Re: 1839 Leuchtenberg/Romanov marriage

In article <1164986449.209497.183680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew S.
Kalinkin says...


I can agree about Ruffo or Leiningen, but what is so different between
the cases for Bagratids and Galitzins?

The latter had reigned over a significant
territory whose monarchs had at various times signed formal treaties with=
the
Shahs of Persia and the Russian Emperors.

The Gediminids ruled even larger territory and signed formal treaties
with about any european country.

But (a) the Galitzin's descent was from a branch far removed from the reigning
branch, even long before the end of Gediminid rule in Lithuana; (b) Russia
had not signed a treaty with Lithuania guaranteeing its independence and
sovereignty just 18 years before invading and abolishing the sovereign rights
of the dynasty.

More to the point, did their descent from the Gediminid at the time confer
any residual right to the Lithuanian throne - I do not think so; yet we see the
elder brother of the direct ancestor of the Moukhranie princes, himself
at the time prince of Moukhranie, becoming Tsar of Kartli in the late 17th
century, even though several generations removed. Thus one sees clear evidence
of dynastic rights accruing without any terminal date to the Bagrations
but no such rights for the Galitzins. Finally I would say that the Bagrations
were a reigning dynasty less than 150 years before the marriage in question,
whereas the Gediminid dynasty had ceased to reign some 450 years earlier
and the Galtzins ancestor long before that.

Unlike the Leiningens their
sovereignty was not constrained by fealty to a superior ruler (such as th=
e Holy
Roman Emperor),

They often recognized as their overlords either Sultans of Turkey of
Shakhs of Persia.
The dukes of Lithuania, on the other hand, were always completely
independent.

they descended from a
sovereign house, but one which had lost any claim to reign anywhere for s=
o many
centuries that it had never been recognised by the Russian Tsars as enjoy=
ing
sovereign rights.

Well, 1572 is not that many centuries in the past. Surely, Galitzins
never had any sovereign rights in Russia, but not because their
connection with the ruling dinasty of Lithuania was too distant. The
various Bagratid emigres in 18 century got exactly the same treatment.
As soon as they settled permanently in Russia, they become ordinary
nobles.

The French kings made it absolutely clear on many occasions that
the line of Princes of Cond=E9 were French royal dynasts, even though the=
last
reigning king of France in their direct male line was Louis IX who died i=
n 1318,
yet this did not inhibit their right to be treated as Princes du Sang Roy=
al.

So did Condes got this status by right of their descent, or were they
dynast because the French kings recognized them as such? If the former,
then Galitzins have even more right to this distinction, as the last
regning prince in their ancestry died in 1340, seventy years after
Louis IX (your 1318 is aparently a typo). If the latter - then the last
emperors of Russia didn't recognize Bagratids any more than Galitzins.

Yet, the last Russian Emperors always treated the senior
branch of their own male line family, the Dukes of
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg and Glucksburg as part of a ru=
ling
house, even though these dukes had not enjoyed any kind of sovereign stat=
us
since the 1630s.

Then what about Sheremetevs? They are discussed on the page you
mentioned, but only on the basis of their countly title (which is
hardly relevant) or various connections through female line (which is
just ridiculous, probably any russian noble could find some such
connection in his ancestry). However I didn't notice anyone mentioned
that they belong to the same agnatic family with Romanovs (the original
ones, of course).

And particularly important in this argument and of some
influence on Wladimir in 1946 when he was asked to rule on the status of =
the
Bagrations by the Infante D. Fernando is the fact that Georgia itself had
briefly regained its independence following the collapse of Russia.

If the three year of Georgian independence had such influence on
Wladimir, then why twenty years of independent Lithuania were ignored
by him?

Andrew



--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
.