AHC Russian Imperial Families

Thanks.

Do you know of anything about the aforementioned Antonovich grandchild?

This supposed grandchild couldn't have been real. Ivan's siblings here kept imprisioned for decades and only let out when they were in the lat 40s/early 50s. And any secret marriage would no doubt be rapidly found out, with the husband executed and the wife either sharing the same fate or moved to a more secure prison.
 
This supposed grandchild couldn't have been real. Ivan's siblings here kept imprisioned for decades and only let out when they were in the lat 40s/early 50s. And any secret marriage would no doubt be rapidly found out, with the husband executed and the wife either sharing the same fate or moved to a more secure prison.

Actually, Ekaterina was 39 and Yelizaveta 37 (when released) - old yes, risky to have a child yes - but still possible I should imagine, probably why if said child did exist, there was only one.
 
Actually, Ekaterina was 39 and Yelizaveta 37 (when released) - old yes, risky to have a child yes - but still possible I should imagine, probably why if said child did exist, there was only one.

Again highly unlikely. Age wise its theoretically possible but when one considers the fact that they were imprisoned for their entire lives its highly likely that the stress has rendered them infertile (that or drugs by the Russian Government) and even if they were fertile, they were kept under house arrest in Denmark once they were sent there. I can't imagine that there would be any marriage, let alone a child.
 
I kind-of described that situation in my "Paul I dies in 1771" thread (after 1777 or so, there's also Pavel's own kids to consider).

As for the rest of your statement, I was sure 15 is a little low, but I rechecked it on Rodovid (my main go-to "source" for Russian genealogy), and the number seems about right (okay, maybe 20): there's Paul and his descendants, the one remaining Antonovich, and two branches descended from Filaret's sister Anna (well, two parts of one branch, really, since both descend from her great-grandson Ivan Ivanovich Troyekurov). Oh, and the Tarakanova descendants, I suppose (which Rodovid counts but I don't). Apparently, all the other branches went either extinct or obscure by 1800 (with Rodovid, it's usually impossible to distinguish).

One of my main sources was Rodovid, too :) I can't find anything on the doc about the Tarakanova branch, so I must have omitted it for the same reason you do (can't remember what it actually was, though) but then, I don't have an Ivan Ivanovich Troyekurov, either, though I have the rest of his family, right down to Leo Tolstoy.

The other branch that I'm pretty sure would lead down to the eighteenth century is the descendants of Anna, daughter of the eponymous Roman Yurievich, in the Sitsky and Suleshov families, but they're just too obscure.

The other interesting line is from Filaret's great-grandfather, who was an ancestor of some Golitsyn Prince who died in 1773 and his sister, who married a Bagration scion. They were the last of their stemma, unfortunately. They might gain from a Paul-is-dead scenario, though, being high-ranking and all.
 
IDK, maybe someone with better insight into 18th century Russian history than I can explain this.

According to her Russian wiki article, Princess Tarakanova was actually one of three children born to Yelizaveta Petrovna and Alexei Razumovsky. It then goes on to say that she was the youngest of them. But, it also points out that there were two Princess Tarakanovas - an Augusta and a Yelizveta. In all previous sources, they're conflated into one person: Elisabeth Augusta Tarakanova.

Also, was this other Tarakanova her sister, or someone like the False Dmitris? And also, one source says she died in 1775 in the Petropavlovskaya Fortress, but then another refutes that and says she died as a nun under the name 'Dosifea' at the Ivanovsky Convent in 1810.
 
IDK, maybe someone with better insight into 18th century Russian history than I can explain this.

According to her Russian wiki article, Princess Tarakanova was actually one of three children born to Yelizaveta Petrovna and Alexei Razumovsky. It then goes on to say that she was the youngest of them. But, it also points out that there were two Princess Tarakanovas - an Augusta and a Yelizveta. In all previous sources, they're conflated into one person: Elisabeth Augusta Tarakanova.

Also, was this other Tarakanova her sister, or someone like the False Dmitris? And also, one source says she died in 1775 in the Petropavlovskaya Fortress, but then another refutes that and says she died as a nun under the name 'Dosifea' at the Ivanovsky Convent in 1810.

I think I can explain part of this. There was supposedly two Princesses. One, Augusta Tarakanova, became a nun and died in 1810, to be buried in the Romanov crypt while the other, Elizabeth, was arrested in Italy and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul fortress, later dieing of tuberculosis. The is later myths that the later didn't die in the fortress but became a nun. I think that the legends got confused by the older sister, and later combined them. As for whether or not they were really the daughters of the Empress, its impossible to say. That Augusta was buried in the Romanov crypt seems to lend credibility and the fact that Elizabeth was arrested by Russian agents and brought back to Russia gives her credit as well. But Catherine the Great was incredibly sensitive about any pretenders, as if real they would threaten her hold on the throne. So its probably the later, in regards to Elizabeth. The former, Augusta, now that's a mystery.

But if Elizabeth did have children, why not acknowledge them and make them the heirs to her throne? Sure her husband wasn't a ranking noble or foreign Prince, but neither was her own mother. And she was well aware of her nephew's issues, so why not promote an alternative heir descending from Peter the Great. So realistically I think Elizabeth died childless.
 
I think I can explain part of this. There was supposedly two Princesses. One, Augusta Tarakanova, became a nun and died in 1810, to be buried in the Romanov crypt while the other, Elizabeth, was arrested in Italy and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul fortress, later dieing of tuberculosis. The is later myths that the later didn't die in the fortress but became a nun. I think that the legends got confused by the older sister, and later combined them. As for whether or not they were really the daughters of the Empress, its impossible to say. That Augusta was buried in the Romanov crypt seems to lend credibility and the fact that Elizabeth was arrested by Russian agents and brought back to Russia gives her credit as well. But Catherine the Great was incredibly sensitive about any pretenders, as if real they would threaten her hold on the throne. So its probably the later, in regards to Elizabeth. The former, Augusta, now that's a mystery.

But if Elizabeth did have children, why not acknowledge them and make them the heirs to her throne? Sure her husband wasn't a ranking noble or foreign Prince, but neither was her own mother. And she was well aware of her nephew's issues, so why not promote an alternative heir descending from Peter the Great. So realistically I think Elizabeth died childless.

Maybe she had a memory of what she herself had done to Anna Leopoldovna, and also how no one had really wanted to marry her or her sister due to their perceived illegitimacy and didn't want to subject her own kids to that.
Most cases testify to her as being soft hearted and kind. Except in the seizure of the throne from the Antonovichs.

But I think a Tarakovna TL with an Empress Yelizaveta II Alexeïevna would be cool.:-D
 
One of my main sources was Rodovid, too :) I can't find anything on the doc about the Tarakanova branch, so I must have omitted it for the same reason you do (can't remember what it actually was, though) but then, I don't have an Ivan Ivanovich Troyekurov, either, though I have the rest of his family, right down to Leo Tolstoy.

The other branch that I'm pretty sure would lead down to the eighteenth century is the descendants of Anna, daughter of the eponymous Roman Yurievich, in the Sitsky and Suleshov families, but they're just too obscure.

The other interesting line is from Filaret's great-grandfather, who was an ancestor of some Golitsyn Prince who died in 1773 and his sister, who married a Bagration scion. They were the last of their stemma, unfortunately. They might gain from a Paul-is-dead scenario, though, being high-ranking and all.
If I tried to do any half-serious genealogical list - as opposed to a cursory checking investigation - I would at least try to cross-check sources other than Rodovid :)

Indeed, a brief check of particularly suspicious Rodovid branches on Wikipedia led to two other descendant lines: the Yakovlev family, descended (in the direct male line) from Yakov Zakharyin, Filaret's great-grand-uncle, and the Khovansky family, descended from Yakov Koshkin, Filaret's great-great-grand-uncle (through his great-granddaughter Irina Fyodorovna Pleshcheyeva). In fact, the latter family is still extant to this day (I've personally met their distant descendant Askold Khovansky); the connection is less certain, however.

IDK, maybe someone with better insight into 18th century Russian history than I can explain this.

According to her Russian wiki article, Princess Tarakanova was actually one of three children born to Yelizaveta Petrovna and Alexei Razumovsky. It then goes on to say that she was the youngest of them. But, it also points out that there were two Princess Tarakanovas - an Augusta and a Yelizveta. In all previous sources, they're conflated into one person: Elisabeth Augusta Tarakanova.

Also, was this other Tarakanova her sister, or someone like the False Dmitris? And also, one source says she died in 1775 in the Petropavlovskaya Fortress, but then another refutes that and says she died as a nun under the name 'Dosifea' at the Ivanovsky Convent in 1810.

As fas as I understand it, Princess Tarakanova in general was someone not unlike False Dmitry (except less lucky).

From what I can tell, Augusta and Dosifea were the same person, who died in 1810, and this "Augusta-Dosifea" is commonly conflated with Elisabetta "Tarakanova", who died in 1775. I've no idea where all that conflation comes from; any actual connection to Yelizaveta Petrovna is unlikely.
 
If I tried to do any half-serious genealogical list - as opposed to a cursory checking investigation - I would at least try to cross-check sources other than Rodovid :)

I'm not a complete amateur, Jan1May ;) I got the two other lines you mentioned, and I must have spent an hour and a half trying to find other references to a certain Prince Dmitri Dardanov. Believe me, he exists nowhere outside of Christopher Buyers and a couple of Rodovid clones. So in short, f*ck shoddy Communist archival practices!
 
I'm not a complete amateur, Jan1May ;) I got the two other lines you mentioned, and I must have spent an hour and a half trying to find other references to a certain Prince Dmitri Dardanov. Believe me, he exists nowhere outside of Christopher Buyers and a couple of Rodovid clones. So in short, f*ck shoddy Communist archival practices!

Sorry, didn't intend to insult you :)

It was probably worse for me when I tried to review Regnal Chronologies pretender lists... I found an error in his Anglo-Saxon list (after a bunch of revisions on my side, it turned out to converge on the listed branch anyway, but it would've helped to know that Suzdal and West Galitzia are nowhere near each other... it makes sense in context), in his Byzantine list (two possible lines - I'm pretty much done with one and on-and-off "still working" on the second, which might never be finished fully because it splits in about a dozen places for various reasons), and in his "modern succession rules" list (that was the funniest one: I traced a completely different line from about three or four places down his list - using about a dozen different genealogical sites of various obscurity - and eventually got stuck at the late 19th century because all sources on later stuff were protected by privacy... then realized that his list is wrong at the very start - he seems to use a disproven genealogical link - and got stuck around late 12th century when trying to do it properly because some genealogies mentioned one particular daughter, some didn't, and I couldn't be sure which ones were correct).

Then there's my attempts at "OTL" post-1917 Romanov succession, which I decided to (mostly) abandon when I found out that one can make a (flimsy) case for Georg Friedrich of Prussia (it has to do with relatively literal readings of a bunch of laws and agreements, some of which aren't even Russian). I think I have a text file somewhere with the first dozen or so people in the line of succession and their descents from the Russian monarchs, but I stopped working on it well before I even listed all descendants of Paul I... there's just too many. (I personally think Karl Emich von Leiningen is the true current Romanov heir, but even online this position seems to be very unusual - most people seem to believe in one of the 2-3 "official" claims... Maria most commonly).
 
Oh, I wouldn't touch Regnal Chronologies with a bargepole - frequent anachronisms and inaccuracies (why is there even an Anglo-Saxon list? why is some unrelated guy called Filmer supposed to be King of England?), and the Anglocentricity make him fairly easy to ignore. That said, I usually go straight to Royalark or euweb.cz first off, even before the Gotha, so I may be suffering from false genealogies (I always double-check as much as possible with Royalark, but I take that czech guy as dogmatic fact).

Relatively on topic, I support Nikolai Romanov, for the simple reason that the concept of a morganatic marriage loses a little bit of its significance when faced with a seemingly-permanent Communist state. Also, his eventual heir, Rostislav, is lives and works in St-Petersburg, so there's that. But I'm only interested in the matter for trivia.

So what kind of nineteenth century would we see with our Mamonov dynasty on the throne? I wouldn't expect the French Revolution or Napoleon to be butterflied too much, although 1812 might be. Russian actions in this period define what social trends emerge over the next century or two, IMO.
 
Oh, I wouldn't touch Regnal Chronologies with a bargepole - frequent anachronisms and inaccuracies (why is there even an Anglo-Saxon list? why is some unrelated guy called Filmer supposed to be King of England?), and the Anglocentricity make him fairly easy to ignore. That said, I usually go straight to Royalark or euweb.cz first off, even before the Gotha, so I may be suffering from false genealogies (I always double-check as much as possible with Royalark, but I take that czech guy as dogmatic fact).
Oh, I just take it with the needed dose of fun. I'm pretty sure it was never intended to be serious :D
With the two particular questions, the Anglo-Saxon list is there because several people asked him to do it (I've emailed him a correction, but he didn't seem to notice, and I've since revised the correction in a way that means it almost exactly snaps back); and as for Filmer, I suspect either the same thing happened or he just found that line on some other relevant site (that, and it's funny).
That said, I had almost no problem finding heirs of George Foljambe, which he seemed to write off as unfindable (though I've had to use sites on topics as distant as cricket and banking).

I do usually believe the Czech guy, but I often refer to other sources if his comment is "they had children" and it stops at that (or at names of these children). Very often, it turns out such children married into families too minor for his scope, and I have to use something else to follow the line.
I've no idea what Royalark is, unfortunately (I probably used it but didn't remember).

Relatively on topic, I support Nikolai Romanov, for the simple reason that the concept of a morganatic marriage loses a little bit of its significance when faced with a seemingly-permanent Communist state. Also, his eventual heir, Rostislav, is lives and works in St-Petersburg, so there's that. But I'm only interested in the matter for trivia.
I'm only interested for trivia, either :)

I agree with your proposition, really, but in this case it would be Dmitry Pavlovich Romanov[sky]-Ilyinsky, no? I don't really see what excludes him from succession, other, than, um, "morganatic" marriages of his ancestors (postdating 1917).

And apparently Karl Emich von Leiningen had recently converted to Orthodoxy. I wasn't aware of that before now (as I did my calculations some months before that happened). I suspect this would strengthen his case significantly.
 
http://www.royalark.net/

Its almost entirely concerned with dynasties outside of Europe, which I find rather refreshing.

I wasn't aware that Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich only married in 1926, so I've changed my support accordingly. Leiningen wins on armigerousness and Orthodoxy (I assume Vladimir Kirillovich's marriage is deemed unequal, but she was a Princess, at least, even if she was only a Mukhransky), Maria wins on popularity, and Nikolai wins on popularity within the family and, you know, being called Romanov. Its a complete mess, and its only a matter of time before people start suggesting equal primogeniture or something to somehow appeal to the Westernised Russians, which would produce another array of claimants. It would be quite cool - albeit ASB - if the kind of thing suggested by the OP happened again in the 21st century!
 
Top