thyssen.

I‘m sorry but you don’t have a point on the Habsburgs because the Hohenbergs might be senior descendants but they were legally declared morganatic descendants during the time of the monarchy so they can’t claim to be Head of the family

But what difference does it make - as far as the argument about claims to headships of dethroned houses or their nonexistent thrones is concerned - whether the morganatic marriage occurred during the time of the monarchy or afterwards?

and none of the morganatic descendants claim the non-existent throne or want it anyways.

Do they not? Elsewhere in your comment you referred to Maria's claims being disputed.

Maria’s claims are disputed because there are claims that her ancestress Grand Duchess Pavlovna the Elder didn’t convert to Orthodoxy, also her father’s marriage to a member of the non ruling branch of the Bagration family of Georgia who was divorced.

I realize there are other arguments at play in the Romanov disputes, but we were discussing the argument on marital standards.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

And the point I was stating is that following the same logic regarding a head of the house relaxing the marriage rules in virtue of which they claimed the headship, Otto's claims likewise fell by the wayside the moment his son married Francesca Thyssen.




But what difference does it make - as far as the argument about claims to headships of dethroned houses or their nonexistent thrones is concerned - whether the morganatic marriage occurred during the time of the monarchy or afterwards?




Do they not? Elsewhere in your comment you referred to Maria's claims being disputed.




I realize there are other arguments at play in the Romanov disputes, but we were discussing the argument on marital standards.

Otto’s claims didn’t fall by the wayside because he married dynastically and only made an exception for his eldest son and by that relaxed the house laws so there’s no issue and his second son married dynastically and equally so there’s no issue there too. Plus Karl’s marriage wasn’t just about the status of his now ex-wife, but her father and his behavior which some members objected to. Maria only had one child and son who did not marry dynastically or even made a “mésalliance” so there’s that.

What exactly do you mean “why does it matter”? The Hohenbergs were legally declared non dynasts at the time of the monarchy being in existence so they cannot declare themselves Head of the Habsburg family. It is up to the Head of the house to declare whether a marriage is dynastic or not. Plus Maria has been using the Pauline laws for herself that is until her son married and she did not declare the marriage dynastic because she obviously knew. The fact that she was consulting the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Pauline laws is enough evidence for me.

If the members of the Romanov association were so bothered by Maria’s claims, then some of them would have made dynastic marriages but none them have or will attempt to besides the fact that they are from morganatic marriages.

 

[Blog Real]

https://www.aftenposten.no/verden/i...for-a-sjarmere-russere-PR-showet-endte-darlig


A Norwegian newspaper reported the stunt that H.I.H Grand Duchess Maria and her son staged when they traveled to Crimea in a Lada Largus while being filmed live on Russian TV as something that was ridiculed by most Russians, including those supporting the monarchy and the idea of a royal restoration in parliament.
A survey that was published last year show the most recent numbers and views on the monarchy, and the results can be seen as both good and bad, with the perspective being chances of restoration. Russians have answered these questions on 3 separate occasions, in 2006, 2013 and 2017. Here are some of the key stats, translated:


'I'm for a Russian monarchy, but cannot name a potential czar'
19% (2006) 24% (2013) 22 (2017)
'I'm for a Russian monarchy, and can name a potential czar'
3% (2006) 4% (2013) 6% (2017)
'I'm against Russia restoring the monarchy'
66% (2006) 67% (2013) 68% (2017)


In 2017, 28% are open to the idea of restoring the monarchy, while only 6% can name a candidate to the throne. In my view, that opens a large room for a well-organized and visible PR-campaign to raise awareness of the potential of the Russian Royal Family. Having support from 1/3rd of such a vast nation without almost all of them being able to name or point out a potential sovereign, is a very good starting point for a monarchical campaign. That being said ..


Novaya Gazeta https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2016/06/08/68861-mama-monarhiya, one of the largest and most politically critical newspapers in Russia, called the Grand Duchess and her son 'comical figures' that have claimed no aspirations to either restore the monarchy or even be moral leaders in Russian society, and in large parts of the country, the Romanov family is today seen as foreign, as most of its members were born, raised and live abroad.

The lack of unity within the Russian Royal Family is an obstacle to any restoration process, and the Grand Duchess could do with better advisors, but it seems that the ground is still there, within the large realm in the East, to re-plant the monarchy, if a slow and focused process of information, visibility and good work is undertaken by those who claim to represent the dynasty, both historically and into the future.

The results aren't that bad. Still, I also think there is a lack of unity within the Russian Royal Family to support the same claimant. And the Grand Duchess and her son need better advisers.
However I think there is still hope for the monarchy in Russia and a lot of work to do. But the Royal Family needs to change some of its attitudes.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Otto’s claims didn’t fall by the wayside because he married dynastically and only made an exception for his eldest son and by that relaxed the house laws so there’s no issue and his second son married dynastically and equally so there’s no issue there too. Plus Karl’s marriage wasn’t just about the status of his now ex-wife, but her father and his behavior which some members objected to. Maria only had one child and son who did not marry dynastically or even made a “mésalliance” so there’s that.

What exactly do you mean “why does it matter”? The Hohenbergs were legally declared non dynasts at the time of the monarchy being in existence so they cannot declare themselves Head of the Habsburg family. It is up to the Head of the house to declare whether a marriage is dynastic or not. Plus Maria has been using the Pauline laws for herself that is until her son married and she did not declare the marriage dynastic because she obviously knew. The fact that she was consulting the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Pauline laws is enough evidence for me.

If the members of the Romanov association were so bothered by Maria’s claims, then some of them would have made dynastic marriages but none them have or will attempt to besides the fact that they are from morganatic marriages.

Maria also married dynastically, and we were discussing the hypothetical of Maria, as head of the house, relaxing the house laws and declaring her son Georgy's marriage to Rebecca Bettarini dynastic, just as Otto did in real life when his son married Francesca Thyssen.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Maria also married dynastically, and we were discussing the hypothetical of Maria, as head of the house, relaxing the house laws and declaring her son Georgy's marriage to Rebecca Bettarini dynastic, just as Otto did in real life when his son married Francesca Thyssen.

But Otto’s claims were never disputed unlike Maria’s, plus Otto has a second son who married equally and dynastically and Otto was never upholding house laws to keep out other family members. Plus as I have already stated some facts about the marriage of her son, she was literally going to the Orthodox Patriarch about relaxing the Pauline laws which I assume didn’t turn out well and she did not declare the marriage dynastic but simply accepted the marriage. Maria’s branch have always blowed their trumpet on dynastic marriages but her only child and son didn’t. The point was that it was hypocritical for her to do it and continue like nothing happened.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Plus as I have already stated some facts about the marriage of her son, she was literally going to the Orthodox Patriarch about relaxing the Pauline laws which I assume didn’t turn out well and she did not declare the marriage dynastic but simply accepted the marriage. Maria’s branch have always blowed their trumpet on dynastic marriages but her only child and son didn’t. The point was that it was hypocritical for her to do it and continue like nothing happened.

No, that was not the point/argument which I was addressing.

The argument many have made, which I quoted from Heavs' post (so it should be clear which argument I was addressing), is that Maria Vladimirovna would be hypocritical if she were to relax the marriage rules and accept her son's marriage as dynastic (which she has not done, as you yourself pointed out) without also retroactively accepting earlier unequal marriages as dynastic.

You seem to be making an even more extreme argument that even though she has refused to accept her son's marriage as dynastic, she is being hypocritical simply by accepting her son's marriage in their personal lives. (Not sure what would be necessary in order to be non-hypocritical according to your argument: Publicly denounce her son and daughter-in-law and never speak to them again?) Again, that is not the argument I am addressing.

But Otto’s claims were never disputed unlike Maria’s, plus Otto has a second son who married equally and dynastically and Otto was never upholding house laws to keep out other family members.

The first two points are not relevant to the argument I was addressing. The third point ("Otto was never upholding house laws to keep out other family members") is relevant, but it is not true as Otto continued to uphold the previous house laws when it came to continuing to exclude the Hohenbergs.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

No, that was not the point/argument which I was addressing.

The argument many have made, which I quoted from Heavs' post (so it should be clear which argument I was addressing), is that Maria Vladimirovna would be hypocritical if she were to relax the marriage rules and accept her son's marriage as dynastic (which she has not done, as you yourself pointed out) without also retroactively accepting earlier unequal marriages as dynastic.

You seem to be making an even more extreme argument that even though she has refused to accept her son's marriage as dynastic, she is being hypocritical simply by accepting her son's marriage in their personal lives. (Not sure what would be necessary in order to be non-hypocritical according to your argument: Publicly denounce her son and daughter-in-law and never speak to them again?) Again, that is not the argument I am addressing.




The first two points are not relevant to the argument I was addressing. The third point ("Otto was never upholding house laws to keep out other family members") is relevant, but it is not true as Otto continued to uphold the previous house laws when it came to continuing to exclude the Hohenbergs.

Well, for one thing we all know she hasn’t publicly denounced them (I didn’t expect her to) and she has publicly accepted the marriage, but I’m sure in the back of her mind she wishes that her son made a real dynastic marriage but I digress. Everyone on this forum knows the marriage is not truly dynastic according to the House laws. By publicly accepting the marriage, Maria is being hypocritical and she’s simply going to allow her son to give an Imperial style and title to her son’s family.

The difference with the Hohenbergs is that they aren’t trying to claim Headship and can’t because as I have already stated at least one or twice is that the Hohenbergs are morganatic but senior descendants of the Habsburg family and were legally declared non-dynasts during the monarchy and cannot claim to be Heads of the family.Also Otto wasn’t the one who made the Hohenbergs non-dynasts or morganatic status so it would never have been his place to do anything about them. Just because Otto’s eldest son didn’t make a dynastic marriage doesn’t mean the Headship would revert to a morganatic but senior non-dynast branch, that’s not how it works at all. Otto’s second son married equally and so the Headship isn’t disputed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The difference with the Hohenbergs is that they aren’t trying to claim Headship

Again, I am not addressing the claims (or absence thereof) of the Hohenbergs. I am addressing the claims of royal watchers who accept Otto's declarations but argue that it would be hypocritical if Maria hypothetically were to make the same declarations in the future. (And again, to be clear, their point of view differs from your point of view, and I am addressing their point of view.)

and can’t because as I have already stated at least one or twice is that the Hohenbergs are morganatic but senior descendants of the Habsburg family and were legally declared non-dynasts during the monarchy and cannot claim to be Heads of the family.

Yes, and the Ilyinskys are morganatic but senior descendants of the Romanov family who were legally declared non-dynasts during the pretended "monarchy" and cannot claim to be heads of the family, according to the same argument.

I am aware of your point that the Hohenbergs were declared non-dynasts while the monarchy was still reigning and the Ilyinskys were declared non-dynasts after the monarchy was abolished. However, that is irrelevant to arguments which rely on all sides believing that the families continue to be "royal" and the heads of the family continue to exercise dynastic authority even after the monarchy is abolished. If the family members were to all recognize that they are all plain Mr. Habsburg and Mrs. Romanov in the republics of Austria and Russia then there would be no dynastic claims, disputed or undisputed.

Also Otto wasn’t the one who made the Hohenbergs non-dynasts or morganatic status so it would never have been his place to do anything about them.

And Maria wasn't the one who made the Ilyinskys non-dynastic morganauts.

Just because Otto’s eldest son didn’t make a dynastic marriage doesn’t mean the Headship would revert to a morganatic but senior non-dynast branch, that’s not how it works at all.

And by the same logic (with which I agree), just because Maria's only son didn't make a dynastic marriage doesn't mean the headship would revert to a morganatic but senior (according to semi-Salic male preference) non-dynastic branch.

Otto’s second son married equally and so the Headship isn’t disputed.

I doubt the headship would be disputed if his second son had married unequally.

Well, for one thing we all know she hasn’t publicly denounced them (I didn’t expect her to) and she has publicly accepted the marriage, but I’m sure in the back of her mind she wishes that her son made a real dynastic marriage but I digress. Everyone on this forum knows the marriage is not truly dynastic according to the House laws. By publicly accepting the marriage, Maria is being hypocritical she’s simply going to allow her son to give an Imperial style and title to her son’s family.

Again, it doesn't bear on the more moderate version of the argument which I was addressing, but I suppose I'm curious as to what she would need to do in order to be "publicly unaccepting" of the marriage in your eyes, or how you believe she could prevent her son from giving an imperial style to his family after she is dead.

 

[Benjamin]

There is a detail which many have understandably not picked up on in this situation.

When she announced her son's marriage, Grand Duchess Maria decreed: "We deem it proper that VICTORIA ROMANOVNA should, from the moment of her marriage with Our son, have the right to use the dynastic surname Romanoff with the title of Princess and the predicate of Serene Highness." (bold added for emphasis)

Maria has never stated that her son's marriage is morganatic. The fact that Maria allowed Victoria and now her grandson Alexander to bear the dynastic surname is telling. No Russian morganaut has ever had that right (i.e. see all the Princes Romanovsky).

 

[Toledo]

I'm assuming the right to use the dynastic surname Romanoff* is decided by whoever is the head of the family of pretenders. In the case of the Romanovs, the amount of family quarrels is their worst enemy since there's no united front. Reminds me a bit on the 19th century French restoration quarrels between the House of Bourbon vs House Orleans.

* Footnote - the last Romanov by blood was Empress Elizabeth and her then nephew Peter III. After Catherine the Great the surname was used by her surviving descendant from Sergei Saltykov, she had two miscarriages and then Czar Paul I with Saltikov. Catherine also had three other children after Paul.

In regards on whom I give the upper hand in terms of lineage, hands down to Grand Duchess Maria. Her mother was a Bagration royal princess whose family had to scale down to serene highness when they were absorbed by the Russian Empire. I recall reading ages ago some article that the reason why princes in Russia, from independent pre-Rurik and Romanov estates, did not meet equal status with the German princes of the Holy Roman Empire was caused by the Almanac de Gotha system to catalog the titled royal houses and nobility.

Like if a Russian prince that ruled over an independent pre-Romanov territory was not equal to a German/Holy Roman Empire prince, duke or grand duke that also had an independent territory in Central Europe. Don't know if the reasoning was the Holy Roman ruler was elected by the equivalent today of state governors but titled kings, grand dukes, dukes, princes et al. While in Russia one family, the Rurik and later the Romanovs, made it hereditary but absorbed all these independent states.

This reminds me Spain was formed by the union of many kingdoms and people who descended from these small kingdoms today became Dukes and Grandes like the Dukes of Medinaceli instead of being addressed as Prince of Medinaceli, etc. as they did in Russia, the Holy Roman and later German empires.

In terms of Maria, from her mother's side if she was installed as Czarina today, she and her son and grandson's dynasty would be older than the Danish royals since the Bagration dynasty was around as far as the Roman and Byzantine empires while the Danish line started, I recall, since the year 900s (?)

Article about the on-going family drama, first published in 1998: The Romanoffs and the Bagrations

 

[SirGyamfi1]

There is a detail which many have understandably not picked up on in this situation.

When she announced her son's marriage, Grand Duchess Maria decreed: "We deem it proper that VICTORIA ROMANOVNA should, from the moment of her marriage with Our son, have the right to use the dynastic surname Romanoff with the title of Princess and the predicate of Serene Highness." (bold added for emphasis)

Maria has never stated that her son's marriage is morganatic. The fact that Maria allowed Victoria and now her grandson Alexander to bear the dynastic surname is telling. No Russian morganaut has ever had that right (i.e. see all the Princes Romanovsky).

She doesn’t have to tell anyone the marriage is morganatic or not because anyone who knows the House laws knows that marriage isn’t dynastic or equal. A person who upholds House laws against others but won’t uphold it when it comes to someone else is twisting rules for themselves. In any case, none of the Romanov descendants fit the Pauline laws Maria’s branch and the morganatic branches don’t fit the bill at all. Maria hasn’t said anything about the marriage being morganatic because if she did, it would not be a good look for her but regardless the marriage is morganatic based on the Pauline laws.