Monday, 14 September 2015


THE RUSSIAN SUCCESSION IN 2013, SIMPLIFIED
Reproduced by kind permission of the author
Brien Purcell Horan

Copyright 2013 and 2014 by Brien Purcell Horan ©

 Grand Duchess Maria of Russia succeeded her father, the Grand Duke Wladimir, as head of the Russian Imperial House upon his death in April 1992. Guy Sainty, the scholar of European dynasties, summed up the subject of the Russian succession well when he wrote, “The position of the Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna as Head of the Imperial House has been acknowledged by most serious Russian monarchist organizations and by most of those Heads of Royal Houses which continue to maintain relations with the Imperial House.”[1] The heir of the Grand Duchess Maria is her only son, the Grand Duke George of Russia. At present, they are the only living members of the Russian Imperial House.

In the run up to festivities planned in Russia in 2013 to mark the four hundredth anniversary of the accession of the House of Romanoff to the Russian throne, the purpose of this article is to simplify the succession issue.[2] Because the Russian dynasty lost its throne nearly a century ago, there is only one way to establish who are the members of the dynasty today and who is its head: that is, by analyzing the succession laws which governed the Imperial House from 1797, when Emperor Paul I instituted them, through the fall of the monarchy in 1917 to the present day. In his Act of 4 April 1797 announcing the succession laws, Emperor Paul proclaimed, “…Having established the order of succession, I shall explain its aim, which is this: that the State never be without a successor; that the successor be determined by the law itself; that there be not the slightest doubt as to the successor…”

The term “succession laws” refers to the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire on Succession to the Throne and the Statute of the Imperial Family. A key provision of these dynastic laws, still in effect today, may strike some twenty-frst century readers as old-fashioned. In order to pass dynastic status to his children, a member of the Russian dynasty was required to marry a member of a royal or sovereign house. Emperor Alexander I instituted this requirement in 1820, and successive emperors through Nicholas II enforced it strictly. In exile, the Grand Dukes Kirill and Wladimir, successive heads of the dynasty from 1918 to 1992, fully recognized its binding effect. The equal marriage rule first took root in the Habsburg dynasty of the Holy Roman Empire, and it still applies today to many formerly ruling dynasties of the old German Empire. Until very recently it was closely enforced by the Spanish dynasty too, a legacy of Habsburg rule in Spain. A union contracted by a Russian dynast with a royal princess was called an equal marriage. The children of the marriage were members of the dynasty. A marriage with a commoner, that is, a wife who was not a member of a reigning or formerly reigning dynasty, was described as a morganatic or unequal marriage. The children of the marriage were not members of the dynasty.

In summary, the issue of the headship of the Russian dynasty is inseparable from the succession laws, including their equal marriage requirement. In this respect, the words of the late historian Prince Cyril Toumanoff are appropriate: “Monarchy, if it is true monarchy and not a caricature, is inseparable from Legitimacy. Legitimacy, in turn, means Legality, the faithful observance of both the spirit and the letter of the Law. Law, finally, is above and independent of human practice. Thus, Monarchical Legitimism must survive historical adversities, and the inalienable rights of a dynasty must continue to exist irrespective of whether that dynasty actually rules or has been forcibly prevented by historical circumstances from holding power.”[3]


I. THE DYNASTY IN EXILE, 1918 TO 1992

On 1 January 1917, Emperor Nicholas II began the final weeks of his reign. Those closest to him in the line of succession to the throne were his son, Tsesarevich Alexei (first in line), his only living brother the Grand Duke Michael (second in line), and his senior first cousin, Grand Duke Kirill (third in line).

In a document dated 2 March 1917 at 3 p.m., Nicholas II abdicated on behalf of himself and his son Alexei and sought to pass the throne to his brother, Michael. The emperor’s abdication on behalf of his minor son Alexei was technically invalid, because it did not comply with the succession laws. A dynast had no legal right to waive or renounce the succession rights of a minor child who himself was a full member of the dynasty. In the revolutionary chaos and violence of March 1917, however, one can understand a devoted father’s wish not to be separated from a son who suffered from haemophilia, an incurable and then nearly always fatal disease. In any event, on 3 March 1917, the Grand Duke Michael declined to accept the throne.

The monarchy then fell. Nicholas II and his family were made prisoners, as was the Grand Duke Michael. Grand Duke Kirill and his family, including his pregnant wife (born Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh, a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria), escaped from St. Petersburg to Finland, which had been part of the Russian empire and where they went into hiding. Their only son, Prince Wladimir of Russia, was born there in August 1917.

In June 1918, the Bolsheviks secretly executed Nicholas II’s brother Michael near Perm, Russia. The following month, on 17 July 1918, Nicholas II and his family, including his son Alexei, were murdered in Ekaterinburg.

Under the succession laws, Grand Duke Kirill automatically succeeded on 17 July 1918 as head of the dynasty and, to legitimist Russian monarchists, as emperor. Article 53 of the Russian succession law states: "On the demise of an emperor, his heir accedes to the Throne by virtue of the law of succession itself, which confers this right upon him. The accession of an emperor to the Throne is counted from the day of the demise of his predecessor." Due to conflicting information and rumors emanating from Russia, however, Kirill waited until 1924, when he finally became convinced that those senior to him had in fact been murdered, to proclaim himself emperor and head of the dynasty and to proclaim his only son, Wladimir, as the Grand Duke-Tsesarevich, that is, as his heir.

Kirill’s 31 August/13 September 1924 succession proclamation saddened his aunt, the 76 year old Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II. Her reaction was not rooted in any objection to Kirill’s legal rights, which she acknowledged, but derived instead from her refusal until her death in 1928 to accept that her sons and grandson were dead. Writing to the Dowager Empress on 14 September 1924, the day after he had announced his assumption of the title of emperor, Kirill promised his aunt that he would step aside if her sons or grandson turned out to be alive: “Should the miracle in which you believe occur and your beloved sons and grandson all be alive, then I will be the first to express my allegiance to my Legitimate Sovereign and will place at his feet all that I have accomplished…Don’t let me down in this difficult moment of my life such as none of our ancestors had to live through.[4] Shortly afterwards, in a 1924 letter to Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich of Russia, the Dowager Empress, while not disputing Kirill’s eventual succession rights, wrote: “…There is no definite news up to now about the fate of my beloved sons and grandson. I therefore consider the act of Grand Duke Kirill’s proclamation as premature. Nobody is in the position to deprive me of the last gleam of hope…”

 The Russian succession laws applicable to the dynasty from 1797 to the present specified that the right of succession passed first to male dynasts in order of primogeniture. Should the male dynasts die out (which happened in 1992, when the last male dynast of the male line of the dynasty died), the succession would then pass to the female line.

 Eighteen Russian dynasts were murdered during the revolution (twelve males and six females).[5] When Kirill made his declaration of succession in 1924, there were nineteen male dynasts who had survived the revolution and were still alive in the West. They obviously were the individuals with the most direct interest in who the head of the Russian dynasty was. In the 1920s, and especially in the months following the 1924 declaration, when there was still a belief that the Soviet regime might be of limited duration, fifteen of these nineteen male dynasts recognized Kirill as head of the dynasty and Wladimir, his only son, as Kirill’s heir. Here is a list of the names of the fifteen who supported Kirill as head of the dynasty and Wladimir as his heir, followed by their place in the line of succession as of 1924:

  • Grand Duke Kirill of Russia (first in line)
  • Grand Duke Wladimir of Russia (second in line)
  • Grand Duke Boris of Russia (third in line)
  • Grand Duke Andrew Wladimirovich of Russia (fourth in line)
  • Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich of Russia (fifth in line)
  • Prince Vsevolod of Russia (sixth in line)
  • Prince Gavriel of Russia (seventh in line)
  • Prince George Constantinovich of Russia (eighth in line)
  • Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia (twelfth in line)
  • Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich of Russia (thirteenth in line)
  • Prince Andrew Alexandrovich of Russia (fourteenth in line)
  • Prince Feodor of Russia (fifteenth in line)
  • Prince Nikita of Russia (sixteenth in line)
  • Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia (seventeenth in line)
  • Prince Rostislav of Russia (eighteenth in line).
Missing from the above list of supporters are the male dynasts who in 1924 respectively were ninth, tenth, eleventh and nineteenth in line.

The most junior male dynast, nineteenth in line in 1924, Prince Vassily of Russia (1907-1989), did not take a position on the succession question in the 1920s. His father Grand Duke Alexander of Russia (thirteenth in line) and his 5 older brothers all expressed fidelity to the Grand Duke Kirill. But Grand Duke Alexander did not ask his youngest son to sign their 1924 declaration of loyalty because Vassily was then a minor.[6]

The principal resistance from within the dynasty to forty-seven year old Kirill’s 1924 proclamation came from sixty-eight year old Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich (ninth in line in 1924 and sixteenth in line on 1 January 1917). Nicholas Nikolayevich never publicly disputed Kirill’s position as the senior living dynast. But he declined to sign a statement of allegiance to Kirill. And as was their custom, Nicholas Nikolayevich’s devoted younger and only brother Grand Duke Peter (tenth in line in 1924) and the latter’s only son Prince Roman of Russia (eleventh in line in 1924) followed the old grand duke’s lead. It is widely thought that, in the event the monarchy was restored, Nicholas Nikolayevich, then the oldest living male dynast, believed that he would be the most suitable Romanoff to sit on the throne, not based on his distant place in the line of succession but based upon the respect and prestige he had earned as commander-in-chief of the Russian army in the first year of World War I. A few weeks after Kirill’s 1924 announcement, Nicholas Nikolayevich, not to be outdone, announced he was assuming “supreme leadership” of all Russian armed forces in exile. And when a couple of monarchist groups announced their support of him as future tsar, he did nothing to discourage them. But his health soon started to fail, and he died in early 1929. Nicholas Nikolayevich was strongly slavophile and anti-German. Encouraged by his royal Montenegrin wife, he perhaps also had disdain for the strict Germanic succession rules of male primogeniture instituted in 1797 by Tsar Paul. Before Paul I, the question of who would be the next tsar was often uncertain, and more than once the Romanoff with the strongest support had simply seized the crown.[7]

 Thus, we see that in the 1920s, with the exception of this one small cadet branch of the dynasty (the so-called “Nikolayevichi line”[8] consisting of just three male dynasts, Nicholas Nikolayevich, followed as always by his younger brother Peter and nephew Roman), the overwhelming majority of male dynasts of the Imperial House supported Kirill as dynastic head and Wladimir as his heir.

Today the only male descendants of the male line of the Nikolayevichi branch are Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) [9] and his younger brother Dmitry, who, as sons of the morganatic marriage of Prince Roman of Russia, are not dynasts. Despite the unwillingness of the 3 Nikolayevichi male dynasts to agree to issue a declaration of loyalty to Kirill in the 1920s, even the morganatic Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) has publicly conceded after the fact that Kirill and Wladimir were the successive lawful Heads of the Imperial House. In a published letter to a French magazine in 1992, he described Kirill’s position as head of the dynasty as “incontestable” (indisputable).[10] Thus his unfounded assertion that he himself succeeded as dynastic head in April 1992 on the death of Grand Duke Wladimir (an assertion analyzed below) is an obvious acknowledgement that Wladimir was indeed head of the Imperial House.[11]

 Aside from the members of the Imperial House who survived the revolution, the institution with perhaps the strongest interest in knowing the identity of the head of the dynasty was the Russian Orthodox Church. Although the identity of the head of the dynasty is solely a legal matter determined exclusively by the succession laws, it is interesting to note the strong legitimism of the church. As Emperor Paul I stated in his declaration of 5 April 1797, the day of his coronation, the Orthodox faith is “inseparable” from the Russian throne “because the sovereign in Russia is the Head of the Church.” After the revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church splintered into two principal branches. The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, headed since November 1917 by a patriarchate in Moscow restored after the fall of the monarchy, was subject to the pressures of the Communist state during the Soviet period and had no contact or association with the dynasty. In exile, however, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), headed by a Synod of Bishops with its headquarters first in Yugoslavia and later in New York City, ministered to the spiritual needs of the emigration. From the formation of ROCOR in 1922 until the last days of the Soviet Union in 1991, the senior dynast of the day (first Grand Duke Kirill and then his son) was recognized as the dynastic head by the four successive First Hierarchs (Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret, and Vitaly) of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.[12] At the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, headed by Patriarch Alexei II and with its headquarters in Moscow, asserted its independence from the state. Alexei II acknowledged the Grand Duke Wladimir as head of the dynasty and in 1992 delivered the eulogy during the Grand Duke’s funeral liturgy, formally describing him as "head of the Russian dynastic house".[13] Both Patriarch Alexei II (died 2008) and his successor, the current Patriarch Kirill I also recognized Grand Duchess Maria as head of the Russian dynasty.

In conclusion, despite whatever debates may have raged at different times in the past, the position of the Grand Dukes Kirill and Wladimir as successive dynastic heads was unquestioned by the overwhelming majority of senior dynasts. This is an important point, because the pronouncements of these two Heads of the Imperial House during the decades of exile are highly relevant to the succession question.
 

II. THE EQUAL MARRIAGE RULE OF THE RUSSIAN DYNASTY

 A male dynast had the imperial title either of Grand Duke of Russia or Prince of Russia (technically, “Prince of the Imperial Blood”), depending upon his seniority. Similarly, female dynasts were either Grand Duchesses of Russia or Princesses of Russia. The children of morganatic marriages had the right to neither imperial title.

 Emperor Alexander I promulgated the equal marriage rule in unambiguous language in 1820, language never revoked: “... We consider it good, for the firm maintenance of the dignity and tranquility of the Imperial Family and of the Empire itself, to add to the existing enactments of the Imperial Family the following additional regulation: if any person of the Imperial Family enters into a marriage alliance with a person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to any royal or ruling house; in such a case the person of the Imperial Family cannot pass on to the other person the rights which belong to members of the Imperial Family, and the children issuing from such a marriage have no right of succession to the Throne. Expressing this Our Will to all present and future members of Our Imperial Family and to all Our faithful subjects, in accordance with the exact right established in article 23 of the Statute on the Imperial Family, We, in face of the King of Kings, make it incumbent upon one and all whom it may concern solemnly and inviolably to maintain for all time this Our additional enactment.”

Here are several relevant extracts from the principal laws and documents which specify that membership of the dynasty is limited to children of equal marriages only and that the children of morganatic marriages are not dynasts.

 First, Article 188 of the succession laws in effect in 1917 provided:

“188. A person of the Imperial Family who has entered into a marriage alliance with a person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to any royal or ruling house, cannot pass on to that person, or to the posterity that might issue from such a marriage, the rights which belong to members of the Imperial Family.

         Addendum (1911): Henceforward none of the grand dukes or grand duchesses may enter into a marriage with a person of unequal status, that is, not belonging to a royal or ruling house.”

Thus, again, the children born of a marriage of a member of the Imperial House with a commoner cannot themselves be members of the Imperial House. And the Addendum, inserted by Nicholas II in 1911 at the time he was trying to prevent the marriage of his grand ducal brother to his mistress (a commoner), meant that henceforth the emperor would not give permission to the grand dukes, the senior members of the dynasty, to marry non-royal spouses.

The marriages of the Grand Duke Paul of Russia (1860-1919), uncle of Nicholas II, illustrate how the equal marriage rule operated. Grand Duke Paul married twice and had a son by each wife. His first wife was Princess Alexandra of Greece, a member of a royal house. Because this was an equal marriage, their only son, Grand Duke Dmitry of Russia (1891-1941), was a member of the Russian Imperial House. Paul’s second wife was a commoner, Mme. von Pistohlkors. Because this was a morganatic marriage, their only son, Vladimir Paley (1897-1918), was not a member of the Russian Imperial House. In 1915, Nicholas II gave Vladimir Paley and his mother the morganatic titles of Prince and Princess Paley. These were noble, non-royal titles, quite different from the dynastic title of Prince of Russia. Nicholas II gave them the surname of Paley, because, as explained in more detail later, in imperial Russia it was forbidden for morganatic descendants of dynasts to bear the name Romanoff, which was the surname of the dynasty.

Second, Articles 36 and 126 of the succession laws are also very straightforward. Article 36 states:

“Children issuing from a marriage of a person of the Imperial Family with a person not having the corresponding dignity, that is to say, not belonging to a royal or ruling house, have no right of succession to the Throne.”

Article 126 specifies:

All persons of imperial blood who are born of a marriage between a person of imperial blood and a person of corresponding birth which marriage was authorized by the reigning emperor are recognized as members of the Imperial House."

Third, Nicholas II in 1911 issued a similarly clear pronouncement that, although he would not prohibit Princes of Russia, the junior dynasts, from marrying suitable non-royal wives, the children of such morganatic marriages would not be members of the dynasty and would not have the right to the Romanoff surname and coat of arms. This document[14] is a letter dated 14 June 1911, sent on behalf of Nicholas II by Baron Vladimir Frederiks, Nicholas II’s Minister of the Imperial Court, to Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich, who had presided at a meeting of grand dukes convened to advise the emperor on the question of permitting dynasts to contract unequal marriages.[15] The letter informs Grand Duke Nicholas of the following firm decisions made by the emperor: 1) Grand Dukes of Russia may not contract unequal marriages; 2) Princes of Russia (“Princes of the Imperial Blood”), if they receive the emperor’s specific permission and if they renounce their succession rights beforehand, may contract unequal marriages; and 3) “surnames and coats of arms of the spouses and descendants of Princes of the Imperial Blood who have contracted marriages with persons not possessing corresponding rank will be granted in each specific case by the Lord Emperor.” The letter also states that Nicholas II was completely unwilling to countenance recognition of any middle category between that of “equal marriage” and of “unequal marriage.”[16]

In the 1980s, Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014), the morganatic son of Prince Roman of Russia, who is discussed in more detail below, twisted the 1911 addendum to Article 188 (the addendum holding that henceforth no grand duke would be permitted to marry a non-royal bride) out of context to construct an illogical argument: namely, that, because of this addendum, Princes of Russia could marry morganatically and pass dynastic status to their children. But the language stated nothing of the kind. It simply prohibited grand dukes from marrying morganatically. It did not change the various articles (such Articles 36, 126 and 188) making clear that children of morganatic marriages were not dynasts. And his suggestion that Nicholas II intended that the morganatic children of the most senior members of the Imperial House, the grand dukes, would have no dynastic status whilst the children of morganatic marriages by the junior dynasts, the Princes of Russia, would have full rights is ludicrous.[17] The 1911 letter by Baron Frederiks, discovered in the state archives by Dr. Stanislaw Dumin in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union, exploded Nicholas Romanoff’s theory.

 Fourth, the heads of the Russian Imperial House from 1918 to the present, that is, the Grand Duke Kirill of Russia (head of the dynasty from 1918 to 1938), the Grand Duke Wladimir of Russia (head of the dynasty from 1938 to 1992), and the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia (head of the dynasty from 1992 to present), each reiterated that these morganatic descendants are not and cannot be members of the Imperial House. The Grand Duke Kirill gave them morganatic titles and the surname of Romanovsky, to denote kinship to but not membership of the dynasty. His son, the Grand Duke Wladimir, did the same. The Grand Duke Wladimir’s daughter, the Grand Duchess Maria, has in 2012 made clear that there are now only two living members of the Imperial House, herself and her son and heir.[18]

Due to the numerous morganatic marriages contracted by Russian dynasts after the revolution, the Grand Duke Kirill, as head of the Imperial House, promulgated in 1935 an addendum to the house laws to address the question of morganatic titles and surnames:

“In order to establish the position of wives of Members of the Imperial House in cases of unequal marriage and the position of the issue of such marriages, I have established the following order in supplement to and development of the Statute on the Imperial Family:

The wives and children of Members of the Imperial House in cases of unequal but lawful marriages…receive the title and surname of Princes Romanovsky with, added to it, the maiden surname of the wife of the said Member of the Imperial House or a surname granted by the Head of the Imperial House of Russia... May these marriages lay the foundation for new Russian princely families with a blood relationship to the Imperial House of Russia and, as a result of this relationship, may they always give their faithful support to the Imperial House. Given at Saint Briac on 28th July 1935. KIRILL”

Fifth, various members of the Imperial House who married commoners in the decades after the revolution acknowledged their understanding and acceptance of the equal marriage rule by seeking from the exiled heads of the Imperial House morganatic titles for their wives and children. A Grand Duke of Russia or Prince of Russia who married a royal princess with the permission of the head of the dynasty would not have to seek a separate title for his spouse and children, because they would have automatic status and titles as members of the Imperial House. So, for example, Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia (1901-1980) (son of Grand Duke Alexander), following his morganatic marriage in 1931, requested and received from the Grand Duke Kirill a morganatic title for his wife. Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich of Russia (1891-1941), following his 1927 marriage to an American commoner, requested and received from the Grand Duke Kirill a morganatic title (Prince / Princess Romanovsky-Ilyinsky) for his wife and his son. Similarly, Prince Vsevolod of Russia (1914-1973), upon his morganatic marriage in 1939 to Lady Mary Lygon, requested and received from the Grand Duke Wladimir a morganatic title (Princess Romanovsky-Pavlovsky) for his wife. There are numerous other examples.

Sixth, when the Head of the Imperial House, the Grand Duke Kirill, died in 1938 and was succeeded by his only son, the then twenty-one year old Grand Duke Wladimir, the five members of the Imperial House most senior in the line of succession after Wladimir issued a public declaration of loyalty to the young Grand Duke Wladimir. These were Grand Duke Boris (first in line after Grand Duke Wladimir), Grand Duke Andrew (second in line), Grand Duke Dmitry (1891-1941) (third in line), Prince Vsevolod of Russia (fourth in line), and Prince Gavriel of Russia (1887-1955) (fifth in line). What is highly significant about this declaration is that the six[19] most senior members of the Imperial House set forth in this document a list of all the living male dynasts in their order of succession to the throne. In doing this, they made clear that their own morganatic sons and the many living morganatic sons of other male dynasts were neither members of the Imperial House nor in the line of succession.
 
It is useful to read the 11/24 October 1938 declaration in its entirety:

            "We, members of the Imperial House of Russia, having assembled after the death of the Head of our House, the Grand Duke Kirill Wladimirovich, consider it our most sacred duty solemnly to declare that the rights of each of the members of the Imperial House of Russia are exactly determined by the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire and the Statute of the Imperial Family, that they are known perfectly to all, and that we must observe them religiously, by virtue of a special oath, which is why the question of the order of succession to the throne has never caused the slightest doubt among us and still less a disagreement of any kind. We reject any departure from the order provided by the law, because that would be an offense against the intangibility of our laws and of our family traditions.

            "By virtue of the laws indicated above, we recognize that the succession to the throne belongs by right, in order of primogeniture, to the senior member of the Imperial House of Russia, the Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich, which he assumed by inheritance after the death of his father on 29 September/12 October 1938, with a profound awareness of the sacred duty which devolves upon him according to law as Head of the Imperial House of Russia, bestowing upon him all the rights and duties belonging to him by virtue of the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire and the Statute of the Imperial Family.

            "The members of the Imperial House of Russia appear as follows by primogeniture in the order of succession: Grand Duke Boris Wladimirovich, Grand Duke Andrew Wladimirovich[20], Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich[21], Prince Vsevolod Ioannovich, Prince Gavriel Constantinovich, Prince George Constantinovich, Prince Roman Petrovich[22], Prince Andrew Alexandrovich[23], Prince Feodor Alexandrovich[24], Prince Nikita Alexandrovich[25], Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich, Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich,[26] and Prince Vassily Alexandrovich.
              
           

(signed)  Boris        Vsevolod”

              Andrew

              Dmitry

              Gavriel

 

III. GRAND DUCHESS MARIA’S POSITION AS THE CURRENT HEAD OF THE IMPERIAL HOUSE

By 1969, more than half a century had passed since the fall of the monarchy and the exile of the dynasty. As the decades of exile wore on, the ranks of a once large dynasty thinned dramatically. Death from natural causes slowly but surely reduced the number of dynasts of a sovereign house already decimated by Bolshevik murder squads. Dozens of morganatic marriages after 1917 deprived the dynasty of an opportunity to replenish its ranks. In fact, the only dynasts who felt an obligation to contract equal marriages after 1917 were the children of the first two successive heads of the dynasty in exile. All three of the children of the Grand Duke Kirill (that is, the Grand Duchess Maria Kirillovna, the Grand Duchess Kira, and the Grand Duke Wladimir, who married Princess Leonida Bagration, of the former Georgian royal house) contracted equal marriages. And the Grand Duchess Maria, only child of the Grand Duke Wladimir and Grand Duchess Leonida, married a Prussian dynast, Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia, in 1976. Of the thirty marriages contracted by dynasts after 1917, these 4 were the only equal marriages; the other 1926 unions were morganatic. Various aging dynasts scattered around the world and lost contact with each other. Long gone was the hope, still common when Grand Duke Kirill declared himself emperor in exile in 1924 that the Soviet Union might be of short duration. Meanwhile, a swelling number of morganatic spouses and morganatic children included several ambitious people who resented the non-dynastic status to which they were relegated by imperial laws that they barely understood, and fissures developed.

On December 23, 1969, the dynastic head, Grand Duke Wladimir, issued a message that greatly ruffled the feathers of the other surviving male dynasts. In 1969, apart from Wladimir himself, there were only seven other surviving male dynasts. They were, in order of succession, Prince Vsevolode of Russia (who would die in 1973), Prince Roman of Russia (died 1978), Prince Andrew Alexandrovich of Russia (died 1981), Prince Nikita of Russia (died 1974), Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia (died 1980), Prince Rostislav of Russia (died 1978), and Prince Vassily of Russia (died 1989).

Of these seven, none had married a royal spouse. All had contracted morganatic marriages. The oldest of them was seventy-three years old, and the youngest was fifty-five. Of all these dynasts the only one to have surviving male line issue in the present generation, ineligible to succeed anyway because of their morganatic birth, was the late Prince Rostislav.

 The Grand Duke’s message stated in essence that, at his death, his daughter, the Grand Duchess Maria, would act as curatrix of the dynasty and that, when the last of these male dynasts had died, she would become head of the dynasty in her own right. The message stated in the relevant portion: 

“The office of Head of the Imperial House of Russia, lawful inheritor of the rights and duties of the Emperors of All the Russias, with which I have been charged by the Lord God by virtue of the paramount right of primogeniture that has passed to me, makes me duty bound to maintain the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire on Succession to the Throne and the Statute on the Imperial Family inseparable from the aforesaid laws. By virtue whereof I recall the essential condition contained in the law whereby the issue of a marriage contracted between a person of the Imperial Family and a person of a status not corresponding in equality of birth does not inherit the rights belonging to members of the Imperial Family, one of which is the right of succession to the Throne. Such is the position of the issue of the Princes of the Blood Imperial now living, as also that of the issue of morganatic (to wit, unequal) marriages contracted by members of the Imperial House now deceased. It can hardly be envisaged that any of the Princes of the Blood Imperial now living, in view of their age, could now enter into a marriage equal in status of birth or have issue possessing the right of succession to the Throne. In view of the aforesaid, in accordance with the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, succession to the Throne, after the demise of all male members of the Imperial House, inevitably passes to the female dynasts of our family. In accordance with the same laws, my first born daughter, Her Imperial Highness the Lady Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna, is at present senior in succession to the Throne in the female issue and at the same time the only one capable of having issue enjoying the right to succession.[27] … Wherefore, while in no way infringing on the order of succession to the Throne provided by the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire, I declare that, in the event of my demise, my daughter the Lady Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna, shall become Curatrix of the Imperial Throne of Russia, with all the rights and functions connected with that office, for the service of Russia and for the protection of our Dynasty from any encroachments from any quarter whatsoever. When the right of succession to the Throne, after the demise of the last of the male representatives of the Dynasty, will have inevitably passed to the female issue, then the Lady Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna, Curatrix of the Throne, shall become Head of the Imperial House of Russia.”  

The Grand Duke Wladimir had sworn a solemn oath, when he reached his dynastic majority in 1933, to uphold the State Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire on Succession to the Throne and the Statute of the Imperial Family. He swore the oath in the presence of his father, and he took it seriously. From his point of view, he sought to maintain the inviolability of the succession laws in the event any of these seven male dynasts as potential future heads of the dynasty was inclined not to uphold these laws faithfully. His view was that over the years several of these seven men had shown little interest in the laws, traditions and continuation of the dynasty. Based on the 1911 letter issued by Baron Frederiks on behalf of Nicholas II, quoted above, it is also clear that, had the monarchy continued, these seven male dynasts would have had to renounce their succession rights as a condition of receiving the Emperor’s permission to contract morganatic unions. From the points of view of the seven male dynasts, however, the Grand Duke was seeking to tie their hands, in the event they succeeded him as head of the dynasty. Presumably, Prince Vsevolode of Russia, first in the line of succession to the Grand Duke Wladimir in 1969, was of the view that, if he were to succeed the Grand Duke, he would become Head of the Imperial House with exactly the same rights as his predecessor, and without any need for the intermediary of a curatrix or guardian. Similarly, Prince Roman of Russia, second in line, may have considered that should he succeed as Head of the House, a 1969 declaration from his predecessor could not validly block him from formally amending the succession laws to eliminate the equal marriage rule and make his morganatic sons dynasts and Princes of Russia, if he were to choose that course of action. 

Three Princes of Russia, Princes Vsevolode, Roman and Andrew, protested the 1969 pronouncement of the head of their house. This caused a permanent rift within the dynasty. This rift in turn led a decade later to the formation by Prince Roman’s morganatic son Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) of the Romanoff Family Association (RFA). As the latter wrote on his website in 2010, “In 1978, after the death of my father Prince Roman Petrovich and whilst organizing his papers, I, to my great surprise, found a scheme for the creation of a Family Association was practically ready.” Two male dynasts, Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia (who died a few months later in July 1980) and Prince Vassily of Russia, became RFA members. The vast majority of other RFA members, however, were descendants of morganatic marriages. By the 1990s, except for two elderly Princesses of Russia, the two dozen or so members of the RFA were all morganatic descendants. Today, the organization is composed entirely of morganatic descendants.

In the end, however, the 1969 declaration of the Grand Duke Wladimir turned out to be unnecessary. The Grand Duke Wladimir outlived all of the seven male dynasts still alive at the time of the 1969 declaration. The last of the seven, Prince Vassily of Russia, died in 1989, at which point the Grand Duchess Maria became first in the line of succession to her father. When Wladimir died in 1992, the male line of male dynasts of the dynasty died with him, and the succession then passed to a female, the Grand Duchess Maria, as expressly provided for in the house laws promulgated by Emperor Paul I at the time of his coronation in 1797. 

Article 27 specifies that both genders have the right of succession to the throne, with preference to male dynasts by order of primogeniture but with the succession of female dynasts by substitution upon extinction of the male dynasts. Article 6 provides that, when the throne passes to a female dynast as empress, she has the same power that an emperor would have. Article 30 clarifies that the female dynast who succeeds is the one most closely related to the last emperor.  

Whether one considers the last emperor to have been Nicholas II or (as do the legitimists) the Grand Duke Wladimir, the female dynast most closely related to him is the Grand Duchess Maria, who is the Grand Duke Wladimir's only child and is descended from Nicholas II's senior uncle. The other female dynasts alive in 1992, Princesses Vera and Ekaterina, were more distantly related to Nicholas II and the Grand Duke Wladimir. Under the laws, the Grand Duchess Maria succeeded her father in 1992 as head of the house. Her heir is her son and only child, the Grand Duke George of Russia.[28]

Meanwhile, certain morganatic descendants within the so-called Romanoff Family Association continued to push themselves forward. The RFA, although privately organized without the approval of the Head of the Imperial House, had an official sounding name which misled several journalists into thinking incorrectly that it was the dynasty or at least the mouthpiece of the dynasty. In the 1990s, this grouping of numerous morganatic descendants using the Romanoff surname interspersed with two elderly female dynasts increased the confusion of those who viewed the RFA as being synonymous with the dynasty.[29] Nicholas Romanoff’s elected position as its president in the 1990s also gave him a kind of platform to purport to speak for the “Romanoff family.” Although the RFA expressed criticisms of the Grand Duke Wladimir and attacked his 1969 declaration, nobody challenged his position as head of the dynasty. Instead, they bided their time and awaited his passing. Thus, Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014), flanked by six other morganatic sons of dynasts, held a press conference in Paris shortly after the April 1992 death of the Grand Duke Wladimir, during which Nicholas Romanoff called himself by the dynastic title of Prince of Russia and purported to have succeeded the Grand Duke Wladimir as head of the dynasty. 

The claim of Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) to be head of the dynasty is of course without legal merit. In order to be the head of a dynasty, one must first be a member of the dynasty. Nicholas was the elder son of the morganatic marriage of Prince Roman of Russia to a non-royal spouse. The legal texts discussed above make clear that morganatic children of a dynast cannot themselves be dynasts: namely, the 1820 decree of Alexander I instituting the equal marriage requirement; the several sections of the succession laws in effect in 1917 that implement Alexander I’s decree; the 1911 letter of the minister of the imperial court explaining Nicholas II’s position that children of a morganatic marriage contracted by a Prince of Russia are not only not members of the dynasty but have no right to the Romanoff surname or coat of arms; the 1935 declaration of Grand Duke Kirill approving noble, non-royal titles for children of morganatic marriages; the 1938 declaration issued with the approval of Grand Duke Wladimir and signed by the five dynasts most senior after him in the line of succession which listed all the then living male dynasts by seniority and pointedly excluded from the list the many morganatic sons (including Nicholas Romanoff) alive in 1938; the 1969 declaration of Princes Vsevolode, Roman and Andrew of Russia protesting the Grand Duke Wladimir’s nomination of his daughter as Curatrix of the Throne recognised that Prince Roman’s children to be morganatic and therefore excluded from the succession; and the declarations of the Grand Duke Wladimir during his fifty-three years as head of the dynasty. 

Nicholas Romanoff’s claim was based on his consistent refusal to acknowledge the legal fact that the equal marriage rule applied to all members of the Russian dynasty. Speaking of his father, Prince Roman of Russia, a dynast, and of other dynasts who contracted morganatic marriages, Nicholas Romanoff once said, “Our parents married commoners. So what?[30] Roman, along with his father and his father’s brother, was, as explained above, one of the three male dynasts who declined to acknowledge Kirill as head of the dynasty in the 1920s. From 1973 until his death in 1978, Prince Roman of Russia was first in the line of succession to the head of the dynasty, the Grand Duke Wladimir. As suggested above, if Roman had outlived Wladimir and become head of the dynasty in his own right, he might well have revised the succession laws and dropped the equal marriage rule, declaring his two morganatic sons as dynasts. Only the head of the dynasty would have the authority to amend these rules. [31]

The suggestion that Nicholas Romanoff, as the morganatic son of a dynast, might claim membership of the dynasty by embracing those aspects of the succession laws which suit him and ignoring those which do not is wholly unreasonable. In the light of Article 36 of the succession laws (“Children issuing from a marriage of a person of the Imperial Family with a person not having the corresponding dignity, that is to say, not belonging to a royal or ruling house, have no right of succession to the Throne”), it was with even less justification that he would take the additional step of claiming to be head of the dynasty.

By 1983, when he was already in his sixties, and by which time all but two (Grand Duke Wladimir and Prince Vassily) of the genuine male dynasts had died, Nicholas Romanoff started calling himself by the title of Prince of Russia.[32] His brother Dmitry (born 1926) followed suit. They were never members of the dynasty, however, and therefore could not be Princes of Russia. Nicholas Romanoff is not, and has never been eligible to be the head of the dynasty.

Several factors contributed to the confusion that in the minds of some people surrounds Nicholas Romanoff’s claim to head the dynasty.[33] First, there were two kinds of princely titles in Russia: there were noble, non-royal princely titles (such as Prince Paley or Prince Yurievsky) and there was the Russian dynastic title of Prince of the Imperial Blood, that is, Prince of Russia.[34] The legal distinction between the two was a difficult point for those without an understanding of the difference between the titles of a reigning or formerly reigning house and those which are considered ordinary noble titles. The titles accorded to morganatic descendants, whether of Prince (as with Yurievsky) or Count (Torby) are noble, nor royal titles. Second Russian imperial law and practice before 1917 prohibited the morganatic children of dynasts from even bearing the name Romanoff, the surname of the dynasty, in Russia. Instead, they received new surnames, such as Yurievsky, Brassov, Paley and Iskander. In post-revolutionary exile, however, when the morganatic child of a dynast was born in France, Britain or the United States, he or she received the father’s surname, Romanoff, under the laws of their country of birth. Third, Grand Dukes Kirill and Wladimir, as successive dynastic heads, bestowed the noble title of Prince or Princess Romanovsky on the morganatic children and wives of dynasts. As stated earlier, these were not royal titles, and they denoted kinship to but not membership of the dynasty. Over time, several of those who bore the surname Romanoff based upon birth in the West and had been granted the title of Prince Romanovsky dropped the “sky” ending and began to call themselves simply Prince Romanoff, a title that never existed in Russia. To some journalists and others not conversant with Russian imperial law the joinder of a princely title to the Romanoff surname seemed to indicate a member of the Imperial House, particularly since they descended from the dynasty. Over the years, this invented, self-assumed title of “Prince Romanoff” gradually received a degree of social recognition, although it actually had no legal basis.[35] It was but a short step for a morganatic Prince Romanovsky, using the name “Prince Romanoff”, suddenly to start calling himself “Prince of Russia.” In 1992, Grand Duke Wladimir, head of the dynasty and by then the only surviving male dynast of the nineteen alive in 1924, was dismissive in a New York Times interview of Nicholas Romanoff’s self-assumption of a dynastic title: “He can call himself what he wants, but he is not a Prince of Russia.[36]
 

APPENDIX: THE BAGRATIONS

Princess Leonida Bagration of Moukhrani, the wife of the Grand Duke Wladimir and mother of the Grand Duchess Maria, was a member of the Royal House of Bagration, which ruled the Kingdom of Georgia (now the Republic of Georgia) until 1801.

The tangled history of relations between the Romanoffs and the Bagrations and between Russia and Georgia is complicated and can only be analyzed very briefly in this appendix. The present writer has thought it appropriate to provide a brief treatment, however, because, in connection with his own dynastic claim, Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) has asserted incorrectly that the Bagrations are not a royal house.

The Bagrations, the oldest Christian dynasty of Europe, reigned as kings in Georgia from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries. In the eighteenth century, there were one Orthodox Christian empire and three Orthodox Christian kingdoms in Europe: the Russian empire under the Imperial House of Romanoff, the Kingdom of Kartli under the senior line of the Royal House of Bagration, the Kingdom of Kakheti under a junior line of the Royal House of Bagration, and the Kingdom of Imeretia under a third and even more junior line of the Royal House of Bagration.

The Bagrations, Princes of Moukhrani, the family of Grand Duke Wladimir’s spouse, were cadet members of the senior Kartli royal line. King Vakhtang VI of Kartli was overthrown by Muslim invaders and went into exile in Russia with his immediate family in 1724. Circa 1903, the last descendants of Vakhtang VI in the male line died out, and the Bagrations of Moukhrani became by primogeniture the senior princes both of the Kartli royal line and of the entire Bagration dynasty.

When King Vakhtang VI of Kartli (western Georgia) was overthrown, his Bagration kinsman still reigned as King of Kakheti (eastern Georgia). In 1744, King Theimouraz II of Kakheti expelled the Muslim occupiers from Kartli and took control of its territory and of Tblisi, its capital. His wife Queen Thamar (born Princess Thamar Bagration) was a daughter of King Vakhtang VI of Kartli. Their son, Irakly, a Bagration of Kakheti by his father and a Bagration of Kartli by his mother, then held the crown of both kingdoms, reigning from 1762 to 1798 as King Irakly II of Kartli and Kakheti, or, as he was also called, King of Georgia.

The Bagrations of Moukhrani, cadets of the Kartli line, had remained in Georgia after Vakhtang VI went into exile, and they were important members of the combined ruling dynasty of the united kingdoms. They were closely connected to King Irakly II, both by blood (through Irakly’s mother Thamar of the Kartli line) and by marriage. Irakly II’s son Crown Prince Vakhtang married Princess Kethevan Bagration of Moukhrani, and Irakly II’s daughter Princess Kethevan Thamar Bagration married Ivan Bagration, Prince of Moukhrani and head of the Moukhrani branch of the Kartli line. (The latter couple were the direct ancestors of Grand Duke Wladimir’s father-in-law, Prince George Bagration, who by 1946 had become the senior prince of the entire dynasty.)

In 1783, Russia and Georgia negotiated the Treaty of Georgievsk, a solemn treaty of friendship that went into effect the following year. The Russian negotiator was Catherine the Great’s favorite, Prince Potemkin. The Kartli negotiator was Irakly II’s son-in-law, Ivan Bagration, Prince of Moukhrani.

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1992 edition) has an article on the Treaty of Georgievsk of July 24, 1783 which states in relevant part: “[A]greement concluded by Catherine II the Great…and Erekle [Irakly] II…by which Russia guaranteed Georgia's territorial integrity and the continuation of its reigning Bagratid dynasty in return for prerogatives in the conduct of Georgian foreign affairs…Under the terms of the treaty, Catherine and her heirs were to defend Georgia against enemies, and Erekle [Irakly] renounced dependence upon Iran or any other power. Though the treaty was to have permanent validity, Emperor Paul I's manifesto of Dec. 18, 1800, unilaterally declared the annexation of [Georgia] to Russia, and on Sept. 12, 1801, his successor, Alexander I, formally reaffirmed this determination.”

The following excerpts from the English translation of the treaty by the historian Dr. Russell Martin (Ph.D., Harvard University) are noteworthy:

“Since ancient times, the All-Russian Empire, on account of its same faith as the Georgian people, has served as the defense, support and refuge to the said [Georgian] people and to their Most Serene Sovereigns, against the oppression of their neighbors, to which they were susceptible… In this very situation, bowing to a request brought to Her Throne from the Most Serene Tsar of Kartli and Kakheti, Irakly II Theimourazovich [son of Theimouraz], to receive him with all his heirs and successors, and with all his Kingdoms and Regions in the Monarchical protection of Her Majesty and of Her August Heirs and Successors, with the recognition of the Supreme power of the All-Russian Emperors over the Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti, [Her] Most-Gracious [Majesty] consented to prepare and conclude a treaty of friendship with the aforementioned Most Serene Tsar… ….
Art. 2. Her Imperial Majesty, receiving from His Serene Highness this sincere and solemn promise, equally promises and reassures by means of Her Imperial word, on her own behalf and on that of her Successors, that their favor and protection shall never be withdrawn from the Most Serene Tsars of Kartli and Kakheti. In proof of which, Her Majesty gives Her Imperial guarantee of the territorial integrity of the present realm of His Serene Highness Tsar Irakly Theimourazovich,… 

Art. 6. Her Imperial Majesty, having received with favor the recognition of Her supreme power and protection over the Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti, pledges in Her Own name and in that of Her Successors: … to preserve His Serene Highness Tsar Irakly Theimourazovich and the Heirs and descendants to his House, uninterrupted on the Throne of the Kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti;… …
Art. 12. The present treaty is to remain in force forever; but in the case it shall be seen as necessary to change or amend it for the mutual benefit of [both signatories], such changes must be made by mutual consent.”
The elderly King Irakly II of Georgia, who viewed Russia as his closest ally, died in 1798. His son, King George XII of Georgia, succeeded, and was formally recognized as king by Emperor Paul I, but died in 1800. George XII’s eldest son, Prince David Bagration, that is, Tsarevich David Georgievich of Georgia, whom Emperor Paul I had formally recognized in 1799 as heir to the Georgian crown in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Georgievsk, became regent. In 1801, in violation of the express terms of the Treaty of Georgievsk, Russia refused to recognize David as king, overthrew the centuries-old Georgian monarchy, and absorbed Georgia into the Russian empire.

Queen Mariam of Georgia (widow of King George XII) and Dowager Queen Daria (widow of King Irakly II) tried unsuccessfully to protest the Russian annexation of Georgia. Queen Mariam with other members of the Georgian royal family was forcibly brought to Russia and was later confined in a Russian convent. Prince David Bagration, heir to the Georgian throne, was deported under military guard to Russia, where he lived out the remainder of his days, writing on numerous scholarly subjects and translating Voltaire into Georgian. George XII’s second eldest son Prince Ioane Bagration was also deported to Russia. The third surviving son of George XII, Prince Theimouraz Bagration, refused to accept the Russian annexation of his father’s kingdom. He fled to Persia and from 1804 to 1810 fought as a soldier of the Persian army in its war against Russia. He was taken into Russian custody in 1810 and also deported to Russia. All the brothers were accomplished scholars.

Despite the overthrow of the combined Kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti, or Kingdom of Georgia, in 1801, the third Bagration monarchy, the Kingdom of Imeretia, continued to reign under its Bagration sovereign, King Solomon II. He headed a junior line of the dynasty but was closely related to his Kartli and Kakheti kinsmen, because he was born of the marriage of his Bagration father to Princess Helene Bagration, a daughter of King Irakly II. In 1810, Russia also dethroned Solomon II and absorbed his kingdom. Fleeing into exile when Russia annexed Imeretia, King Solomon II tried to enlist the support of Napoleonic France to wrest his kingdom back from Russia.

Prince Alexander Bagration, a son of King Irakly II and half-brother of King George XII, was fiercely anti-Russian. In 1801, pursued by Russian troops, he escaped to Persia. Beginning in 1804, he fought alongside Persian troops in their war against Russia. In 1812, having returned to Georgia and having seized Kakheti at the head of a large armed force, he claimed the Georgian crown. He could not hold Kakheti against the Russian counterattack of 1813, however, and he fled again from Georgia. He was involved in planning several royalist uprisings in Georgia over the years, the last one being the failed 1832 plot to restore the Bagrations.

Another son of King George XII, Prince Okropir Bagration, born in 1795, was removed as a child to Russia, but as an adult became a leader of the clandestine Georgian monarchist movement. As part of the same 1832 plot to restore the Bagration monarchy, he traveled to Georgia in 1830. In 1832, shortly before the planned coup, he and other conspirators were arrested, and he was sent into internal exile in Russia.

In other words, the Bagrations, having reigned in Georgia for nearly ten centuries, did not leave their homeland happily, and their supporters did not give up quietly. This stubborn Georgian resistance bred Russian hostility. Russia’s goal was to Russify Georgia and blend it into the empire. There would be only one tsar reigning in the Caucasus, and it was to be a Romanoff, not the Bagration tsar. The monarchist resistance in Georgia was crushed, and the inconvenient Bagrations were, so to speak, put in their place. In the early years of exile in Russia, the sons of King George XII had been accorded royal status. The former regent and heir to the Georgian throne, Prince David Bagration, was called by the royal title of tsarevich during his years of exile in Russia. By the 1830s, however, this royal recognition of the sons of George XII had been withdrawn, the Treaty of Georgievsk had been forgotten, and Russia began to treat the Bagrations as mere titled nobility and subjects.

In 1911, Prince Constantine Bagration of Moukhrani, a member of what had by then become what is generally believed to be the senior line of the Bagration royal house of Kartli, and thus the senior branch of the entire Bagration dynasty, married a member of the Russian Imperial House, Princess Tatiana of Russia, a daughter of Grand Duke Constantine of Russia. This was the first of three twentieth century marriages between Bagrations and other European royal houses. As recounted by the couple’s only son (the late Prince Theimouraz Bagration), Emperor Nicholas II, who attended the wedding, suggested that the groom sign the marriage register as Prince of Georgia (i.e. Prince Grousinsky). At the time of their engagement in 1910, Princess Tatiana’s father, Grand Duke Constantine, in his diary entry of Tuesday, November 30, 1910, described the conversation his wife had with Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra in respect of the impending marriage: “…My wife was invited for tea with Their Majesties at Tsarskoe Selo. Having returned from there to Pavlovsk, she told me that the Empress had reacted with more leniency than the Emperor about Tatiana’s intentions. They both told my wife that they would not look on her wedding with Bagration as morganatic in view of the fact that he, like the members of the House of Orléans, is a descendant of a once-ruling dynasty. The Emperor even said that T[atiana] would not lose her annual stipend from the Office of Apanages. The Emp[ress] found it unnecessary to wait until the end of the year, but my wife, citing my views on the matter, countered that it was necessary to wait so that both were quite sure of their feelings..”[37]

Nonetheless, despite Nicholas II’s private assurance to the mother of the bride, no official steps were taken to declare this an equal marriage. Less than four years after the marriage, the groom serving as a an officer in the Russian Imperial army was killed in 1915 and, just two years after his death, the Romanoffs joined the Bagrations as a dethroned dynasty.

In 1946, Prince Irakly Bagration of Moukhrani, the elder brother of Leonida, married Infante Maria Mercedes of Spain. Because the Spanish dynasty also had an equal marriage rule, and because Georgia had been incorporated into the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century, the Infanta’s father, Infante Ferdinand, wrote to the Grand Duke Wladimir to ask whether he, as head of the Russian dynasty, considered the Bagrations to be of equal royal birth. The Grand Duke issued the following document:

"Act of the Head of the Imperial House, fifth December 1946: His Royal Highness the Infante don Ferdinand [of Spain]…, 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.”

As the only person entitled to interpret the meaning and application of the equal marriage rule of the Russian dynasty, the Grand Duke Wladimir in 1946 made a pronouncement that was definitive and binding on the dynasty he headed. He based his pronouncement on the simple fact that the Bagrations, like the Romanoffs, were a dethroned royal dynasty. Thus, his marriage to Princess Leonida Bagration two years later in 1948 became the only equal marriage contracted by a male dynast since the fall of the monarchy in 1917.

The late Georgian historian, Prince Cyril Toumanoff, and others have pointed out the absurdity of trying to suggest that the ancient Bagrations, who reigned as kings until the nineteenth century, are not of “equal birth”, when one considers some of the formerly reigning families deemed to be of equal birth for marriage purposes, such as the roughly forty “mediatized” families which, as rulers of various former co-states of the Holy Roman Empire, had lost sovereignty by 1806 and had never ruled as kings but only as reigning princes, dukes or counts, as well as deposed dynasties like the royal house of Montenegro, which exercised secular sovereignty only from the 1850s and reigned as kings only from 1910 to 1918.

The status of the Bagrations as a sovereign house dethroned in the nineteenth century was a matter of historical fact. Why then did the Infante Ferdinand of Spain ask the Head of the Russian Imperial House about their royal status? The Spanish dynasty is the senior branch of the Royal House of Bourbon, and the Infante[38] would certainly not have posed a similar question about the royal status of various branches of the Bourbon dynasty which had lost sovereignty in the nineteenth century, including the formerly sovereign houses of France (1830), of Parma (1859), and of the Two Sicilies (1860), as well as the Orléans dynasty of France (1848). His question no doubt was prompted by the manner in which, beginning in the 1830s, the Romanoffs had sought to reduce the Bagrations to the status of mere Russian nobles, in furtherance of Russia’s efforts to engender Georgian loyalty to the new Romanoff tsars of the Caucasus rather than to the old Bagration tsars. The late Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, the Scottish lawyer and nobiliary expert, would have none of this and viewed the 1946 declaration as unnecessary. He once wrote: “[The] Bagration…dynasty had reigned in the male line as Kings from 886 until the nineteenth century, before the seventeenth century boyar family of Romanoff dispossessed them. Both Bagration and Romanoff are now equally dispossessed: which needs the official recognition of which?[39]                                     

When in 1946 the Grand Duke Wladimir, as Head of the Imperial House, formally confirmed that the Imperial House recognized the Bagrations of Moukhrani as a deposed royal dynasty and as being of equal birth, his pronouncement may have seemed rather abstract to some, because nobody was alive who remembered Georgia as a monarchy under the Bagrations. The collapse of the Soviet Union, however, made the pronouncement suddenly less abstract. Georgia again became an independent state in 1991 and reasserted its cultural and historical traditions.[40]

A Georgian monarchist movement quickly coalesced around Prince George Iraklievich Bagration of Moukhrani (1944-2008), head of the senior Kartli royal line and senior prince of the entire Bagration dynasty. In 1995, he escorted from Spain to Tblisi the remains of his grandfather (Grand Duke Wladimir’s father-in-law) Prince George Bagration, head of the royal dynasty until his death in 1957, for burial in the crypt of the Georgian kings, after a liturgy sung by the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church and attended by the President of Georgia.

In 2007, the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Ilia II, publicly called for restoration of a Bagration monarchy as a guarantor of national unity and independence. It had been thought by many that the junior Kakheti royal line of Bagration, direct descendants of King George XII, had died out in the male line during the Soviet period. In the 1980s, during the period of Glasnost, it was established that there were indeed several males of this line who had survived Stalinism and the Soviet Union. This line is likely to die out in the male line in due course, however, because none of the three surviving princes of this line, all now older than ages sixty, has a son. The current head of the Kakheti line is Prince Nugzar Bagration (born 1950). A question then arose as to whether various monarchist groups preferred George, head of the senior Kartli royal line of the Bagrations, or Nugzar, head of the junior Kakheti royal line.

In 2009, Prince David Bagration (born in Spain in 1976), son and successor of the late head of the Kartli line (Prince George Bagration of Moukhrani, died 2008), having become a Georgian citizen, married Princess Anna Bagration (born in Georgia in 1976), elder child of the head of the Kakheti line (Prince Nugzar Bagration, who has no son), in Tblisi. Their infant son, Prince George Bagration, was born in Spain in September 2011 and like his forebear King Irakly II, this child unites through his parents both royal lines. In due course, given a long life, he is likely to become through his father the head of the senior royal line of Kartli and through his mother the heir-general of the current head of the junior royal line of Kakheti. Through his father, he is related to Bagration émigrés who fled from Georgia to the West after the revolution and intermarried with the Russian and Spanish royal houses. Through his mother, he descends from Bagrations who remained in Georgia after the revolution and survived the Soviet dictatorship. With a Georgian mother and maternal relatives born in Tblisi, he will presumably speak fluent Georgian and be closely connected with his country. It seems unlikely that the restoration called for by the Georgian patriarch could ever happen, especially as two centuries have passed since the overthrow of the Georgian monarchy in 1801. Should a monarchist movement gather strength in Georgia in future years, it is likely to revolve around this young child whose pedigree qualifies him so notably as the representative of this ancient dynasty.

Meantime, the uneasy relationship between Georgia and Russia has continued to the present day. In 2008, the two countries fought a war and broke off diplomatic relations. In April 2012, in a diplomatic note forwarded via the Swiss embassy because diplomatic relations remain officially broken, the Georgian Foreign Ministry protested Russian construction plans that would result in the destruction of a cemetery in Moscow containing royal Bagration graves. The last chapter in this complicated history has yet to be written.

In the Treaty of Georgievsk, Catherine the Great gave her word that Russia would recognize the royal status of the Bagrations and keep them on their throne forever. Due to power politics, this treaty provision was violated during the reigns of her son Paul I and her grandson Alexander I. In the reign of her grandson Nicholas I, following the monarchist uprisings of the 1830s in Georgia, Russia ceased treating the sons of King George XII of Georgia living in Russia as royal princes, even though their former royal status was a matter of historical fact. Catherine II’s great-great-great-grandson and heir Nicholas II, perhaps mindful of this history, made a private comment acknowledging the royal status of the Bagrations at the time of the first Romanoff-Bagration wedding in 1911. It was her great-great-great-great-grandson and heir Grand Duke Wladimir who in 1946 gave effect to the underlying spirit of mutual respect between the two dynasties that was a key purpose of the treaty.

 



[1] Guy Stair Sainty, The Russian Succession – Another View, at www.chivalricorders.org.
[2] The writer was the late Grand Duke Wladimir’s lawyer, a role he continued with the Grand Duchess Maria. The Grand Duke was Head of the Russian Imperial House from 1938 to 1992. This essay limits itself strictly to a summary of the main points of the succession question. Those interested in a more thorough analysis might wish to read the writer’s more detailed treatment of the issue, The Russian Imperial Succession, which first appeared in 1997 and has been subsequently updated. It was translated into Russian by N. Dmitrovskii-Baikov and published in Russia under the title Rossiiskoe Imperatorskoe prestolonasledie (Moscow, 2001, ISBN 5-900053-024-0), with an introduction by Viktor Nikolayevich Yaroshenko, Trade Representative of the Russian Federation in France and, under Yeltsin, the first Minister of Foreign Economic Development of the Russian Federation.
[3] From the introduction by Prince Cyril Toumanoff, professor emeritus of history, Georgetown University, to the excellent and authoritative Succession to the Imperial Throne of Russia, first published in 1984 under the editorial supervision of Archbishop Antony, Archbishop of Los Angeles and Southern California, of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
[4] In the Service of the Imperial House of Russia, 1917-1941 by Rear-Admiral H.G. Graf (private secretary of Grand Duke Kirill) (privately published, 1999), p. 76.
[5] This number includes Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich of Russia (1850-1918), although some accounts attribute his death during the revolution to illness.
[6] Although five of Grand Duke Alexander’s six sons recognized Kirill, only four signed Alexander’s 1924 statement of loyalty. His son Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich of Russia, who could not sign it because he was in New York when it was written, recognized Kirill separately.
[7] Before the revolution, the Russian dynasty was a large one, and Grand Duke Kirill and Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich (“N.N.”) had not known each other well; the latter, twenty years older than Kirill, was of the same generation as Kirill’s late father. If there was a major bone of contention between them, it was perhaps the role of N.N. in persuading Nicholas II to abdicate, given Kirill’s strong view that this decision by the isolated and abandoned emperor was a disaster which precipitated the fall of the monarchy. On 2 March 1917, Nicholas II had received a telegram from N.N. in which the Grand Duke said it was necessary for him "to beg…on bended knee" that the emperor abdicate. (Mark Steinberg and Vladimir Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs [Yale University Press, 1995], pp. 89-90, citing State Archive of the Russian Federation, Document f. 601, op. 1, d. 2102, l. 1-2). On the afternoon of 2 March, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Voeikov, commandant of the palace, entered the emperor's railway car to express his grief and astonishment at the emperor's abdication. In his memoirs, Voeikov described Nicholas II's pointing to the many telegrams on his desk and stating, "What else could I have done when everyone has betrayed me? And first among them Nikolasha [N.N.]."  Mark Steinberg and Vladimir Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs (Yale University Press, 1995), p. 63, citing V.N. Voeikov, S tsarem i bez tsaria (1936), p. 212. In his famous diary entry of 2 March 1917, Nicholas II finished his description of the day with this sentence: "All around me is treachery, cowardice and deceit." In the first volume of his memoirs, Once A Grand Duke (New York, 1932, p. 145), Grand Duke Alexander of Russia, Nicholas II’s brother-in-law and N.N.’s first cousin, wrote of N.N.: “Had Nicholasha [N.N.] advised the Czar on March 2, 1917 to remain with the army and to accept the challenge of the revolution, Mr. Stalin would not have been entertaining Mr. G.B. Shaw in the Kremlin in 1931.” There were already internal factions among the numerous dynasts long before the revolution. In the same book of memoirs (pp. 40-42, 143-145), Grand Duke Alexander described how various grand dukes at young ages took sides in the bitter lifelong feud between two first cousins, Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich (a prominent historian and a member of the French Academy, assassinated in 1919) and Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich. It was even alleged by Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich that N.N.’s Montenegrin sister-in-law was pushing N.N., very distant in the line of succession, as a future tsar well before the outbreak of the revolution. On 11 May 1916, when N.N. was only sixteenth in line of succession to the Tsar, Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich wrote a letter to his cousin Emperor Nicholas II hinting "darkly that Nikolasha's [N.N.'s] popularity, in view of the nervous mood of the Russian public, threatened the legitimate line of succession, inflating the potential importance of Nikolasha's brother Peter and nephew Roman, suggesting that, through them, the childless Nikolasha could found an alternative branch of the dynasty." The Flight of the Romanovs by John Curtis Perry and Constantine Pleshakov (New York, 1999), p. 125, citing Nikolai II i velikiye knyazya, ed. by V.P. Semennikov (Leningrad-Moscow, Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo, 1925), pp. 63-64. Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich’s letter to the emperor was as follows: … Regarding the popularity of Nicholas [N.N.], I will say this: His popularity was masterfully prepared at Kiev by Militsa [Grand Duchess Militsa, born Princess Militsa of Montenegro, was married to N.N.’s only brother Grand Duke Peter; Militsa’s sister Stana was married to N.N.] quite gradually, during a long period of time and by making use of all means, such as distributing to the people pamphlets, all kinds of booklets, pictures, portraits, calendars, etc. Thanks to this well-planned preparation, his popularity did not go down after the loss of Galicia and Poland, and rose again after the victories in the Caucasus. From the very start of the campaign, I repeatedly wrote to your dear mother, warning her of these Kiev intrigues, but I could not write to you, without infraction of discipline, while I was attached to the staff of Adjutant-General Ivanov. Now I am speaking freely. I said, when you personally took the Supreme Command of the armies, and I repeat now, that Militsa is not asleep in the Caucasus. I make bold to assure you, from a deep conviction, that this popularity frightens me, in a dynastic sense, especially in the excited state of our public opinion, which appears to take more and more definite shape in the provinces. This popularity [of N.N.] does not contribute in the least to the benefit of the Throne or the prestige of the Imperial family, but only to the advertising of the husband [N.N.] of the Grand Duchess [Stana] - a Slav woman [Montenegrin] and not a German - as well as of his brother and nephew, Roman. In view of the possibility of all kinds of troubles after the war, one has to be watchful and observe closely every move in support of this popularity. You are aware of my boundless devotion to your late father, your mother, yourself, and your line, for which I am ready at any moment to lay down my life, but I do not recognize any other possibilities, in the dynastic sense, nor shall I ever recognize any…” See www.alexanderpalace.org. The present writer does not read the letter of Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich (a sometimes divisive figure within the dynasty) as accusing N.N. of disloyalty to the emperor. The letter does, however, directly claim that amidst the chaos of 1916 Grand Duchess Militsa (wife of Grand Duke Peter and mother of Prince Roman of Russia) was working hard to advance the stature and popularity of N.N. Did she view him as a future tsar who could take charge and save the dynasty? The wives of N.N. and his brother Grand Duke Peter were both daughters of King Nicholas I of Montenegro. It was the two ambitious Montenegrin princesses, known for their love of intrigue, who had introduced Rasputin to Empress Alexandra. In Once A Grand Duke (pp. 145-146), Grand Duke Alexander wrote that they “exercised an exceptionally bad influence on the young Czarina.” Unlike the royal dynasties of northern Europe where Russian grand dukes traditionally sought their wives, the Montenegrin dynasty, which held secular sovereignty only from the 1850s until 1918, had neither an equal marriage rule nor a well-rooted tradition of primogeniture. It is indeed plausible to suggest that, at least after the fall of the dynasty, the two sisters may well have contributed to a slavophile disdain for these two rules and for legitimism in general on the part of their grand ducal husbands and descendants. If so, this may partially explain why N.N., his brother Peter, and Peter’s son Roman were the only male dynasts to decline in the 1920s to recognize Grand Duke Kirill as the rightful dynastic chief by right of primogeniture. To the extent they influenced his views, it may also explain why the claim of Militsa’s grandson and Roman’s morganatic son Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) to be head of the dynasty ignores both the equal marriage rule and the primogeniture rule. [2014 Note: In 2014, the family of Prince Felix Yusupov and his wife Princess Irina of Russia (only daughter of Nicholas II’s sister Xenia) sold at public auction the private letters of Felix and Irina, and a pre-auction catalogue was published containing the texts of the letters (often in French translation, as most of the letters were in Russian). There are several letters from the Montenegrin sisters, Stana and Militsa, to Felix Yusupov’s mother showing their implacable hostility to Russian legitimism. One fascinating letter suggests that Militsa was still trying to put her son Prince Roman of Russia on the Russian throne during World War II. This is a letter from Felix Yusupov to his wife Irina of Russia, written during or following a trip by the former to Rome. Although undated, it was clearly written in the early 1940s, after Fascist Italy and its ally, Nazi Germany, had declared war on Soviet Russia. The letter claims that Militsa, through the influence of her sister, the Queen of Italy, was pushing the Italian government to pressure Nazi Germany to set up a puppet monarchy in Russia with Roman as tsar, once Germany and Italy overthrew the Soviet regime. If the French translation of the letter is correct, it also states that Roman’s son (presumably Nicholas Romanoff, then aged about 20 years) was using the title of Grand Duke of Russia in Rome. Was this merely second-hand gossip that Yusupov was repeating or was it based on actual facts? As the husband of Nicholas II’s only niece, Yusupov was certainly in an excellent position to receive reliable information from the leading members of the Russian community in Rome. On the other hand, the tendency to spread gossip was not unkown in émigré communities.]
[8] All twentieth century male line dynasts of the Imperial House descended from one of the four sons (in order of birth: Alexander, Constantine, Nicholas and Michael) of Emperor Nicholas I. These four branches of the dynasty were informally known as the Alexandrovichi (that is, descendants of Alexander), the Constantinovichi, the Nikolayevichi, and the Mikhailovichi. In the 1920s, as stated above, only the 3 male dynasts of the junior Nikolayevichi branch declined to endorse Kirill as dynastic head and his son Wladimir as heir. All male dynasts of the other three branches (except Vassily of the Mikhailovichi branch, because he was a minor and was not asked to sign the declaration of loyalty to Kirill issued by his father and older brothers) supported Kirill and Wladimir.
[9] Nicholas Romanoff is referred to in these pages as “Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014)” to avoid confusion with others named Nicholas, such as Emperor Nicholas II, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich of Russia and Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich of Russia. [2014 Note: Nicholas Romanoff died in 2014.]
[10] Point de Vue-Images du Monde, 12 May 1992, p. 17.
[11] On his website, www.nikolairomanov.com, on which he called himself “Nikolai Romanov, Prince of Russia,” Nicholas Romanoff wrote, “In April 1992 I became the head of the Romanov Family.”
[12]Metropolitan Vitaly, First Hierarch of ROCOR from 1985 to 2001, opposed the notion of reconciliation between ROCOR and the Patriarchate. Long a supporter of the Grand Duke Wladimir as head of the dynasty, the octogenarian Vitaly was angered by the Grand Duke’s historic meeting with Patriarch Alexei II in November 1991, and he de-emphasized the monarchism of the Church. He resigned as First Hierarch in 2001 and was succeeded as ROCOR First Hierarch by Metropolitan Laurus. In May 2007, the Patriarchate and ROCOR formally reconciled during a solemn ceremony in Moscow during which Patriarch Alexei II and Metropolitan Laurus signed an Act of Canonical Communion. The Church Outside of Russia thereupon came under the Patriarch, although retaining a quasi-autonomy. At his death in 2008, Metropolitan Laurus was succeeded as ROCOR First Hierarch by Metropolitan Hilarion. On December 10, 2013, after a liturgy at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York City and in the presence of the Grand Duchess Maria, Metropolitan Hilarion gave a homily, during which he welcomed the Grand Duchess as head of the dynasty. The following week, the official website of ROCOR published, at http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2013/20131219_enhihvisit.html, a description of her visit, entitled “The Visit of the Head of the Romanov Dynasty to America.”
[13] In his eulogy at the funeral service on April 29, 1992, before dozens of bishops and priests and some 15,000 mourners in St. Isaac Cathedral, St. Petersburg, the Patriarch stated in part as follows: "I was very impressed by his deep faith, his love for Russia and her people, whom he wished to help…His whole life outside, all his feelings and efforts, Grand Duke Wladimir Kirillovich dedicated to a country he considered his own…His faith and long patience were not in vain. On the eve of his passage to the other world, he stepped on his native soil…On his return from Russia, he never ceased to dedicate all his strength to assist his country, and despite his fragile health, he went to the United States to persuade various American business circles to help Russia and to have faith in his country. He died during this trip."  See also, New York Times, April 30, 1992, page 1 (“With Old-World Pageantry, Russia Buries A Romanov”) by Serge Schmemann). 
[14] State Archives of the Russian Federation [GARF], Fond 601 (“The Emperor Nicholas II”), Opis’ [Inventory] 1, Delo [File] 2143, Folios 58-59.
[15] The letter begins as follows: “Your Imperial Highness – After I presented [to the Lord Emperor] my loyal report on the project undertaken at the meeting of the Grand Dukes, at which Your Imperial Highness presided, regarding amendments and additions to the Statute of the Imperial Family, together with a determination by the Minister of Justice, the Lord Emperor has seen fit to set the following conditions under which His Imperial Majesty might permit marriages of Princes and Princesses of the Imperial Blood [Princes and Princesses of Russia] to persons not possessing corresponding rank…
[16] The exact language of this portion of the letter is: “In relation to the categorization of marriages of Princes and Princesses of the Imperial Blood, the Lord Emperor has seen fit to recognize only two categories of marriages: (a) equal marriages, that is, those contracted with persons belonging to a royal or ruling house, and (b) unequal marriages, that is, those contracted with persons not belonging to a royal or ruling house, and He will not recognize any other categories.”
[17] Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014) also used this meritless argument in another context. Among the male line morganatic descendants of Emperor Paul I alive in 1992, Nicholas Romanoff was still rather junior. Ahead of him, for example, were 3 Ilyinskys, the morganatic son and grandsons of Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich. According to Nicholas Romanoff’s unreasonable argument, Paul Ilyinsky was not a dynast because his father was a grand duke, whilst Nicholas Romanoff was a dynast because his father was only a Prince of Russia. Later, he apparently backed away from this argument and suddenly expanded his definition of dynast to include all morganatic descendants in the male line: he now describes all the members of his “Romanoff Family Association” as Princes and Princesses of Russia, at least according to Wikipedia, even though in 2012 every single one of them is a morganatic descendant.
[18] Aside from the Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna and her son, the only other Russian dynasts by birth who were alive in the twenty-frst century were Princess Vera of Russia (1906-2001) and the latter’s niece Princess Ekaterina of Russia (1915-2007).
[19] Six, because it was issued with the express approval of the Grand Duke Wladimir and signed by the five dynasts most senior in line after him.
[20] His morganatic son (and only child) Wladimir Andreivich (1902-1974) was not included in the succession list, because he was the child of a (subsequent) unequal marriage and thus was not a member of the dynasty. His uncle, the Grand Duke Kirill, gave him the morganatic title of Prince Romanovsky-Krassinsky on 28 July 1935. He left no issue.
[21] His morganatic son (and only child) Paul (1928-2004), long-time mayor of Palm Beach, Florida was not included in the succession list, because he was the child of an unequal marriage and thus was not a member of the dynasty. The Grand Duke Kirill gave him the morganatic title of Prince Romanovsky-Ilyinsky. Prince Paul left two sons, both of whom only have daughters.
[22] His two morganatic sons (and only children), Nicholas (1922-2014) and Dmitry (born 1926), were not included in the succession list, because they were children of an unequal marriage and thus were not members of the dynasty. Nicholas left three daughters, his brother Dmitry is childless.
[23] His two morganatic sons, Michael (1920-2008), who foolishly allied himself with a notorious "self-styled" Order of Saint John and Andrew (born 1923), were not included in the succession list because they were children of an unequal marriage and thus were not members of the dynasty. Michael was childless but Andrew left three sons, of whom the elder two are childless and the youngest has a daughter.
[24] His morganatic son Michael (1924-2008, dying one day after his cousin Michael) was not included in the succession list because he was the child of an unequal marriage and thus was not a member of the dynasty. His only son predeceased him and the latter's daughter survives.
[25] His morganatic sons Nikita (1923-2007) left an only daughter and Alexander (1929-2002) died childless; they were not included in the succession list because they were children of an unequal marriage and thus were not members of the dynasty.
[26] Of the last two signatories to this document, Prince Rostislav left two morganatic sons, Rostislav (1938-1999) and Nicholas (1945-2000). They were the only morganatic descendants of the house bearing the name Romanoff to leave male line descendants, all living in the United States of America. The only other surviving male line morganatic descendant of the dynasty, Prince George Yurievsky (born in 1961, a great-grandson of the second, morganatic marriage of Emperor Alexander II) recently married (in 2013) but as yet has no issue.
[27] At the time of the 1969 declaration, Grand Duchess Maria had just reached the age of sixteen. The other female dynasts alive in 1969 were all well past the age in which it was likely that they could have children, were they to contract equal marriages.
[28] Grand Duke George of Russia, Prince of Prussia, born in March 1981, was created a grand duke shortly after his birth by his grandfather, Grand Duke Wladimir. Grand Duke George’s father, H.R.H. Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia, had converted to Orthodoxy before his marriage and remains Orthodox. Grand Duke George's eventual accession as head of the dynasty will mark the first time that the Romanoff succession has passed through the female line since the promulgation of the present succession laws in 1797, but it will not be the first time in the history of the Romanoff dynasty. In 1762, the Romanoff dynasty technically became extinct in the male line upon the death of the Empress Elisabeth. The throne then passed to her German nephew, Emperor Peter III, whose mother was a Romanoff grand duchess but whose father was a German prince, the reigning Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. (In 1742, Peter of Holstein-Gottorp had been summoned to Russia at age fourteen by his aunt, the Empress, who created him a Grand Duke of Russia and named him heir to the throne.) Although after 1762 the dynasty still was known as the House of Romanoff, it had technically become the House of Romanoff-Holstein-Gottorp. Peter III's son, Emperor Paul I, instituted the present succession laws. Assuming the eventual succession of her son, the present Grand Duchess Maria thus will be the last Romanoff-Holstein-Gottorp to head the dynasty. Nonetheless, upon the succession of her son Grand Duke George, the dynasty, as it did in 1762, will continue to be called the House of Romanoff.
[29] In one pronouncement of the Romanoff Family Association dated March 25, 1981, Prince Vassily of Russia, elected president of the RFA, referred to the Romanoff Family Association as being composed of two categories of members: “members of the Imperial House of Russia” (presumably, dynasts like himself) and “members of the Romanoff Family” (presumably, morganatic descendants who were not dynasts). Today, the RFA is composed exclusively of morganatic descendants.
[30] Robert K. Massie, The Romanovs – The Final Chapter (New York, 1995), p. 278. Nicholas Romanoff’s mother was from one of the most distinguished noble families of imperial Russia, but her family had never occupied a sovereign throne and thus was not a reigning or formerly reigning house.
[31] In respect of the many dethroned dynasties in which the equal marriage rule still applies, it is the head of the dynasty who has sole authority to amend the rule, interpret the application of the rule, and decide whether a marriage satisfies the rule. Several foreign dynastic heads have used their authority to allow exceptions to the rule. For example, Archduke Otto, head of the Habsburg dynasty of Austria from 1922 to 2007, strictly enforced the ancient Habsburg equal marriage laws, recognizing the children of equal marriages as archdukes and archduchesses but bestowing morganatic titles (like Count von Habsburg) on morganatic descendants. In 1993, however, when his elder son and heir Archduke Karl married a commoner, Otto relaxed the rule, recognizing the union as a dynastic marriage and bestowing archducal rank on his son’s wife and children. The dethroned Emperor William II of Germany also made an exception for the wife of one of his younger sons. When his son Prince Oskar of Prussia married morganatically in 1914, William II at first gave his new daughter-in-law the morganatic title of Countess von Ruppin. Later, in 1920, after the fall of the monarchy, William II, living in exile, recognized his daughter-in-law and her children as members of the dynasty, giving them the titles of Prince and Princess of Prussia, with the predicate of Royal Highness. Similarly, Crown Prince Rupprecht, head of the deposed Bavarian royal house, elevated his daughter-in-law and grandsons, previously considered morganatic, to dynastic status in 1949. 
[32] See, for example, his introduction to a book published in 1983, Les Descendants de Pierre le Grand, Tsar de Russie (Sedopols, 1983) by Nicolas Enache, in which he uses the name “Nicholas Romanoff, Prince of Russia.”
[33] The authoritative European reference work, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, was never confused on this point. Its 1953 edition of princely houses, Genealogisches Handbuch der Fürstlichen Häuser (C.A. Starke Verlag, 1953, volume II), is divided into three sections. Section I lists reigning and formerly reigning dynasties, Section II lists the mediatised princely houses that were formerly co-states of the Holy Roman Empire, and Section III lists “other, non-sovereign European princely houses.” Prince Roman of Russia, father of Nicholas Romanoff (1922-2014), is, as a dynast, listed in Section I under the House of Russia. Prince Roman’s wife and sons are, as non-dynasts, listed in Section III under the article on “Romanovsky.” The Section III entry (p. 428) states: “The spouse of Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia…(see Section I), Prascovia Dmitrievna, Countess Sheremetiev (born 1901) has received for herself and her descendants (by a Ukase of the Grand Duke Wladimir as Head of the House of Romanoff dated 7 May 1951) the name and title of Princess Romanovsky and Prince Romanovsky, respectively…Prascovia, Princess Romanovsky, born Countess Sheremetiev (at Poltawa 2 October 1901) married (in a union not in accordance with the house laws) at Antibes 3 November 1921…Roman Petrovich, Prince of Russia…(see Section I)…”
[34] Until the late nineteenth century, all male dynasts of the Russian Imperial House had the title of Grand Duke of Russia. In 1886, Emperor Alexander III altered this rule so that there were two titles for male dynasts: Grand Duke of Russia for the sons and grandsons of emperors, and Prince of Russia (“Prince of the Imperial Blood”) for more distantly related dynasts.
[35] The late Alexander Romanoff (1929-2002) was the morganatic son of Prince Nikita of Russia. Born in Paris, he bore the Romanoff surname under French law. He was created Prince Romanovsky on 7 May 1951 by the Grand Duke Wladimir. He called himself Prince Romanoff socially. As he recounted to his Scottish friend Ian Lilburn, Alexander Romanoff was once included on the guest list of a function planned in England during the 1950s. His grandmother, the Grand Duchess Xenia of Russia, the sister of Nicholas II living in exile in England, reviewed the guest list in advance. When she saw her grandson named on the list as “Prince Alexander Romanoff,” she crossed off the title of prince and changed his name on the list to “Alexander Romanoff, Esq.” She knew that the title “Prince Romanoff” did not exist.
[36] New York Times, 9 February 1992.
[37] Ella Matonina, editor, Zagadka K.R.: Iz dnevnikov velikogo kniazia K.K. Romanova (Diaries of Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich), November 30, 1910 entry, Moscow (1994, no. 2): 174.
[38] Infante Don Ferdinand was by birth a Bavarian Prince whose mother was an Infanta of Spain and whose wife, the mother of Infanta Maria Mercedes, was the second daughter of King Alfonso XII.
[39] Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, eleventh Bart., Ph.D., LL.B., Albany Herald, "The Social Recognition of Titles of Honour”, published in Royalty, Peerage & Nobility of the World (London, 1976), pp. 663-667.
[40] Georgia had also achieved independence during the chaotic period following the Russian revolution when civil war raged across the southern and eastern part of the country. This brief period of sovereign rule was ended following a Soviet invasion.

Sunday, 13 September 2015


HISTORIC RECONCILIATION OF THE LONG-STANDING DISPUTE WITHIN THE ROYAL HOUEE AND FAMILY OF THE TWO SICILIES


Naples, 5.30 pm., 24 January 2014
After more than fifty years of division within the Royal House, His Royal Highness Prince Don Pedro of Bourbon-Two Sicilies,  Duke of Noto, representing His father, His Royal Highness the Infante Don Carlos, Duke of Calabria, and His Royal Highness Prince Don Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro, signed the agreement attached here.

This will be followed eventually by the reunification of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George and the sharing of the responsibilities associated with the headship of the Royal House and Family. In the meanwhile the Order is considered one, single body, with dual, parallel administrations, each recognising the members of the other branch of the Order.

That this agreement was possible is a great tribute to the determination of the Duke and Duchess of Castro, the Infante Don Carlos and Duchess of Calabria and the Duke and Duchess of Noto to bring an end to this quarrel, even if there is not yet full agreement on the future path.







DECREE OF THE SPANISH MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS REGULATING THE USE AND WEAR OF ORDERS AND DECORATIONS, AND IN PARTICULAR THOSE ORDERS CONSIDERED TIED HISTORICALLY TO OR UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE SPANISH CROWN. THESE ORDERS ARE LISTED AS THE SOVEREIGN MILITARY ORDER OF MALTA, THE EQUESTRIAN ORDER OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, THE SACRED MILITARY CONSTANTINIAN ORDER OF SAINT GEORGE AND THE ILLUSTRIOUS ROYAK ORDER OF SAINT JANUARIUS.




 

Monday, 7 September 2015



THE QUESTIONABLE  SURVIVAL OF THE “ORDER OF SAINT LAZARUS”
by Guy Stair Sainty (published with the permission of the author)
 
The claim to historical survival of a body with an international membership styling itself “l’Ordre Militaire et Hospitalier de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem” has been repeatedly challenged by historians and denounced by the Holy See. During the course of the last hundred years supporters of the pretence to antiquity of the several bodies which now claim this name have published numerous books and pamphlets designed to sustain their assertion that their organisation is the historic continuum of the Crusader Order of Saint Lazare. In reality it is a modern foundation dating from the early years of the twentieth century.
The initial reinvention dates from 1910 and was initiated by two lawyers, Paul Watrin (then a supporter of the French legitimist monarchist cause), and Paul Bugnot already associated with another invented Order. Others involved were a certain Fritz Hahn who masqueraded as “Comte Fréderic Guigues de Champvaux” and Jacob Rotschild (no relation to the banking family) who used various aliases including Jacob de Moser, Moser de Veyga and even Count of Monte Cristo! There were others involved including a wine merchant from Alsace called Charles Otzenberger who, after this first effort had withered on the vine during the First World War, was responsible for its second revival, in 1928.  From the early 1930s it began to have greater success in recruiting prominent members, although by the 1950s its French leaders were notable figures in the Orleanist monarchist movement rather than legitimists. The Order rather disastrously for its future recruiting split into two separate groups in the late 1960s and, more recently, a third branch separated from the latter two claiming to represent the Lazarite tradition, while not pretending to an ancient history.
The Order’s cross has been conferred on both distinguished individuals and others with questionable titles, giving it a high profile and making it one of the best-known quasi-chivalric organisations. Its senior officers, dressed in white and green uniforms (imitating the historic uniform of the Order of Malta but with echoes of Steward Granger’s Ruritanian uniform in the Prisoner of Zenda), organise elaborate ceremonies where the cross of the Order is granted to men and women of every branch of Christianity as well as, on occasion, to non-Christians. It has contributed to some worthy causes and the majority of its members probably sincerely believe they are part of an ancient and hallowed chivalric tradition; sadly they have been thoroughly misled by misrepresentations of the historical record.
There are three stages in the historical existence of the original crusader Order: the first ended with the 1489 Papal bull incorporating the Order of Saint Lazarus into the Order of Saint John, which in canon law should have represented the end of the ancient Order’s independent existence. The canonical successor to the historical grand mastership is today the grand master of the Order of Malta. Two groups of knights of the Order resisted this incorporation, however; the priory of Capua and the commandery of Boigny (in France), each ultimately obtaining significant support that enabled them to survive, albeit in new forms.
The Holy See briefly acknowledged the autonomy of the priory of Capua of Saint Lazarus in the early years of the sixteenth century but in 1572 the priory was formally unified with the newly founded Order of Saint Maurice, merging the green Maltese cross of Saint Lazarus with the white cross botonny of Saint Maurice. The Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, under the hereditary grand mastership of the Dukes of Savoy, was a subject of canon law until laicised in the nineteenth century when it became an elite state merit award of the Kingdom of Sardinia and then, after 1860, of Italy. The considerable endowment of this Order is administered today by a body under the direction of the president of the Italian republic which, in 1951, declared awards of the Order permanently suspended. The former king of Italy, Umberto II, ignoring the republic’s 1951 law and considering it to be a dynastic Order of the House of Savoy, awarded the cross of this Order until his death in 1983. Since then his only son, Vittorio Emanuele, as claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Savoy (a claim denied by the Duke of Aosta, who has challenged his cousin but has declined to award the Order), has made a considerable number of awards of the Order.
The third manifestation of the Order’s survival was the commandery of Boigny, its only surviving French benefice at the time of its incorporation into the new Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, which was treated differently to the priory of Capua and never received formal Papal confirmation of its autonomy. The grand master of the Order of St John’s authority had been somewhat diminished with the struggle to retain and then ultimately lose possession of the island of Rhodes but, nonetheless, the handful of knights at Boigny attempted a compromise with the grand master and Pope by electing successive knights of St John as their “master generals.” Thus they notionally obeyed the requirements of the 1489 Bull, while avoiding being incorporated into the Langue of France of the Order of St John. After 1572, by claiming the support of the latter Order they were able to resist the authority of the Duke of Savoy and the newly founded Order of St Maurice and Lazarus. Since canon law made it impossible for a professed religious (as were the knights of St John) to make profession in another Order, it is quite clear that the commandery of Boigny, far from being an independent Order was at this time merely a quasi-autonomous commandery of the Order of Malta. Its modest revenues remained separate from those of the langue of France of St John, even though the knights who governed it as “masters-general” were themselves members of the langue and ultimately subject to the authority of the grand master in Malta.
The religious wars of the sixteenth century had diminished Papal authority in France and the commandery’s autonomy was intermittently supported by the crown and parliament of Paris. The end of the wars of religion with the conversion of Henri IV in 1594 made an accord with the Holy See over Saint Lazarus and similar contentious issues a priority. Henry negotiated a new settlement over the commandery of Boigny with the foundation of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and its combination with the commandery of Boigny, as the Royal Military Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem united, by the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex of 16 February 1608, expanded upon in Militantium ordinum of 28 February of the same year. This allowed the existing knights to retain their titles while putting the “master-general” under the immediate authority of the French king. The new institution could reasonably claim the enhanced status that continuity with the ancient Crusader Order of Saint Lazarus conferred and, as an Order closely linked to the French crown, some kind of parity with the knights of St John. The proofs of nobility were not as strict as those required by the latter Order (which, with the grant of Malta and Gozo in 1530, was more commonly known as the Order of Malta) and the promises of profession in the Order required neither poverty nor chastity. These fatures made it more attractive to young noblemen who neither wanted to embrace chastity not serve a sometimes arduous caravan on Malta. Since the election of the “Grand Master” of the new Order was now subject to the confirmation of its protector, the French king, claims by the grand master of the Order of Malta and the Duke of Savoy to the commandery of Boigny could be more easily rebutted.
Henri IV in his decree of 1609 gave the new foundation the full name “Ordres de Nostre Dame du Mont Carmel et de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, Bethléem et Nazareth, tant deçà que delà des mers” then continued by giving it the short name “dudit [said] Ordre de Saint Lazare”. Louis XIV referred in 1664 to the united Orders as the “Ordre et Chevalerie de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem” while also stating that Pope Paul V had instituted “un autre Ordre militaire dédié à la Saint-Vierge sous le titre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel; lequel il auroit joint et unt à celui de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem.”  A 1668 bull promulgated by Cardinal Legate de Vendôme served to confirm the union of the commandery of Boigny with the recently founded Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, acknowledging the united body as a single subject of canon law but under the protection of the French crown. Vendôme gave it an even fuller title, as the “Ordres Royaux, Hospitaliers et Militaires de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel et de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem, tant deçà que delà les mers”. The interchangeability of the name Order of St Lazarus for the full name of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St Lazarus of Jerusalem demonstrates that these two institutions were not in any sense merely temporarily united but were one, single body.
The 1693 prohibition against the enjoyment of ecclesiastical benefices did not affect those benefices already aggregated to the Order, but was intended to prevent other benefices subject to the jurisdiction of the local Ordinaries or other ecclesiastical authorities from being added to its endowment. There had been conflicts over the amalgamation of benefices since the middle of the seventeenth century when there was an attempt to acquire the properties of the defunct priory of Cluny. The attempts to increase the Order’s wealth by removing benefices from one canonical foundation and granting them to St Lazarus was challenged in part on the grounds that the knights did not make the full religious promises and in 1693 some concession to the Order made in the previous three decades were cancelled.  Conflicts over benefices continued to dog the Order, however, culminating in a struggle for possession of the benefices (and the debts and obligations) of the extinct Order of St Anthony Abbot in 1777. These were ultimately conceded to the Order of Malta although in the Kingdoms of Naples and Sicily they were granted to the Constantinian Order. The loss of aggregated ecclesiastical benefices and extraordinary financial mismanagement had led to many financial claims against the Order, which is why in 1783 the Pope confirmed that the “… biens de l’Ordre sont sous la protection du Saint Siège” thus preventing them from being seized to pay the Order’s debts. The Popes never surrendered their ultimate authority over the Order, even though, as with the appointment of the French bishops, de facto authority rested with the crown. 
The proponents of survival have misrepresented the award of the cross of Our Lady of Mont Carmel to graduates of the école militaire as recognition of the separation of the two Orders.  This essentially bogus argument did nothing of the sort - it had originated with article fifteen of the 1757 statutes designed to encourage future recruits to the École by giving them probationary membership in the united Order, to which no-one could be admitted before the age of thirty. In 1779 this rule was amended so that by article one “L’Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel faisant partie de ceux qui sont réunis sous la même Grande Maîtrise, sera destiné à l’avenir aux seuls élèves de l’École royal militaire, qui seront jugés dignes d’être admis dans cet Ordre.” Six students at the school were to be chosen on the basis of their morals, their progress and their “happy disposition” and of those six three would be made knights of the said Order with a pension of one hundred livres. This, however, was purely an honorific and merely a stage that would permit those chevaliers who later distinguished themselves on the field of battle to be admitted to full membership of the combined Orders. To be admitted to the École militaire one had to prove four paternal quarterings of nobility and in a further decree the grand master declared that these would be sufficient to qualify the École students who had received the cross of Our Lady of Mont Carmel. By granting them the cross of Mont Carmel before they joined the united Order, they were effectively exempted from presenting the full proofs of four paternal and four maternal quarterings.
Supporters of continuity consistently argue their case in a manner designed to support their thesis  but, when it come to the period after 1815,  an altogether more fanciful history has to be imagined which ignores the extensive documentation that contradicts it.  What should give rise to immediate questions is why, when the Order’s history is so thoroughly documented from 1608-1788, the alleged survival in the 19th century – even closer to our time – should rest on such flimsy foundations. Why can no publication dedicated to the supposedly surviving Order be found prior to its early twentieth century revival? Why are there no diplomas, no contemporary rolls of knights, and no notarial record of any officers of the suppose continuum of the Order?
The united Orders were abolished along with the other Royal Orders by an edict of the National Assembly of 30 July 1791, promulgated in the name of the “King of the French” and signed by the minister of Justice, who sealed it with the Great Seal. This abolition was unrecognised by the exiled Count of Provence, the unfortunate Louis XVI’s next brother and the Order’s last grand master and had no effect on the canonical institution established in the bulls of 1608, even though for the next twenty-three years it ceased to exist as a French institution.  The handful of conferrals of the cross of the Order by the Count of Provence, later Louis XVIII, while in exile, did not follow the statutory requirements or forms of reception and do not provide evidence that its constitution had been reformed.
When rumours of the miserable fate of Louis XVII, who had died on 8 June 1795 after some fifteen months of solitary confinement in a small cell with no human contact, reached the exiled Count of Provence he was at first unwilling to assume the royal prerogatives as claimant to the crown. He did not begin awarding the Order of Saint Louis until 1807 and prior to the Restoration only made three awards of the Order of the Holy Spirit, the first in 1810. The Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem was a different case, however, as it had never been awarded directly by the king but by a grand master whose authority derived ultimately from Papal approval. Once his succession as king was confirmed and he was proclaimed publicly as king, Louis XVIII became legal protector of the Order, automatically relinquishing the grand mastership; there are no records of any awards being made by him while in exile after 1803. Provence was proud of his historic title of grand master of the United Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem (a splendid portrait from the 1780s attesting to this may be seen in the Musée de la Légion d’Honneur), however, and he continued to wear the breast cross of the Order until his death.
After 1815 the Order had no property to sustain it and most of the historic grand magistral insignia was lost, while the officers of the Order required to examine the proofs of candidates and carry out the protocol of investiture were unavailable during Provence’s long exile. Louis was fully aware of this but seems to have used the Order as an award of merit until he felt able to publicly assume the title of king. It was by virtue of the Order’s statutes that he had enjoyed his grand magistral authority and even as grand master he could not unilaterally amend them to abolish the fundamental requirements for entry - Catholicism, eight quarterings of nobility and a particular set of procedures for admission. Articles one, three, eight, nine, and twelve of the 1757 statutes clearly lay out the requirements for membership and admission, while article five expressly prohibited the grand master from admitting knights of grace, founders of commanderies (who previously were exempted from full proofs) and Servans [Serving Brothers]. Article six abolished the “family commanderies” restricting their enjoyment to the founder at whose demise the commandery would be dissolved and the property returned to the family which had endowed it. One of the more ridiculous claims made by some “historians” of the survival was that the descendants of the founders of such commanderies could claim to have inherited some right to admission.
A decree by the Count of Provence of 1778 confirmed the minimum age of thirty for admission and that all the one hundred (the maximum number of members), must profess the Roman Catholic Apostolic faith, be born legitimate and able to prove eight quarterings of nobility (article three of this decree). Furthermore, aside from the ecclesiastical commanders, the members had to be serving or have served in the military and reached the rank of army captain or ensign of vessel. This decree created two classes of knights with additions to the decorations of the higher rank - those who had reached the rank of colonel or ship’s captain were given or promoted to the higher of the two classes. Commanderies would be awarded according to rank and length of service, but anyone who gave up his military career would no longer qualify for a commandery or any further promotion in the Order. Aside from the privileges granted to students at the École militaire this was the last legal decree concerning the united Orders and since then there have been no legal amendments. Even if the Order had survived it is clear that none of those presently claiming to be members could qualify as such under these rules.
The purported admission of non-Catholics by the Count of Provence in exile directly offended a founding principle of the Order. This is why the only recipient of the cross in exile listed in the post Restoration Almanach Royal, a Baron Dreisen  (apparently granted the cross at Mittau, where the grand master was living in exile in 1800), is described as a “knight of Honour”, the only one in this invented category. There was no provision for knights of honour in the statutes so the grand master must have devised this distinction as a way to honour individuals who had helped him during his exile. The only other possible chivalric award for non-Catholics in the gift of the crown was the “Institution of Military Merit”, but this had also been abolished in the Revolution and, unlike Saint Louis, was not awarded in exile.  The purported award of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus to the Russian Emperor Alexander by the exiled Provence was never included in any contemporary official or unofficial lists of members of the united Orders nor, aside from Baron Dreisen, were the names of any other non-Catholic knights allegedly given the cross (the only record of these admissions can be found in secondary sources). After the Restoration Alexander was accorded the Order of the Holy Spirit, as were other European sovereigns.
No documents have been located in the French national archives that support the claims that the Order maintained some quasi-clandestine existence after 1830. Indeed it is hard to understand how any reputable historian could ignore the documentation which proves beyond any doubt the decision to allow the Order to be extinguished with the deaths of the remaining members. The Order’s statutes directly conflicted with the Charter of 1814, effectively the French Restoration constitution, as this prohibited any state institution from giving preference on the basis of birth. Aside from Catholicity the most notable qualification for admission to the Orders of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St Lazarus of Jerusalem was ancient nobility, so to have appointed new members would have breached an important clause of the Charter unless the nobiliary requirements were reformed. If an attempt had been made after 1815 to restore the Order’s original properties this would have given its many creditors an opportunity to claim against it, aside from the legal complications that would have resulted from disputes with the post Restoration ecclesiastical authorities and others who may have acquired some of the Order’s benefices legally. There would have been a risk that disputes over the Order’s indebtedness, which had caused considerable difficulties in the 1780s, would have been a further problem facing a revived Order, even if the nobiliary requirements had been eliminated. The king had a sentimental attachment to the Order but his long exile had taught him the benefit of pragmatism and with his restoration he had proved willing to accept most of the changes that had transformed France in the previous quarter century. Most notably he had had failed to appoint as successor to himself as Grand Master, a post which the Almanach Royal listed as vacant.
No final decision concerning the Order’s future was made during the first restoration in 1814; it was already clear the difficulties its revival would have entailed were considerable but there were more pressing matters for the crown to deal with. After postponing any decision and declining all requests for admission, the king came to realise that the only sensible course of action was to allow it to become permanently extinct. Confusion has been caused by the inclusion in the list of members published in the post-Restoration Almanach Royal of names indicated by an interlaced ML who had not been admitted to membership before 1788. The individuals listed probably submitted these names to the editor themselves and only appeared in one or two editions of the Almanach before being removed. Meanwhile the names of some members who had survived the revolution and Napoleonic wars and who had been admitted as knights before 1788 were omitted. The Almanach cannot therefore be considered a reliable indicator of the surviving membership after 1814. Similar errors were also made in rolls of the Legion of Honour and Saint Louis; the Almanach was a private publication licensed by the crown and not of itself an official record.
Petitions by two French Catholic knights given the cross by Louis XVIII in exile have been located in the national archives and letters from the grand marshal of the court survive according them permission to wear the cross; both letters date before the hundred days. A series of requests for admission in the period from 1815 to 1820, however, were met with explicit refusals and the response that “the King has not made known his intentions relative to the two Orders” (9 April 1816), to “the King has postponed any nominations” (27 May 1817).  When a knight of the Order, Charles de Valory (received in 1767), wrote asking to be promoted to commander, he received the reply “the King has not until now manifested the intention of making any nomination or promotion in this Order”. In 1822 when a request was directed to the minister of the King, the minister referred the matter to the grand chancellor of the Legion of Honour as to the Order’s status; the latter responded that it was not his responsibility. A subsequent note from the minister of the King dated 31 October 1822 stated that “HM since re-entering his states has done nothing regarding this Order”. By the following year a clearer policy had been devised, the Minister stating on 31 August 1823 that “the Order in which you wish to enter is no longer conferred”.
On 5 May 1824, the Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honour issued a statement on Orders, which could be worn and which were to be suppressed, including a list of “pretended” Orders. Of the French Royal Orders, each was listed in a brief mini-paragraph identifying the government department which dealt with it. The paragraph on the “Orders of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem and Our Lady of Mount Carmel united” came last among the recognised Orders, with the statement that “this last has not been awarded since 1788 and is to be allowed to become extinct”. The suggestion that “this last” meant just Our Lady of Mount Carmel and not Saint Lazarus only makes sense if one ignores the fact that each Royal Order had its own separate paragraph. Saint Lazarus and Our Lady of Mount Carmel, however, were included as one institution, in the same section and paragraph. This supposed separation of the two Orders is the shallow foundation on which some have proposed that the Grand Chancellor intended to allow Saint Lazarus to survive, while bringing the life of the Mount Carmel to an end, as if they were separate institutions.
This was not the end of the matter, however, and further official statements regarding the fate of these Orders make it clear that there was no surviving rump. On 31 August 1824 a letter from the royal household in answer to a further enquiry states “The Order of Saint Lazarus is no longer conferred” while on 12 March 1825 the minister of the royal household wrote “The Order of St Lazarus although tolerated by the ordonnance of the 16 April 1824, is designated in the instructions that followed, as an Order that has not been conferred since 1788 and is to be left to become extinct.”
Louis XVIII died on 16 September 1824, when he was succeeded as king by his brother, the Count of Artois, as Charles X, whose style of “Protector” of the Order was included among his grand titles and in the listing in the Almanach Royal. The instructions given by the Marquis de Dreux-Brézé, grand master of ceremonies of France in the protocols for the King’s funeral required that the collar of St Lazarus be placed among the King’s other decorations, with the notation “This Order of which the late King, when Monsieur, was grand master has not been preserved.” The following year in response to yet another request for admission to the Order, the minister of the new King replied on 12 March, 1825, that “the Order of Saint Lazarus…is designated in the instruction that followed (in the 1824 ordinance) as an Order which has not been conferred since 1788 and which will be left to become extinct”. The last such petition in the archives was submitted in 1826, but this time was ignored without any response.
That the various statements regarding the Order written after the Grand Chancellor’s decree make mention specifically of Saint Lazarus, the conventional short form for the united Orders, must put paid to any suggestions that it had been the crown’s intention to allow Saint Lazarus to continue while abolishing Mount Carmel.  There were no secret or unpublished nominations to a separated Order of Saint Lazarus, as the advocates of the modern survival propose. Modern “historians” of the Order would seem to have deliberately ignored the official statements issued after 1824 since they render wholly implausible the proposition that the 1824 decree only referred to Mount Carmel.
Supporters of the “survival” thesis list names of knights supposedly admitted to the Order, citing as authority the book by the late Guy Coutant “de Saisseval” who for long held high office in the Order – he in turn repeated similar claims by Bertrand “de la Grassière” another senior officer of the revived Order. Neither of these gentlemen based their claim on any documents that can be identified in public or private archives. The claim that there were knights admitted either according to the proper forms or by any other means after 1815 must be entirely rejected. This is an invention designed to perpetuate the fiction that the various bodies today styling themselves “Order of St Lazarus” are a legitimate continuation of the Crusader era Order united in 1608 with the Order of our Lady of Mount Carmel and then supposedly separated therefrom after 1815.

There is also no contemporary documentary evidence to support the suggestion that the council of the Order, acting in direct contravention of the wishes of the king and the instructions of the grand chancellor of the Legion of Honour, assumed for itself the right to admit or nominate anyone to membership in either the united Orders, or Saint Lazarus alone. Even had the council attempted to do so, such actions were beyond its authority under the statutes and no such nominations would have been legitimate. Such a suggestion is as improbable as a British body purporting to act as the legitimate continuum of the Order of St Patrick, awarding knighthoods and conferring the Order’s collar after Irish independence.
A prohibition was imposed on wearing the cross by the government of Louis-Philippe in an act of 10 February 1831; although this was a usurpation of the powers of the exiled Charles X, neither he nor his successors as head of the Royal House of France attempted to revive, or approve the revival, of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus before its canonical extinction. The last surviving member admitted and received before the Revolution, Antoine-François de Charry des Gouttes, Marquis des Gouttes, died in 1856 at the age of one hundred and three. By the provisions of canon law an Order becomes extinct one hundred years after the death of its last member; any possibility of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus being revived either together or separately under the provisions of canon law ceased on 31 December 1956. French law has been clear on the matter of the Order’s extinction for one hundred and ninety-one years.

The supporters of the modern revival state that in 1841 the surviving knights persuaded Maximos III, then Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, when visiting Paris, to assume the role of protector of the Order. If there is any contemporary documentary evidence of this, it has never been produced. The office of Patriarch Maximos V ignored a request for further elucidation on this point and a letter directed to one of the senior Melchite prelates who specialised in the history of the patriarchate did not even receive an acknowledgement. It has been claimed that the records of the patriarchate concerning the alleged protection given to the Order were destroyed in a fire, but none of the purported nineteenth century members of the Order appear to have left written record of any involvement with the patriarchate. Proponents of the supposed survival of the “Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem” make similar claims to lost archives and secret admissions -  no serious historian can give credence to such arguments. That there should be no surviving record in France or the Lebanon of any diplomas or of meetings of the Order’s officers or council seems to stretch the bounds of credibility. Without such written record these claims must be considered to be unsubstantiated at the very least and more probably as twentieth century inventions. Although the proponents of the modern foundation state that the Patriarch has confirmed the patronage accorded to the Order in 1841, since such affirmation can only be made on the basis of documentary evidence available to the Patriarch one can only speculate why this evidence has never been published?
The Patriarchs are not sovereigns, or even claimants to sovereignty, so lack the authority to found or give their protection to Orders of Chivalry, particularly since the Melchite Church was in communion with Rome and the Patriarch subordinate to the See of Saint Peter. The Patriarch had already been instructed to break off an association with another dubious “chivalric” body in the 1930s so it is evident that the Pope considered the Patriarch’s authority in such matters subordinate to the Holy See. The limited civil jurisdiction granted to certain Patriarchs by the Turkish Sultan did not include the right to found or protect Christian Orders of Chivalry nor were such powers enjoyed by the more powerful Ottoman provincial governors. The recently founded Patriarchal “Orders” awarded by several Patriarchs of the both the Latin and Greek Churches are church awards but nothing more; they are certainly not comparable to other military or state decorations or any Orders of Chivalry, however they were designated by their founders, and no European state recognises them as such.
In 1930 the then Patriarch, Cyrill IX was reported in La Croix as having withdrawn his patronage of Saint Lazarus because it was neither officially recognised by the French Government nor the Holy See. The Melchite Patriarchs were subsequently persuaded to restore their protection and their nominal connection with one of the branches of the present foundation has been preserved – the Patriarchate has benefited from this association as some donations have been made to charities and groups with which it is associated. The Holy See, however, has repeatedly refused to recognise the modern revival, and has not changed its stance since explicitly condemning the Order in a lengthy declaration published in 1935, repeated on 21 March 1953, both of which were published in the Osservatore Romano.[1] The Holy See had taken no interest in the historical Order since its abolition in the revolution, as the kings of France did not attempt its revival. Even though canonical extinction did not actually become final until 1956 the author of the 1935 decree no doubt assumed that an Order whose last legitimate admission was made almost one hundred and fifty years earlier must surely be extinct. The precise date of extinction does not diminish the effect of the Holy See’s condemnation of the Order.

Two recent advocates for survival have proposed that the Emperor Napoleon III may have somehow enjoyed the prerogative to legitimise the Order – but this is no more reasonable than attributing the same authority to President François Hollande. One of the peculiarities of the constitution of the French Republic is that the president still enjoys some of the authority once held by the French kings; but it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone other than a reigning King of France could have exercised the authority delegated by the Pope in 1608. The proposition that the Melchite Patriarch could somehow assume an authority attributed by Papal authority to the French king is likewise baseless – why the Melchite Patriarch and not some other Metropolitan? 
The 1910 revival was the work of enterprising business men joined with some rather pitiful fantasists who went along with the newly invented history. The precise involvement of the Patriarch and what he agreed at this time is hard to determine. In any case this first effort at revival petered out during the First World War and it was not until 1928 that Order of Saint Lazarus was once more brought to life. The “election” of General D. Francisco de Borbón y Borbón, suo uxoris Duke of Seville in 1935 brought some respectability but this otherwise notable figure was neither then nor ever a “Royal Highness.” The general’s request of King Alfonso XIII to allow him this title was explicitly refused, although he was later honoured with the Order of the Golden Fleece. This assumption of the royal style was without merit or legitimacy – the first Duke of Seville and his descendants had been deprived of their titles and prerogatives as members of the Spanish royal house because of his morganatic marriage. The Seville branch, while holding various noble titles had no right to any royal titles or styles nor to the throne. Even if they had not been so deprived, the laws of the Spanish royal house limit the title of Royal Highness and Infante to the children of the sovereign and of the Prince of Asturias; any other descendant had to be individually granted the title. Only after the marriage of Alfonso XIII in 1906 did the King extend the title of Prince and Royal Highness to members of the royal family who were not Infantes; but in each case on an individual basis in a decree countersigned by the president of the council of ministers. The attribution of the title of Royal Highness by the Spanish branch of Saint Lazarus is designed to elevate the status of their former Grand Master - but the members of this line have no more right to this style than the distinguished authors of the article in the journal of the Scottish Heraldry Society which recently advocated the legitimacy of this revival.
As for Lt Colonel (in the education corps) Robert Gayre, the founder of Clan Gayre, his involvement led to one notable change – the definitive abandonment of any pretence that this remained an exclusively Roman Catholic institution. Gayre himself, a member of the Scottish Episcopalian church claimed that as such he was “Catholic” but he would hardly have been recognised as such by the seventeenth and eighteenth century Popes who had granted the historic Order various privileges. In any case the Order’s last legal statutes required that all members profess the “religion catholique, apostolique et romaine” which is irreconcilable with the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England and Scottish Episcopalian church. Having purchased the feudal barony of Lochoreshire, Gayre then established the “commandery of Lochore” and, astonishingly, the then Lyon King matriculated arms for this body as well as other subsidiary organisations of the Order. Since the authority of Lord Lyon does not extend to recognising Orders of Knighthood, a prerogative retained by the Crown and neither delegated to the London nor Edinburgh officers of arms, these matriculations have no value as “recognition” of the legitimacy of the modern revival as an Order of Chivalry.

The recent Vatican statement of 16 October 2012 declaring that only the Orders of Malta and the Holy Sepulchre can hold investitures and ceremonies in Catholic churches has caused some confusion among the Catholic hierarchy as well as the laity. This repeats the text of a statement issued earlier that year by the Italian conference of bishops – the latter, however, had included a very specific exception, excluding from the prohibition those Orders recognised as “Non-National Orders” by law 178 of 1951 (which also established the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic). The latter included those Orders defined as dynastic or family awards of the dynasties formerly ruling in Italy, but not those of the House of Savoy. Since none of the revived Orders of Saint Lazarus are recognised under law 178, the prohibition against the Order celebrating investitures or holding ceremonies in any Catholic Church must be considered definitive even if, in practice, it has been ignored by some senior members of the Catholic hierarchy who have unwisely associated themselves with this body. The Order has also been condemned by successive grand chancellors of the Order of the Legion of Honour who have demanded that members of Saint Lazarus do not wear insignia in France that imitates that of a chivalric Order.
Those who adhere to the Borbón-Seville faction of the revived Order must inevitably deny the legitimacy of a competing Order headed now by a cousin of the Count of Paris, Count Dobrzensky, and formerly under the grand mastership of a junior Orléans prince (styled “Duc d’Anjou”). This group is no more legitimate than the so-called Seville obedience but was assisted in its claim by the imprudent decision of the Count of Paris to accord the Order his “protection”. One might speculate as to what this “protection” is actually worth but those who believe that authority rested with the king of France and his successors may consider that the Count of Paris, as one of the two claimants to the headship of the House of France, could better claim to represent the historic protectors than the Melchite Patriarch. Since the Order had even ceased to exist in canon law, however, one cannot give any more worth to the Count of Paris’s claim to protect it than that of any other person who might feel the urge to found an “Order”. One British based group has done precisely that, using the same nomenclature and insignia but maintaining that their group is indeed a modern revival, with no links other than its name to the historic institution, now as extinct as the dinosaurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




[1] Condemnation of the Order of Saint Lazarus by the Holy See, Osservatore Romano of 15/16 April 1935: “Da tempo viene svolta attività intesa a far rivivere e ad introdurre in Italia l'Ordine Militare ed Ospedaliero di San Lazzaro ramo di Boigny, sia con l'offerta di onorificenze dell'Ordine per cavalieri e signore, sia con articoli diretti a sostenere l'esistenza dell'Ordine quale ramo francese dell’ antico Ordine di San Lazzaro di Gerusalemme, il cui ramo italiano venne fuso nel 1572 con l'Ordine di San Maurizio. Poiché l'Ordine di San Lazzaro di Boigny, non soltanto non è riconosciuto in Italia, ma risulta, anzi, definitivamente soppresso, per lo meno sin dal 1608, ad opera del Pontefice Paolo V e del Re Enrico IV, l'azione suindicata deve ritenersi illegale e sono state, pertanto, impartite le necessarie istruzioni perché sia fatta cessare, procedendo, ove occorra, nei confronti dei responsabili, ai sensi di legge. Abbiamo già più volte avuto occasione di accennare alla fioritura di pseudo-Ordini Cavallereschi, che si è notata in questi ultimi tempi in Italia e fuori. Qualunque sia la denominazione assunta da questi cosiddetti Ordini (S. Giorgio di Miolans o del Belgio, S. Maria di Nazareth, S. Maria di Bethlem, S. Lazzaro, e simili), si tratta sempre di riesumazioni di antichi Ordini Cavallereschi, che sono completamente estinti, fatte da persone private le quali svolgono generalmente un'azione intensa, che finisce col sorprendere la buona fede di moltissimi, che non possono valutare al giusto pulito queste iniziative sprovviste di ogni legittimità. Il fenomeno è tanto più grave se si considera che queste iniziative, essendo poste abilmente sotto titoli di Istituzioni religiose storiche, per il più delle persone, anzichè private - come sono in realtà - possono apparire sotto l'egida della Chiesa e della Santa Sede. Non tutti sono tenuti a sapere che gli antichi Ordini Cavallereschi erano dei veri e propri Ordini Religiosi, dipendenti dall'Autorità Ecclesiastica, come ogni altro Ordine religioso, e costituiti da professi che emettevano i voti sacri prescritti dalle Regole, e godevano i redditi dei benefici ecclesiastici di cui erano investiti. Ma questi antichi Ordini non hanno di comune se non il loro antico titolo (quando questo è stato conservato) con le moderne decorazioni Equestri, le quali per una completa trasformazione giuridica del primitivo istituito possono sussistere in quanto un Sovrano o Capo di Stato nei limiti della propria giurisdizione dia ad esse la legittima consistenza civile. Nulla di tutto questo nel preteso Ordine di S. Lazzaro. Sotto tale denominazione canonicamente per la Santa Sede non esiste più alcun Ordine da vari secoli. Lo aveva infatti già soppresso e incorporato all'Ordine di S. Giovanni (attuale Ordine di Malta) sin dal secolo decimo quinto; poi nel secolo decimo sesto, dopo una parziale e temporanea resurrezione, lo soppresse nuovamente come ente a sè, e lo incorporò all'Ordine di S. Maurizio (anno 1572), dando origine così all'attuale Ordine dei Ss. Maurizio e Lazzaro. A causa poi delle ardenti questioni politiche del tempo in Francia, non ostante le tassative disposizioni della Santa Sede, la casa priorale di Boigny, col relativo godimento di benefici ecclesiastici, riuscì a mantenersi in vita in forza esclusiva di decreti dell'autorità regia e civile. Come si vede era una posizione tutt’ altro che canonica e regolare per un Ordine religioso, sia pure, cavalleresco! Ma poi quando nel 1608 il Re di Francia Enrico IV, ad eliminare le continue difficoltà che sorgevano a questo proposito, ottenne dal Pontefice Paolo V il riconoscimento del nuovo Ordine di Nostra Signora del Monte Carmelo, attribuì a questo nuovo Ordine i beni, le case e le persone, che nei confini dei suoi Stati avevano già appartenuto all'Ordine di S. Lazzaro. Da ciò è avvenuto che in Francia sino alla Rivoluzione sia esistito un Ordine Cavalleresco che veniva chiamato cumulativamente di Nostra Signora del Carmela e di S.  Lazzaro; mentre tale Ordine per la Santa Sede e per la Curia Romana era  soltanto l'Ordine di Nostra Signora del Monte Carmelo. Ognuno comprende su quali labili arene sia stato costruito l'edificio del preteso Ordine di S.  Lazzaro, oggetto del comunicato surriferito; e come siano destituiti di fondamento e di realtà i titoli di Cavalieri, Commendatori ecc. (per i laici) di Monsignori (per gli ecclesiastici) che si attribuiscono coloro che vengono ascritti sia ad esso, come a qualunque altro dei pretesi Ordini sopra accennati”.
THE ORDER OF SAINT JOSEPH -  AN AUSTRIAN USURPATION OF THE TUSCAN ORDER

The recent appearance of a self-styled Order of Saint Joseph (http://www.josephsorden.org/) that has assumed the name and badge of the Order of Saint Joseph and of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany is the latest addition to the ranks of self-styled Orders. This Order does not actually pretend to be the Tuscan Order but claims a separate origin as a revival of the Order of Saint Joseph founded for the Burghers of the small imperial city of Friedberg, Hesse which was governed as an immediate state of the Holy Roman Empire with direct representation in the Imperial Diet. This Order was established by Emperor Joseph II as Grand Master on 6 November 1768 with the Burggraf (Imperial governor) as Grand Prior, and the Burgmannen (the equivalent of a patriciate) as knights. It ceased to exist with the dissolution of the Empire and the incorporation of Friedberg into the newly established Grand Duchy of Hesse. The first Grand Prior and Burggraf was Franz Heinrich von Dalberg (1716-1776) whose eldest son Karl Theodor von Dalberg became Prince-Primate of the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans, Grand Duke of Frankfurt and a leading political figure in the Napoleonic period. His second son, Wilhelm-Heribert, was father of Emmerich Joseph von Dalberg, grandfather of the English statesman Lord Acton. Dalberg was succeeded as Grand Prior by Count Johann von Waldbott von und zu Bassenheim (1777-1805) and then by Count Clemens August von Westphalen (1805 until his death in 1818). There were no new appointments to the Order after 1806 and it expired with the death of the last of its members.
 
The badge of this Order was a gold, eight-pointed cross with a white enamel border and the imperial double-headed eagle with the imperial crown above placed over the cross with the name Saint Joseph on the eagle's breast surrounded by the inscription: Virtutis avitae Aemuli (imitator of ancestral virtue). The reverse of the cross was in blue enamel with a white border and inscribed in the centre in gold letters was Imperatoris auspiciis Lege Imperii conservamur (The imperial laws are protected by the emperor's shield) suspended from a sky blue ribbon with a narrow dark blue border.
 
It is somewhat surprising, therefore, to learn that in 2011 a group of Austrians, refreshingly for a self-styled Order eschewing any pretension to nobility, decided that they had the authority to autonomously revive this Order and begin conferring it some two centuries after the reception of the last knight. This new body, while stating that its religious ceremonies will be celebrated according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, will accept members of any faith. Its aims are modest but worthy, citing support for the Christian tradition, community and dialogue. Nonetheless the Order evidently has greater aspirations conferring the title of "Grand Master" on its head, Mr Jochen Ressel and the grandiose (and rather pretentious) title of "Senator" on the three principal members of the "Grand Chapter" (the other two being the Secretary, Markus Kappel, and the Chamberlain (Kammerer) Reinhold Szakasits.  There are three other members of the grand chapter are a lady, Margarete Krits-Zwittkowits, president of the Austrian Association, a Proconsul and the "Vorstand des Senats der Wirtschaft" (Board member of the Economics Senate).
 
There are apparently four categories of members: knights of Justice, Benefactor knights and Honorary knights and finally Dignitaries. The Order has periodic meetings, an annual investiture ceremony and a requirement to pay dues.
 
The Order is based in Vienna and makes no pretension to any connection with the city of Friedberg, Hessen, where the original Order was founded, nor the House of Habsburg, other than claiming both as the basis for its historical existence and revival under this name . This body cannot in reality claim to be anything more than a society of individuals dedicated to a common purpose but who have adopted the external symbols of a chivalric Order. Whatever their intentions, these worthy people have no legal authority to found or revive the Order of Saint Joseph and, in particular, none whatsoever in assuming the name and badge of a genuine Order which is part of the patrimony of the Grand Ducal House of Tuscany and is authorised by the Italian government. The badge of the Tuscan Order, which it has illicitly imitated (the only difference, on close examination, being the substitution of the inscription Virtutis avitae Aemuli for the inscription on the Tuscan cross, Ubique similis) bears no resemblance whatsoever to the badge of the original Order founded for the burghers of Friedberg.
 
These worthies have caused grave offence to the Archduke Sigismund and the officers and members of the Order of Saint Joseph by assuming a name and badge to which they have no right. There will no doubt be legal consequences.
 
 
 
 
 
 

ETRURIA - FANTASY KINGDOM AND SELF-STYLED ORDER OF SAINT STEPHEN

The latest addition to the world of royal fantasy can be found at http://www.regno.org/ in an imaginary kingdom of Etruria. Rather then being located in Tuscany, however, the pseudo "Grand Prince" Ralph is based in Huntsville, Alabama, USA. "Grand Prince" Ralph, otherwise known more prosaically as Ralph Johnson, has a wife, Mariane ("Grand Princess") and a son Rutherford and a cousin Charles Daniel II ("count of Santa Croce") who has two sons Charles and Andrew. Whether this is the invention of "Grand Prince" Ralph or of his son,  "HRH Monseigneur Cardinal" Rutherford ("Cardinal Prince of Florence and Archprince of Etruria") and Hanna ("Princess of Florence and Archprincess of Etruria") is not explained. At this web page https://about.me/RutherfordJohnson Rutheford advertises himself first as an "active member of the American Agricultural Economics Association" with a photo of himself dressed as a Catholic Bishop and a self-declaration that begins with the statement that he is "Archbishop of the Episcopal Archdiocese of the Southwest."

Etruria was created from the territories of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany to compensate the Bourbons for the loss of Parma, which had been incorporated into France by the treaty of Aranjuez between France and Spain of 21 March 1801. Ferdinand, Duke of Parma, had been forced to abdicate but his wife, Infanta Maria Luisa, had to be compensated for her loss of status as she was a daughter of King Charles IV of Spain whom Napoleon had cajoled into what proved to be a short-lived alliance (and whose consequences included the return of Louisiana to France and the catastrophic destruction of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar). Maria Luisa was made Queen Regent and her son Carlo the nominal sovereign of the new state; Ferdinand III, Grand Duke of Tuscany, as a Habsburg and younger brother of the Emperor, was a committed foe of the French and was expelled from his capital. As part of subsequent treaty arrangements the Grand Duke was given the territories of the Prince-Bishopric of Salzburg with the title of Duke and Elector on 26 December 1802, exchanging Salzburg for  the newly laicised state of the Prince-Bishop of Wurzburg as Elector on Christmas day 1805. Following the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 Wurzburg became a Grand Duchy, until 30 May 1814 when he was restored as Grand Duke of Tuscany.

The Sacred (sometimes called Ecclesiastical) Military Order of Saint Stephen, whose red Maltese cross had flown on the Order's galleys at the battle of Lepanto and later engagements with Moorish pirates and the Ottoman navy, was based in Pisa and the new Queen of Etruria claimed the Grand Mastership for her son. The Grand Duke, who was Grand Master by Papal Bull, refused to surrender the title which remained in dispute until Maria Luisa and her son were deposed in 1807, when the Spanish alliance was no longer of great value to the French (and Napoleon was plotting the downfall of the Bourbon monarchy). Etruria was now incorporated into France and Saint Stephen illegally suppressed - perhaps in revenge for having humiliated the young Joseph Bonaparte, who had been refused admission in the 1780s because his proofs of nobility were considered inadequate. While Tuscany was also incorporated into the French Empire, Napoleon gave his sister Elisa the empty title of Grand Duchess as well as making her reigning duchess of Massa and Carrara (allowing her to profit considerably from the marble quarries which churned out statutes of Napoleon and his family).

With the return of the Grand Duke to Florence after the collapse of French rule in Italy Saint Stephen was restored to its former position as a well-endowed institution tied closely to the nobility of the Grand Duchy. Just forty-four years later, however, the campaign for Italian unification led to the deposition of the Grand Duke and the purported suppression of the Order by the provisional government of the state. Tuscany was first aggregated to the kingdom of Sardinia and then incorporated into the  kingdom of Italy with the former Tuscan capital of Florence as the seat of the new Italian government for the next decade.

The Tuscan provisional government which had purported to suppress the Order had no authority over an institution subject to canon law. Before the downfall of the monarchy Grand Duke Leopold II had abdicated to his teenage son on 21 July 1859 who was duly recognised as Grand Duke by France and Austria - Leopold retired to Rome where he died a few months before the city fell to Sardinian troops. The fourteen year old Grand Duke Ferdinand IV had already departed with the rest of the family to Salzburg by the time of his formal deposition on 22 March 1860 but he and his successors continued to award the Order of Saint Stephen (and of Saint Joseph) to members of their family, to foreign princes and to a handful of Tuscan nobles who had remained sentimentally attached to the Habsburg dynasty.

In the 1980s the Italian Republic determined that as a dynastic award of the former reigning house of Tuscany it could be included (along with the other Tuscan Orders of Saint Joseph and Military Merit, the Neapolitan and Parmesan Constantinian Orders, the Neapolitan Order of Saint Januarius and the Parmesan Order of San Lodovico) among the non-national Orders that Italians could be authorised to accept and wear under Law 178 of March 1951. The Order is awarded today by HIRH Archduke Sigismund, titular Grand Duke of Tuscany, along with the Tuscan Order of Saint Joseph, and has among its members the Archbishops of Florence and Pisa.

So, one might ask, where and how Ralph and his family fit into this history?  "Cardinal" Rutherford Johnson had a conventional American middle class background which he must have found disappointingly mundane at some point in the years since he graduated with a BSc from Georgia Institute of Technology in 2000 (making him about thirty seven years old) and an MS from the same university in 2003.   He makes no claim to have studied theology and it is hard to see how the PhD in Agricultural Economics he obtained from the University of Kentucky in 2007 can have prepared him for either his role as Cardinal and Archbishop or heir to the Kingdom of Etruria. He makes no claim to have studied theology let alone to have been ordained a priest before he became the 6th bishop of a breakaway "American Anglican Church" diocese of the South-West. What is known (from his Linkedin page -  https://www.linkedin.com/in/rutherfordjohnson) - is that he was Assistant Professor of Economics at SolBridge International School of Business and is now Adjunct (Research) Professor of Economic Geography at the University of South Alabama and an independent consultant on Economics and Economic Geography. Presumably neither post is as challenging as exercising spiritual and temporal power over a substantial part of Italy. Rutherford claims to be fluent in Italian which must help him this role.

It is apparent that the modest title of bishop was an insufficient measure of his importance and the diocese was elevated to Archdiocese with Rutherford as its first Archbishop. What is unclear is whether this title is recognised by the church he claims to belong to, since the church is also titled on one web page he authored as  "Episcopal" (presumably different from Episcopalian). Evidently still dis-satisfied by such a modest title he formed a new church in 2011, becoming "His Eminence Rutherford Cardinal Johnson, Patriarch of the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church" having been elected "Patriarch" of the Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church by the "Patriarchal Electors" (whoever they may be) and as such claims the titular See of Leopontopolis as "Archbishop in partibus infidelium" and "Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria Antiqua in camera persona." One would not find his name on the list of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, however, as the "Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church" is apparently an autonomous historical community of the "Catholic Faith in the Anglican Tradition." The fact there is a validly founded Ordinariate of the Anglican tradition established by Pope Benedict XVI seems to carry no weight with Rutherford who has more recently elevated himself to Royal Highness! [For more on the history of Rutherford and his church, see http://themcj.com/?p=27249]. It seems that his "aboutme" (https://about.me/Ruther"fordJohnson) autobiography may pre-date his most recent self-elevation but what is revealing is that he likes to join organisations - he lists a considerable number of memorial societies of one kind or another. He also claims to have received a Papal knighthood and to be "Chaplain of the Royal College of Papal Knights in the Americas" an organisation of pretended Papal honorees who have for the most part purchased false diplomas. There is no Rutherford Johnson listed among the recipients of a Papal honour published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Ralph and Rutherford have included a "genealogy" on their web site which begins with Charlemagne in one "ancestral" line, and Gratianus Major on another, continuing with the latter's son Roman Emperor Valentinian I (reigned 364-375 a.d.). These two lines purportedly coincide with Pepin I, king of the Lombards, and from there progress to Ebles, Count of Roucy where the line ends with a series of black dots (covering approximately 800 years) until one arrives at a purported John "Count" Johnson (so created, according to the web site but with no documentary substantiation) in 1821. "Count" John died in 1862 and Ralph descends from his youngest son. What happened to the progeny of the other sons, if any, is not noted nor is any explanation given how the "Count" had any provable connection with any royal house, let along the Bourbon-Parmas or Habsburgs. This mysterious genealogy gives the outline of several other pre-medieval dynasties but all end in the 11th-13th centuries with no explanation whatsoever of the connection with Ralph.

Lacking any discernable genealogical claim to their self-styled titles one might turn with some puzzlement to the web page titled "History". This gives a brief outline of the kingdom's foundation in 1801 and dissolution in 1807 and even takes one through to the advent of the Italian Republic in 1946. But then fantasy strikes with the assertion that "the titular kingdom of Etruria was restored by the Holy Roman Empire to the Franco-Italian House of Johnson-Etruria di Daniell in compensation for ancestral lands lost and in continuation of their service of their ancestors in the Holy Roman Empire regions of France, Italy, Normandy, and the British Isles and Colonies." So somewhere out there in this game of thrones fantasy there is a Holy Roman Empire perhaps even more extensive than that which was dissolved in 1806 as it apparently includes Normandy and the British Isles (and even Colonies) which were never any part of the Empire.

Etruria is apparently a "titular Ecclesiastical kingdom under the Old Holy Roman Church of the English Rite" (presumably another name for Rutherford's church) and while "spiritual and temporal authority are maintained" (how, one might ask?) "administration of government in the region is vested in the Republic of Italy" (the President of the Italian Republic, as it is more properly titled, must no doubt be hugely relieved at this concession). "Its primary purpose is the preservation of the chivalric and noble traditions, both spiritual and temporal, of the Holy Church" (founded 2011).

The web site includes a list of some twenty-six Popes, beginning with Sergius III (904-911) and ending with Benedict XIV (1724-1730) who are mysteriously described as "Papal Cousins". The web pages are decorated with images of portraits of various princes who, one is apparently led to believe, have some connection to the Johnsons of Arizona. There is a heraldic page which illustrates the arms of various states and combines them into an extravagant achievement attributed to "Grand Prince" Ralph.

While one may dismiss all this as the ravings of someone who has spent too much time in the Alabama sun, more serious is the usurpation of the name and insignia of the Order of Saint Stephen which Mr Johnson purports to award. Ralph Johnson obviously has no right whatsoever to usurp the Grand Mastership of this Order, nor use its badge or plunder the history of the Tuscan Order by copying its 19th century uniform. He has also replicated exactly the badge of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (but suspended from a blue ribbon) and has titled it the Order of Mary Immaculate. The invented "Legion of the Eagle" which presumably gives Ralph another opportunity to decorate himself and his family but its membership is limited to Roman Catholics so it is hard to understand how Ralph and Rutherford, who run their own fantasy church, could actually qualify to be among the chosen twenty-five members.







Friday, 21 September 2012

Papanicolaou and the so-called "Ecumenical Order" lose in the Court of Appeals

The self-styled "Priory of Florida of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, The Ecumenical Order" run by Mr Nicholas Papanicolaou (who in the late 1990s purchased the Scottish feudal barony of Finlaystone Maxwell and incorrectly styles himself "Baron Nicholas Papanicolaou") was sued in the Florida Federal Disrict Court over the misuse of the registered marks of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, in a case brought by the SMOM. The Order of Malta challenged Papanicolaou on the grounds that his organisation's name mimicked that of the SMOM, causing confusion, and that the Arms and Cross he used infringed the registered marks of the SMOM.

The initial judgement, which dismissed the SMOM suit and accepted Papanicolaou's version of history - although he is not an historian and was contradicted by an expert historical witness who gave evidence to the court - has now been reversed and the judge criticised, by the Federal Appeal Court. Although this judgement was published on September 11, 2012, as of today Mr Papanicolaou makes no reference to it on his web site, but continues to include only the original judgement. But then Papanicolaou also ignores the letter from HM King Michael of Romania to the Prince Grand Master of the genuine Order of Malta, affirming that he only recognises the latter as a genuine Order of Malta, and instead reproduces a letter from the King which HM sent having believed at the time he was dealing with the genuine Order. Papanicolaou knows full well that the King wants nothing to do with his organisation.

Equally outrageous is his use of a "Papal Blessing" - a document which anyone can obtain from vendors around the Basilica of St Peter's and use whatever name they please - as supposed evidence of Papal support for his "Order". Since Papanicolaou is outspokenly hostile to the Roman Catholic Church, this is a particularly egregious claim.

Here is a link to the full text of the Florida decision in pdf format:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca11.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions%2Fops%2F201115101.pdf&ei=hWxcUKmCLoen0AGwk4GgDg&usg=AFQjCNGsMPG7xzGTlyh_sE9nn0dNGDMNYw