Talk:Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

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

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

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Introduction

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

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

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

[edit] Almanach de Gotha

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

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

[edit] Request for Comment

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

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