Talk:Prince Nicholas Romanov

message: A membership in the "patronage committee" of Almanach de Gotha does not mean that one necessarily is head of the house. Has anyone checked the actual contents of AdG??? Sjostrom 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In answer to the first question above, the actual text of the "revived" Almanach de Gotha recognizes Nicholas Romanov as the rightful head of the Imperial House of Russia (Romanov).  This has been true of all editions issued since 1998.  I do not know how to post the actual written text here, but anyone can consult a copy in a library.  Certainly the new version of the Gotha leaves much to be desired. I am not sure, however, that the original was actually any better.  Such publications are always dependent to some extend on their patrons.  The value of such things is very much in the eye of the beholder.  Whatever its faults, it is difficult to dismiss the Gotha as irrelevant when one considers that it enjoys the support of H.M. King Juan Carlos of Spain and and representatives of most of the former Royal families of Europe. In the end, it is a well-known reference source with a reputation as the arbiter of all things "Royal."  As such, the Gotha's support of Nicholas is certainly relevant to an article about him.  Noting that support is particularly important in light of the fact that most wikipedia articles on the Romanovs after 1917 tend to support Grand Duchess Maria and dismiss Nicholas.  Reading the article on Grand Duchess Maria,I would assume that the Romanov Family Association consisted solely of Nicholas and that he was the only one to doubt Maria's claims.  That is not the case so noting the position of the Gotha is certainly relevant as a counter-balance.  By the way, if you search the internet for information on the Russian Succession you find that most of the "expert" opinions circulating in support of Grand Duchess Maria's claim were actually written by or rely on the work of her personal lawyer, Brien Horan. Is he a more reliable source than the Gotha?  Would anyone really expect Maria's family lawyer to write articles questioning her rights?
By the way, if wikipedia is supposed to be neutral why is the article on one claimant titled "Nicholas Romanov" and the article on the other titled "Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia?"  At best, the succession is disputed and neither one actually rules Russia or has any prospect of living in the Kremlin.
--64.12.116.66 08:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almanach de Gotha does recognize Nicholas Romanov as Head of the Imperial Family 

message: I think we should style Romanov in the introduction as His Highness Prince Roman Petrovich of Russia, and then later clarify this style is somewhat unconventional. My reasoning for this is that Maria Vladimirovna's article introduces her with an Imperial title, even though her title is as disputed as Nicholas's. I'm changing it now; if anyone has an objection, please feel free to change it back and leave a comment here on the issue. --Matjlav 01:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The Almanach de Gotha recognises Nicholas Romanov as the head of the Imperial House of Romanov. This is not a pov statement saying he is the head of the house just that the Almanach de Gotha regards him as such. Its inclusion in the article is disputed. - dwc lr 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, as Noel S McFerran has said, as Guy Stair Sainty's essay says, and as all other royal genealogists have said, the "new" "Almanach de Gotha" is, more or less and in as many words, literally garbage and not a reputable source to cite. Charles 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the “new” Almanach de Gotha is “literally garbage” as you put it recognises him as head of the Imperial House that is a FACT in the Gotha he is listed as the head of the house. Please I know it extremely difficult for you to not push your pov on articles but facts are facts and mentioning that the Gotha recognises him as head of the house is a legitimate statement. - dwc lr 18:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were to push my POV on these articles, you would surely know it. The act of you accusing me of being a POV-monger is no better, and is worse, than what you accuse me of because you are taking it upon yourself to comment on me as a person. Your Wikipedia where anything is admitted as a reliable (note that word!) source would be a Wikipedia few people would want to read. Wikipedia already has it tough as it is without needing to rely on the unreliable! Tell me, honestly, is the new Gotha reliable? Does it equal the Gothas up to 1944? Really. Charles 18:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m well aware of you pushing your pov like when you tired to stop Nicholas Romanov being listed as a successor to Vladimir Cyrillovich. I see you repeated your claim about Nicholas Romanov admitting he is not a dynast at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pov pushing in spite of the fact that you only have to look at the article Russian Imperial Succession by Brien Purcell Horan, (Vladimir Cyrillovich‘s personal lawyer) which is used as a reference in the article, to know ignorant that statement is. On the reliability of the Gotha, well you didn’t have a problem with it until recently. But then you say that you “mistakenly thought it was a reference to The Almanach de Gotha, not the cheap, new rag by the same name“. so you thought that the Nicholas Romanov was accepted as the head of the House of Romanov in 1944? didn’t think so.  - dwc lr 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People make errors, except you, apparently. Charles 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed that the current "Almanach de Gotha", published under the direction of John Kennedy, asserts that Prince Nicholas Romanov is Head of the Imperial House of Russia. Nonetheless there are several problems with citing it as a reliable or authoritative source in this article:
#The "Almanach de Gotha" that has been using that name since 1998 is not the same publication that was world-renowned for nearly two centuries under that name until ceasing publication in 1944. Nor is it the publication that most genealogists and monarchists referred to after 1950 and at least until 1998 as "the Gotha": That publication is the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. The Kennedy Almanach has been embroiled in public controversy for the means by which it acquired the original Gotha's name Inclusion of Kennedy's endorsement of a particular Romanov pretender lends Prince Nicholas undue credence because of name association, prompting readers to believe he was recognized as rightful heir by the original Gotha which is not true.  
#The Kennedy Almanach is held in notoriously low regard for the excessive number of errors it contains. More genealogists, monarchists and other knowledgeable users appear to have expressed lack of confidence in its reliability than otherwise.
#On the Russian succession in particular, the Kennedy Gotha became controversial prior to first publication. By contrast, in 1968 the Handbuch included Maria Vladimirovna Romanov in its dynastic entry on Russia as "Grand Duchess". The Handbuch excluded Nicholas Romanovich Romanov from that entry, and listed him in its third section on the non-dynastic princely family of Romanov. As is customary once internal disputes among descendants of dynastic families come to its attention, the Handbuch omits further entries on that dynasty until the matter is resolved by the family -- rather than foist its own interpretation upon readers. So the 1968 entry was the last to be published in the Handbuch. There is no consensus on the sometimes bitter disputes among royalist pretenders and their supporters. All the more reason to tread carefully in this area, if at all. But Kennedy's Gotha gives the appearance of making inexplicable decisions in recognizing pretenders engaged in dynastic disputes, giving rise to the suspicion that those decisions are made unilaterally and arbitrarily by publisher Kennedy. He is alleged not to follow any consistent formula for his endorsements (such as heeding the advice of an editorial board, research body, or the last monarch's designations), and/or to have come to the data with pre-existing bias. Lethiere 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles,  why can't we do the same in this article with regard to the mention of the gotha?.-dwc lr 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it if you want, but the reason for that citation, rather than removal, is because all hell will possibly break loose if certain editors find issue with it (this relates to your note at the ANB regarding another user and myself). The fact that it is present in that article (I don't think it should be, but I explained that) has no bearing on this article and the use of it to substantiate a name change won't work since the citation for the citation (!!) essentially nullifies its use. An extreme example of the case is, "A is a lie, but A supports B so B must be true". Charles 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: My understanding is we left "prince of Russia" in the title to disambiguate this person from the last tsar, not because anyone thought it is was part of his name, or even argued that it was a correct title. A disambiguator certainly doesn't belong in the opening. If you pull open his Swiss passport, do you think it will say, "prince of Russia"? I don't see anything in the New York Times article that would suggest that "prince" is part of his name. It is not a title of nobility if it is not recognized by law. Did he exercise his prerogative as a sovereign in granting himself the title? If "prince of Russia" is just a fancy way to say that he is a pretender, which how I would interpret the NYT article, that kind of title doesn't get treated as part of the name. Kauffner (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Deposed royals don't just stop having titles attributed to them, or using them themselves because a country has become a republic. I have no idea what his Swiss passport will say, if he even has one, and I don't see what relevance it has either. I very much doubt someone would think think a title 'Prince of Russia' is part of his name. Titles and names are clearly distinct and separate. - dwc lr (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't a deposed royal. He was born after the revolution, so never had anything to be deposed from. His father was a deposed royal, but he is not. Dbpjmuf (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, he is a member of a deposed dynasty. - dwc lr (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

text: To run the name and the title together implies he is a noble. We don't say, "Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company", at least not in boldface. IMO, the Otto von Habsburg article is a good model. Otto was a bona fide crown prince, at least until was he was six years old. Kauffner (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very POV statement to say he is not noble. On Wikipedia titles have always been used for members of royal houses, both reigning and non reigning. Otto von Habsburg is a rare example of a royal who is not known by a title. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at the reference section, it seems that this is all based on his own Web site, as well as statements by the Romanov Family Association. Nobility is an objective, verifiable fact, a matter of law. Kauffner (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of cites to his website or the RFA are about his life and his claims to the headship of the family, as you see the headship is disputed between him and his cousin Maria. I would imagine expect for die hard republicans or supporters of his rival he is royalty (from a non reigning royal family). I don't know why some people get upset about giving titles to non reigning royals on Wikipedia this is the general, normal practice that you find in sources if people bothered to look. - dwc lr (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Even Tsar Nicholas II's page doesn't include titles in the article title, and he was an actual royal. Dbpjmuf (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NCNT. Most kings and emperors are under the format "Name of Place". - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

text: NCNT does not apply to non-royals. Dbpjmuf (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Prince of Korea" was just removed from the article for the Korean pretender, Yi Seok. Unlike the subject of this article, Yi Seok was an actual prince when he was a child. So I think we are making progress. To me, the issue is just that someone should be not be described as royal or noble if that is not in fact their status. Kauffner (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but sources that refer to members of non reigning houses do not just overnight referring to them by their families titles. If he is not royalty why does the Danish Royal Family and other sources attribute the princely title to him? I suppose you think its his first name. - dwc lr (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: European royal families, and the descendants of former royal families, are highly intermarried and related, as well as having strong social links to each other. Simply because a friend or relative humours ones desire to be royal or noble does not make one so. Dbpjmuf (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You regard the New York Times as a reliable source. Why does this source say he 'bears the title Prince of Russia'. - dwc lr (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This title is very thinly documented and quite dodgy all away around. It's mentioned only once on Google Books, as the way he gives his own name as the author of some essay. Besides the New York Times article, there is also an article in the Washington Times that gives him this way. That seems to be about it. But, hey, if your family association names you prince of Russia, and the Times runs with it, that's good enough for me. But it's no different than Mulally having the title "CEO", Martin Luther King being "Dr.", or John Green bearing the title "president of the Little League Baseball Association". That is to say, it does not justify writing him up as if he was a noble or a royal. Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There were in fact other sources cited but Dbpjmuf removed them and I really can't be bothered to edit war with them over it when the title is there anyway. This and other other articles fully conform to the Manual of Style (biographies) and Naming conventions. The fact that academic titles are not given in the initial sentence is irrelevant. Styles for instance are not allowed so thats why we don't have His Highness Nicholas Romanovich Romanov, Prince of Russia. - dwc lr (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not reliable sources. Dbpjmuf (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince of Russia

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nicholas Romanov, Prince 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/20080617204448/http://www.nikolairomanov.com/presentation/index.html to http://www.nikolairomanov.com/presentation/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609161754/http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/imperialhouse/succession.html to http://www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/imperialhouse/succession.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.orderofdanilo.org/en/peter/index.htm
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) 23:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nicholas Romanov, Prince 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/20121118125604/http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/news/common/news7896.html to http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/news/common/news7896.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) 07:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Jerm (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Also per WP:TITLECON; ex. his brother and successor Prince Dimitri Romanov, as well as other relatives, including Prince Andrew Romanoff, Prince Rostislav Romanov (born 1985), Princess Olga Andreevna Romanoff, etc. Even for other rival claimants such as Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, the royal prefix is placed before the first name. The current way in which "Prince of Russia" has been placed as a disambiguator gives the false impression that it is a specific title like Prince of Wales or Prince of Asturias, while in fact it is not. Keivan.fTalk 03:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

text: This was also a contested technical request (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 October 2021