This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bagrationi dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
i Soso, I'm going to expand this article section by section and I'll need your assistance. Thanks, Kober 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kober
What a great article! This article is an inpiration for everybody who wants to write an un-biased, completely neutral articles on the complicated matters like the Bagrationi Dynasty. I especially like the usage of the sources and the citations. Thanks Kober.
Sosomk 15:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, great... Kober 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kober
I will work on getting more information on modern Bagrationis. I am finally in Tbilisi right now. My sister actually met Ketevan Bagrationi who lives in Rome. I think she is fairly pure respresentative of the family, but I can't put it on the wikipedia, because I can't actually cite that.
Sosomk 08:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
According to GlobalSecurity.org, Bagrationi is pronounced as bah-grah-tyi-YAHN-ee. Can anyone check if the IPA key is correct? Thanks, -- Kober 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
One of you may wish to get more information from H.S.H. Princess Karina Baghration-Mukhranski who lives in Kiev, Ukraine, and is a listed sponsor of the Paris-based NGO, "Innocence en danger".
The article states that "...in 1942 Irakli Bagrationi-Mukhraneli, of the junior branch of the family, proclaimed himself Head of the Royal House and founded “Georgian Traditionalist Union” throughout Europe." Elsewhere in Wikipedia there are similar references to this "junior" branch. However, in all of the genealogies I have seen, the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli are the senior branch of this family. Although they were the youngest descendants of the Kartli branch, all the older branches of the Kartli Bagrationi are extinct: The last two known members of that line were brothers, Prince Demetre Bagrationi and Prince Aleksandri Bagrationi, sons of Prince Petri. They died in Bolshevik prison in 1918 or 1919. The last male member of the even more senior Gruzinsky branch of the Bagrationi was Prince Sergei Gruzinsky, son of Prince Iakob and Master of Ceremonies of the Imperial Household of Russia, who died in 1880. The Kakheti branch replaced the Kartli Bagrationi, uniting and ruling Kartl-Kakheti in 1762. The Bagrationi-Mukhraneli family then served under Kartli-Kakheti's kings as Mukhranbatoni. However, even though the Kakheti and Imereti lines were the last branches to reign with the title of King ( Tsar), and there are still males of the Kakheti branch living, both the Kakheti and Imereti (as well as the illegitimate Davitishvili) lines were junior to the Kartli branch, from which the Mukhraneli descend. Therefore, the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli line remains the most senior branch of this dynasty, as male-line descendants of the extinct Kings of Kartli. Is anyone familiar with a different genealogy than this? Was Mukhraneli an independent principality, like Mingrelia, or a part of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom? Lethiere 11:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
By "senior", appears, is there meant that in the primogeniture-oriented thinking that branch is genealogically senior = descends from an elder brother, compared to some others ("junior") who descend from younger brother. However, primogenitural orientation is not decisive everywhere. Even in Western Europe, other alternatives, such as succession by next brother rather than a son, and proximity of blood, were highly favored at least all the Middle Ages. Several other cultures have used and are using some other preference in succession than primogeniture. Georgian monarchy/monarchies came, in several ways and through many occasions, to hands of "junior" branches, and in their people's view, they were more important and higher than a "senior" branch descending from only some early monarchs but not from recent ones. Besides, I do not think that anyone says even in European genealogist circles that Michael II of Romania should be regarded junior to the Prince of Hohenzollern; or that Queen Elizabeth II should be regarded junior, and possibly somehow subjugated, to whomever now happens to be the pretender to the Saxe-Weimar grand duchy. So, being "senior" branch does not matter much to Georgians, nor to Russian dynasty, but it seems to matter to German houses. That is the light in which I see Vladimir's response and Ferdinand's satisfaction. (The Spanish aspect of Ferdinand actually did not much need that, it seems to be just the German aspect.) Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
In the matter of Tatjana Konstantinovna, I have long held an idea that Nicholas II's desire to have her renounce IS a sign of her mariage being equal - because if the marriage was NOT equal, her issue would not be heirs to Russian throne in its semi-salic sense just because they then were born of an unequal marriage and therefore ineligible, and Tatjana's renunciation would not have changed that at all. Whereas if her husband was equal, then her issue born of that marriage were entitled to semi-salic rights to Russian succession, an outcome avoidable by Tatjana's renunciation. By the way, Nicholas I of Russia deemed Duke Maximilian of Leuctenberg as equal enough, and it is well-known that the Leuctenberg issue of Maria Nicolaievna were regarded entitled to semi-salic rights to Russian throne. What was Leuchtenberg? A family of Bavarian nobility and French nobility, having its ancestor as adopted son of Napoleon I, whom Imperial Russia did not want afterwards to recognize as a proper emperor nor a proper monarch. So, Nicholas I already created the precedent that some tenuous link to former de facto rulers is sufficient; the Bagrationi are in approximately same situation. Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Was there in imperial Russia of 19th century (say, in year 1900), in real terms, other families than imperial house itself and its semi-salic cognatic descendants, to hold a "legal status" higher than "ordinary nobles"; and what was such status, if such existed? I have grave doubts that in 1900, Russia did not treat any of its subjects (other than the imperial house and its cognatics such as Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Leuchtenberg...) as royalty. Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I tagged this article as having a POV problem because of the occasional peacock language, and because of the monarchist/legitimist bias visible throughout the modern portions of the article. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Very infroming chronology indeed but yet there is far more missing about Georgian royal line. Based on the "Kartlis Ckhovreba" the book of hystoricians describing Georgian hystory and different time periods it says that before the bagrations there was a dinasty of Chosroids. Chosroid dynasty ended up by the Rule of king Bagrat who was the first king ever to unify the Georgia for which reason and for the respect of his affort his next Generation was named as Bagrations. Bagration itself meens the Bagrat's generation. This is the official version and the line of Georgian royal line. Chosroid dynasty leads all the way back untill 7 BC to the First king of Georgia Pharsman and his father Artague —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaza ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Royal Line of Kings and True Successors of the Kingdom of Georgia
A time line from the last King Giorgi XII down to Prince Nugzar:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klarjelly ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
More Truth !
On December 5, 1946, HIH Grand Duke Vladimir Kirilovich (1917-1992) made gave an opinion, not an authoritative ruling, which has been wrongfully used to suggest that the Muhkanski branch of offshoot princes, who had no royal, collateral, or sovereign rights in the Kingdom of Georgia, were suddenly somehow magically transformed into royals, when they were a lesser line of the high nobility, not royalty at all. Problems:
First, Vladimir Kirilovich was not universally recognized as the rightful heir of Imperial Russia, especially at this particular time. Note: (1) “The heads of the other branches of the imperial family, the Princes Vsevolod loannovich (Konstantinovichi), Roman Petrovich (Nikolaevichi) and Andrei Alexandrovich (Mihailovichi) writing to Vladimir in 1969 said that he had married unequally and that his wife was of no higher status than the wives of the other Romanov princes.” ( Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia#cite_ref-4), (2) “The Romanov Family Association, which supports the claim of . . . Nicholas to be head of the House of Romanov, believes that the marriage was morganatic [that is, the Muhkranski’s were not royals, but nobles and therefore unequal].” (Ibid.), and (3) “As he [Vladimor Kirilovich] was not a grandson of an Emperor his claimed title of Grand Duke of Russia caused problems as to what to [validly and authentically] put on his grave.” (Ibid.) The point is, his authority was in question.
Second, he gave this decree as his opinion only. Opinions are not facts, nor are they absolute or final. As such, they must be defined as questionable and may have been prompted by a hidden agenda, especially since he married into this family two years later, and "Romanov house law dictates that only those children who are the product of an 'equal marriage'—between a Romanov prince and a princess from another royal, not just noble, house — are eligible to be included in the Imperial line of succession; children of morganatic [such unequal] marriages are excluded from the succession." (Ibid.)
Third, the Muhkranski branch were not "the senior branch of the Bagration family." The senior branch was the line of the kings, not a line of nobles with no dynastic rights. Note: "Leonida's branch [of the Muhkanski] had not been regnant in the male line as Kings of Georgia since 1505 and had been simply Russian nobility since then." (Ibid.); and
Fourth, Vladimir Kirilovich unlawfully by-passed any recognition for the true Royal House of Georgia, the line of the kings, who reigned all the way to 1800, and gave only the Muhkranski non-dynastic line the supposed right ". . . to bear the title of Prince of Georgia and the style of Royal Highness." (Vladimir Kirilovich 1946 decree) All of this was so out of order that as stated before, the Royal House of Spain rejected it completely and entirely. The Muhkranski line lost the status to be “infante,” or royal princes, of Spain because of this.
To NPOV, Please check and view the article: "The line of succession to the Georgian throne". There the children of Pss. Anna (from the first marriage) are presented like not a carriers of the Royal surname. We must declare that the children of Princess Anna are considered as legal heirs by the head of the Royal House of Georgia and to question - whether do they carry the Royal surname? Of course they do by old historical royal tradition of Georgia. We can even send official document proving our statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaz ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Varaz ( talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since the joyful announcement on the official webpage of the birth to Prince David and Princess Anna of a son, Prince Giorgi Bagration, at the end of September 2011, no corroboration or further news about the child has been forthcoming. While I remain hopeful that all is well and that the announcement was accurate and did, indeed, come from the chancery of the royal couple, the complete absence of further information or communication since then begins to raise concerns and, dismayingly, doubts. Until the announcement of the birth, most (although not all) of the hearsay about the newlyweds had been unencouraging. As can be seen on this talk page and on other Bagrationi-related sites, the rivalry between supporters of different branches of the dynasty inexplicably persists, despite the fact that the family itself took the rare and unselfish step of reviving a venerable tradition, royal intermarriage, to resolve the family's internal conflicts so as to be able to offer full and undivided loyalty to Georgia, should the nation see fit to call upon its ancient dynasty for modern political or cultural service. Meanwhile, in the virtual absence of reliable media coverage in English it was widely rumored in blogs, online forums and even some reputable media that the couple separated very soon after the nuptials, and that efforts at reconciliation were not looking auspicious (I did find a passing mention of the couple, seen "honeymooning" in South America two years ago, in a popular Spanish-language magazine and, relieved, I hastened to incorporate reference to it in the David Bagration of Mukhrani article (which saves this post, btw, from being a BLP violation -- I only allude here to what has been elsewhere published (including in Wikipedia articles, with sources) and was, I hope -- in light of the recent happy addition to the family -- either altogether false or has since proved remediable) Then, suddenly, with no prior notification of their having undertaken recent public engagements together or even of her confinement, the press statement appeared on Prince David's website that his consort had been safely delivered of a healthy prince. The news was most welcome and, perhaps unjustifiably, raised expectations for more tidings. Nevermind that it seemed surprising that the birthplace was Madrid, former home of Prince David, rather than Tbilisi or elsewhere in Georgia; nevermind that no photographs of the couple with their son, or of either parent with the child, or of the couple together or of the baby have been released or uploaded to any of the pro-Bagrationi websites; nevermind that no announcement has been forthcoming of plans for a christening ceremony with godparents, of re-patriation of the family to Georgia from Spain, or of a visit to the child by Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and his consort, presumably the proud maternal grandparents. Never mind any and all of that. What raises concern at this point is the fact that not a single independent mention of mother or child can be found in English on the Internet since the birth announcement! Fortunately, photographs do exist showing that Prince David is alive and well, having participated recently in a public event with an Orthodox Church hierarch and members of one of the Georgian orders of chivalry. It is to be hoped that the family are happily busy being a family, privately enjoying their time together away from the limelight, and taking a well-deserved hiatus from the public sphere. They are entitled to that time and have every right to complete privacy. But those who are concerned about them, who cheered the marital union of the two main branches of the Georgian dynasty, and rejoiced that the union has been blessed with a son and heir, are beginning to feel alarmed at the prolonged silence of a family which remains the object of so many hopes and good intentions, inside and outside Georgia. I post this here on the assumption that all three members of the immediate Georgian Royal Family are thriving, but with the respectful request that Prince David and Princess Anna will soon offer some positive sign of their individual and collective well-being or, in the event of adversity, of hope for improvement of whatever kind may be appropriate. Otherwise, I fear that a silence prolonged much longer will once again give rise to both concerns and rumors that all is not well with some or all members of the Mukhrani-Gruzinsky household. If members of the Royal Chancery monitor this site, I implore that, without intruding upon the voluntary seclusion of the young family, the respectful concern of members of the public might be worth conveying and allaying, if and when they and their advisors deem the time to be right, and in such manner as may be convenient for them (perhaps those able to read Georgian are less in the dark?). If, meanwhile, anyone else can update this or other Bagrationi dynasty articles with reliably sourced, appropriately noteworthy news of the family members, I assure you I will not be the only one who will be grateful and relieved. Thank you for your attention and I apologize in advance for arousing any undue alarm or burdening Their Royal Highnesses in any way. FactStraight ( talk) 21:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently I removed a small portion of a large amount of changes to the text which made inadequately sourced or excessive assertions, and those edits have been reversed allegeing that I had "vandalised" the article. Removing unsourced allegations and peacock language from articles isn't vandalism. Such comments as: "Bagrationi...is the oldest Christian and one of the oldest royal dynasties in the world" must be supported by a footnote to a RS. Likewise "Here are the following dynasties and houses of the world the Bagrationis have had the royal intermarriages with...:" Some of the new edits were simply bowdlerized errors stolen from other sources, such as: "George offered to incorporate the kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti into the Russian Empire, while preserving its native dynasty and a degree of internal autonomy — essentially, mediatisation." And lengthy digressions are distractions from the article, such as: "The illustrious dynasty of the Bagrationi originated in the most ancient Georgian district – Speri (today İspir).[Footnote begins] Centered on the modern-day district of İspir, northeastern Turkey, this province is sometimes thought to have been the cradle of the Georgian people (Suny [1994], p. 11). It lay in what is frequently referred to as the Armeno-Georgian marchlands where the two communities coexisted and intermingled for several centuries, but the Georgian Speri and the Armenian Sper may not always be absolutely identical (cf. Tao and Tayk, Rapp [2003], p. 14.)". Finally, I corrected a few of the formatting errors: section heads are supposed to be short and only the first word is normally capitalised. We no longer include a list of translations of the article title into dozens of language at the bottom of articles any more. So I did not make indiscriminate edits to the article, but tried to trim it where the language was unsupported or excessive -- and I made no edits for grammar at all, although many are needed. FactStraight ( talk) 00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please bother yourself and see David of Mukhrani's descent. He never was and is not a "royal" so please first see his linage before you add him in a place which does not belong to him and never was. The only recognized head of all Bagrations is Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and is not and never was disputed his place there. Jaqeli ( talk) 11:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
See this and stop putting royal-wannabe David into the "head" of the house bar. Source)
The Georgian nobility was largely organised on a military basis, the army being divided into several corps represented by "banners" (or drosha), each commanded by the great grandees of the realm. These grandees were petty sovereigns within their own domains, enjoying the power of life and death, but owing allegience to the king. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the order of precedence was as follows:
1) H.M. The Most High King. 2) Princes of the Blood (batonishvili). (Here is Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) 3) Great Officers of State: a) Patriarch-Catholicos. b) Chief Secretary (Mtsignobarth-Ukhutsesi). c) Lord High Steward (Mandaturth-Ukhutsesi). d) Lord High Constable (Amir-Spasalari). e) Lord High Treasurer (Medchurchleth-Ukhutsesi). f) Lord Great Chamberlain (Msakhurth-Ukhutsesi). g) Grand Armourer (Meahjret-Ukhutsesi). 4) Grandees of the first class (Sul-didibuli-tavadi) of the Kingdom of Kartli, commanders of banners (drosha): a) Prince of Mukhrani (Mukhrani-batoni), head of the house of Bagrationi-Mukhrani. (Here is David Bagration of Mukhrani) b) Duke of Aragvi (Aragvi-eristavi), head of the house of Sidamoni, until annexation in 1743-see below. c) Duke of Ksani (Ksani-eristavi). d) the Amir-Akhori, Prince of Samilakhoro, head of the house of Zedginidze. e) Prince of Sabaratiano, head of the house of Orbeliani (Orbeliani-tavadi). f) Prince of Satsitsiano, head of the house of Tsitsishvili (Panaskerteli) (Tsitsishvili-tavadi). g) the Malik of Somkheti (Somkheti-meliki). 5) Grandees of the first class of the Kingdom of Kakheti: a) Prince of Sacholokao, head of the house of Irubakidze Cholokashvili (Cholokashvili-tavadi). Copyright ©Christopher Buyers b) Prince of Sandroniko, head of the house of Andronikashvili (Andronikashvili-tavadi), descendants of the Emperors of Trebizond. c) Prince of Sabashidzo, head of the Kakhetian branch of the Abashidze (Abashidze-tavadi). 6) Grandees of the second class (mtavari) of the Kingdom of Kartli: a) Grandees under the Prince of Mukhrani: i) head of the Kartlian branch of the Abashidze family. ii) head of the house of Yothamishvili. iii) Prince of Sapalavando, head of the house of Palavandishvili. iv) Prince of Sachkheidze, head of the house of Chkheidze. v) Prince of Sakerkeulidzo, head of the house of Kerkeulidze. vi) head of the house of Taktakishvili. vii) head of the house of Bebutashvili. b) Grandees under the Prince of Sabaratiano: i) the Malik of Lori, head of the house of Melikishvili. ii) head of the Kartlian branch of the house of Avalishvili. iii) head of the house of Iaralishvili. iv) head of the house of Begtabegishvili. v) head of the house of Gurjirevazishvili. vi) head of the house of Dolenjishvili. vii) head of the house of Vazirishvili. c) Grandees under the Duke of Ksani: i) Prince of Zemo Sabaratiano, head of the house of Baratishvili. ii) Prince of Samachablo, head of the house of Machabeli. iii) Prince of Sadiasamidzo, head of the house of Diasmidze. iv) Prince of Sasolaghashvilo, head of the house of Solaghashvili. v) Prince of Sargutashvilo, head of the house of Argutashvili. vi) Prince of Sasumagishvilo, head of the house of Surmagishvili. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers d) Grandees under the Amir-Akhor: i) Prince of Sadavitishvilo, head of the house of Davitishvili (Bagratide collaterals). ii) Prince of Sajavakho, head of the house of Javakishvili. iii) head of the house of Pawlenishvili. iv) head of the house of Kadir Beg (Kadirbegishvili). v) Prince of Satumanishvilo, head of the house of Tumanishvili. vi) Prince of Saratishvilo, head of the house of Ratishvili. vii) Prince of Samaghaladzo/Samaghalashvilo, head of the house of Maghaladze/Maghalashvili. e) Grandees under the Prince of Satsitsiano: i) head of the house of Abashishvili. ii) the Tarkhan-Muravi (the Grand Muravi), head of the house of Saakadze. iii) head of the house of Zurabishvili. iv) the Amir-Ejib, Prince of Samirejibo, the head of the house of Kakhaberidze-Chijavadze. v) Prince of Sashalikashvilo, head of the house of Shalikashvili. vi) Prince of Sacharvchavadzo, head of the house of Charvachidze. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers 7) Grandees of the second class (mtavari) of the Kingdom of Kakheti: a) Grandees under the Prince of Sacholokao: i) Prince of Sajorjadzo, head of the house of Jorjadze. ii) Prince of Samaqao, head of the house of Maqashvili. iii) head of the house of Sidamoni, after annexation of Aragvi in 1743. iv) head of the house of Kutzishvili. v) head of the house of Gurginidze. vi) head of the house of Sahinashvili. vii) head of the house of Kimshiashvili. b) Grandees under the Prince of Sandroniko: i) Prince of Savajnadzo, head of the house of Vajanadze. ii) Prince of Saruzishvilo, head of the house of Ruzishvili. iii) the Cherkez-batoni, head of the house of Cherkezi. iv) Prince of Saguramo, head of the house of Guramishvili. v) Prince of Sakvabulidzo, head of the house of Kvabulidze (Kobulashvili). vi) Prince Abkhazi, head of the Kakhetian branch of the Shervashidze family. vii) head of the house of Robita. c) Grandees under the Prince of Sabashidzo. i) Princes of Sachavchavadzo, head of the house of Chavchavadze. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers ii) Prince of Savakvako, head of the house of Vakvakashvili. iii) head of the house of Jandieri. iv) head of the Kakhetian branch of the house of Avalishvili. v) head of the house of Karalashvili. vi) head of the house of Babadibishvili. vii) head of the house of Lionidze. 8) Junior members (tavadishvili) of the families of the grandees of the first class (Sul-didibuli-tavadi). 9) Bishops of the Georgan Orthodox Church. 10) Grandees of the third class (tavadi). 11) Junior members (mtavarishvili) of the families of the princes of the second class (mtavari). 12) Archimandrites of the Georgan Orthodox Church. 13) Untitled nobility: a) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the King. b) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Patriarch-Catholicos. c) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Eristav of Ksani. d) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Zemo Sabaratiano. e) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Samachablo. f) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Sadiasamidzo. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers g) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Satsitsiano. h) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Tarkhan-Muravi. i) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Amir-Ejibi. j) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Amir-Akhori. k) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni of Samthavro, Samreclo and Sakothakheo. l) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Sadavitishvilo. m) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Sajavakho. n) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Pawlenishvili. o) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Kadirbegishvili. p) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Mukhrani-batoni. q) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Abashidze. r) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Princes of Sapalavando. s) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Princes of Sachkheidzo. t) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Princes of Sakerkeulidzo. u) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Taktakishvili. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers v) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Jambakurian-Orbeliani. w) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Malik of Somkethi. x) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Avalishvili. y) Junior members of the Aznauri-did-didni families of Kakheti. z) Abbots of the Georgan Orthodox Church. aa) Junior members of the families of the Aznauri-did-didni. bb) Heads of the merchant guilds. cc) Aznauri mtsireni. dd) Junior members of the merchant guilds.
Do you understand now? Jaqeli ( talk) 13:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I thought you'd present the historical and scientific sources and you've posted some quotes from the news agency which is indeed laughable. Those news agencies know nothing about Bagrations and know totally nothing about the genealogy and the history of Bagrations. I've presented the source of the historians and scientists who are doctors and professors in their field and all of them sign the memorandum of all Georgian Bagrations that the royal head of the dynasty is Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky. No one, NO ONE supports self-proclaimed David of Mukhrani. And all Georgian Bagrations, agaian I repeat ALL GEORGIAN BAGRATIONS recognize Prince Nugzar as the head of all 3 Georgian branches. So please do me a favor and present the trusted source supported by geneologists, doctors, historians and proffesors who are specialists in the field of the history of Georgia or history of the Bagrationi dynasty and present such source where David of Mukhrani this self-proclaimed tavadi is recognized as the head of the Bagrations and as the "royal" as such.
Before you present the source about the self-proclaimed David I am presenting you again the source about the recognition of Prince Nugzar as the sole and only head of the Bagrationi dynasty. He is recognized as the head of the Bagrations by ALL GEORGIAN ROYALS AND PRINCES FROM ALL BRANCHES: SOURCE IS HERE. Jaqeli ( talk) 23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't more emphasis be put on that the family is of Armenian lineage? It seems that the most credible source of its origins is that the family is descended from Ashot III of Armenia and the older Bagratuni Dynasty and branched out to Georgia. In this case more ephsis should be put on that it was an Armenian family that ruled over Georgia, such as the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty ruling over Egypt or the German Windsor dynasty ruling of the UK. As it is this article seems to promote the family being of Georgian descent. All of the monarchs should be classified as Georgian Armenians as well. -- HouseOfArtaxiad ( talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bagrationi dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hence I removed all of them and the material it was seemingly meant to support. - LouisAragon ( talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bagrationi dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.museum.ru/1812/english/Library/Mikaberidze/body%5CP02a-T.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Greetings dear colleagues! The article is messy with low quality sources and bulky within the titles and started to revamp and cleaning up a bit. I appreciate all of your feedback and cooperation. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 03:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The article states " from the Middle Ages until the early 19th century, " as the dates of the dynasty. Shouldn't this be something like " from the 14th century until the early 19th century, ". This would clarify the actual length of the dynasty. VernonF ( talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The "Origin" section in the article at first presents the different views on the origin of the Bagrationi dynasty, then comes to the conclusion that "the assertion of Bagratoinis' Armenian origin is widely neglected", without a citation. If the Bagrationis' potential Armenian origin is now disregarded by scholars (I assume this is what is meant by "neglected"), this needs to be sourced. The preceding reference to Faustus of Byzantium is also dubious, considering Faustus was explicitly referring to the Bagratids of the Kingdom of Armenia, so it is strange that this is used as evidence of the Bagrationis non-Armenian origin. Revolution Saga ( talk) 20:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd like a source for this.
"The 5th-century Armenian historian Pavstos Buzand claimed that the Georgian Bagrationi family was originated in Speri province which was populated by Georgian Laz tribes.[citation needed] The same idea was shared by many historians like Nikolai Marr, Joseph Orbeli, Ekvtime Takaishvili, Simon Janashia, and the assertion of Bagratoinis' Armenian origin is widely neglected.[citation needed]"
The wikipedia page that make these outsourced claims questionable
"The family's origin is disputed, but the view formulated by the historians such as Ekvtime Takaishvili and Cyril Toumanoff that the Georgian dynasty descended from a refuge prince of the Armenian house of Bagratuni prevails."
Source listed: Taqaishvili 1935, pp. 23–25.
Source: Taqaishvili, Ekvtime (1935). "Georgian chronology and the beginning of the Bagratid rule in Georgia". Georgica. 1: 9–27.
/info/en/?search=Claim_of_the_biblical_descent_of_the_Bagrationi_dynasty#CITEREFTaqaishvili193 5
The same page in the Georgian language translated into english
"The legend of the origin of the Bagrations from the Jewish or Davidic line is not trusted by modern scientists. The origins of the family are disputed, but the prevailing view, advanced by historians such as Ekvtime Takaishvili and Kirill Tumanov, is that the Georgian dynasty originated from an exiled prince of the Armenian house of Bagratuni.[4][5]"
https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%91%E1%83%90%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C%E1%83%97%E1%83%90_%E1%83%93%E1%83%98%E1%83%9C%E1%83%90%E1%83%A1%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1_%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%91%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98%E1%83%A3%E1%83%A0%E1%83%98_%E1%83%AC%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%9B%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9B%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1_%E1%83%9B%E1%83%A2%E1%83%99%E1%83%98%E1%83%AA%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%A3%E1%83%9A%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%90 Abashidzestuff ( talk) 19:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bagrationi dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
i Soso, I'm going to expand this article section by section and I'll need your assistance. Thanks, Kober 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kober
What a great article! This article is an inpiration for everybody who wants to write an un-biased, completely neutral articles on the complicated matters like the Bagrationi Dynasty. I especially like the usage of the sources and the citations. Thanks Kober.
Sosomk 15:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, great... Kober 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kober
I will work on getting more information on modern Bagrationis. I am finally in Tbilisi right now. My sister actually met Ketevan Bagrationi who lives in Rome. I think she is fairly pure respresentative of the family, but I can't put it on the wikipedia, because I can't actually cite that.
Sosomk 08:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
According to GlobalSecurity.org, Bagrationi is pronounced as bah-grah-tyi-YAHN-ee. Can anyone check if the IPA key is correct? Thanks, -- Kober 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
One of you may wish to get more information from H.S.H. Princess Karina Baghration-Mukhranski who lives in Kiev, Ukraine, and is a listed sponsor of the Paris-based NGO, "Innocence en danger".
The article states that "...in 1942 Irakli Bagrationi-Mukhraneli, of the junior branch of the family, proclaimed himself Head of the Royal House and founded “Georgian Traditionalist Union” throughout Europe." Elsewhere in Wikipedia there are similar references to this "junior" branch. However, in all of the genealogies I have seen, the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli are the senior branch of this family. Although they were the youngest descendants of the Kartli branch, all the older branches of the Kartli Bagrationi are extinct: The last two known members of that line were brothers, Prince Demetre Bagrationi and Prince Aleksandri Bagrationi, sons of Prince Petri. They died in Bolshevik prison in 1918 or 1919. The last male member of the even more senior Gruzinsky branch of the Bagrationi was Prince Sergei Gruzinsky, son of Prince Iakob and Master of Ceremonies of the Imperial Household of Russia, who died in 1880. The Kakheti branch replaced the Kartli Bagrationi, uniting and ruling Kartl-Kakheti in 1762. The Bagrationi-Mukhraneli family then served under Kartli-Kakheti's kings as Mukhranbatoni. However, even though the Kakheti and Imereti lines were the last branches to reign with the title of King ( Tsar), and there are still males of the Kakheti branch living, both the Kakheti and Imereti (as well as the illegitimate Davitishvili) lines were junior to the Kartli branch, from which the Mukhraneli descend. Therefore, the Bagrationi-Mukhraneli line remains the most senior branch of this dynasty, as male-line descendants of the extinct Kings of Kartli. Is anyone familiar with a different genealogy than this? Was Mukhraneli an independent principality, like Mingrelia, or a part of the Kartli-Kakheti kingdom? Lethiere 11:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
By "senior", appears, is there meant that in the primogeniture-oriented thinking that branch is genealogically senior = descends from an elder brother, compared to some others ("junior") who descend from younger brother. However, primogenitural orientation is not decisive everywhere. Even in Western Europe, other alternatives, such as succession by next brother rather than a son, and proximity of blood, were highly favored at least all the Middle Ages. Several other cultures have used and are using some other preference in succession than primogeniture. Georgian monarchy/monarchies came, in several ways and through many occasions, to hands of "junior" branches, and in their people's view, they were more important and higher than a "senior" branch descending from only some early monarchs but not from recent ones. Besides, I do not think that anyone says even in European genealogist circles that Michael II of Romania should be regarded junior to the Prince of Hohenzollern; or that Queen Elizabeth II should be regarded junior, and possibly somehow subjugated, to whomever now happens to be the pretender to the Saxe-Weimar grand duchy. So, being "senior" branch does not matter much to Georgians, nor to Russian dynasty, but it seems to matter to German houses. That is the light in which I see Vladimir's response and Ferdinand's satisfaction. (The Spanish aspect of Ferdinand actually did not much need that, it seems to be just the German aspect.) Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
In the matter of Tatjana Konstantinovna, I have long held an idea that Nicholas II's desire to have her renounce IS a sign of her mariage being equal - because if the marriage was NOT equal, her issue would not be heirs to Russian throne in its semi-salic sense just because they then were born of an unequal marriage and therefore ineligible, and Tatjana's renunciation would not have changed that at all. Whereas if her husband was equal, then her issue born of that marriage were entitled to semi-salic rights to Russian succession, an outcome avoidable by Tatjana's renunciation. By the way, Nicholas I of Russia deemed Duke Maximilian of Leuctenberg as equal enough, and it is well-known that the Leuctenberg issue of Maria Nicolaievna were regarded entitled to semi-salic rights to Russian throne. What was Leuchtenberg? A family of Bavarian nobility and French nobility, having its ancestor as adopted son of Napoleon I, whom Imperial Russia did not want afterwards to recognize as a proper emperor nor a proper monarch. So, Nicholas I already created the precedent that some tenuous link to former de facto rulers is sufficient; the Bagrationi are in approximately same situation. Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Was there in imperial Russia of 19th century (say, in year 1900), in real terms, other families than imperial house itself and its semi-salic cognatic descendants, to hold a "legal status" higher than "ordinary nobles"; and what was such status, if such existed? I have grave doubts that in 1900, Russia did not treat any of its subjects (other than the imperial house and its cognatics such as Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Leuchtenberg...) as royalty. Shilkanni 00:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I tagged this article as having a POV problem because of the occasional peacock language, and because of the monarchist/legitimist bias visible throughout the modern portions of the article. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Very infroming chronology indeed but yet there is far more missing about Georgian royal line. Based on the "Kartlis Ckhovreba" the book of hystoricians describing Georgian hystory and different time periods it says that before the bagrations there was a dinasty of Chosroids. Chosroid dynasty ended up by the Rule of king Bagrat who was the first king ever to unify the Georgia for which reason and for the respect of his affort his next Generation was named as Bagrations. Bagration itself meens the Bagrat's generation. This is the official version and the line of Georgian royal line. Chosroid dynasty leads all the way back untill 7 BC to the First king of Georgia Pharsman and his father Artague —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaza ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The Royal Line of Kings and True Successors of the Kingdom of Georgia
A time line from the last King Giorgi XII down to Prince Nugzar:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klarjelly ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
More Truth !
On December 5, 1946, HIH Grand Duke Vladimir Kirilovich (1917-1992) made gave an opinion, not an authoritative ruling, which has been wrongfully used to suggest that the Muhkanski branch of offshoot princes, who had no royal, collateral, or sovereign rights in the Kingdom of Georgia, were suddenly somehow magically transformed into royals, when they were a lesser line of the high nobility, not royalty at all. Problems:
First, Vladimir Kirilovich was not universally recognized as the rightful heir of Imperial Russia, especially at this particular time. Note: (1) “The heads of the other branches of the imperial family, the Princes Vsevolod loannovich (Konstantinovichi), Roman Petrovich (Nikolaevichi) and Andrei Alexandrovich (Mihailovichi) writing to Vladimir in 1969 said that he had married unequally and that his wife was of no higher status than the wives of the other Romanov princes.” ( Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia#cite_ref-4), (2) “The Romanov Family Association, which supports the claim of . . . Nicholas to be head of the House of Romanov, believes that the marriage was morganatic [that is, the Muhkranski’s were not royals, but nobles and therefore unequal].” (Ibid.), and (3) “As he [Vladimor Kirilovich] was not a grandson of an Emperor his claimed title of Grand Duke of Russia caused problems as to what to [validly and authentically] put on his grave.” (Ibid.) The point is, his authority was in question.
Second, he gave this decree as his opinion only. Opinions are not facts, nor are they absolute or final. As such, they must be defined as questionable and may have been prompted by a hidden agenda, especially since he married into this family two years later, and "Romanov house law dictates that only those children who are the product of an 'equal marriage'—between a Romanov prince and a princess from another royal, not just noble, house — are eligible to be included in the Imperial line of succession; children of morganatic [such unequal] marriages are excluded from the succession." (Ibid.)
Third, the Muhkranski branch were not "the senior branch of the Bagration family." The senior branch was the line of the kings, not a line of nobles with no dynastic rights. Note: "Leonida's branch [of the Muhkanski] had not been regnant in the male line as Kings of Georgia since 1505 and had been simply Russian nobility since then." (Ibid.); and
Fourth, Vladimir Kirilovich unlawfully by-passed any recognition for the true Royal House of Georgia, the line of the kings, who reigned all the way to 1800, and gave only the Muhkranski non-dynastic line the supposed right ". . . to bear the title of Prince of Georgia and the style of Royal Highness." (Vladimir Kirilovich 1946 decree) All of this was so out of order that as stated before, the Royal House of Spain rejected it completely and entirely. The Muhkranski line lost the status to be “infante,” or royal princes, of Spain because of this.
To NPOV, Please check and view the article: "The line of succession to the Georgian throne". There the children of Pss. Anna (from the first marriage) are presented like not a carriers of the Royal surname. We must declare that the children of Princess Anna are considered as legal heirs by the head of the Royal House of Georgia and to question - whether do they carry the Royal surname? Of course they do by old historical royal tradition of Georgia. We can even send official document proving our statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaz ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Varaz ( talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since the joyful announcement on the official webpage of the birth to Prince David and Princess Anna of a son, Prince Giorgi Bagration, at the end of September 2011, no corroboration or further news about the child has been forthcoming. While I remain hopeful that all is well and that the announcement was accurate and did, indeed, come from the chancery of the royal couple, the complete absence of further information or communication since then begins to raise concerns and, dismayingly, doubts. Until the announcement of the birth, most (although not all) of the hearsay about the newlyweds had been unencouraging. As can be seen on this talk page and on other Bagrationi-related sites, the rivalry between supporters of different branches of the dynasty inexplicably persists, despite the fact that the family itself took the rare and unselfish step of reviving a venerable tradition, royal intermarriage, to resolve the family's internal conflicts so as to be able to offer full and undivided loyalty to Georgia, should the nation see fit to call upon its ancient dynasty for modern political or cultural service. Meanwhile, in the virtual absence of reliable media coverage in English it was widely rumored in blogs, online forums and even some reputable media that the couple separated very soon after the nuptials, and that efforts at reconciliation were not looking auspicious (I did find a passing mention of the couple, seen "honeymooning" in South America two years ago, in a popular Spanish-language magazine and, relieved, I hastened to incorporate reference to it in the David Bagration of Mukhrani article (which saves this post, btw, from being a BLP violation -- I only allude here to what has been elsewhere published (including in Wikipedia articles, with sources) and was, I hope -- in light of the recent happy addition to the family -- either altogether false or has since proved remediable) Then, suddenly, with no prior notification of their having undertaken recent public engagements together or even of her confinement, the press statement appeared on Prince David's website that his consort had been safely delivered of a healthy prince. The news was most welcome and, perhaps unjustifiably, raised expectations for more tidings. Nevermind that it seemed surprising that the birthplace was Madrid, former home of Prince David, rather than Tbilisi or elsewhere in Georgia; nevermind that no photographs of the couple with their son, or of either parent with the child, or of the couple together or of the baby have been released or uploaded to any of the pro-Bagrationi websites; nevermind that no announcement has been forthcoming of plans for a christening ceremony with godparents, of re-patriation of the family to Georgia from Spain, or of a visit to the child by Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and his consort, presumably the proud maternal grandparents. Never mind any and all of that. What raises concern at this point is the fact that not a single independent mention of mother or child can be found in English on the Internet since the birth announcement! Fortunately, photographs do exist showing that Prince David is alive and well, having participated recently in a public event with an Orthodox Church hierarch and members of one of the Georgian orders of chivalry. It is to be hoped that the family are happily busy being a family, privately enjoying their time together away from the limelight, and taking a well-deserved hiatus from the public sphere. They are entitled to that time and have every right to complete privacy. But those who are concerned about them, who cheered the marital union of the two main branches of the Georgian dynasty, and rejoiced that the union has been blessed with a son and heir, are beginning to feel alarmed at the prolonged silence of a family which remains the object of so many hopes and good intentions, inside and outside Georgia. I post this here on the assumption that all three members of the immediate Georgian Royal Family are thriving, but with the respectful request that Prince David and Princess Anna will soon offer some positive sign of their individual and collective well-being or, in the event of adversity, of hope for improvement of whatever kind may be appropriate. Otherwise, I fear that a silence prolonged much longer will once again give rise to both concerns and rumors that all is not well with some or all members of the Mukhrani-Gruzinsky household. If members of the Royal Chancery monitor this site, I implore that, without intruding upon the voluntary seclusion of the young family, the respectful concern of members of the public might be worth conveying and allaying, if and when they and their advisors deem the time to be right, and in such manner as may be convenient for them (perhaps those able to read Georgian are less in the dark?). If, meanwhile, anyone else can update this or other Bagrationi dynasty articles with reliably sourced, appropriately noteworthy news of the family members, I assure you I will not be the only one who will be grateful and relieved. Thank you for your attention and I apologize in advance for arousing any undue alarm or burdening Their Royal Highnesses in any way. FactStraight ( talk) 21:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently I removed a small portion of a large amount of changes to the text which made inadequately sourced or excessive assertions, and those edits have been reversed allegeing that I had "vandalised" the article. Removing unsourced allegations and peacock language from articles isn't vandalism. Such comments as: "Bagrationi...is the oldest Christian and one of the oldest royal dynasties in the world" must be supported by a footnote to a RS. Likewise "Here are the following dynasties and houses of the world the Bagrationis have had the royal intermarriages with...:" Some of the new edits were simply bowdlerized errors stolen from other sources, such as: "George offered to incorporate the kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti into the Russian Empire, while preserving its native dynasty and a degree of internal autonomy — essentially, mediatisation." And lengthy digressions are distractions from the article, such as: "The illustrious dynasty of the Bagrationi originated in the most ancient Georgian district – Speri (today İspir).[Footnote begins] Centered on the modern-day district of İspir, northeastern Turkey, this province is sometimes thought to have been the cradle of the Georgian people (Suny [1994], p. 11). It lay in what is frequently referred to as the Armeno-Georgian marchlands where the two communities coexisted and intermingled for several centuries, but the Georgian Speri and the Armenian Sper may not always be absolutely identical (cf. Tao and Tayk, Rapp [2003], p. 14.)". Finally, I corrected a few of the formatting errors: section heads are supposed to be short and only the first word is normally capitalised. We no longer include a list of translations of the article title into dozens of language at the bottom of articles any more. So I did not make indiscriminate edits to the article, but tried to trim it where the language was unsupported or excessive -- and I made no edits for grammar at all, although many are needed. FactStraight ( talk) 00:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please bother yourself and see David of Mukhrani's descent. He never was and is not a "royal" so please first see his linage before you add him in a place which does not belong to him and never was. The only recognized head of all Bagrations is Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky and is not and never was disputed his place there. Jaqeli ( talk) 11:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
See this and stop putting royal-wannabe David into the "head" of the house bar. Source)
The Georgian nobility was largely organised on a military basis, the army being divided into several corps represented by "banners" (or drosha), each commanded by the great grandees of the realm. These grandees were petty sovereigns within their own domains, enjoying the power of life and death, but owing allegience to the king. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the order of precedence was as follows:
1) H.M. The Most High King. 2) Princes of the Blood (batonishvili). (Here is Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) 3) Great Officers of State: a) Patriarch-Catholicos. b) Chief Secretary (Mtsignobarth-Ukhutsesi). c) Lord High Steward (Mandaturth-Ukhutsesi). d) Lord High Constable (Amir-Spasalari). e) Lord High Treasurer (Medchurchleth-Ukhutsesi). f) Lord Great Chamberlain (Msakhurth-Ukhutsesi). g) Grand Armourer (Meahjret-Ukhutsesi). 4) Grandees of the first class (Sul-didibuli-tavadi) of the Kingdom of Kartli, commanders of banners (drosha): a) Prince of Mukhrani (Mukhrani-batoni), head of the house of Bagrationi-Mukhrani. (Here is David Bagration of Mukhrani) b) Duke of Aragvi (Aragvi-eristavi), head of the house of Sidamoni, until annexation in 1743-see below. c) Duke of Ksani (Ksani-eristavi). d) the Amir-Akhori, Prince of Samilakhoro, head of the house of Zedginidze. e) Prince of Sabaratiano, head of the house of Orbeliani (Orbeliani-tavadi). f) Prince of Satsitsiano, head of the house of Tsitsishvili (Panaskerteli) (Tsitsishvili-tavadi). g) the Malik of Somkheti (Somkheti-meliki). 5) Grandees of the first class of the Kingdom of Kakheti: a) Prince of Sacholokao, head of the house of Irubakidze Cholokashvili (Cholokashvili-tavadi). Copyright ©Christopher Buyers b) Prince of Sandroniko, head of the house of Andronikashvili (Andronikashvili-tavadi), descendants of the Emperors of Trebizond. c) Prince of Sabashidzo, head of the Kakhetian branch of the Abashidze (Abashidze-tavadi). 6) Grandees of the second class (mtavari) of the Kingdom of Kartli: a) Grandees under the Prince of Mukhrani: i) head of the Kartlian branch of the Abashidze family. ii) head of the house of Yothamishvili. iii) Prince of Sapalavando, head of the house of Palavandishvili. iv) Prince of Sachkheidze, head of the house of Chkheidze. v) Prince of Sakerkeulidzo, head of the house of Kerkeulidze. vi) head of the house of Taktakishvili. vii) head of the house of Bebutashvili. b) Grandees under the Prince of Sabaratiano: i) the Malik of Lori, head of the house of Melikishvili. ii) head of the Kartlian branch of the house of Avalishvili. iii) head of the house of Iaralishvili. iv) head of the house of Begtabegishvili. v) head of the house of Gurjirevazishvili. vi) head of the house of Dolenjishvili. vii) head of the house of Vazirishvili. c) Grandees under the Duke of Ksani: i) Prince of Zemo Sabaratiano, head of the house of Baratishvili. ii) Prince of Samachablo, head of the house of Machabeli. iii) Prince of Sadiasamidzo, head of the house of Diasmidze. iv) Prince of Sasolaghashvilo, head of the house of Solaghashvili. v) Prince of Sargutashvilo, head of the house of Argutashvili. vi) Prince of Sasumagishvilo, head of the house of Surmagishvili. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers d) Grandees under the Amir-Akhor: i) Prince of Sadavitishvilo, head of the house of Davitishvili (Bagratide collaterals). ii) Prince of Sajavakho, head of the house of Javakishvili. iii) head of the house of Pawlenishvili. iv) head of the house of Kadir Beg (Kadirbegishvili). v) Prince of Satumanishvilo, head of the house of Tumanishvili. vi) Prince of Saratishvilo, head of the house of Ratishvili. vii) Prince of Samaghaladzo/Samaghalashvilo, head of the house of Maghaladze/Maghalashvili. e) Grandees under the Prince of Satsitsiano: i) head of the house of Abashishvili. ii) the Tarkhan-Muravi (the Grand Muravi), head of the house of Saakadze. iii) head of the house of Zurabishvili. iv) the Amir-Ejib, Prince of Samirejibo, the head of the house of Kakhaberidze-Chijavadze. v) Prince of Sashalikashvilo, head of the house of Shalikashvili. vi) Prince of Sacharvchavadzo, head of the house of Charvachidze. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers 7) Grandees of the second class (mtavari) of the Kingdom of Kakheti: a) Grandees under the Prince of Sacholokao: i) Prince of Sajorjadzo, head of the house of Jorjadze. ii) Prince of Samaqao, head of the house of Maqashvili. iii) head of the house of Sidamoni, after annexation of Aragvi in 1743. iv) head of the house of Kutzishvili. v) head of the house of Gurginidze. vi) head of the house of Sahinashvili. vii) head of the house of Kimshiashvili. b) Grandees under the Prince of Sandroniko: i) Prince of Savajnadzo, head of the house of Vajanadze. ii) Prince of Saruzishvilo, head of the house of Ruzishvili. iii) the Cherkez-batoni, head of the house of Cherkezi. iv) Prince of Saguramo, head of the house of Guramishvili. v) Prince of Sakvabulidzo, head of the house of Kvabulidze (Kobulashvili). vi) Prince Abkhazi, head of the Kakhetian branch of the Shervashidze family. vii) head of the house of Robita. c) Grandees under the Prince of Sabashidzo. i) Princes of Sachavchavadzo, head of the house of Chavchavadze. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers ii) Prince of Savakvako, head of the house of Vakvakashvili. iii) head of the house of Jandieri. iv) head of the Kakhetian branch of the house of Avalishvili. v) head of the house of Karalashvili. vi) head of the house of Babadibishvili. vii) head of the house of Lionidze. 8) Junior members (tavadishvili) of the families of the grandees of the first class (Sul-didibuli-tavadi). 9) Bishops of the Georgan Orthodox Church. 10) Grandees of the third class (tavadi). 11) Junior members (mtavarishvili) of the families of the princes of the second class (mtavari). 12) Archimandrites of the Georgan Orthodox Church. 13) Untitled nobility: a) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the King. b) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Patriarch-Catholicos. c) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Eristav of Ksani. d) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Zemo Sabaratiano. e) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Samachablo. f) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Sadiasamidzo. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers g) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Satsitsiano. h) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Tarkhan-Muravi. i) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Amir-Ejibi. j) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Amir-Akhori. k) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni of Samthavro, Samreclo and Sakothakheo. l) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Sadavitishvilo. m) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Prince of Sajavakho. n) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Pawlenishvili. o) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Kadirbegishvili. p) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Mukhrani-batoni. q) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Abashidze. r) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Princes of Sapalavando. s) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Princes of Sachkheidzo. t) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Princes of Sakerkeulidzo. u) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Taktakishvili. Copyright ©Christopher Buyers v) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Jambakurian-Orbeliani. w) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Malik of Somkethi. x) Heads of the Aznauri-did-didni families dependent on the Avalishvili. y) Junior members of the Aznauri-did-didni families of Kakheti. z) Abbots of the Georgan Orthodox Church. aa) Junior members of the families of the Aznauri-did-didni. bb) Heads of the merchant guilds. cc) Aznauri mtsireni. dd) Junior members of the merchant guilds.
Do you understand now? Jaqeli ( talk) 13:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I thought you'd present the historical and scientific sources and you've posted some quotes from the news agency which is indeed laughable. Those news agencies know nothing about Bagrations and know totally nothing about the genealogy and the history of Bagrations. I've presented the source of the historians and scientists who are doctors and professors in their field and all of them sign the memorandum of all Georgian Bagrations that the royal head of the dynasty is Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky. No one, NO ONE supports self-proclaimed David of Mukhrani. And all Georgian Bagrations, agaian I repeat ALL GEORGIAN BAGRATIONS recognize Prince Nugzar as the head of all 3 Georgian branches. So please do me a favor and present the trusted source supported by geneologists, doctors, historians and proffesors who are specialists in the field of the history of Georgia or history of the Bagrationi dynasty and present such source where David of Mukhrani this self-proclaimed tavadi is recognized as the head of the Bagrations and as the "royal" as such.
Before you present the source about the self-proclaimed David I am presenting you again the source about the recognition of Prince Nugzar as the sole and only head of the Bagrationi dynasty. He is recognized as the head of the Bagrations by ALL GEORGIAN ROYALS AND PRINCES FROM ALL BRANCHES: SOURCE IS HERE. Jaqeli ( talk) 23:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't more emphasis be put on that the family is of Armenian lineage? It seems that the most credible source of its origins is that the family is descended from Ashot III of Armenia and the older Bagratuni Dynasty and branched out to Georgia. In this case more ephsis should be put on that it was an Armenian family that ruled over Georgia, such as the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty ruling over Egypt or the German Windsor dynasty ruling of the UK. As it is this article seems to promote the family being of Georgian descent. All of the monarchs should be classified as Georgian Armenians as well. -- HouseOfArtaxiad ( talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bagrationi dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hence I removed all of them and the material it was seemingly meant to support. - LouisAragon ( talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bagrationi dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.museum.ru/1812/english/Library/Mikaberidze/body%5CP02a-T.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Greetings dear colleagues! The article is messy with low quality sources and bulky within the titles and started to revamp and cleaning up a bit. I appreciate all of your feedback and cooperation. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 03:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The article states " from the Middle Ages until the early 19th century, " as the dates of the dynasty. Shouldn't this be something like " from the 14th century until the early 19th century, ". This would clarify the actual length of the dynasty. VernonF ( talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The "Origin" section in the article at first presents the different views on the origin of the Bagrationi dynasty, then comes to the conclusion that "the assertion of Bagratoinis' Armenian origin is widely neglected", without a citation. If the Bagrationis' potential Armenian origin is now disregarded by scholars (I assume this is what is meant by "neglected"), this needs to be sourced. The preceding reference to Faustus of Byzantium is also dubious, considering Faustus was explicitly referring to the Bagratids of the Kingdom of Armenia, so it is strange that this is used as evidence of the Bagrationis non-Armenian origin. Revolution Saga ( talk) 20:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd like a source for this.
"The 5th-century Armenian historian Pavstos Buzand claimed that the Georgian Bagrationi family was originated in Speri province which was populated by Georgian Laz tribes.[citation needed] The same idea was shared by many historians like Nikolai Marr, Joseph Orbeli, Ekvtime Takaishvili, Simon Janashia, and the assertion of Bagratoinis' Armenian origin is widely neglected.[citation needed]"
The wikipedia page that make these outsourced claims questionable
"The family's origin is disputed, but the view formulated by the historians such as Ekvtime Takaishvili and Cyril Toumanoff that the Georgian dynasty descended from a refuge prince of the Armenian house of Bagratuni prevails."
Source listed: Taqaishvili 1935, pp. 23–25.
Source: Taqaishvili, Ekvtime (1935). "Georgian chronology and the beginning of the Bagratid rule in Georgia". Georgica. 1: 9–27.
/info/en/?search=Claim_of_the_biblical_descent_of_the_Bagrationi_dynasty#CITEREFTaqaishvili193 5
The same page in the Georgian language translated into english
"The legend of the origin of the Bagrations from the Jewish or Davidic line is not trusted by modern scientists. The origins of the family are disputed, but the prevailing view, advanced by historians such as Ekvtime Takaishvili and Kirill Tumanov, is that the Georgian dynasty originated from an exiled prince of the Armenian house of Bagratuni.[4][5]"
https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%91%E1%83%90%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0%E1%83%90%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C%E1%83%97%E1%83%90_%E1%83%93%E1%83%98%E1%83%9C%E1%83%90%E1%83%A1%E1%83%A2%E1%83%98%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1_%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%91%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98%E1%83%A3%E1%83%A0%E1%83%98_%E1%83%AC%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%9B%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9B%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1_%E1%83%9B%E1%83%A2%E1%83%99%E1%83%98%E1%83%AA%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%A3%E1%83%9A%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%90 Abashidzestuff ( talk) 19:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)