Marriage's Implications For Succession Claims
In post-monarchy debates over which pretender has the strongest claim to Russia’s throne under the dynastic laws, the marriage of Tatiana Konstantinovna is often cited in support of rival claimants. Some cite it as evidence that marriage to a member of the Bagration family cannot be considered any more "equal" than marriage to any other prince of Russia’s nobility, since the marriage was morganatic and she was only able to obtain the Emperor’s approval by first renouncing her succession rights. According to this argument, Maria Vladimirovna Romanov and her son, George Mikhailovich, cannot be rightful claimants to the throne because Maria Vladimirovna’s mother is Princess Leonida Bagration-Mukhransky, belonging to the same family previously banned from marriage with the Romanovs on equal terms. An oft-heard rebuttal is that the Bagrations fall into the same "grey area" as the 1856 marriage of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolayevna to Duke Maximilian of Leuchtenberg, who was not a member of a "royal or ruling family", despite his historical dynastic connections, yet Emperor Nicholas I exercised Imperial authority to rule in favor of Duke Maximilien’s dynasticity for marital purposes.
Other monarchists argue that the circumstances of Tatiana Konstantinovna’s marriage confirm Maria Vladimirovna’s claim on two counts. First, they maintain that Nicholas II’s acceptance of Tatiana Konstantinovna’s renunciation prior to marriage explicitly confirms that she had succession rights despite being born of a Lutheran mother who never converted to the Russian Orthodox Church, which is a prerequisite for successors to Russia’s throne. A rebuttal is that article 185 of the Pauline laws is explicit: "The marriage of a male member of the Imperial House who might succeed to the Throne to a person of another faith may not take place until she embraces Orthodoxy."
The second relevant claim in support of Maria Vladimirovna is that Tatiana Konstantinovna’s mandated renunciation proves that Romanov princes were required to marry "equally" in order to transmit succession rights to their descendants, an interpretation denied by Nicholas Romanovich Romanoff, president of the Romanoff Family Association, in an interview with the royalty magazine, Point de Vue, published 14 February 1991, who stated, "Let’s take the example of the Princess Tatiana who, in 1911, married a prince of a very great family of Georgia, but which was not reigning. Before giving his authorization, Czar Nicholas requested that the princess renounce her rights of succession in advance. That argument is very important since, although her mother was Lutheran, the princess only renounced upon her marriage, whereas there was a law stating that children born of a non-Orthodox marriage had no right to succeed as czar. Nonetheless, Nicholas II requested her renunciation."
The counter-claim has been that the wording of the August 1911 ukase restricting the ban on morganatic marriages to grand dukes was silent on imperial princes, therefore the Frederiks memorandum was not given full legal effect.
Read more about this topic: Princess Tatiana Constantinovna Of Russia
Famous quotes containing the words marriage, implications, succession and/or claims:
“There is a time for all things—Except Marriage my dear.”
—Thomas Chatterton (1752–1770)
“Philosophical questions are not by their nature insoluble. They are, indeed, radically different from scientific questions, because they concern the implications and other interrelations of ideas, not the order of physical events; their answers are interpretations instead of factual reports, and their function is to increase not our knowledge of nature, but our understanding of what we know.”
—Susanne K. Langer (1895–1985)
“We then entered another swamp, at a necessarily slow pace, where the walking was worse than ever, not only on account of the water, but the fallen timber, which often obliterated the indistinct trail entirely. The fallen trees were so numerous, that for long distances the route was through a succession of small yards, where we climbed over fences as high as our heads, down into water often up to our knees, and then over another fence into a second yard, and so on.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone believing it to be God. I plead not for the suppression of reason, but for a due recognition of that in us which sanctifies reason.”
—Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948)