Talk:David Bagration of Mukhrani

Is ridiculus to write "señor don" because in spanish we say "señor don" only when we talk with the person. Not in writing

It is a well-known historical fact that the last king of united Georgia, King Giorgi VIII, was Prince Nugzar's ancestor. The Bagration Mukraneli line did not descend from him. They were part of the high nobility, not royalty. This line was never designated in any of the ancient or modern documents as having collateral rights. They were high-nobles who worked for the Prince Nugzar's ancestors.

As I see, Because of the reason that on the Internet there is no sufficient scientific publications about Georgian Royalty (history, genealogy...), the lie continues to remain in this article... Nobody requires the truth????... --92.54.240.68 (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Intra-dynastic marriage

Former Comsomol ( Communist Youth) member and present comediant[edit]

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) NO. THIS IS A FACT. Maximum, Mr Nugzar Bagrationi might be considered as a noblemen of the Russian Empire, with the rank of Prince, and with the Style of Serene Highness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.19.174 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The senior line is the line of the kings in a non-salic kingdom --- that is the line of HRH Prince Nugzar. The Mukhraneli line of Prince David's ancestors lost all dynastic rights in 1505. While Prince Nugzar's ancestors continued to rule all the way to the 1800's. Prince Nugzar not only descended from Alexander I, but the last King to rule all of Georgia, King Giorgi VIII. Genealogy has nothing to do with anything. There is no cadet line in a non-salic kingdom. There is only the senior line and a number of other princely lines (almost 120) many of whom had higher prestige and greater power than the non-dynastic, non-royal Mukhraneli line. This particular non-collateral line began with Prince Bagrat Muhkranbatoni in the 1500's.--92.54.240.68 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

1. "The senior line is the line of the kings in a non-salic kingdom" I'm sorry, you keep saying this and it remains unclear (I assume that English is not your first language, so this is difficult -- but that's okay). I'm guessing that you want to say, "Under Salic law, females never inherit the throne, therefore when the king and his close male relatives all die, the junior male branches of the dynasty may claim the throne over any of the last king's daughters or sisters. But the Salic law did not control succession to the crown in Georgia; women could succeed to the throne after their fathers, brothers (uncles or cousins) all died (e.g. the regnant Queen Tamara who succeeded her father George III of Georgia, and Erekle II whose claim to rule Kartli was {some say} derived from his maternal grandfather, Vakhtang VI of Kartli through his mother, the Queen Consort Tamara of Kartli and and Khaketi). Your conclusion: When there is no Salic law, distant relatives in the male line (cadet branches) cannot claim the throne. Therefore the "last" king-in-exile of Kartli-Kakheti is Prince Nugzar Bagrationi of Georgia, and her heir is his daughter -- not the man his daughter married, who is Prince David Bagrationi of Mukhrani (who is also genealogically the most senior male of the Bagrationi dynasty). The problem is that this is not true in general in Europe, and does not appear to have been true in Georgia's history specifically. Yes, it is true that in Capetian France and Savoyard Italy distant cadet branches did inherit the throne from the senior line of the king instead of the kings' daughters or nieces because France and Italy had Salic law -- unlike Georgia. But in Europe, often cadet branches have been entitled to inherit the throne even if the last king of the senior line was survived by close female relatives. For example, Wittelsbach Bavaria, Welf Hanover and Nassau Luxembourg never had Salic law -- but distant, male-line branches of the dynasty still inherited the throne over closer female relatives who belonged to the last ruler's branch. For Bavaria, see here; for Hanover, see here (where Ernest, Duke of Cumberland inherited instead of Victoria of Great Britain); and for Luxembourg (where ex-Duke Wilhelm of Nassau inherited instead of Wilhelmina of the Netherlands), see here. Women could inherit the throne in all 3 of these monarchies (in fact, a female did inherit the throne in one of these realms -- but only after the extinction of all males of both the senior and cadet branches -- in Luxembourg).
2. Twice in modern history the kingdom of Kartli passed to a distant relative of the cadet branch of the House of Bagration that had been given the appanage of Mukhrani, and did not pass by inheritance to nearer relatives in the female line. Luarsab Bagrationi of Georgia had been King Rostom's nearest relative in the male line, but nearer kinsmen in the female line were passed over. Once he was dead, the Moukrani-batoni was chosen, again being the next nearest Bagrationi. Clearly, the Moukhrani cadets were considered dynasts of the royal house, eligible to succeed to the throne. FactStraight (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • Even king of Kartli Vakhtang VI before his resettlement in Russia in 1724 has made the list of that royal retinue (two-thousand people) which left for Russia together with their king. In this list all those persons who have been mentioned were in royal retinue beginning from members of royal family finishing to simple servants. All people in the list were mentioned with their own ranks and posts. In this list in a place with other princely surnames were also princes of Mukhrani who were mentioned among other high nobiliary princes. Those who wishes to present a false statement in regard as if princes of Mukhrani have been considered as dynasts in the kingdom of Kartli, this historical document definitively puts an end to such misinformation! --92.54.240.68 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some have made the claim that the Mukhranski is the senior line genealogically speaking of the whole Bagrationi dynasty. However, junior, or cadet lines, are designations which belong to salic law, not to the Roman/Byzantine/Persian law of succession, which prevailed in Georgia for hundreds and hundreds of years. This kind of succession allowed for different sons and even a females to succeed to the throne. Junior, or cadet status, is meaningless in such a system because it had nothing to do with inheritance to the crown and scepter of the land. The point is, cadet and senior line arguments are inseparably connected to salic law in Europe, which does not apply to the royal house of Georgia, so calling one line cadet and one line senior genealogically is nonsense. It has no meaning in the succession. And even if it did, the point is, the line of the rightful kings goes down to HRH Prince Nugzar --- not down any noble line. The senior line, the line of the kings, is the Gruzinski royal house. In all the ancient documents, no where does it even suggest that there is such a thing as a cadet or collateral line. Again, there is only the line of the kings.

It does not matter what took place in Europe, Georgia was different. No cadet or collateral lines existed. There was only the royal line. Some nobles presided over princelets or fiefs, but were not sovereign over them as in Germany. They were appointed to be governors or managers and the kings chose who from among the family, not necessarily the oldest male, who would be the "prince," or governor. No other members of these noble families had titles --- not even courtesy titles. In some cases the fiefs were taken entirely from the nobles by the kings. None of these lines were collateral or cadet. None were dynastic in any way. Not one of them was sovereign over anything. None of them were considered to be royal.

In fact, when the Empire of Russia tragically abolished the throne in 1801, they exiled the royal family --- HRH Prince Nugzar's ancestors. No one from the other lines (Bagrationi-Mukhranski, Bagrationi-Davitishvili, Bagrationi-Babadishi) were exiled to Russia, because everyone knew that they were high nobles and had no right or claim to the throne. The Mukhranbatoni branch, as stated, were offshoot princes and lost all sovereignty and dynastic rights over 500 years ago.--188.169.143.17 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal lineage?

King Constantine II, who died in 1505 was king of Kartli only, not of Georgia. His kingly descendants became extinct in 1919 except for the fact that King Giorgi X of Kartli's daughter, Princess Khoreshan, married into Prince Nugzar's ancestral line --- the royal line of the Kingdom of Kakheti. --92.54.240.68 (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement concerning key facts surrounding the subject's royal line or claims or whatever. It snuck up on me but it looks like we've got a full blown edit war going on now. I know nothing of the subject and am just reverting stuff that appears badly written, and contains unencyclopedic material such as question marks placed after various claims. Anyway, before we all get in trouble with WP:3RR I suggest we discuss it here on the talk page. SQGibbon (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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) 07:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • I have looked the informations on competent monarchic sites and all became clear for me. There are no questions into the account of domination in the Bagrationi dynasty. It is already clear that the true head of the royal house of Georgia is HRH Crown Prince Nugzar. Please see:1) http://www.almanachdegotha.org/id145.html 2) http://www.nobility-royalty.com/id94.htm

--92.54.240.68 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't know any more ways to help you understand that your assertions simply prove that you believe Nugzar is the "rightful" Georgian pretender in preference to a member of the Muchrany branch of the House of Bagration. But you have put forth no verifiable evidence that Prince Nugzar is the only person generally regarded in Georgia as a likely candidate for restoration of the monarchy. You have given two flawed citations: one is the "Almanach of Saxe-Gotha", a recent, online copy-cat of the original, respected Almanach de Gotha which ceased publication in 1944. It is not used on Wikipedia as a reliable substitute for the Gotha (whereas the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is widely accepted as the successor to the Gotha, but it has only once included the Bagrations, and that was in the 1950s when it treated the Muchranys as the only extant branch of the family because the survival of the Kakhetian branch was not known in the West until the fall of the Soviet Union). Your second source I addressed in the discussion above: the International Commission on Nobility and Royalty explicitly states that it does not endorse or vouch for the validity of articles published on its website. More importantly, the article on that site -- which you continue to use as a source to prove your defense of Nugzar's claim -- has been outrageously altered by someone to state that "The head of the royal house, the de jure King is His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky, which is obvious from the genealogy..." -- but the original article, written by the distinguished journalist Gerald Warner and published in 2008 in The Telegraph states exactly the opposite, "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." Therefore your attempt to have Wikipedia accept and treat Prince Nugzar as the rightful claimant to Georgia's throne is based on falsified sources -- and you are fully aware of the fraudulent use of the Telegraph article. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's articles on this subject have been balanced to treat both Nugzar and Davit as pretenders based on their ancestry and claims, and as potential future kings of Georgia if the monarchy were restored, as has been widely discussed in Georgia's politics since 2007. Wikipedia cannot and does not violate NPOV by stating or implying that one or the other claimant is the correct heir -- which is what you keep trying to make Wikipedia do in favor of Nugzar. Please stop. FactStraight (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrilineal descent of HRH Crown Prince Nugzar

Can anyone tell us why the list of the patrilineal line of Prince Nugzar is needed in the David Bagration article? Is a political point being made? SQGibbon (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I can tell ! Because there are many blunders on this article, probably therefore have shown a Patrilineal descent line of HRH Crown Prince Nugzar. Where is well visible Nugzar`s Royal origin in comparison with David who belongs to a lateral (cadet) line of a dynasty. Please read the books !--Varaz vache (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Prince Demetre Bagration (d. 1453) was duke of Imereti???, ha ha ha I`m sorry, but what a mess !!!!--92.54.240.68 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there is documentation that Demetre's father, king Aleksandre, made Demetre holder of Imereti. (Or, Demetre's elder brother king Vakhtang IV did so in about 1445 or affirmed what their father had done with Imereti). And, this surely is in connection with Demetre's marriage with Gulkshar. 2001:14BA:485C:F700:65D7:5763:361E:8950 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If anyone questions the plausibility of the marriage of Nugzar's paternal grandfather to his grandmother we can answer that the Chancellery of HRH crown prince Nagzer has informed us: "We have received the official document of wedding which is kept in Royal family. Wedding is dated 14 May 1915, St. Barbara's church, Tbilisi. For us it`s not strange, such similar unfair charges towards the Royal house - not in the first time... But we always react against false charges by the lawful facts and documents. A question is - who stands up for all this ?..."--Varaz vache (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but does that actually answer my question? SQGibbon (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

YES, definitely does ! --Varaz vache (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but why? SQGibbon (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Because... you have intentionally called into question legitimacy of the Prince relying on an incompetent site: www.royalark.net which without proofs has accused a family, when (he?) openly questioned the plausibility of the marriage of HRH Nugzar's grandfather to his grandmother. And I have given you the true documentary information. I can even send a copy of this document to you by e-mail. Is it clear Now ?--Varaz vache (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

David Bagration descends from a younger son of King Constantine II of Kartli - NOT of Georgia !.--Varaz vache (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, and I don't really care, there is not a page for King Constantine II of Kartli but there is one for King Constantine of Georgia. Until that gets worked out links to King Constantine II should point to the page that exists. SQGibbon (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But there are lots of books on Georgian history, please read them... and you will find out that King Konstantine II was (1478-1505) King of Kartli !--Varaz vache (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you change topics? This section is about whether to include Nugzar's patrilineal line on David Bagration's page. SQGibbon (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did ! And I still think that it is necessary to include Patrilineal Royal line of Crown Prince Nagzar in David's page. Wikipedia should exist for this purpose that people should learn the truth and the truth is that a line of David in comparison with the royal line of Nugzar - unrightful and non-reigning line. To whom is it favourable to present David's branch as royal? To nobody, but David. In any scientific releases it is visible that David belongs to a high noble family instead of Royal. Why "SQGibbon" tries to keep misinformation on page? How it is possible to represent equally the lines of the Royal family of Prince Nugzar and Davids high noble family ?... Crown Prince Nugzar`s line is a pure salic line back to the most important of all the kings !--Varaz vache (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My intent (since you asked) is only to help Wikipedia. I know very little about David Bagration, Prince Nugzar, and the issues surrounding the heir to the throne nor do I care about any of it. What I do at Wikipedia is try to make sure all its articles conform to Wikipedia standards. If there is a controversy about who is the real heir to the throne then that information can be integrated into the article. However, your reverting of well sourced content from other editors because you don't agree with it is not the proper way to go about things. Changing the article to fit your position and at the same time making the article less useful (changing Constantine's name so that it cannot link to his page at Wikipedia) does not help Wikipedia or its readers. Adding Nugzar's patrilineal line without any context is not good encyclopedic form. In fact adding Nuzgar's line does not even belong in the article since the article is not about whether David is the true heir to the throne but is an article giving a brief overview of his life (biography). I sincerely believe that the best way to handle this is to create a new page just about the controversy that presents both sides, is well sourced, and retains a neutral point of view. We can then create a "Controversy" section on each page that briefly describes the issue (conflict over who is the rightful heir) and then link to that page. SQGibbon (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You speak that article is not about that David is the true successor or not, that the article is only short review of his life (biography) - But after all, article then should show truth instead of false biography. Why then nobody checks correctness of this article, whether is that a lie or true? 1) When there is written, that David is a head of the house - isn`t it a rough lie ?! The only rightful head of Bagrationi`s Dynasty is HRH Crown Prince Nugzar. 2) Regnal name claimed - David XIII , it is ridiculous, because the representative of high noble prince`s cannot have any royal name nor titles of prince kakheti, Kartli. The only title he can claim is Prince of Mukhrani! 3) There is No King Constantine II of Georgia (1447 – 1505), not exists ! there is only King Constantine II of Kartli !!! I can not believe that it is hard to find a book on Georgian history... --Varaz vache (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read this link wp:verifiability. It is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I'll quote the first line since it's what's most relevant to our discussion "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." Do you see the difference? Wikipedia is not about determining or setting the truth, it only reports what other recognized experts claim. Even if everything I read about David being the next king is a complete lie, as long as the sources for it are reputable (i.e., scholarly) then that's all that matters.

So please, the edits you are currently making to the article are not following these principles. Constantine II was at one time king of Georgia. But more importantly, his page on Wikipedia is called "Constantine II of Georgia" therefore we should respect that when referencing him elsewhere in Wikipedia. If you do not believe there are any credible sources for referring to him as king of Georgia then take it up on that page and then we can correct it elsewhere. Also, once again the patrilineal line of Nuzgar does not belong here at all. The argument about who is the successor to the throne must not happen in this article. Create a separate article and present all the sides there (as I suggested before) but leave Nuzgar's information off of this page because it's just not relevant. SQGibbon (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still can`t agree, because King Constantine II (1447 – 1505) was only King of Kartli !!! I repeat, The last King of United Georgia was King Giorgi VIII (1446-1466). --Varaz vache (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't agree with what? The policies of Wikipedia? If you believe that "Constantine II of Georgia" is a misnomer then take it up on that page. It's that simple, what is there to disagree with? By arguing that point on David Bagration's page you are breaking consistency within Wikipedia. If the Constantine II of Georgia page were instead Constantine II of Kartli then this disagreement wouldn't exist. SQGibbon (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why someone tries to present that as if the Kartli line more legitimate than Kaheti line? In the list it is specified that tsar Konstantin II (1478-1505) as though once was the king of all Georgia - it is a blunder! because last king of all Georgia was George VIII (1446-1476)who has been compelled to leave a throne of Georgia and to move in Kaheti. After that Georgia has collapsed on three kingdoms. The King Konstantine (Constantine) II never was the king of all Georgia !!! Therefore claims of a line of Kaheti more legitimate, than of a line of Kartli. Also it is necessary to notice that a line of kings of Kartli has stopped in 1919.--92.54.240.68 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me that both Kartli lineage (& its branch Mukhrani) and Kakheti lineage are as legitimate as the other is. I do not find any illegitimacy in any of the relevant filiations in their line of descent from their last shared male-line ancestor. (As opposed to the Imereti branch which shows a few illegitimate births of forefathers in line.) Perhaps you are trying to express some other concept about this than the concept of legitimacy.2001:14BA:485C:F700:65D7:5763:361E:8950 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

International Commission on Nobility and Royalty

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:

1. 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.
2. "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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Critiques of the organization and its website on the newsgroup rec.heraldry are available online here, and tend to confirm my assessment of ICNR.
6. 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) 06:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

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)

ANSWER: FactFinder reveals himself here. Does he really prefers to think that a Georgian Legitimist created a 200 plus page website over a five year period just to try to correct FactFinder’s Wiki articles, which I don’t know even existed back then. This is grandiose. I could say a lot more about this odd mentality, but will refrain.

Unfortunately, FactFinder’s articles on the Bragrations are filled with inaccuracies and errors. No wonder a Georgia monarchist would like to correct it. I wonder if FactFinder tried to reconcile with this person? I’d put my money down and wager he treated him in the same way he did me and circumvent the proper channels or ethical guidelines.

FactFinder myself and this other person vandals. Well, what about allowing falsehoods to be portrayed in his article and not allowing anyone to challenge his facts. Why not try to reconcile? If we cannot do this, we will need to go to the arbitration committee. It is FactFinder’s choice. He or she can decide. If nothing happens. I will try to figure out how to make the required complaints.

I am B. J. Howard, I was not a member of the Commission until this year. I am not an officer or board member. I do not official represent them, but know a few of them. My email address is: consultant45@hotmail.com. I hope FactFinder will contact me and work with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthHonesty (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

David and Anna's Marriage

It seems that the assessment "Merabishvili confirmed that the Bagrationi couple were no longer married" is no longer valid. According to this article [[1]], prince David and princess Anna are still married and attended together an event on January 12th, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.120.58.5 (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2011 (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:

• Řád orla Gruzie - princ David.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Which one is he in the picture?

There are several men. ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)