HERBARZ-L Archives

Archiver > HERBARZ > 2002-02 > 1013008798


From: "Clarenceux" <>
Subject: Re: Vytautas, the Great
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:19:58 +0200
References: <008e01c1ae42$20cf0fc0$4b83c5d5@LocalHost> <005601c1ae82$6a024640$469d2581@george>


George,

Yes, we've had wonderful discussions with you on C&HR and I hope we'll be
able to continue them here.

I would like to explain my position a bit more.

No one would argue that the Emperor of Russia was, since the third partition
of the Rzeczpospolita, the Sovereign of almost the whole Lithuania (let's
leave alone Poland for some time). This had to be in some way reflected in
the Imperial Title. Since for times the Sovereign of these lands was called
"the Grand Duke of Lithuania", the Russian Emperor, as the ruler of
Lithuania (and this was internationally recognized at the Congress of
Vienna) named himself in this way.

I consider it not a question of rules of succession, or, more precisely,
election (which has been in effect only since the Lublin Union of 1569), but
rather a question of international recognition. That's why, from my point,
the Emperors of the Russian Empire, recognized Sovereigns of Lithuania and
Poland, had the right to be called both "Czar of Poland" and "Grand Duke of
Lithuania". The question of conforming to the Consitution of 3rd May 1791, I
think, should not be observed here.

I consider it a similar case to that of the Italian Monarchy. Vittorio
Emmanuele III, King of Italy became Emperor of Ethiopia in 1936. Had he the
right to be called so? Perhaps, laws of Ethiopia previous to Italian
colonization were different and the Ethiopians did not elect Vittorio
Emmanuele III their leader. But, still, His Majesty was Sovereign of
Ethiopia and has enjoyed this title legally, as it was recognized by other
states.

I am looking forward to hearing the comments.

George Romanenkov

----- Original Message -----
From: George Lucki <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Vytautas, the Great


> George,
> Welcome to this discussion group. I've seen you posts elsewhere and look
> forward to your input into matters of Lithuanian heraldry.
>
> With regards to your position the successors of Vytautus or Witold, I beg
to
> disagree. After 1795 the Russian Tsars may have ruled de facto as GD's of
> Lithuania and even taken on the pretense of the title, but the legality of
> such rule is at best a question of whose laws. Regardless of whether the
> Commonwealth Constitution of 3 May 1791 ever legally took effect or not it
> would be hard to argue that a valid Romanov succession took place to the
> linked monarchy of the Commonwealth. Polish Kings and Lithuanian Grand
Dukes
> were directly elected by the assembled nobility with the Primate as
> interrex. Even with the 1791 proposal of a hereditary monarchy it would be
> hard to argue for a valid Romanov succession. After 1815 the existence of
a
> "Congress Kingdom" of Poland would be seen more as a brand new creature of
> international diplomacy rather than a restoration of the old
> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I would acknowledge a legimate claim of
the
> Russian Tsar to rule the Congress Kingdom deriving his authority from a
> diplomatic consensus of victorious powers, but I do not see this Kingdom
as
> the legitimate successor of the old Commonwealth any more than Napoleon's
> Grand Duchy of Warsaw or Stalin-Yalta's People's Republic of Poland. This
is
> seperate from the question of the legitimacy of the partitions and the
> Authority of partitioning powers to establish new administrative provinces
> within the territories they ruled.
>
> Perhaps a claim could better be made that de jure the Polish-Lithuanian
> monarchy is in abeyance - an extended inter-regnum awaiting the
appropriate
> convocation of an election diet. The Primate of Poland, His Eminence Jozef
> Cardinal Glemp would in such circumstances be the legitimate Interrex of
the
> Commonwealth of Both Nations.
> :)
> Kind regards, George Lucki
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clarenceux" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 5:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Vytautas, the Great
>
>
> > > Vytautas Didysis (Vytautas the Great) has no children;
> > > There can't be "grand duke of Lithuania" now, last king of Poland
> > > and Grand duke of Lithuania was Poniatovski;
> > > last lithuanian (from Gediminas family) Grand duke of Lithuania
> > > and king of Poland was Zygimantas Augustas, his wife was Barbora
> > Radvilaite.
> > >
> > > Marius Kaubrys
> >
> > Let me not agree with this. Actually, the last Grand Duke of Lithuania
(de
> > facto) was the late His Imperial Majesty Nicholas II, Emperor and
Autocrat
> > of All Russias. Heirs of the Russian Imperial house (HIH Grand Duchess
> Maria
> > of All Russias) rightfully bear this title that has passed to her from
her
> > ancestors and which she holds de jure.
> >
> > George Romanenkov
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy
records,
> go to:
> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237
>


This thread: