Talk:House of Romanov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessicaNHunt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree[edit]

The family tree image in the bottom part of the page had Eudoxie Lopoukhine's birth date wrong. It should be 1669-1731. I don't know how it should be edited though since it's a french image? sorry I'm new to this Tastelikecoke (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

There is new information coming to light that the recent DNA tests that purportedly say Nikolai's two missing children actually died is false.... evidence is being collected to prove that Alexei was not killed but actually made it over to Canada and has not only a daughter living there but also a granddaughter and grandson. This would make these people the closest descendants of the Russian Imperial Family!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.37.127 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry Arno - i just felt if the article uses "Nicholas II" not "Nikolai II" then why not use Michael instead of Mikhail?


"The direct male line of the Romanovs came to an end when Elizabeth of Russia died in 1762." This sentence is only true if Elizabeth of Russia is a male, which she was not. The male line ended with Peter II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4800:5167:FA1E:DFFF:FED9:E1A9 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the House of Romanov, which Elizabeth belonged to as she descended from it on her farthers side. Peter II, belonged to the House of Holstein-Gorttorp-Romanov, as he descended from the House of Romanov on his mother's side. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, whoever you are.

I've settled on the "Mikhail(Michael)" format as a compromise. I'm no great fan of Anglicised names of non-Engligh monarchs, as you masy have guessed. If I were to follow this Anglican name-style logic, then Ivan the Terrible (and his five namesakes) should be called John the Terrible (or whatever). How logical is that?

Also, if you are happy with calling Mr Gorbachev Mikhail and not Michael, then you should be equally happy with calling the first Romanov monarch Mikhail.

Cheers,

Arno

Arno, 'Michael' is not an Anglo-Saxon name and the English people don't have the exclusive right for it. There is no way names of historical people can't be translated as they are transliterated like names of modern people. Mr Gorbachev is a not a good example, as he was a contemporary of us all, not so much a historical personality. And it's laughable to claim that 'Mikhail" is a not merely the same name as "Michael'. It just makes it easier for unenlightened American readers of Wikipedia. --OlKob (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


That's stupid. Names of European monarchs are translated into English (or Russian or French), that's not merely a tradition, that's the rule. The reason why Ivan is not translated as John, is because Russian has several versions of John such as Ioann and Ivan. The rule of translating names applies to other established European languages as well. So, King John or Lackland is Jean Sans Terre to the French and Ioann Bezzemelny to the Russians. Prinz Eugen von Savoy is Prince Eugene of Savoy or Prince Eugène de Savoye or Princ Evgeni Savoiskii.

Since this Arno personage does not obviously know anything about languages, rules of how names are translated, history, or in this case the subject he is writing about (what is this invented dynasty? Romanovs (or Romanoff) consider themselves Romanovs, not some Holstein-Gottorp-Whatever. There is no such thing as Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.

Portuguese-speaking countries also translate the names of European Monarchs into Portuguese, too. John of Lackland is called "João Sem Terra" in Portuguese. Ivan is never translated as João in Portugal or Brazil though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.145.117 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta says there's a heir of the Romanov, Grand Duchess Maria, after her father's death in 1992. What is this about? --Menchi 02:49, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Maria Vladimirovna is not an heir to 'the Romanovs' (the dynasty that has long been extinct), nor is she the heir to the throne of the long-gone Russian Empire by any law. She's a descendant. She is an heir to her own family's name, like all the rest of her relations! But she's no way an heir to any monarchy! Nor is her Hohenzollern son!--OlKob (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're wrong to be certain about it. The House Laws are sufficiently complex (requiring equal marriage, allowing succession of females only after all dynastic males are dead, etc.) that different heirs have different supporters depending on interpretation, and it's not necessarily true that there even is an heir. It would be a mess to get into but an interesting exercise in NPOV if anyone were to take an interest. Maria's supporters do seem to be more numerous than others...but given that restoration of the monarchy is rather unlikely, it seems a bit academic. See pro-Maria POV, pro-Nicholas POV - Someone else 02:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's all part of a complex argument between two possible pretrenders to a hypothetical Russian throne. Arno 09:28, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please read the detailed argumentation which is a part of article Maria Vladimirovna of Russia 217.140.193.123 23:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel's real father[edit]

"Catherine II (of the House of Anhalt-Zerbst), insinuated in her memoirs that Paul's real father had been her lover Serge Saltykov"

Give the accurate quotation from her memoirs (diary?), please. Pavel I and emperor Peter III had striking similarity in their look. --80.249.229.122 08:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC) -er, not to mention behaviour. i find the probability that sergei saltykov was tsar paul's real father somewhat unlikely given the physical and personality similarities between peter III and paul.[reply]

Judging by the portraits, there's no feature in Paul that could hint on the fatherhood of Peter III! However, it's hard to make sure these days! They wanted to keep the power and they did at any cost! By the same logic, practically any following king of Russia could be illegitimate! --OlKob (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Peter III was not his father, Catherine was the Empress and Paul I was her eldest son, so he still could have become emperor since Catherine took the throne by force. EmilySarah99 (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of St Feodor[edit]

Please clarify the status of the image, linked thusly from the article: Our Lady of St Feodor. Mikkalai 02:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Our lady of St. Theodore (there is no saint caleld Feodor in English)


The brother of Alexander III who died prematurely, was Nicholas, not Michael.

Origins[edit]

The origins section is crap and obviously written with the purpose of denigrating Romanov ancestry.

I agree this section sounds confuse, but it was a relief for me anyway, I'm glad to learn that the name 'Romanov' just comes from a Russian guy whose first name was Roman, I thought it had such name because they really believed they were descendants of Julius Caesar (I already knew about the bloodline relating the Romanovs to Julius Caesar so I thought -until today- that the name 'Romanov' was taken after Julius Caesar himself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.145.117 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Flag[edit]

Anyone notice the Romanov family flag is the same as the Austrian Habsburgs......only really stretched out? Odd 207.200.116.73

I believe that the double eagle is relatively standard for imperial families, although I could very well be wrong. Charles 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They both are of the same origin.


The whole article is a crap written by some idiot. It's amazing that Wikipedia has become a repository of garbage. Allida rules

I say the flag is the most ugly I've seen. What a shade of yellow...and used with black and white!?! Who needs a new flag? Davros77 14:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of bold[edit]

So, why is there an entire sentence bolded at the intro? It's important information, but it's not consistent with the style guide...

I'll change it myself if nobody objects soon.

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia[edit]

Hello. The article on the last Grand Duchess of Imperial Russia, Olga Alexandrovna Romanova, is complete of facts, biographical information, and is furthermore packed with the needed information. Now the information and technical matters within the article must be resolved in order to promote the article to Featured Article status. Thank you for your time and please visit the article here (Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia) and make comments on how to improve the article at its Wikipedia: Peer Review page here: [1]. Thanks again. -- AJ24 23:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executed versus Murdered[edit]

With reference to the death of Nicholas II and the Imperial family, I replaced the word "executed" with "murdered". An execution implies a judicial proceeding preceded the killing, and that did not happen. - SansTerre

Murder is an illegal act. This act was ordered by the new leaders of the country.--Konst.able 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "killed"?--Konst.able 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the original phrasing ("executed"). "Murdered" is very POV. "Killed" may be a compromise. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually prefer "executed" myself. The original phrasing was actually "murder" - I changed it to "execute" only a couple of days ago in this article, as well as a whole bunch of other relatedones.--Konst.able 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when little CHILDREN are executed? This is against any possible construction of justice. They were murdered. 195.70.32.136 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A killing can surely be illegal even if it is ordered by the state. If George W. Bush ordered the Secret Service to come to my house and kill me, that would be illegal, even if the "leader of the country" ordered it. I don't see how the execution of the royal family can be described as an "execution" when there was no trial, and the Bolsheviks never even admitted to killing Alexandra and the children. In fact, as I understand it, overall there was a great deal of buck-passing between the Ekaterinburg Soviet and the central authorities as to who was responsible for the killings. "execution" is clearly inappropriate, and the idea that a killing is "legal" because it is ordered by the state is dubious. "Killing" would be better, I think. "Murder" certainly seems appropriate as a way to describe the killings of the children, at least, but is perhaps too POV. "Execution" is at least equally POV, though, and more morally grotesque, I think. john k 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russian courts have recently solved your dispute. The petition to rehabilitate the Czar and his family was denied because there was no sentence. The Romanovs had been unlawfully killed.

Therefore their death, and that of 17 other Romanovs in that week, was indeed a case of murder. (You could probably google it, I read it in a Dutch newspaper) Robert Prummel (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the word "murdered" and the word "executed" are POV and should be avoided. The extended article calls it the "shooting of". I think that same, neutral, stance should be adopted here. In addition, perhaps a small sub-section on the analysis of 'murder' versus 'execution', citing sources used on this talk page and noting both the controversies and decisions of authorities. That would be both more germane and more interesting than the rather useless aside that the site of the deaths shares a name with some other site... TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense. A subsection would be good, but at the very least, changing the wording to "shooting of" or "killing" seems appropriate. It seems less a matter of compromise, and more a matter of neutrality. I'm going to make this change now with a pointer to this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline laws[edit]

The consorts of Russian dynasts had to be of equal birth (i.e., born to a sovereign house of Europe) and of the Orthodox faith. Otherwise their children forfeited all rights to the throne.

The latter point doesn't seem to be true. The consorts of the Emperor and the Tsesarevich had to be orthodox, but I am not aware of any rule requiring that the consorts of other dynasts had to be, or their children lost all rights to the throne. The Vladimirovichi were certainly considererd to have dynastic rights, and to be in line for the throne, in the later years of the monarchy, in spite of their mother's Lutheranism. There appear to have been some people who thought that the consorts had to be Orthodox, but certainly this wasn't generally accepted, or else Grand Duke Cyril and his brothers would've not been Grand Dukes, not listed in official publications, and so forth. This ought to be changed, but I'm not sure how to do so. john k 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I understand it, Princess Tatiana renounced her rights of succession in 1911 when she married a Bagration prince. But her mother never converted. So presumably orthodoxy was not considered a requirement for consorts of cadets. john k 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it, Shilkanni. john k 02:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof kids[edit]

> some unscholarly accounts suggest only Nicholas had been shot

This is true, the children were actually bayoneted because they were bulletproof. Literally. When the bolsheviks arrested the Romanoffs they ransacked all the gold they found and gave the family one hour to get ready for moving. However the Romanovs had a big cache of diamonds handy, rough and polished and the tsarina arranged to have the kids garments stuffed with the diamonds embedded in bulk cotton so they have valuables with them to help escape by bribery. The tsarina tought the bolsheviks will not be so low as to pat down pre-teens and she was right, so the treasure went unnoticed. The kids had to wear the diamond stuffed clotches all the time to avoid discovery.

The commies liked such fat appearance of tsar kids and often had them march the village streets under guard so the local peasants could see how fat they are while the entire population is starving, thus emphasizing the evil nature of the tsarist system. When the bolsheviks eventually opened fire on the Romanov family, bullets split on the kids, since dimond is the hardest substance ever. The atheist bolsheviks were not fazed by such miracle, they stabbed the kids with bayonets and then discovered the gems. 195.70.32.136 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Imperial Crown[edit]

I found a picture of the imperial crown and uploaded it. The copyright notice on the bottom of the page seemed (to me) to indicate that Wikipedia would be allowed to use it.

"In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any and all copyrighted work on this website is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only."

Source: http://gemstonepedia.wordpress.com/about/

If this is not acceptable, please delete it and let me know why.Svyatoslav 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I deleted it. I read the template, but there was no reason behind the proscription on "educational use" photographs. Perhaps someone could enlighten me? Svyatoslav 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downfall section needs rewriting[edit]

Lots of it is lifted verbatim from Yahoo News page: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_eu/russia_czar_s_son_5Kostia 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Under the sub-topic The era of dynastic crises it is said that the Empresses Anna and Elizabeth were beheaded for being lesbians and that the Romanov line died for the male dynasts at the time being homosexuals. Now I don't know how far this is true but I don't think there is proof to Anna and Elizabeth being lesbians, and further being beheaded for it.

Anyone?

219.93.152.12 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)S D C[reply]

Curious Edit[edit]

You disturb the consistency of the House of Romanov. Even if any kind of situation, current article is inappropriateness. You described a founder unlike a surname written in the box(R-H-G). The parent house is House of Oldenburg now, Michael of Russia is Oldenburg?? Though only the title of the "Emperor" was described, you described the person who wasn't the Emperor(he was Tsar). Your thought wants to know me. Do you think that a result of your editing does not have any problem? If it is so, there cannot be the thing that I talk so with you. You did vandalism and threatened me. It is only it for me. --Motsu 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best source for the name Romanov- Holstein-Gottorp[edit]

The greatest authority for matters of nobility has allways been the "Almanach de Gotha". It's 1914 edition calls the Russian Imperial dynasty "Maison Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp".

There is no more authoritative source than the venerable Gotha, is there?

The 2001 Gotha, a new issue that is not related to the old publishers firm of Justus Pertis, calls the dynasty "Romanov/Romanoff". This almanach is not as good a source (yet) as the old almanach.

Are you content with this? Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is no reason for a quarrel, a redirect and a few explanations (these Germans from Gottorp, a branch of the Oldenburg family, wanted to be Russian in the eyes of their people) should satisfy everyone. The House of Windsor a.k.a Saxen-Coburg-Gotha is a similar case... Robert Prummel (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to tend to this dispute. The conflict isn't over the name, it's over the dating for now. The other user seems to want to date the House simply to when the Holstein-Gottorp joined with the Romanovs. My position is that without the Romanovs there would not be a Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp House and thus the date must be pushed back to the inception of the Romanov Dynasty. --Strothra (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Almanach says: "Souche de la Maison Romanov: Michaël Feidorovitsch né 12 juillet 1596".

I think that settles it. Robert Prummel (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorialdecoration 300 years of the Romanov dynasty, 1913 , private collection, Groningen.
Hm, how is it dating the dynasty back to 1596? The first Romanov doesn't sit on the throne until 1613. In fact, 1596 was the year Michael was born. --Strothra (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you've got to start somewhere... the birth of the founding father, his conception, his enthronement, it is all viable. The Almanach gave his birhdate. I would go for the election of Michael. In 1913 the Romanovs celebrated the 300th. anniversary of their dynasty with great pomp.Robert Prummel (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern day[edit]

It has been believed that the Romanov family is all but extinct.

"All but" is not good enough, they're either entirely extinct or we need to list a modern day potential heir, no matter how obscure, this sentence is just ambigious and leaves things in an unclear state. - Gennarous (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There 's no direct ones, but there is a Romanov Family Association that apparently includes several descendants of Nicholas I of Russia. Paul Ilyinsky, a mayor of Palm Beach, was a "first cousin once removed of Nicholas II" according to his article.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European royal families vs. Category:Royal families vs. Category:House of Romanov[edit]

Category:House of Romanov is itself a category within Category:Royal families which is in turn a category within Category:European royal families — Robert Greer (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

How Russian were the Romanovs? It seems, that they were more German than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.35.68 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer this question properly you need a clear definition of “ethnicity.” What makes a person ethnic a Russian or a German? You seem to concentrate on the blood lines or in other words were did their ancestors come from. Nicholas II, three of your grandparents are German so you are a German too. Though he did not view himself as a German, nor did the Russian people, nor did the rest of the world at that time. According them he was a Russian and so was the whole Romanov family. Another way of approaching this problem is calling him ethnic a “royal.” Royality was a selected group of families with a similar way of life which married each others daughters and sisters. This might be enough reasons to call this an “ethnicity,” at least in the 19th century and earlier on. It is just your point of view on ethnicity where you place the Romanov familiy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.102.148 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since almost every royal spouse for about 300 years was a german ( or dane ), the answer would have to be, not very Russian.Eregli bob (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there should be two separate articles in Wikipedia: one about the actual boyar Romanov family, the other about the so-called "Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp" so people don't ask stupid questions any more!--OlKob (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the other about the so-called "Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp" " They are female-line descendants of the original Romanov, with male-line descent from the House of Holstein-Gottorp. Their ancestors were members of the Danish and Swedish nobility, and the dynasty founder was a son of Frederick I of Denmark. That does not make them "German". Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New World Encyclopedia is not a reliable source[edit]

According to both its own web site and the Wikipedia article that mentions it, the New World Encyclopedia is in essence a WP mirror site with modifications to highlight Unification Church values and doctrines:

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards.

— http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Romanov_Dynasty#Credits

One section of the New World Encyclopedia standards referenced above states:

Addressing values in articles

This encyclopedia is one in which both facts and values are fully honored. Pre-1911 Encyclopedias integrated facts and values from an Enlightenment point of view, while post-1911 Encyclopedias tend to focus on facts alone, creating a scientistic point of view that was narrower in outlook than earlier encyclopedias, and an inherent materialistic and objectivist ideology.

Here facts are integrated with global, universal, or “cosmic” values. This encyclopedia intends to be broader and more inclusive than previous encyclopedias, operating under the belief that some universal principles define the basis of existence. Human beings did not create themselves or evolve randomly. They are subject to both spiritual and physical principles and purposes, just as a bridge exists for a purpose and is subject to physical laws regarding the strength of materials. These principles are open to examination, discussion, and ever sharper articulation. However omitting them because of difficulty in defining them objectively is to ignore aspects of the topic being discussed, or even the reason why it is worth producing an entry on the topic or why it is worth reading.

What are these values?

  1. They should reflect the concept that the universe and human life exist in relation to the ideas of “God's heart,” or “True Love.” These are religious terms that can be widely debated, but imply some basic universal values:
  2. These terms imply human beings did not create the universe and are subject to principles that govern it.
  3. These terms imply that the highest value is love: love of the entire creation from the viewpoint of one who created and cherishes it.
  4. These terms imply the desire for all to be happy, share prosperity with justice, and live together in peace and harmony. Hence the subtitle of this encyclopedia: happiness, well-being, and peace.
  5. This "heart" informs both principles of creation, and principles and the providence of restoration (or how to get from a less than perfect world to a more perfect world).
  6. In the language of unificationism, they should support everyone's opportunity to accomplish the "three blessings." This would include freedom, self-realization and divine embodiment, family, education, security, economic opportunity, justice, peace, environmental care, and collective spiritual life.
  7. They must not be in conflict with the parameters of natural law as understood by science. For example, you cannot drive a truck across any bridge that is not designed to hold at least the weight of the truck. In the economic realm, you cannot spend more money than you have, plus what a lender trusts is within your repayment capacities. In the political realm, you cannot lead beyond the extent of your capacity to lead. Many conventional doctrines violate natural law. They should be exposed when possible, and never expressed as truth.

Help the reader, as would a teacher

Readers of these articles will want to know the value of what they are reading.

The readers of this encyclopedia include high school and college students who will be in the process of learning. They will benefit from knowing how others have valued the topic and how the authors, who are in the position of teachers, think the topic relates to happiness, well-being, justice, world peace and other universal human values.

In the twentieth century a simplistic notion prevailed that encyclopedias merely present facts. It was assumed the reader was "free" to interpret and use these facts as he or she wished. Not only did the mere presentation of facts cloak a materialistic ideology, but it assumed the reader was capable of constructively using these facts. This second assumption is faulty in that if the reader was indeed fully capable of understanding the value of the facts in the article, he would likely have no need to read the article in the first place.

[...]

— http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Help:Writers_Manual#Addressing_values_in_articles

(Note: I have added WP formatting to the quotations above so that they look approximately as they do on their own sites, but I have not modified the content at all.)

I quoted only the beginning of the New World Encyclopedia's "Addressing values in articles" standard. The entire section is very long and detailed in telling editors how to infuse Unification Church values into encyclopedia articles so subtly that the reader is not even aware he is reading anything other than simple facts. That hardly makes that "encyclopedia" a reliable source. The last paragraph quoted above is particularly disturbing in its assumption that readers are incapable of evaluating encyclopedia articles if they are presented with facts alone.

The New World Encyclopedia is cited as a reference only once in this article, with regard to the dynasty name (R vs H-G-R), but the articles are so similar that it's practically impossible for a casual reader to determine which is the chicken and which is the egg. Its symbiotic relationship with the corresponding Unification Church article seriously undermines the credibility of this whole article.--Jim10701 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox entry on "Current head"[edit]

The infobox claims that the "current head" of the house is "disputed" and lists both Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and Prince Nicholas as claimants. As far as any mainstream source is concerned, Maria is head of the Romanovs, end of story. Here are some examples:

  • "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is the current head of the Romanov dynasty" (The Telegraph, 2011)
  • "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, the leading claimant to the Russian imperial throne" (Reuters, 2008) No mention of any non-leading claimant.
  • "But most monarchists and monarchist historians consider Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna....to be the legitimate head of the house" (Royalty Who Wait, Olga Opfell, p. 71, 2001)
  • "Head of the Romanov Dynasty Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna" (RIA Novosti, 2010, see also 2007) This is the state news agency.
  • "Head of the Romanov Imperial House, Grand Duchess of Russia Maria Vladimirovna", Russia Today, 2011) RT is a broadcaster owned by Novosti.
  • "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, the head of the Russian imperial house", (Kommersant, translation, 2009)

From the grandiose RT reference, it sounds like Maria now has a more or less officially recognized pretender status. The top Russian monarchist organization, Russian Imperial Union-Order, supports Maria. The only major monarchist organization that opposes her is The All-Russian Monarchist Center. They have nothing to do Nicholas, but rather argue that the Romanov claim lapsed with the death of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich in 1992. The last time Prince Nicholas was mentioned in the Moscow Times was 1997. There is no mention of him on the Web site of the St. Petersburg Times. Their archive goes back about ten years and mentions Maria six times. In short, Nicholas is an obscure claimant getting entirely WP:UNDUE attention in the infobox. It is time to pull him out of the box and give Maria the status as sole claimant that she is given in virtually every mainstream source published in the last ten years. Kauffner (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Nicholas is excluded from Wikipedia as the main rival of Maria Vladimirovna for the claim to the defunct Russian throne and/or to headship of the deposed dynasty, expect near constant edit wars and serious talk page accusations that Wikipedia is biased in this matter. I agree that undue weight is applicable here (although efforts to apply it have had limited success, being thwarted by all kinds of alternative interpretations of competing claims as evidenced at Talk:Line of succession to the former Russian throne/Archive 1 where such protracted arguments have usually been "resolved" by petering out in exhaustion rather than by consensus). It is one thing to weigh Google hits as a factor in choosing article names and another to allow them to determine content in Wikipedia's NPOV coverage of the issues. While I agree that the Kennedy Gotha is a discredited source (and the original Justus Perthes version, a venerable full-bore almanac only a fraction of whose content consisted of dynastic/noble data, was a RS but stopped publishing in 1944 -- treating Nicholas in its final edition as non-dynastic) and that the Romanov Family Association is irrelevant because its bylaws explicitly bar it from endorsing any claimant to the throne, there remain reputable sources which take differing positions on the rivals' claims. Some do, explicitly or implicitly, uphold Nicholas's claim as compared to that of Maria's -- most notably Robert Massie in The Romanovs: The Final Chapter (which had been excerpted in The New Yorker prior to publication in '95) and by Nicolas Enache in La Descendance de Pierre le Grand, Tsar de Russie, 1983. Moreover, in the return of most Romanov descendants to Russia for the ceremonial reburial in July 1998 of Nicholas II and his family (now Orthodox saints), attended by President Boris Yeltsin, there was open competition between Nicholas and Maria for pride of place, influence and public profile which Nicholas Romanovich won hands down. Maria Vladimirovna, her mother and son -- although present in St. Petersburg -- actually withdrew from participation on a pretext, the unseemly spat evoking dissension among monarchists and a flurry of coverage. Also, the nature of the succession dispute is key to understanding Nicholas's prominence in it: Few seriously argue that he is a stronger genealogical or legal claimant than Maria, rather he is treated (by monarchists and non-monarchists alike who take an interest in the matter) as a foil to Maria's claim, which is opposed with an articulate vehemence akin to that of French Legitimists toward the House of Orléans or the Carlists toward the Isabelline Bourbons: the objections are as much ideological as dynastic and more moral than legal. I agree that Nicholas is much less an independently "viable" candidate than Maria because the relevant nuance here is fundamentally "pro-Maria vs. anti-Maria", but Nicholas (a self-avowed republican, whose animus quintessentializes the rivalry) has exploited that resentment (helped by the Vladimirovichis' high-handed public relations blundering) to become the focus of articulate opposition to Maria Vladimirovna. Her story as pretender is incomplete without his. FactStraight (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree, House Laws are very specific, and have already been ruled on. The easiest way to find the Head of the House of Romanov, is to see which one is given respect by current monarchs. There is only 1, and it's not Nicholas, denoted also by the fact Nicholas uses the lesser title of Prince, Not Grand Duke. Because Legally he can't. And it is most certainly not the Assoc, or it's members who currently turn up on US Television making fools of themselves. The only concise look at this I can find online Almanach de la cour, and it's written by a noble.

fen 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.89.74 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hessian Romanovs[edit]

Ludwig IV, Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse provided two brides to the Romanovs - Elizabeth and Alexandra. They did not have descendants but it seems there is a legacy where the Romanovs and Russia benefited from these ladies while Ludwig IV would have mainly suffered loss from the two marriages. The Hessians are probably not German and there were other Hessians who were married to Romanovs. RCNesland (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Anna Petrovna[edit]

It is not uncommon for a family name to pass through a woman. In the case of Peter III, the son of Anna Petrovna, the daughter of Peter the great, it seems to have been quite practical. This was in accordance With the wishes of Peter III's aunt,Empress Elizabeth, Where the Empress seems to have been in error was when she chose a consort for Peter. His consort was not Russian and also chose to plot against Peter. If Peter had been able to choose a wife himself he may have gotten someone who would have helped him with his imperial mission instead of hindering him. I do not believe the Holstein-Gottorp influence is near as important in assessing Peter III as it is made out to be. RCNesland (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well; first of all; 'Romanov' is a dynastic name, also referred to as a 'House designation', and not a surname, royalty, being titled; have no need of surnames as they use their title instead. The name of the Royal House may well be the same as the original surname of the founder of the House ( e.g. The Tudor, Stuarts, and yes, the Romanovs.), but it is not the same as a surname. For example, in Britain, Prince Charles' surname (which he almost never uses) is 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. But he is a member of the House of Windsor. Likewise, his father Prince Phillip in theory bears the surname 'Mounbatten', but his House designation remains Oldenburg, of the branch of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.(Because no law has been passed saying he's not, unlike his son.

Secondly, Emperor Peter III did not take his House designation from his mother. He bore the House name and bore the arms of the Holstein-Gottorp branch of the House of Oldenburg until he became nominated as the Heir to the Russian throne by his aunt, when he created simultaneously a Grand Duke of Russia. But even so, I'm not aware of any law, edict, proclaimation etc. giving Peter III the House designation of 'Romanov'; it was his son Emperor Paul who adopted the House designation of Romanov', presumably to bolster up his questionable (but in my opinion, unfounded) legitimacy and descent from Peter the Great, and because the original House of Romanov had died out.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four Generations[edit]

Peter III and Catherine the Great were both fourth generation descendants from Christian Albert, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp as follows; Peter III was the son of Charles Frederick, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp who was the son of Frederick IV, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp who was the son of the duke Christian Albert: Catherine was the daughter of Joanna Elisabeth of Holstein-Gottorp who was the daughter of Christian August of Holstein-Gottorp, Prince of Eutin who was the son of the duke Christian Albert. This means they were second cousins with Peter III on a line senior to hers. Their Holsteiner lineages are simialar enough so that whatever Holsteiner traits were passed on could at times have been from either of them. RCNesland (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Q That and the fact that the House of Romanov after 1796 is really just a branch of the House of Oldenburg Until that has adopted the name and arms of the House of Romanov, any 'Holsteiner' traits would not be surprising. Also, Catherine II was a member of the House of Ascania (of the branch of Anhalt -Zerbst ), and not any of the Holstein branches of the House of Oldenburg. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's mother[edit]

"He was finally persuaded to accept the throne by his mother Kseniya Ivanovna Shestova, who blessed him with the holy image of Our Lady of St. Theodore."

I would really like to see a citation for this. I am currently taking an MA course (in Russian) on the Romanovs at Middlebury College. The professor is Alexander Logunov (dean at Russian State University for the Humanities). He states that she was categorically against him becoming Tsar. Michael accepted and she was sent to a convent. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.137.37 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Imperial Dynasty[edit]

Where should I ask or look for information about the First Imperial Dynasty? I Can't seem to find out who they were. Kamila 064 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branches of the Romanov?[edit]

Are there present-day branches (even illegitimate) of the actual Romanov? I'm talking about the line that died out with Peter II of Russia, not the Holstein-Gottorp line? --Lecen (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fake "official website"[edit]

Houseofromanovofficial recently tried to add a link to this website to support his addition of Rani Romanov. It's fake. According to Whois it was created only today, and its content is scraped from here. Note that the original website says there are only two members, but Houseofromanovofficial's version goes on to list a third. I even saw it still saying there were only two, but when I pointed that out to Houseofromanovofficial via IRC it was changed even before I managed to archive the "two persons" version. Huon (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been turned into a redirect to http://imperialhouse.ru/, but not before I archived it. Huon (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw too that two people version, but could not get to archive it before it had appended another name. Considering the material provided by Huon, I believe it's fairly certain that the content was only created to fake information on Wikipedia. It should be removed (if added again) immediately. Küñall (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, a helpee came into IRC today asking about using two sources. One was this, discussed above. The other was this which had me a bit suspicious. I dug around and found that article is a copy of this one, but with the sentence "with the help of one of the living members of the last imperial ruling family, H.I.H. Grand Duke Rani Romanov of Russia." added in. Just a heads up in case someone tries to use that as a source. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 November 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


House of Romanov → Romanov dynasty – This is the most common term. See, e.g., this ngram. Srnec (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Question Would this not break the internal WP consistency? Right now we have House of Capet, House of Bourbon, House of Habsburg, Stuart, Medici, Tudor, etc. If we are to change this, should we not be consistent about how such family pages are named, and change them all? 1bandsaw (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on House of Romanov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning[edit]

In the intro, there is a implied claim that the House of Romanov ceased to exist upon the abdication of Nicolas II in 1917.

The idea of the abdication being the absolute finality of the Romanov house has the problem that had Nicolas II not been executed, monarchists would have tried to restore him to power regardless of the abdication. The execution and not the abdication seem more like the final event. Not mentioning his and his close family's execution sixteen months later doesn't make sense because it was a prominent event.

Even earlier in the article, the reference to the idea of the House of Romanov "was" gives the impression that the house no longer exists; the meaning of the word "house" is problematic, and the term "family" is more useful. The "house" is no longer a "house" because of either the abdication or the execution, or because Russia abandoned monarchy altogether, but the "family" still remains. Renaming the article "Romanov family" would help to make clear that the term "house" is aristocratic and oftn misused.-Inowen (nlfte) 03:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Tsar and Family[edit]

This section contains some very subjective descriptions. Should some of this be in quotes or at least prominently cited in-text? Reads like fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.222.199 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remains of the Tsar[edit]

Do you have any information on how the remains were found? Also do you have the names of the two scientists and the dates they made these discoveries? JessicaNHunt (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Family's wealth[edit]

I would like to find some more information and additional sources before adding this, but a 1995 New York Times' article says that the Romanov wealth at the time of the Revolution was $45 billion. Using the Inflation Calculator website, that equals $900 billion in 2019 dollars. (that sounds incredible, but considering the article says that aside from gold, jewels, and palaces, the family controlled roughly 70% of the country's land and other vast resources, it becomes more reasonable sounding) I think it would be a good addition to the article. Coinmanj (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"House of Roman" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect House of Roman. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry origin?[edit]

So I like learning heraldry and it seems that this heraldric shield with a black border, which has a griffon holding a sword and shield and surrounded by 8 animal heads, is listed as the coat of arms of House Romanov, it then being integrated into the coat of arms of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.

Where does the coat of arms come from? What is the source for this? From which year was it used? It seems that it is a part of the Greater Russian Coat of Arms from 1883 onwards, being the bottommost and centermost of the 9 surrounding escutcheons (shields). But when did the Romanovy first start using it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.212.138 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry origin?[edit]

So I like learning heraldry and it seems that this heraldric shield with a black border, which has a griffon holding a sword and shield and surrounded by 8 animal heads, is listed as the coat of arms of House Romanov, it then being integrated into the coat of arms of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.

− − Where does the coat of arms come from? What is the source for this? From which year was it used? It seems that it is a part of the Greater Russian Coat of Arms from 1883 onwards, being the bottommost and centermost of the 9 surrounding escutcheons (shields). But when did the Romanovy first start using it?

199.111.212.138 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Anonymous User[reply]

Problems with the redirect link[edit]

Prince Alexis' redirect is bringing me towards the deceased prince Andrew's page. Sazarr (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sazarr: Working as designed. There's no article on Alexis. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sazarr (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Imperial Russian History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Inmh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tbeaisasn579779257, Imperialrussia1, HIS346.

— Assignment last updated by Soviethistorian (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders[edit]

There have been many discussions so I don’t know if this was one of them but why does the Russian Emperor article’s infobox list 2 pretends and the infobox on House of Romanov list 3? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illumae Family[edit]

I find that the description of the purported Illumae family to be fake as there exists no verifiable evidence that there is such a family, if someone will remove the edits. Yazakah22 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Romanov&oldid=1193934342"