Talk:Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky

Former Comsomol ( Communist Youth) member and present comediant

First. Nugzar Bagrationi is a former Comsomol (Communist Youth) member and present well-known comediant from Tbilisi. Such type of monarchy Georgian people wish?? Who support this actor in his claims? An marginal group from his theatre and several distant morganatical kinsmans?

Second. Ancestor of Nugzar Bagration has made abdication of the Georgian Throne forever, for himself and his heirs, in favour of Russian Emperors. Therefore all present claims of any heir of last King of Georgia (Kakheti-Kartly) is a nothing more then an absurd. There is not such a person like "HRH Crown Prince Nugzar.." but maximum is "HSH Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinskiy, in the nobility of the Russian Empire". The Bagration-Mukhran line is not descendented form the last King of Georgia, who abdicated kingdoms to the RE. The Bagration-Mukhranely line is a living historical senior line of Bagrations, and its heads never abdicated their rights to the throne. The Head of Bagration-Mukhranely line is only of Bagrationi officially recognised ealsewhere ( including Royals, presently ruling and ex-reigning) as the only Head of the Royal House of Georgia. This is a fact.

The is not a fact. See Response to "Former Comsomol ( Communist Youth) member and present comediant" below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon100 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NO. THIS IS A FACT. Maximum, Mr Nugzar Bagrationi might be considered as a noblemen of the Russian Empire, with the rank of Prince, and with the Style of Serene Highness.

_______________________________________________________________

Truth: “You can bend it and twist it. . . You can misuse and abuse it. . . But even God cannot change the Truth.” (Michael Levy) Prince David's family raised a claim to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia in the early 1900's based on the erroneous presumption that the Royal line of Kartli-Kakheti, which failed to emigrate, before the Communist revolution, could not survive under the Soviet tyranny, yet they did, and so the Mukhranski claim to be the royal line is mute. It is built on a false premise. Both of the websites below confirm this fact. (www.czipm.org/bagratides.html & http://the.heraldry.ru/text/bagratide.html) The Mukranski family should own up to the truth.

All the recognitions of royalty were based on this glaring falsehood. So they are meaningless, because they are built on a lie. You should know that ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312) Recognition does not change the truth. The truth is greater than anyone's recognition especially when it is based on a falsehood.

_____________________________________________

Third. The perpetration called (so-called) "International Comission on Nobility and Royalty", who supporting to Mr. Nugzar Bagrationi in his falce claim, is an perpetration of an ignoramus, an self-styled expert(Mr.Hoff, ot Mr.Goff). Said Goff has been several years ago conned by an well-known fraudster Antonio Boada. Boada sold to Mr. Hoff an fake title of "Prince of Holy Roman Empire" :))) This is well known story.(http://www.noblescams.com/boada/boada9.htm ) (http://www.faketitles.com/html/british_feudal_investments.html ),( www.fraudsandscams.com/boada_rpt.pdf )

____________________________________________

Interesting But this is not proof of anything. You seem to make opinions without facts or support. I do not care anything about Goff. I do care about truth. And you don't seem to have any of it. If you have truth, prove it. So far, you present nothing but opinion based on an admitted cover-up from long ago. Prince David knows about this whitewash. He admitted it to HRH Prince Nugzar, but does not have the courage or moral integrity to fess up and take responsibility for it. How sad! This in not very noble, not very nice, not very honest.

______________________________________________

Now that victim, Mr.Goff, thinks that he become an expert:)), and has established his own clownish business, so-called "International Comission on Nobility and Royalty" :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.220 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the legitimacy of the claims, the "H.R.H." designation should not be here. I've made those changes. SQGibbon (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

About his heir presumptive

I have the following thoughts about his heir presumptive.

http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/bagration.html says Pr Nugzar of Georgia is Head of the Royal Family of Georgia, but doesn't say Pr Peter of Georgia is heir presumptive. http://genealogy.euweb.cz/georgia/bagrat8.html#E2 says HSH Pr Nugzar of Georgia is Head of the Royal Family of Georgia, but doesn't say HSH Pr Peter of Georgia is heir presumptive, as well as.

In the first place these two sources don't show the succession law. If Salic law, Prince Peter is heir presumptive, of course. But http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Georgia/georgia.htm says about RULES OF SUCCESSION "Primogeniture, legitimate sons taking precedence over natural sons, and natural sons taking precedence over legitimate daughters.", "Salic laws of succession never applied to any of the Georgian Kingdoms.". If it is so, Princess Anna is heir presumptive, because she is eldest daughter of Prince Nugzar.

If Prince Nugzar says his house law is Salic, that's no historical, customary or legal justification, same as Moukhrani Line's claim. However, even if there is his thought by either law("Salic law" or "Primogeniture"), the successor of the last King of Georgia is him(Because, senior female's descendants are not found).

His Royal Highness, Prince Nugzar is the heir and successor of the crown and throne of his ancestors. He is "the Most Respectful Prince Gruzinski" of the Royal Branch. His line is a pure salic line back to the most important of all the kings. This kingly line is of ancient origin and goes back all the way to King Adarnase Bagrationi in 898 A.D. He is undoubtedly the "de jure" or rightful king of Georgia. And it is hoped, he will yet reign as a constitutional monarch under the name of His Majesty, King Erekle III as many in the country want a restoration of the Kingdom. If Prince Nugzar, the heir or "de jure" monarch and king of Georgia, passes away, Princess Anna will inherit the rights of his father. To be the next head of House (state) will be Princess Anna's exclusive right as Prince Nugzar has designated her as his heir, and the more ancient history and traditions of ancient times provides for female succession when no male heir can be found in Royal family. This is the pattern followed by most, if not all, of the European royal houses, and the same is true for Her Royal Highness Princess Anna. She is the lawful heir and next in line to the throne of Georgia.--Varaz vache (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I examine two of the next.

http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Georgia/kakhet6.htm doesn't says Prince Nukzar(Nugzar) is Head of the Royal House of Georgia. And description isn't found about the current Head of Royal House.

http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/bagrtgen.htm says Prince GEORGE(Moukhrani line) assumed the Headship of the Royal House of Bagration of Georgia. But Prince Nugzar only senior representative(NOT Head) of the Royal House of Kartli and Kakheti(NOT Georgia), different from his claim. AS FAR AS I KNOW IT, THIS SITE IS THE ONLY SOURCE that assumes Prince Peter as a heir presumptive, EXPLICITLY. May we judge his heir presumptive(of Georgian throne) from that site? It doesn't seem to accept his claim(to the Georgian throne).

From the above, I think his heir presumptive is Princess Anna, or MERELY UNCLEAR. Motsu 10:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

male priomogeniture in Georgia

David Pritchard Conclusions: Grand Duchess Leonida belongs to the senior Bagratid line, Line 1. Her late brother Prince Irakly Georgievich was the senior male of the entire Bagratid Dynasty. This senior genealogical branch had been the Kings of Georgia before they were overthrown by Line VI.

The head of Line VI of the Bagratid Dynasty and the House of Georgia is Prince Nukzar Petrovich and his heir is Prince Peter Petrovich. The last King of Georgia belonged to Line VI.

Line one claims to be the rightful Royal House of Georgia based on male priomogeniture genealogy from the start of the dynasty some 1000 plus years ago and Line VI claims to be the rightful Royal House of Georgia based on male priomogeniture genealogy descent from the last King of Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.18.202 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources for these claims? Also, who is this "Prince Peter Petrovich"? --Kober^Talk 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Last Georgian reigning line

Prince NUKZAR PETROVICH GROUZINSKY, b at Tbilisi 25 Aug 1950, film producer, succ his father as senior representative of the Royal House of Kartli and Kakheti, 1984, m at ……. 10 Feb 1971 Leyla Georgievna Kipiani (b at …….. 16 Jul 1947), and had issue,

1. Princess Anna Nukzarovna, b at Tbilisi 1 Nov 1976.

2. Princess Maya Nukzarovna, b at Tbilisi 2 Jan 1978.

and

Prince Peter Petrovich, Heir Presumptive as head of the GROUZINSKY line b at ……. 1916, Captain Soviet Merchant Marine, m Raisa Sergeevna Maletskaya (b at ….. 1923; d at …… 1987), and had issue,

1. Prince Eugene Petrovich, b at …….. 1947, m at Moscow …… Alexandra Parkhun.

2. Princess Marina Petrovna, b at ……… 1950.

3. Princess Catherine Petrovna, b at ……… 1956, m at …… Serge Vladimirovich Platonov. http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/bagrtgen.htm http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/bagration.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.18.202 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorting out NPOV

Under the IPs of 74.211.2.151, 207.50.146.169, 217.118.66.79, 188.169.143.17 and 92.54.240.68, Konstantine 001 has edited a series of articles, beginning September 2009, related to competing claims of pretenders to the long-abolished throne of the Kingdom of Georgia, i.e. Line of succession to the Georgian throne, Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky, Bagrationi dynasty, George Bagration-Mukhransky and David Bagration of Mukhrani to reflect his view (expounded on various talk pages) that Prince Nugzar of the Gruzinsky branch of the House of Bagration is the "rightful" heir to the defunct throne and Princes George and David (father and son) of the Muchransky branch of Bagrations are "false" pretenders. Further, he edited facts, emphases and tone to uphold Nugzar and denigrate David's claims to such a degree that I and others reverted these edits as violations of NPOV, e.g. here. With a couple of exceptions, these edits were attributed to the authority of (Nuzgar's) Royal Household, but citations were not given, whereas facts and footnotes I had uploaded one year ago were repeatedly altered or deleted, eliciting my reverts. In one of the exceptions he attributes the opinion, "Obviously, HRH Prince Nugzar has the superior lineal right to the throne according to international and dynastic law" to Christopher Buyers who, however, in the cited entry refers to the Muchrany claimant as "Head of the Royal House of Georgia", does not attribute HRH to the Gruzinsky line, and implies that Nugzar Gruzinsky's Bagration ancestry is dubious (elsewhere he openly questions the plausibility of the marriage of Nugzar's alleged paternal grandfather to his grandmother). Buyers also notes that the Mukhransky branch were not merely "noble" subjects in Georgia, but were acknowledged Princes of the Blood Royal. A final exception appears in this diff, attempting to source the pro-Nugzar stance to an article on the website of what looks like a one-man operation calling itself the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty. Article #10 on that site is the first to directly address the Georgian succession. Entitled "Demoralized Georgia may renew itself by restoring its monarchy", written by By Gerald Warner, the article concludes, "Georgia has no military options against Russia, its economy has been devastated, it lacks diplomatic leverage. Yet there is one politico-cultural gesture it could make to renew itself, to reassert its national identity, to unite around a non-partisan symbol, and that is to restore its monarchy. The fact that it was originally abolished by Russia would give added meaning to this act of constitutional renewal. The head of the royal house, the de jure King is His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky, which is obvious from the genealogy and the fact that both he and his ancestors followed the international law by claiming and using their titles throughout all their generations. There were no abdications and no one ever renounced their rights. Hence, their 'de jure' rights are intact. This is the only family that holds the full and complete 'de jure' sovereign right to the throne according to both international and dynastic law." Then follows an odd parenthetical annotation by the publisher, "(The above article on Georgia, with some slight changes, was published by Telegraph.co.uk on August 20, 2008 and can be seen at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/08/20/demoralised_georgia_may_renew_itself_by_restoring_its_monarchy." But the actual article found there omits the last 4 sentences above, and the genuine sentence reads, "The acknowledged head of the royal house, the de jure King George XIV, died earlier this year; but his 32-year-old son Prince Davit could be called to the throne of his ancestors as David XIII." What's most annoying about this dishonest effort to sustain and promote a dynastic rift is the fact that the two branches of the dynasty in question went so far as to carry out an arranged marriage in 2009 between Nugzar's elder daughter Princess Anna Gruzinsky and Prince Davit Muchransky to end the family feud and offer their nation another option for political healing. FactStraight (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone questions the plausibility of the marriage of Nugzar's paternal grandfather to his grandmother we can answer that the Chancellery of HRH crown prince Nagzer has informed us: "We have received the official document of wedding which is kept in Royal family. Wedding is dated 14 May 1915, St. Barbara's church, Tbilisi. For us it`s not strange, such similar unfair charges towards the Royal house - not in the first time... But we always react against false charges by the lawful facts and documents. A question is - who stands up for all this ?..."--Varaz vache (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

International Commission on Nobility and Royalty

Using a WP account created today, TruthHonesty placed a warning on my talk page, informing me that henceforth I will be "monitored" and "corrected" for placing "a falsehood" about the the so-called International Commission on Nobility and Royalty (ICNR) on this talk page, i.e. "you say in the Talk articles on Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and David Bagration of Mukhrani that the Commission is a one man operation". In fact, I said no such thing. As can be seen above (despite repeated edits by -- guess who? -- to alter my previous comment without my consent), what I actually said was that a citation used to justify an allegation in the David Bagration of Mukhrani article was taken from "the website of what looks like a one-man operation calling itself the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty." (emphasis added). I neither know nor care whether ICNR actually is a one-man operation. But I stand by my statement that it's website makes it look like a one-man operation, because:

1. The numerous misspellings and grammar errors on the official, English-language website of ICRN, which says it is incorporated in Nevada, USA, and whose only acknowledged "public official" is a native English-speaker whose office location is also listed as the USA are, in my opinion, unprofessional.
2. "Commission" is, in the United States, a term that normally denotes an entity created by a legal, governmental or inter-governmental authority and which is officially charged with goals, authority, functions and/or responsibilities by that government: its legitimacy derives from that legal authority, not from its own membership. "Self-designated" commissions are, with few exceptions, at best misleading and at worst fraudulent.
3. ICNR is, however, a registered USA, for-profit entity, whereas government-sponsored commissions are usually either not incorporated or are non-profits. One expects, especially in this era of "transparency", that a bona fide commission will make public its members and their qualifications to serve on the commission -- but not ICNR.
4. Also unlike any bona fide commission with which I'm familiar, ICNR's members who are not obviously royal or noble are expected to pay to apply and to join, and normally those who want to be "permanent", "registered" or "certified" members are expected to pay "research" or "translator" fees to receive confirmation to a specified degree of certainty the member's royal, noble or knightly ancestry or affiliation, charges which, ICNR reassures, are not expected to exceed $50 per hour for the research efforts of the professional expert ICNR retains to conduct any genealogical research deemed necessary. After this research, and the payment of charges assessed, ICNR issues its qualifying members proof of the "illustrious" affiliation, complete with suitable adjectives.
5. Critiques of the organization and its website on the newsgroup rec.heraldry are available online here, and tend to confirm my assessment of ICNR.
6. Finally and most importantly, ICNR has warned me of their intent to have me "monitored" and "corrected" because of a tangential reference to them on this page, yet express no appreciation for nor any intention to take corrective action upon the information I provided showing that its website displays an adulterated version of the work of a renowned journalist writing in The Telegraph, Gerald Warner, which flagrantly and illegally misrepresents Warner's words and opinions, and which has been used as a footnote to include disinformation in this article.

I had preferred to believe that all of this was the work of a single misguided and Wiki-blocked Georgian legitimist who fabricated a "commission", cluttered up a monarchist website with errors and inaccuracies, and then came here to impose an improper point of view on Wikipedia articles. But if, in fact, I'm being told this was not the work of one, unaided vandal -- okay, you've convinced me. Regardless, it remains unacceptable on Wikipedia. And sad. FactStraight (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

Since, FactFinder has attacked. It is only right to allow a defense and to look at what was stated above to see if it squares with reality or not.

First of all, if FactFinder really didn’t “care whether ICNR actually is a one-man operation” or not, as he express above, then why did he insist on putting this language back into his Talk discussion site three or four times, when I corrected him? Most people, if they really don’t care, leave it alone, so I suspect FactFinder has a hidden agenda and is not being straightforward and upfront.

Instead of trying to reconcile as Wiki guideline require, he, knowing how to manipulate his way around Wiki --- knowing the ropes, merely got me blocked for 24 hours instead of doing what is ethically called for. Again, this suggests something is not right. Part of this response is an invitation for reconciliation or to turn this whole thing over to arbitration. I will go over his complaints one by one.

FACTFINDER: The numerous misspellings and grammar errors on the official, English-language website of ICRN, which says it is incorporated in Nevada, USA, and whose only acknowledged "public official" is a native English-speaker whose office location is also listed as the USA are, in my opinion, unprofessional.

ANSWER: The Commission has had a lot of compliments about its articles from professionals such as a professor of international law and others. Some have not only praised them, but given suggestions for changes and corrections through the years. FactFinder appears to be fault finder or a nit picker. But since he made the charge, we make the challenge: prove there are numerous misspellings and grammar errors!

What does that have to do with it anyway? The official website manager does all the typing. We are all volunteers. He is just one person out of many. He is rarely checked, perhaps, he should be, but when you have a lot of volunteers, with personal lives and jobs, some things never get done. Anyway, let’s see if FactFinder can show numerous misspellings and grammar errors. Anyone can make mistakes especially with a website of over 200 pages in length. I believe this is an exaggeration as I have read much of the website myself. But I would welcome corrections, which I can pass on to the Commission.

And what does being incorporated in Nevada have to do with anything? Royalty is worldwide in the Americas, Asia, Europe, on some Pacific Islands and in Africa. Being in Nevada no bearing whatsoever unless FactFinder thinks that only Europeans can be royal. FACTFINDER: "Commission" is, in the United States, a term that normally denotes an entity created by a legal, governmental or inter-governmental authority and which is officially charged with goals, authority, functions and/or responsibilities by that government: its legitimacy derives from that legal authority, not from its own membership. "Self-designated" commissions are, with few exceptions, at best misleading and at worst fraudulent.

ANSWER: Challenge: show that all Commission are created by “a legal, governmental or inter-governmental authority and which is officially charged with goals, authority, functions and/or responsibilities by that government.” What about the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC)? It is a private, non-government organization. And so is The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty (ICNR). They declare this fact right on their home page.

FACTFINDER: ICNR is, however, a registered USA, for-profit entity, whereas government-sponsored commissions are usually either not incorporated or are non-profits. ANSWER: Again, the ICNR has stated that they are not a government sponsored organization, neither is the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry (ICOC).

FACTFINDER: One expects, especially in this era of "transparency", that a bona fide commission will make public its members and their qualifications to serve on the commission -- but not ICNR.

ANSWER: What era of “transparency” are you talking about? We unfortunately live in an age of secrecy especially in the government. Long ago, I have been told that they, the ICNR, were warned that there are a lot of mean spirited, judgmental, fault finding people involved in the field of nobility and royalty by an expert, who has written a book on nobility. He told them that if they cared about the private lives members of the board, the kindest thing to do is keep their names confidential. Remember no one is paid, should those good people be exposed to ridicule for the good service they render?

This person was right about some of the people in the field as a lot of misinformation and childish name calling attacks have been directed at the Commission. Why? One of the reasons is because they exposed many of the charlatans and scammers who were selling fake titles of nobility and royalty and who ran phony orders of chivalry. They were able to shut down at least one such company along with this company’s English solicitor, whose firm no longer exists as a result. One of their goals is to protect the public from those who sell falsehoods. The other reason is, they did not want their board members contacted, tempted, prejudiced or biased by interested outside parties so they can render objective impartial decisions based on actual research and evidence. Judgments have to be scientific not subjective. Are the claims solid? Were they validated and confirmed as authentic? The ICNR has built in checks and balances to prevent problems and safeguard integrity. For example, no one who works with them can accept any honor, title, gift, knighthood, money, or whatever while working with them. In addition, no one is paid or makes a dime. All money goes into promoting the ideals of constitutional monarchy, royalty, nobility or chivalry. Most of the money actually goes to scholars that we must hire to do research to find out if a claim is genuine or full of flaws so as to confirm or disconfirm claims.

Long ago, I am told that they were advised to start up an Advisory Board, but they felt this might be unfair to such persons to be exposed to the vileness they have witnessed both in the past and in the present, but they still keep on doing their best to make contributions as most people respect them especially those who know them like I do. They have felt that time is on the side of truth, but this trust is sometimes tarnished when we receive verbiage such as FactFinder has given, which is full of half-truths and misunderstandings, which only misinform or distort reality.

FACTFINDER: Also unlike any bona fide commission with which I'm familiar, ICNR's members who are not obviously royal or noble are expected to pay to apply and to join, and normally those who want to be "permanent", "registered" or "certified" members are expected to pay "research" or "translator" fees to receive confirmation to a specified degree of certainty the member's royal, noble or knightly ancestry or affiliation, charges which, ICNR reassures, are not expected to exceed $50 per hour for the research efforts of the professional expert ICNR retains to conduct any genealogical research deemed necessary. After this research, and the payment of charges assessed, ICNR issues its qualifying members proof of the "illustrious" affiliation, complete with suitable adjectives.

ANSWER: No one cannot operate an organization, such as this, for free. How are expenses to be paid? --- with play money? Every one is a volunteer. No one is paid. Yet we have to pay taxes, pay for all required licenses, for a building, for mail, for transportation and certificates. The biggest expenditure is the scholars, experts and professional genealogists who charge money.

FACTFINDER: Critiques of the organization and its website on the newsgroup rec.heraldry are available online here, and tend to confirm my assessment of ICNR.

ANSWER: Back in 2006-2007, the Commission operated on the idea that “Losers knock, Winners don’t have to.” They never attempted to defend themselves or set the record straight. As a result a warped and distorted view was published. They trusted that in good faith people would find out who they are and what they were all about, and thus would not have to defend themselves. I believe this was a mistake. But they never said anything. They felt they had too much work to do as it was. They still don’t bother with the gossip or name calling or misrepresentations. Some members of the Commission, however, have taken it upon themselves to start to defending the Commission. I am one of them. Those who make inappropriate comments without bothering to find out the real truth bother me as they don’t know what they are talking about and do not bother to find out the truth. They merely assume things and judge everything they see as sinister. Truth is not found out this way, nor is it a fair or just to defame without facts.

FACTFINDER: Finally and most importantly, ICNR has warned me of their intent to have me "monitored" and "corrected" because of a tangential reference to them on this page, yet express no appreciation for nor any intention to take corrective action upon the information I provided showing that its website displays an adulterated version of the work of a renowned journalist writing in The Telegraph, Gerald Warner, which flagrantly and illegally misrepresents Warner's words and opinions, and which has been used as a footnote to include disinformation in this article.

ANSWER: I thought I had the right to correct something that was a slur and totally wrong. But since being blocked, I looked up Wiki guidelines and found out that that is not the way things work. This is an invitation to reconcile and to correct the misleading suggestions of FactFinder.

The Commission put on both of these articles, in bold print, right at the beginning of both, so that no one could miss them, the following: (1) for the Telegraph article, first: (This article has been altered slightly to reflect current realities) then at the end of the article: (The above article on Georgia, with some slight changes, was published by Telegraph.co.uk on August 20, 2008 and can be seen at: [website address removed]); and (2) for the Monarchist article, first: (This article from "The Monarchist Initiative" and has been changed slightly to reflect current affairs) then the following at the end: (The above article was changed slightly and is from 2009: [website address removed])

FACT FINDER: “. . . yet [the ICNR --- it should be I, not them, as I do not official represent the ICNR] express no appreciation for nor any intention to take corrective action upon the information I provided showing that its website displays an adulterated version of the work of a renowned journalist writing in The Telegraph, Gerald Warner, which flagrantly and illegally misrepresents Warner's words and opinions, and which has been used as a footnote to include disinformation in this article.”

ANSWER: This is the first time, I have ever heard this. FactFinder writes this as though he told me about it and I did nothing. Yet there is no message on my Wiki TruthHonesty pages. It was not in my email. Where is it?

FactFinder never tried to reconcile or communicate with me as the Wiki guidelines require. Yet he is the long-term user should have known what those requirements are and should have done this first before manipulating or abusing the system to block me. I find this offensive and unwarranted.

I will try to figure out how to use the complaint or arbitration directions, but it is kind of like doing your own income taxes. It’s not very straightforward, but very complicated and arduous reading.

FACTFINDER: I had preferred to believe that all of this was the work of a single misguided and Wiki-blocked Georgian legitimist who fabricated a "commission", cluttered up a monarchist website with errors and inaccuracies, and then came here to impose an improper point of view on Wikipedia articles. But if, in fact, I'm being told this was not the work of one, unaided vandal -- okay, you've convinced me. Regardless, it remains unacceptable on Wikipedia. And sad. FactStraight (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ANSWER: FactFinder reveals himself here. Does he really prefers to think that a Georgian Legitimist created a 200 plus page website over a five year period just to try to correct FactFinder’s Wiki articles, which I don’t know even existed back then. This is grandiose. I could say a lot more about this odd mentality, but will refrain.

Unfortunately, FactFinder’s articles on the Bragrations are filled with inaccuracies and errors. No wonder a Georgia monarchist would like to correct it. I wonder if FactFinder tried to reconcile with this person? I’d put my money down and wager he treated him in the same way he did me and circumvent the proper channels or ethical guidelines.

FactFinder calls me and this other person vandals. Well, what about allowing falsehoods to be portrayed in his article and not allowing anyone to challenge his facts. Why not try to reconcile? If we cannot do this, we will need to go to the arbitration committee.

It is FactFinder’s choice. He or she can decide. If nothing happens. I will try to figure out how to make the required complaints.

I am B. J. Howard, I was not a member of the Commission until this year. I am not an officer or board member. I do not official represent them, but know a few of them. My email address is: consultant45@hotmail.com. I hope FactFinder will contact me and work with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHonesty (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to "Former Comsomol ( Communist Youth) member and present comediant"

Whether HRH PRince Nugzar was a Communist Youth, a fisherman, a farmer, a doctor or a comedian is immaterial and irrelevant to his royal blood line. Having read the section "Response," I can see that truth is not very important to you. You attempt to bolster or promote your argument, not with proof or references, but by distraction. This is what children and teenagers do --- they change the subject as a ploy to hide the fact that they have no leg to stand on. Scholars present evidence or proof.

For example, you make the claim that an abdication took place and then stated that "this is a fact." Well, my friend, this is not a fact. King Erekle II (Irakli II)did not abdicate. The "Treaty of Georgievsk" of 1784, which he made with the Catherine II of Russia, made it clear that the Russian emperor was "to preserve His Serene Highness Tsar Irakli Teimurazovich and the Heirs and descendants of his House, uninterrupted on the Throne of the Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti . . . forbidding [the Emperor’s] Military and Civil Authorities from intervention in any [domestic laws or orders]." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Georgievsk) Note that the internal sovereignty of Georgia and the right to the throne was preserved.

There was no abdication. And even if there was, abdications or renunciations do not impact ones posterity unless they accept or acquiesce to it. Please understand that an ". . . abdication, renunciation, or surrender [cannot] be valid [or authentic and impact the whole royal house] without the free [will acceptance and] consent of the prince royal and the other princes of his family both in the direct and collateral branches." (George L. Craik & Charles MacFarlane, The Pictorial History of England During the Reign of George the Third, Volumn IV, 1864, p. 522) Hugo Grotius declared that a father's abdication ". . . cannot hurt his Children who are already born, because as soon as . . . the Children are come into the World, they acquire a Right of their own by Law. . . ." (The Rights of War and Peace, Book II, XXVI, p. 242)

The descendants of the senior primogeniture salic line of George XII, the last King of Georgia to reign continued to use their titles and valiantly fought the usurpation of Imperial Russia. Title usage continued all the way to HRH Prince Nugzar. Emer de Vattel wrote, ". . . to retain the title and the arms of a sovereignty or a province, [is a sufficient]evidence that they do not relinquish their claims to it." (The Law of Nations, Book 2, Chapter XI, Nos. 145-146) In other words, they never gave up their claim. His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar is the Head and Heir of all the "de jure" internal sovereignty rights of the Kings of Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon100 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NO. HE IS NOT. Maximum, Mr Nugzar Bagrationi might be considered as a noblemen of the Russian Empire, with the rank of Prince, and with the Style of Serene Highness. His ancestor signed Georgievsliy Tractate, and lost all his right as a sovereign, and become a simple vassal of the Russian Emperor. No Russian Emperors or Heads of the Imperial House of Russia ever recognised Bagration-Gruzinski line with a Royal status, but as a 'former Roayalty, who converted to be nobility of Empire". This is a FACT. The Line of Bagration -Mukhrani has been recognised with the Royal Status, et least by the Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, and by the Head of the Royal House of Spain (and therefore, by the King of Spain). But, in reality, the Head of Bagration-Mukhrani line has been recognised as a Head of the Royal House of Georgia ealswhere and by everybody, with exception of an marginal group of ignoramuses who wish not understand that the "special operation" with a defamation against Prince David and therefore, a creation of family problem for couple of Prince David and Princess Anna has been made by Saakashvili band,especially to destroy the restoration of monarchy. This is a FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.204 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See answers to this skewed sense of reasoning intermixed in the entry entitled "Former Comsomol ( Communist Youth) member and present comediant" above. It is the first entry on this page.

IT IS SAD TO SEE THE GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING OF FACTS THE ABOVE ENTRY PORTRAYS. For about 400 years, while Prince Nugzar's ancestors ruled Georgia and kings, Prince David's ancestors were non-sovereign,subordinates and servants to the kings -- their overseers. David's ancestors were noble and did not hold any royal rights at all. They did not even hold collateral rights. And who ruled? -- the ancestors of His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar.

To re-quote from above:

Prince David's family raised a claim to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia in the early 1900's based on the erroneous presumption that the Royal line of Kartli-Kakheti, which failed to emigrate, before the Communist revolution, could not survive under the Soviet tyranny, yet they did, and so the Mukhranski claim to be the royal line is mute. It is built on a false premise. Both of the websites below confirm this fact. (www.czipm.org/bagratides.html & http://the.heraldry.ru/text/bagratide.html) The Mukranski family should own up to the truth.

Recognition is actually nothing when it comes to truth. A falsehood can be recognized, but that cannot change reality or make something true out of something that is utterly false. As pertaining to sovereignty, it is important to recognizes that ". . . Sovereignty is neither created by recognition nor destroyed by nonrecognition.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, edition 15, part 3, vol 17, 1981, p. 312) Recognition does not change the truth. The truth is greater than anyone's recognition especially when it is based on a falsehood --- the false premise that the royal line could not survive the repressive Soviet regime. HRH Prince Nugzar is from the line of the kings. David's family were an offshoot line of prince who had less prominence than a number of other offshoot princely lines. These are historical facts. It is a disservice to distort the truth. Truth is the greatest and most important possession a man can have. If he is build on falsehood, he is built on mud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.75.177.122 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy Decluttering

I am going to be bold and remove all the genealogical clutter we have on these article. They are too long and now the addition of another chart (added to highlight Nuzgar's descent from both lines). If we want to convey that they are male-line descendants of the Bagrationi kings or that Nuzgar specifically descends from all three branches, we can say that with words in the article.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)