Talk:Princess Tatiana Constantinovna of Russia

Merger

Yes, this article should be merged with Princess Tatiana of Russia, as they concern the same person and do not show strikingly different points of view or irreconcilable facts.Lethiere 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

              There are several mistakes in this article:

         I-st line: Tatiana Konstantinovna, not Konstantinova.
   2-nd line:died 1978, not 1970.
     Name under picture: Konstantinovna.

            3-rd line from down: were murdered, not shot, in city Alapaevsk.

             Sincerely yours Constantin Soroka, Jerusalem

              E-mail:constantin1@hotmail.com

Rewriting

Today the article underwent some partisan editing with the aim of demonstrating that Tatiana's marriage was equal whereas most obviously it was not. The edits display striking ignorance of history and genealogy. Let's take one sentence for instance: "historically the Mukhranskys were the senior surviving branch of a royal dynasty that had ruled on both sides of the Caucasus for a thousand years longer than the Romanovs". Everything is spoof here. The Mukhranskys have always been (and still are) the most junior line of the House of Georgia. As they split from the main line in the Middle Ages, it would be more appropriate to compare them with numerous Rurikid families of Russia, such as the Dolgorukov. I hope the author knows what the marriage of Alexander II to Catherine Dolgorukov was treated like. Yet the last mentioned lady traced her male-line descent to the 9th-century Rurik (in the very least), while the Mukhranskys cannot trace their male line further than the 13th-century David Soslan. I suggest the author to stop publicizing the Mukhranskys more than dubious claim. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Well said Ghirla!Tim Foxworth 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But what if Prince Vakhushti’s version of David Soslan’s Bagratid descent is true? One cannot so easily discard either version.--Kober 15:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you compare my edits to the back-and-forth between editors on this article claiming that Tatiana's marriage was/was not equal, I added the only documentation anyone has cited in the matter (Frederiks' memo and the ukase accepting Tatiana's renunciation). It happens to contradict what was last recorded (and often cited as authoritative) in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels Furstliche Hauser (still widely considered the bona fide successor to the original Almanach de Gotha, but which has not updated its Romanov entry since 1968), where Tatiana's marriage to Constantine Bagration-Mukhransky is shown as dynastically equal, as I recall. So I am frankly surprised that the first criticism of my edits accuses my revision of being partisan in the Mukhranskys' favor. Therefore, I have added language to make it even more clear that Nicholas II treated the marriage as morganatic, whatever may have been his promise to Constantine Konstantinovich. To the same end, I have now strengthened the rebuttal supporting the "Orthodox mother requirement" by directly quoting the relevant section of the Pauline laws.
• I have also changed the length of the Bagration reign, basing it only on the unbroken male-line from the end of the 12th century, even though it is compared to the length of the "Romanov" era, which is doubled by including the Holstein-Gottorps' reign although the HG's were only female-line Romanovs. I have also deleted the reference to the Mukhranskys' seniority, which reflected the 1980 genealogical tables displayed in the Georgia section of "Burke's Royal Families of the World Volume II". Since the fall of the Soviet Union, a couple of the senior branches which Burke's showed as extinct have been found to still have representatives. But in checking Christopher Buyers' [Royal Ark] and other up-to-date genealogical references, I found none that consider the Mukhranskys "the most junior line of the House of Georgia": they are listed everywhere as senior in descent to the two royal branches that reigned into the 19th century.

The Royal Ark is not an up-to-date source. Although Buyers listed some of the references recommended by me among his sources, the content of his tables did not change from its first version, taken from Toumanoff. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you, then, still consider the Mukhraneli branch to be "the most junior line of the House of Georgia"? And if so, on what source are you relying? Who is the last common male-line ancestor of the Kakheti and Mukhraneli lines in your reckoning?Lethiere 06:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since Tatiana is most often cited nowadays in the Russian succession dispute, my intention was to develop a comprehensive, balanced article explicitly reflecting why and how she and her marriage are mentioned in that context, along with the laws and decrees that applied to her situation. I ask for your help, as well as that of others, to ensure that the article fairly reflects the arguments of the different sides, insofar as those issues are relevant in a Tatiana article. If there are further corrections, please indicate them so they can also be corrected. Lethiere 20:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder greatly why a dynasty is so deemed (as Ghirla appears to allege) to be broken when someone succeeds through a female link. To me, a dynasty is a dynasty which comprises of holders of the same (monarchical) office genealogically related to each other. A female may as well continue a dynasty as a male. This is certainly no break in the tradition, those "traditions" or longevity compared in cases which of these two has longer continuity. Continuity disrupts generally when there is a total change of dynasty: no relation takes the office (and there is no restoration) and the succession continues from that person, using him as the right. Of course Romanov is a shorter dynasty than Bagration, or the Georgian house. And Rurikids are not necessarily older than the Georgian house, they may be younger. ObRoy 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not Ghirla's opinion that male continuity is crucial. It is the genealogical tradition which evolved in Europe for centuries if not millennia. If the female-line descent is as valid as the male-line descent, we all - you and me - are Carolingians, as every person whose ancestors lived in Europe ca. 1900 is a female-line descendant of Charlemagne. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Marriages dynastic or not

One view to this Nicholas II thing is that nothing can be decisively deduced from his acts and conduct. Because it is also possible to interpret the renunciation asked from Tatiana to have been for barring her future Moukhraneli children to have succession rights to the Russian throne (and also barring her, as by-product). This possibility is strengthened by Nicholas and Empress' assurances to not regard the marriage as morganatic. On the other hand, the renunciation may have been to bar her from succession and thus prohibite the possibility that she, after ascending the throne herself, would declare her children eligible to succeed. This position, in its turn, is strengthened by the belief that marriage with Russian subjects cannot be regarded equal. All in all, none of the two positions can show anything in Nicholas' decisions that excludes the other explication. Shilkanni 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lethiere attempts to protect blantant POV

Today, there was an attempt of User:Lethiere to revert the entire article to contents that contains several blatant POV allegations, of which the following are just examples:

1. "Nonetheless, legally Tatiana Konstantinovna's marriage was morganatic". That allegation is presented, and now protected by Lethiere, despite the fact that other sources (e.g GHdA) express it to have been dynastic. The two conflicting assessments should be stated both, as were in the version Lethiere quashed by reverting.

2. Lethiere erased the opposing reference of that particular, clearly for having his own reference as the only remaining.

3. "royal blood" is not precisely the same thing as required in the wording of the house law, "belong to royal or ruling house". Lethiere reverted a rather precise cited text and replaced it with that loose "royal blood". A cognatic descendant may have royal blood, however not belonging to royal house. A ruling house may be not exactly royal - members of house of Monaco are rarely referred to as royal blood and if sometimes are, it is rather erroneous.

4. There is no valid contemporary or other citation to say that articles 188 and 36 "prevented Tatiana Konstantinovna's issue" from claiming succession rights. Of course those articles existed. And they prevented something. But no reliable-source citation has been provided that any authority had assessed TK's future children so, neither then nor later.

5. Permission was not exactly unprecedented, as the Leuchtenberg marriage (also with a subjugated bridegroom, without a principality that were even a mediatized one) had received a permission in 1839.

6. there is no contemporaneous citation offered to say "the marriage being deemed legally morganatic", actually there is not offered any citation of a decision of an emperor from even a later date that it was deemed morganatic (and GHdA and AdG disagree of it).

Already the listing above shows that Lethiere flouts egegiously good editing habits (erasing references offered by others, etc), and the overall picture shows that Lethiere has a POV: Lethiere wants to make that marriage look like morganatic, although no contemporary citation actually says so. In order to have it, Lethiere protects a bunch of unsourced interpretations. Shilkanni 00:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above text, I suspect that it's you who has a POV. I believe Lethiere's edits should be reinstated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindly comment on each point separately, and give reasons and citations to your comments. Otherwise, your overall comment will be ignored, as it may very well result from some POV, such as nationalistic POV which seems all too usual in these questions. Shilkanni 14:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this comment, Ms/Mr Ghirlandajo does not have a position on Tatiana Konstantinovna's marriage's status: [1]. I believe Ghirlandajo's this declaration freshen the air, as it clearly overrides G's accusation and opinion above. What seems certain, is that Ghirlandajo will not give reasons, nor citations, to points separately, as was asked. Shilkanni 22:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm far from being an expert when it comes to the question of Russian succession, but since the sources are contradictory and the issue is so complicated, both sides should be represented as per WP:NPOV, IMHO. --Kober 15:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a commendable attitude, Kober. I urge Shiklanni to stop spamming userpages of anti-Russian editors and engage in tendentious edicting. My policy in such cases is strict. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I’m tired of asking you to stop accusing me of being anti-Russian. Is it just a standard label you attach to anyone with whom you disagree? Secondly, asking other users to express their opinion is not spamming and I think Shilkanni’s edits are pretty close to NPOV.--Kober 19:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert Shilkanni's edits because they were POV or wrong (although some are -- such as the claim that Tatiana's renunciation automatically excluded her descendants, which is an inaccurate assumption that won't be found in any of the Pauline Laws) but because they were not properly sourced. Some of them I thought were perfectly reasonable to include, if toned down. Others seem to be, as noted at Talk:Line of succession to the Russian throne#"too lengthy" argument, intended to come up with any theory that would impeach Maria Vladimirovna's claims no matter how original or obscure. Shilkanni's speculations are actually quite interesting, but so numerous, convoluted and original that the best reality check comes when specific, reliable, published sources must be found for them before they get into the article so that Wiki does not become a personal blog of private opinions.

In Tatiana's case, proper sourcing would help put the matter into context: sources which describe Tatiana's marriage as non-morganatic were largely published before the Frederiks Memorandum of 1911 was made public in the post-Soviet era as part of previously unreleased pre-World War I documents (unless the document mirrors old sources). In that memo, Nicholas II agrees to change the law forbidding all Romanovs to marry morganatically in favor of allowing princes and princesses -- but not grand dukes or grand duchesses -- to marry morganatically, in return for which these princes and princesses must first renounce their succesion rights prior to morganatic marriage, after which marriage the Emperor would decree what titles would be borne by the ex-dynast and his/her children. That is exactly what happened to Tatiana. The Frederiks Memo was issued on 4 June 1911; on 11 August 1911 it was given effect by issuance of Ukase No.1489; on 24 August 1911 Nicholas II issued a ukase announcing that Tatiana had renounced her succession rights; later that same day Nicholas issued another ukase stating that Tatiana has, with his permission, married Prince Constantine Bagration-Mukhransky, and that she is authorized to retain her style of Highness and title of Princess prefixed to Constantine's title and surname, and that their children would bear their father's name and rank. The GHdA volume Shilkanni cites had to be published before Frederiks' ukase was published, but after Vladimir Kirilovich married Leonida. To make matters appear consistent (as is its usual practice in cases of retro-demorganatization), GHdA declared that Tatiana's marriage was never considered morganatic, whereas until 1948, nobody ever considered it anything else. Prior to the Frederiks memo, we knew the circumstances surrounding Tatiana's marriage from the memoirs of her father Grand Duke Constantine Konstantinovich, and of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich. The Frederiks memo answered lots of factual and policy questions (although some dislike the answers!), which Shilkanni seems to want these Romanov articles to ignore or downplay. GHdA's info on Tatiana's marriage belongs in this article -- properly dated so that it can be viewed in context.

Lastly, let's remember that NPOV does not mean treating every alternative explanation of known facts equally: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority)." Lethiere 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lethiere, you have had now plenty of time to add citations to those points (those points are marked as asking citation) which you have been protecting by your blind reverting act (and you should know that blind reverts are despicable), and yet you have not added any such citations. If there really is so much (as you are alleging everywhere, including user talk pages of several editors) contemporary material to say explicitly that Tatiana's marriage was unequal, then you should have no difficulty in adding plenty of citations. Add them, do not go around boasting that there are plenty of sources. The last act you have done to the article, was -on the contrary- a suppression of a contrary source (apparently you do not want to see opposing sources or views). There is however also KR's diary, a contemporary source, which says that the emperor promised to regard the marriage non-morganatical. The memo of Freedericksz does nowhere say explicitly that it addresses Tatiana's marriage, therefore it is actually irrelevant as citation here. If some research has actually found that F's memo addresses T's marriage, then you should have no difficulty in citing publications that have resulted from such research. And yet, here we are, with only your opinions (=OR) as your source, and citation requests unanswered. The more I look at your behavior, the more I have got a feeling that you are doing your utmost to prevent the search of truth(s) in this matter - hope that impression is not correct, but sadly it seems. Shilkanni 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, Lethiere, your despicable accusations all around on others' pages: you are claiming that I try to discredit Leonoda's daughter's succession rights in every way. However, here we have an issue where the view I am asking to take into account, actually supports Leonida's marriage and her daughter. Your accusations there and here are not consistent. You seem to be so driven by your own tendency that you simply cannot think the truth that in each issue, I try to find all views, and get them to articles so that they are mentioned. That's NPOV work. I am expecting a real apology from you because of your widely-spread accusations. And I also am wondering what sort of problems you may be having as you want to make such an inconsistent interpretation, in order to go around spreading baseless accusations. Shilkanni 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of death?

There is conflicting information on the year of death: 1970 or 1979. Can someone please research this and fix it, and double-check all articles that link here? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The date has been changed to 1979 but without citation. Can someone with access to good information please verify this? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)