Talk:House of Romanov

Comments

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!!!!!

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

---

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

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)

---

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)

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)

Pavel's real father

"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)

Our Lady of St Feodor

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

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)

Family Flag

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)

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)

Lots of bold

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

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)

Executed versus Murdered

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)

Maybe "killed"?--Konst.able 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the original phrasing ("executed"). "Murdered" is very POV. "Killed" may be a compromise. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Pauline laws

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)

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)

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

Bulletproof kids

> 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)

Imperial Crown

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)

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)

Downfall section needs rewriting

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)

Vandalism?

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

Curious 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)

The best source for the name Romanov- Holstein-Gottorp

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

Modern day

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)

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)

Category:European royal families vs. Category:Royal families vs. Category:House of Romanov

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)

Ethnicity

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)

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)

New World Encyclopedia is not a reliable source

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)