Talk:Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia

Old unilateral move discussion
Today's abrupt move of this article from Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia to Maria Romanov was, in my opinion, too hasty and also bad. We know that she does not use the surname Romanov, and we know that she has an almost uncontested right to use "of Russia", also apparently accorded to her by her opponents in the Romanov Family Association.

I support that the title "Grand duchess" was removed, and hopefully will be, from the title of the article. Such titles have no place, in my opinion, in article titling: for brevity's sake, but also for avoiding quarrels about what are pretensions and what are true rights. Such titles and stules are explained in the text of the article.

Maria Romanov is too generic. It will probably later serve as disambiguation page.

Patronymic is a part of their namings. Thus, Maria Vladimirovna is good and NPOV.

We should defer to actual usage of her and of the meaningful others. After all, this is no place for artificial naming. And if artificial naming, as apparently here, is intended to express a political opinion of her claims, is doubly not good. It is POV.

I believe the actual usage for her is widely "of Russia". Thus, I vote that soon this article be moved under Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. 62.78.124.63 20:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. mikka (t) 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Her actual usage is "of Russia". I will revert now to the version that we have all consented to. Watercool 09:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this as well- let's change it back to Maria Vladimirovna of Russia.I vonH 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves are against Wikipedia policy
Whatever is to happen, no one must do a cut-and-paste move. 84.251.186.14 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Name
Maria is known by the name which she uses for herself, which includes the title of Grand Duchess of Russia. The current name is unacceptable. "Standard" naming for pretenders is to affix the title to the end of their name. In this case, that would be Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia (as she would the the Grand Duchess of Russia as opposed to just a Grand Duchess of Russia). Otherwise, she is at Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. I prefer the former. Charles 18:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Charles, have it moved. Gryffindor  13:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The above statement is untrue- the Danish monarchy's website coverage of the funeral of the Empress Marie lists Maria as a Princess of Russia- not a Grand Duchess.68.3.32.53


 * That is the Danish Royal Court's opinion. Maria Vladimirovna uses the title of Grand Duchess for herself. Charles 07:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet no other member of the Romanov family nor the royal family closest to them does. Usage of a title and entitlement to do so are two very different things. 12.146.101.146 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the point of the matter is she is not "known" by all as a Grand Duchess- anyone can call themselves anything they like- it doesn't make it correct. 12.146.101.146 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter at all, so there is no point. Some people refuse to recognize Elizabeth II as queen and call her Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark. Others refuse to call Louis-Alphonse de Bourbon HRH The Duke of Anjou. The fact of the matter is, and the only point of the matter, is that a pretender here on Wikipedia and in general are known by the names and titles which they themselves use. For those that even acknowledge her as titled, it's either Princess or Grand Duchess. She uses the grand ducal title. Charles 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. I could start calling myself King of Scotland (I am, in fact, a direct descendent of James IV, about a dozen generations distant... almost everyone with roots in great britain can trace descent from a monarch) but that doesn't make me King Kenneth - no matter how many others supported my claim. It just seems ridiculous to credit people with titles that, for all intents and purposes, disappeared, dissolved, or were abolished centuries ago. By giving what reads like legitimacy to these imaginary titles Wikipedia goes beyond presenting encyclopedic information to becoming a part of the LARP. It would be completely legit to report that so-and-so is well-known as a claimant to such-and-such and extinct title, but to seemingly credit them with actually holding that title is another story.PurpleChez (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter at all then why must you argue your POV every chance you get rather than let people list a source or a fact without your constant, endless, and uninformed badgering? And pretenders on Wikipedia are not all known by their titles of pretense. In the future please do your research before you make such broad and usually incorrect statements12.146.101.146 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh? My "POV" is the POV taken by pretenders and supported by Wikipedia. I support and change what I can if it's right. In the mean time, why don't you get a name and stop hiding behind an IP address if you're going to tell me that I'm always incorrect? Until then, you don't deserve my consideration. Charles 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Charles, I would tend to agree with our unnamed friend above-you do tend to attack rather than address the issue when pressed. Why is that? Your POV may be supported by self-serving pretenders but you do not speak for Wikipedia. And if you had looked in Wikipedia you would see that your statement about pretenders is wrong, and is not supported by Wikipedia. For your consideration.I vonH 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, an editor with only one contribution. The one above. Charles 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a rebuttal? As it addresses none of the salient points above one can only assume.I vonH 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles is correct. --Counter-revolutionary 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

About what Counter-revolutionary? He has addressed none of the points made above. Unless you intend to address them for him perhaps you should keep your opinion to yourself. I vonH 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles is incorrect.Tim Foxworth 04:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[3]

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP".

As his occupation, education and published work meet none of the above requirements this rules out Sainty. Purcell is out as well as he was Vladimir's personal attorney, therefore biased. Purcell is also self-published (web). Per Wikipedia- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This means you Charles.

Please source the statements made in this article using the guidelines above.I vonH 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

External links do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for citation- see above.I vonH 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia- "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources".I vonH 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Please remember WP:CIVIL --Counter-revolutionary 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Maria Vladimirovna → Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia – The page was unilaterally moved from a location using the territorial designation "of Russia". The grand ducal title is what Maria Vladimirovna uses for herself and is also what she is most referred to as. The title should be appended to the end of the name as is the practice for pretenders Charles 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support As nominator. Charles 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Gryffindor  17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Life
Does anyone know anything about her life? Beyond the succession issue. Biography should mention some information about a person's life.BorisG 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas' alleged statement supportive of Maria
I removed the following today, January 8, 2006:

''Her rival Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, has -perhaps unwittingly- offered an argument that supports Maria's dynastically as daughter of Leonida, by citing in a published statement in October 1995, the public renunciations of succession rights by two princesses of the imperial blood immediately prior to their marriages: by Princess Tatiana of Russia in 1911 prior to her marriage to Prince Bagration of Moukhrani and by Princess Irina of Russia in 1914 prior to her marriage to Prince Yusupov. Nicholas argues: "These Ukases [publishing the renunciations] prove without doubt that had the princesses not renounced their rights, their issue would have been in possession of full rights to the inheritance of the throne of Russia."''

The statement was used to suggest that Nicholas recognized the equality of the Bragation Dynasty to the Romanov's and the inheritance rights of females. That is not the case.

Nicholas' claim is that the equal marriage rules only applied to Grand Dukes and Grand Duchesses. Since Princess Tatiana and Princess Irina were not of grand ducal rank they were not required to marry equally. This position is the basis of Nicholas' own claim to be head of the Romanov Family. Since his father, Prince Roman, was not of grand ducal rank, he could make an unequal marriage and retain succession rights for himself and pass them to his descendants (i.e. Nicholas). In contrast, Nicholas argues that those of grand ducal rank who made unequal marriages could not pass succession rights to their descendants. Thus the male line descended from Grand Duke Dimitri, which is genealogically senior to the line of Prince Roman, is excluded from the throne because Dimitri was a grand duke who made an unequal marriage.

As regards Maria, Nicholas' arguments are twofold. Either Maria's father was required to marry equally and failed to do so by marrying a Bagration, or his marriage was acceptable but Maria is not the head of the family because Nicholas takes precedence over her as a male. Basically, Nicholas' claim does not turn on the equality of the marriage of Maria's parents but on his contention that as a mere Prince of Russia (instead of a Grand Duke) his father, Prince Roman, was exempt from the equal marriage rules. His interest in the Bagration's status is not because his own claims turn on that issue but because he wants to accuse Maria, and her father, of hypocrisy by asserting that Maria's father married unequally at the same time he condemned the marriages of the remaining Romanovs.

This whole argument is convoluted, and somewhat silly, but it is the basis for Nicholas' claim to the Russian crown. To twist it into an endorsement of Maria is a mistake. Nicholas is not suggesting that Princess Tatiana retained her rights because her marriage to a Bagration was equal but because, as a Princess of Russia instead of a Grand Duchess, Tatiana was not required to make an equal marriage. He is suggesting that the Bagration marriage was clearly unequal, but that Tatiana would have retained her rights except for her voluntary renunciation. The point is proven by the fact that he refers to Princess Irina in the same way. No one suggests that the Yusopovs were equal to the Romanovs but Nicholas points out that Irina was required to sign a renunciation of her rights. To him that means that Irina would have retained all her rights despite marrying unequally had she not renounced them.

63.215.28.165 21:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Line of succession for British throne
Line of succession to the British Throne lists Maria as #109, so I've changed this article to match. Presumably a few new births have moved her down since she was listed here as #107. Since that's likely to happen relatively frequentlyt category, I suggest that the sentence be reworded to remove the reference to a particular number. I'd suggest "Maria Vladimirovna of Russia is in the line of succession to the British Throne.", but since this can be a sensitive subject I'll leave that change to somebody more familiar with the sensitivities. Jordan Brown 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

does anyone observed her facial features? she looks like the late queen victoria of england.

Polish descent
I added Maria Vladimirovna to the People of Polish descent category because of her Szlachta origins. Her maternal ancestors were from Złotnicki family.

The only officially recognised Head of Imperial House of Russia
Grand Duchess Maria Romanova is the only officially recognised (by Patriarchs of Moscow and by presently ruling monarchs) Head of the Imperial House of Russia. Never Nicolas Romanovich Romanov (who is an issue of an illegal marrige, and who is OUT of the Line of Succession in I.H.R. at all, and who abusing a title "Prince Romanov" (there is not such title at all)) claiming to the Headship of Imperial House of Russia, but only for headship in the "Association of Romanov heirs" (private organisation consisting issue from illegal marriges of Romanov family. All its members OUT of the Line of Succession of Imperial House of Russia). He claiming that there is no Head of Imperial House of Russia at all,and he does not recognise the position of HIH Maria Vladimirovna. But his claim is no more then an "idea fix" of an privat person, and has no any legal status. The artical should include official position of proper authorities (in that cause the authorities are: The Patriarchy of Moscow and are heads of other european Royal Houses) instead of claimes of private persons and self-styled princes (like Nicolas Romanovich Romanov,etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.227 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an incredibly controversial topic, the various claims are discussed here Line of succession to the Russian throne. Please see WP:NPOV. Prince Nicholas Romanovich not only is Head of the Romanov Family Association but rightly or wrongly claims the Headship of the Imperial House/Family, see a press release from his brother "During the summer of last year, after a visit to Saint Petersburg, I issued a press release in which I informed the media that the entourage of my relative, Princess Maria Wladimirovna, was titling her as Grand Duchess and Head of the Imperial Family. I did point out that both titles ware misleading as the last Grand Duchess of the Imperial family had been Olga Alexandrovna, the sister of the martyred Tsar Nicholas II, who died in Canada in 1960. Furthermore, I pointed out that the Head of the Imperial Family was my elder brother Nicholas Romanovich who not only by right but also is recognized as such by all other members of the Imperial Family." By all means add that the Patriarch recognises Maria, but that does not equate to her being head of the Imperial Family that is one persons opinion, I very much doubt that every European Royal House recognises her, Prince Dimitri Romanovich is close to the Danish Royal Family, I've never seen Maria invited to Danish events for instance. - dwc lr (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

READ THAT ATTENTIVELY, and You will more-less understand the subject you talking about. http://www.imperialhouse.ru/rus/history/archives.html And NO. No claim for Headship by any illigal issue of Romanov's might be recognised by Patrirachy of Moscow. And recognition by Patriarch of Moscow is much more important matter then any other official recognitions in this cause. Probably you are not familiar with Russian Imperial Law of Sucession, and you informantion came from fantastic story promulgated by both - Nicolas and Dmitry Romanov's. Tnat people has no official support in Russia. To be honest - thay are nobody for Russia. And (if we will politely to avoid a mention that thay are OUT of Line of Sucession APRIORI) do not forget,thay are both very old, and has no proper issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.227 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have said add that the Patriarch recognises her somewhere in the article. The recognition is not surprising considering both of there stance on the remains of Emperor Nicholas II and his family. The fact is Nicholas Romanovich claims the headship and in future probably will be Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich. Because of the dispute Wikipedia must present a NPOV just as it does in other disputes such as France, Brazil, Two Sicilies. - dwc lr (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No. This "disput" existing in head's of issue of illegal marrige of Romanovs only. Unfortunately you have not possibility read Russian documents (there are plenty on that subject), and that you have not possibility to see the real situation with the matter you wrigting about. But, if you wish more-less understand the subject you talking about, instead of "fairy-tales" (fantasy) by Nicolas Romanov, learn the situation. If you wish to be honest, put into YOUR article honest information, instead of rubbish promulgated by APRIORI illegal claimants. Be polite, and be honest if you wish to whrite about such a honourable subject. Recognition by Patriarch of Moscow is much more important matter then any other official recognitions in this cause. Your informantion came from fantastic story promulgated by both - Nicolas and Dmitry Romanov's. Tnat people has no official support, no standing in Russia. G.D.Maria Vladimirovna has it. For example, dynastical orders and decorations granted by GD Maria may be officially used on military uniform during active duty (this is official(governmental) provision since 2002). To be honest - Nicolas and Dmitry Romanov's are nobody for Russia, and thay may claiming to be Imperors of Bizantium with the same sucess. Person mentioned by you (Rostislav Romanov) is more alien and more nobody for that country than his predessesors in his illegal line.His name is Zero.And, for your information: he is not a Prince, but an untitled person, since he is NOT a member of Imperial Family of Russia, because he is a descendent of an illegal marrige and his ancestors has never been granted with proper titles for morganatical branches. Learn The Code of Principal Laws of R.I., and you will complitely change your mind in that subject, and will never hear any rediculous claims of Nicolas and Dmitry Romanov's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.227 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I get that you support Maria V but Wikipeida must present a NPOV in these disputes, which it does. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss claims and support but stating Maria V *is the Head of the Imperial House* is a disputed and controversial POV. I’m well aware of Maria V’s and others stance on the so called “illegal”/morganatic marriages of the father of Nicholas Romanovich etc, just as am aware of people who believe Maria is born of an “illegal”/morganatic marriage. All these issues and more surrounding the succession is discussed at line of succession to the Russian throne. Saying Maria V is head of the Imperial House is unacceptable pov, saying she claims the headship if acceptable. Same applies for Prince Nicholas Romanovich regardless of how “ridiculous” you may regard his claims. - dwc lr (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are complitely "flying in clouds" (out of reality). Maria V. is only daughter of the Head of the Imperial House (officially recognised and accepted Head (regardless of fantasies invented by illegal Romanov's). Her father, in his power beeng the Head of the House (not an simple member! this is a main matter!) gave official recognition to his own marrige as to equal. Therefore the marriage of GD Maria parents is legal and equal. Her father has proclamed GD Maria to be the Head of the Imperial House of Russia after him (it was in his power, and his order is undisputed, because "his wish is the Law" (Code of Principal Laws of R.I.). There is a principal difference between marriages of members of the House, and marrige of the Head of the House. Any marrige of a member of the House is a subject of control by the Head of the House. The marriage of the Head of the House is a matter of his own opinion. By Russian Imperial Law the Head of the Imperial House is a Low in Last Instance. His orders are not a subject of disput, but a spring of the Law. "Fairy tales" (fantasy) invented by illegal Romanov's (Nicolas, Dmitry, etc.) used by them especially to meslead other, and bused on misunderseting and confusing between the rights of the simple member of the House and the rights and powers of the Head of the House. And once again, the recognition made by Patriarchy of Moscow is a main matter (not only socially, but by the Imperial Law also). The marriage of her perents has been recognised as equal. She has been officially recognised by Patriarch fo Moscow as: HER IMPERIAL & ROYAL HIGHNESS OUR MAJESTIC LADY GRAND DUCHESS MARIA VLADIMIRIVNA OF RUSSIA, THE HEAD OF THE IMPERIAL HOUSE OF RUSSIA, THE SUPREME HEAD OF IMPERIAL AND ROYAL ORDERS. Her son has been officially recognised as: HIS IMPERIAL & ROYAL HIGHNESS OUR MAJESTIC LORD GRAND DUKE GEORGY MICHAYLOVICH OF RUSSIA, THE HEIR APPARENT TO THE HEAD OF THE IMPERIAL HOUSE OF RUSSIA. Do you know something like that for illegal Romanov's(meant for Nicolas, Dmitry, etc.)??. Of cource NOT and NEVER. Therefore thay are not Pretenders to the Throne, but they are social climbers and fantasists only. Therefore NO any disput in the Imperial House of Russia existin in reality. GD Maria is only Head, and there is no other, and there is no any Pretender to Headship(in official term of this meaning). This is a quintessence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.211 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No your right Nicholas and his brother Dimitri don’t use inflated titles like “Grand Duke of Russia” as they are not grandsons of an Emperor, they claim the title “Prince of Russia”. And they certainly do not go around handing out Imperial and Royal orders; indeed they condemn such acts by Maria and her son Georg. Nicholas and Dimitri are seemingly more interested in doing charity work in Russia. But again effectively stating on Wikipeida that Maria is the only *“Head of the Russian Imperial House”* when there is a very real and bitter dispute is out of question. You can mention your interpretation of various Imperial laws as much as like; and can call Princes Nicholas and Dimitri “fantasists”, but it won’t make a difference as a NPOV must, and will be presented. Neither Maria V or Nicholas R is universally recognised as Head of the Imperial Family, just like the royal houses of Brazil, France etc for example. Disputes exist. - dwc lr (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding was always that Nicholas claimed to be head of the Romanov family, not head of the Russian Imperial House. Maria's claims are potentially dubious, but any hereditary claim by Nicholas is even more dubious, given that there's just no way to argue that his father's marriage  was in conformity with the Pauline Laws.  It seems that there is some dispute as to what exactly Nicholas is claiming.  Sometimes he is just the elected head of a voluntary association of descendants of Tsar Nicholas I, and he accepts that the Russian monarchy no longer exists and that it's up to Russians to decide if they want a monarch and who they want it to be.  Sometimes he is the head of the Russian imperial family (always family, never house, so far as I can tell).  Whenever one goes at the latter claim and tries to grasp wht the basis of it is, there is generally a retreat to the former claim, which is unassailable. That being said, I don't think the anon is being at all helpful here. john k (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes its quite confusing all the different terms used but they all mean the same thing; Romanov/Russian Imperial Family/House/Dynasty. Here he calls himself Head of the Romanov dynasty for instance, the website for the President of Russia calls him “head of the Romanov family”, his brothers press release “correcting” misinformation about Maria being head calls him “Head of the Imperial Family”, here’s an article that uses Imperial house . His style certainly differs from Maria and he is like the majority of heads of dynasties in that he doesn’t go around explicitly claiming any throne or calling himself (titular) Emperor of Russia. He undoubtedly regards himself as successor to Grand Duke Vladimir and hopefully the anon will accept a NPOV being presented. The argument for his claim is based on interpretation of 1911 Ukase relieving princes and princess from the requirement from marrying equally, here’s an article . And Nicholas Romanovich wrote about the succession himself on the RFA site . - dwc lr (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since November 2002 the Administration of the President of Russia no longer recognise Nicolas and Dmitry Romanov's are rightfull members of Romanov family. It generally considering, in the event with Imperial family, that no Nicolas no Dmitry Romanovs belongs to that family, but thay are abusing a title "Prince Romanov" (there is not such a title at all) and a title 'Prince of Russia'(no one of them is a 'Prince' or 'of Russia'), and tha are illegally (out of Imperial Family Low) using a family name 'Romanov'. But, any way, thay has never been recognised as members of Imperial House of Russia. Romanov Family and Imperial House of Russia is a quite different things (should not be confused). Romanov Family is an social organisation of several groups of private persons belonging to the same ancestors by birth. The Imperial House of Rusia is a publuc body (beeng a ruling House after 1815 (the Congress of Vienna)it permanently continuing to hold a status of 'persona sui juris' in International Law). Only GD Maria is officially recognised Head of the I.H.R. The Head of Administration of the President of Russia Sergey Narishkin(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Naryshkin) has been awarded by GD Maria with Imperial Order of St.Anna of 1st class. The Head of the State Security Service of RF and majority of High Officers of the Ministery of Defence and Ministery of Internal Affairs of RF has been awarded by GD Maria with Imperial Military Order of Nicolas the Wonderworker.Mentioned awards approved by the Government as 'official dynastical Orders awarded by the Head of Imperial House of Russia Her Imperial Highness Our Majestic Lady Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia' and it is officially permitted to wear it, on civil dress, on uniform and during active duty even. After that it was an official meeting between GD Maria and Prime Minister V. Putin, and Sergey Narishkin has been appointed to the additional office as The Head of Governmental Commission for Defending of Historical Truth. This body officially recognise GD Maria as only Head of the I.H.R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.129.239 (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia → Maria Romanova – She is not a Duchess and never was. She was born in 1953 and there is no royalty in Russia since 1917. Elmor (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose she is not known as Maria Romanova she is always known as Grand Duchess. - dwc lr (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NCROY's point #6 under "Sovereigns". She is referred to by grandducal title more than by any other designation, and that is more relevant to the name of her article in Wikipedia than her legal status in Russia. FactStraight (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above. Her legal status in a particular country is irrelevant as she is known by her title and has been accepted as such by even the Patriarch of All Russia and the Pope. -- Kimon talk 22:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as she is known both internationally and within Russia today as a grand duchess. Both the Russian people and the Russian news media refer to her as Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna. -L.Smithfield (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia → Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna – This name is given in the proposed form by The New York Times, Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, The Australian, Reuters, The Telegraph, RIA Novosti, and by The St. Petersburg Times. Every other article in Category:Russian_grand_dukes is done title first. When this article was moved to its current location, the format was explained as, "the practice for pretenders". I find the idea of a "pretender format" to be highly problematic, especially as it is not based on either guidelines or RS. Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NCNT. I don’t see why just because a source might use the exact term ‘Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna’ means we should follow it word for word and have zero flexibility. I don't see the need for a short version with no territorial designation just because news articles might omit 'of Russia' as the whole article would be a bout the Imperial Family so would make the full version redundant. But the full title is not redundant for our article name. - dwc lr (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NCROY's point #6 under "Sovereigns" and point #1 under "Royals with a substantive title". For her, the grandducal title is substantive, as it is neither borne nor claimed by anyone else, and is effectively her unique title of pretence as claimant to the Russian throne. It isn't Wikipedia's place either to create or belittle pretenders: their notability doesn't depend upon the "legality" of their claim or title, but upon the coverage they draw in RS. Maria draws plenty of ink under a variety of styles. She should be accorded the same treatment as any other pretender notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, that means being accorded the substantive title she actually uses and is known by, in the same form that is borne by every other holder of a substantive title -- Firstname, Title of Place. And that's what the guideline says. FactStraight (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So her title is substantive, but for every other Russian grand duke "of Russia" was non-substantive? Where do you get this from? Kauffner (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV
Recent edits have violated the neutrality of this article. Since her father's death in 1992 she has, for the most part, been one of two prominent, rival claimants for Headsship of the House of Romanov and for embodiment of that family's historical legacy in Russia. Yet this article increasingly tilts against her claims by including/implying evidence against her eligibility without context, selecting largely negative-sounding quotes to attribute to her and highlighting references to how her rivals and critics view her claims and behavior. As a bio on Maria Vladimirovna, this article should, and in the past has, generally given her life story in a straight-forward and more-or-less neutral way, explaining the basic existence and grounds for her position and opposition, yet leaving in-depth analysis and specific criticism of her to the article Line of succession to the former Russian throne (much in need of updating, but its talk page reveals how daunting walking that gauntlet has been): the articles on her rivals, Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia, Prince Dimitri Romanov and, recently, Prince Karl Emich of Leiningen are not similarly biased against the subject's own perspective and interest. We are left with an imbalance in portraying both this individual and her movement -- which is, by most accounts, more widely recognized than that of her opponents, thus also giving rise to an undue weight problem. I have tried to leave in, while properly sourcing, some of the contentious material on this BLP, especially the recent edits, to restore balance, but continue to encounter resistance which, if allowed, will leave the article lopsided and distort the prevalent acceptance of Maria Vladimirovna's position as a pretender, not to mention compromising Wikipedia's neutrality. FactStraight (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927190442/http://vladivostoktimes.ru/show.php?id=11990 to http://vladivostoktimes.ru/show.php?id=11990

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080206030948/http://www.imperialhouse.ru:80/eng/dynastynews/news/vin/360.html to http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/dynastynews/news/vin/360.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004200455/http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/imperialhouse/chipdom/maria.html to http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/imperialhouse/chipdom/maria.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Grand duchess or just a princess?
Maria Vladimirovna is widely known and referred to as having the rank of (imperial) Grand Duchess (Grand Princess in Russian; Velikaya Kniagina). This term along with her status constitutes a different rank than just a Princess, which is usually one of (mere): noble, serene, grand ducal, or royal. She is an imperial Grand Princess of the House of Romanov. If you (somehow) disagree, please bring your arguments to this talk page-section. L.Smithfield (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Almanach de Gotha (2016) calls Maria a princess. They give her father Vladimir as a grand duke. In the 1923 edition of Gotha, Vlad is a mere prince. The grand duke title was bestowed by his father Kirill, who declared himself emperor in exile in 1924. I can't think of a reason to affirm Vlad's claims while denying Maria's, at least not in terms of the succession law. Sometimes it is claimed that a woman cannot inherit the Russian throne, but this is nonsense. Perhaps the Romanov Family Association, which hates Maria, buys more copies of Gotha than her supporters do. The rightful heir torn down by sheer numbers and petty resentments. That's democracy for you. Literally no one else calls Maria a princess, as you can see here. 99to99 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Grand duke is the usual and established, though not literal, translation in English and Romance languages of the traditional title of all non-ruling members of the Russian Imperial Family: Grand prince (великий князь, velikiy knyaz, female: velikaya knyaginia). -- Equord (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's usually restricted to the children and male-line grandchildren of the emperor. Later generations are prince/princess. DrKay (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://saintanna.ru/?lang=rus&id=48
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510140403/http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/mariavladimirovna.html to http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/mariavladimirovna.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, without opposition after extended discussion. bd2412 T 22:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These two pages do not follow the naming convention that already exists for the articles of Russian dukes/duchesses. The format "Grand Duke/Duchess X of Russia" has been used for almost all of the articles in this topic, and the rationale behind this format is also pretty clear. When looking at some of the articles about the other royal families one could realize that there is a group who actually hold titles in their own right (ex. Charles, Prince of Wales, Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Leopold, Grand Duke of Baden) while another group use part of the titles in lieu of a surname (ex. Prince Henry of Wales), and some are just addressed in the following format [Prince/Duke] [Name] [Kingdom/Dukedom] (ex. Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, etc) to make it clear that to which Kingdom/Dukedom they belong to. I think these two pages fall in the third category, as just like Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, "of Russia" is just an attribution to the empire from which they had come from, and unlike Grand Duke of Bosnia, Grand Duke of Baden, or Duke of York which are exclusive titles, Grand Duke/Duchess of Russia is somehow equivalent to Prince/ss of the United Kingdom which are general titles bestowed upon all of the descendants of a monarch. Keivan.f Talk 06:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia → Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia
 * Kirill Vladimirovich, Grand Duke of Russia → Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich of Russia
 * Support. The proposed name for Kirill Vladimirovich is his actual title and is consistent with the other grand dukes. Maria Vladimirovna, though not a real grand duchess, calls herself Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna on her website, and as stated in, this form has been adopted by reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The rationale behind the current titles is that the head of the family is the grand duke/duchess while any other member is a grand duke/duchess, similar to the Prince of Monaco title. This rationale is also applied to Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Prince of Monaco is an exclusive title that can only be attributed to the reigning prince. I'm not sure whether Duke of Bavaria is merely a title for all the Bavarian princes or is the title of the head of House of Wittelsbach, but I think Grand Duke/Duchess of Russia is somehow equivalent to Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom which are generally bestowed upon the descendants of a monarch. Do you have any solid reason to prove it otherwise? If I'm wrong, I'll gladly accept my mistake. Keivan.f  Talk 07:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the title Prince(ss) of Monaco is borne by the monarch's children too. Gabriella is a princess of Monaco, as are her aunts, etc. "Grand Duke of Russia" is an odd translation of a Russian title that actually should have been translated as "Grand Prince of Russia", in the sense of being an imperial prince. I am not saying that you are wrong, but explaining why the title of this article is what it is. Perhaps the rationale for the present title is faulty. I believe FactStraight might enlighten us. Surtsicna (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, some enlightenment is definitely necessary. If it becomes clear that this format is the right way of addressing the head of a royal/imperial house, then we should move Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia to Vladimir Kirillovich, Grand Duke of Russia instead. Keivan.f  Talk 20:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314093822/http://www.imperialhouse.ru/uploads/image/photo-gallery/news/2014/3983/8.jpg to http://www.imperialhouse.ru/uploads/image/photo-gallery/news/2014/3983/8.jpg
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.400years-romanovs.com/events/princess-maria-romanova-was-made-honorary-member-academy-arts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * MariaVlad.png

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * MariaOnSofa.jpg

"Maria I of Russia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Maria I of Russia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Condemnation of Russia's special military operation in the Ukraine
In the "Succession claims and activities" section it is stated that the Grand Duchess condemns the special military operation in the Ukraine. Is that a serious source? When I click on the source it also states that she doesn't take any specific position on the military operation. If the source is serious then that part should be rewritten to adhere to a neutral point of view. Reading the Wiki article one could think that she condemns the operation itself. 83.145.42.60 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Photo of Maria Vladimirovna.png

Requested move 25 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia → Maria Vladimirovna Romanov – The individual is merely a claimant, and a highly controversial one at that, including her self-granted title, which not recognised by the Romanov Family Association. In line with Wikipedia's styling of other such claimants, the article should surely use birth name in the header, and disputed self-granted titles should be in inverted commas. MisterWizzy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The Romanov Family Association has absolutely no influence over how Wikipedia articles are titled. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Estar8806. Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose She is known with this name, is recognized as such by entities such as the Order of Malta and the opinions of an organization (the Romanov Family Association) with its own biases and controversies has absolutely nothing to do with how Wikipedia is run. The arguments presented by MisterWizzy do not support the need to rename the article. -- Kimon talk 00:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the reasons above. Additionally, all other Russian princes/princesses are Grand Dukes/Grand Duchesses. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility) "Do not use hypothetical, dissolved or defunct titles, including pretenders (real or hypothetical), unless this is what the majority of reliable sources use". Most of the sources on this page are self-published (press releases by the lady herself) and hence not RS. It is unclear to me how RS do refer to her (it seems they do so only very occasionally...). Furius (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Vast majority of English-language RS refer to the subject as a "Grand Duchess" (Examples: BBC, France 24, Radio Free Europe, Sunday Times, Politico, South China Morning Post, Dawn, ekatherimini, The Moscow Times, Reuters, NPR, The Age, CNN). I am actually hard-pressed to find any English-language RS that mentions her without the "Grand Duchess" title and found only one. --StellarHalo (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.