Talk:Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Former Comsomol ( Communist Youth) member and present comediant

message: 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)
thread_title: About his heir presumptive

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  male priomogeniture in Georgia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sorting out NPOV 

message: 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: 
#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.
#"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.
#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.
#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.
#Critiques of the organization and its website on the newsgroup rec.heraldry are available online here, and tend to confirm my assessment of ICNR.
#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)
thread_title:  International Commission on Nobility and Royalty 

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''Response''' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genealogy Decluttering