Talk:Bagrationi dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

old comments[edit]

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)

Sources and Citations[edit]

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)

Thanks a lot, Soso. The article is far from complete however. We need to add more info about modern-day Bagrationis. Kober 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to change check my genealogy of this family at It contains enough data about living members. The articles about Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia and Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhranskaya may also give you some hints. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your links, but I don’t clearly understand what you mean by "changing your genealogy of this family". Kober 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Too hasty editing on my part, I guess. --Ghirla -трёп- 05:20, 27 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)

Welcome back Soso, nice to hear from you again. It would be really great if you can get some extra info. You may also wish to leave a comment on Portal talk:Georgia (country). It finally works now. Thanks, Kober 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


According to, 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 " 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)

Thanks for an interesting comment. I basically agree with you, but the question is rather complicated and sources are contradictory. I was never able to fully reconstruct the genealogy of all branches and hence the further development of the article was halted. If you could help with it, I would be very thankful.
The Kakhetian line actually acquired, in the person of Teimuraz II (son-in-law of Vakhtang VI of Kartli of the Mukhrani line), the vacant throne of Kartli and prevented any attempt by the descendants of Vakhtang VI (who had emigrated to Russia) to win back the power. Thus, some regarded them usurpers, but the legitimacy of the Kakhetian branch was eventually recognized by Georgian nobility, church and subsequently Catherine II the Great in the Treaty of Georgievsk.
As for the Mukhrani fiefdom, it was not an independent principality but a constituent part of Kartli and then of Kartli-Kakheti. All the best, Kober 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Lethiere's and Kober's observations are basically correct. I refer you to, where these questions have been discussed ad nauseum, and to the full genealogy of the family I posted here. Although the Mukhraneli are technically the senior branch in the House of Bagration (like the Galitzines are the senior branch in the House of Gediminas and the Czetwertinski are the senior branch in the House of Rurik), the last king of Georgia was George XII, whose male-line descendants are alive and well (although the line is nearing its extinction). According to the laws of the Russian Empire, the Mukhraneli have the same status as, say, Galitzine or DolgorukovGediminid and Rurikid families, respectively: male-line descendants of Gediminas and Michael of Chernigov, to be precise. The marriage of Alexander II of Russia to Catherine Dolgorukov was considered morganatic. The same goes for the Mukhraneli, whose status was based on their high title at court (mukhranbatoni) rather than their sovereign demesne (Mukhrani?), although their supporters are keen to prove that each constituent "duchy" of Georgia was a sovereign polity and hence their lords should be considered mediatized nobility according to the strict standards of the Almanach de Gotha. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming the facts. But what is meant by saying that the Mukhraneli are "technically" the senior branch in the House of Bagration? Either they are or they are not, and we have agreed that they are -- and I had explicitly acknowledged that this did not make them the senior descendants or heirs of the last Georgian monarchs in Kartli-Kakheti or Imereti. So all of the references on Wikipedia that describe the Mukhraneli as a "junior" branch (Jorge de Bagration, Line of succession to the Russian Throne, etc) are inaccurate and need to be corrected. The reality is that the issues around the Russian succession are so contentious that it seems difficult for people to acknowledge facts that they think might "support" a pretender whose claim they don't accept, so the facts get buried under the rhetoric. It seems to me that the relevant data on the Mukhraneli's status is contradictory and ambivalent, and needs to be sorted out factually so that Wiki readers can draw their own conclusions. Two points occur to me as relevant in this regard:
  1. When Vladimir Kirilovich Romanov responded to Infante Ferdinand of Bavaria's inquiry about whether the Mukhraneli were dynastic enough for Prince Erekle Bagrationi-Mukhraneli (Leonida's brother), to contract an equal marriage with his daughter, Vladimir did not declare that they were so because they were Georgian pretenders, claiming (erroneously) to be heirs of the last Georgian kings in Kartli-Kakheti. To do so would have been to implicitly support the pretensions of Prince Erekle Bagration-Mukhransky to the Georgian throne, something Vladimir carefully avoided doing because it conflicted with his own claim to be rightful sovereign over Georgia pursuant to the 1801 annexation. Rather, Vladimir acknowledged the Mukhraneli's "royalty" on the grounds that they were the senior line of a former royal dynasty -- just as the House of Hanover was acknowledged by the German Emperors after Prussia annexed that kingdom. In doing so, of course, he reversed the attitude toward them of Nicholas II in 1911 -- but he never claimed that Mukhraneli Ebenbürtigkeit was tied to any claim to represent the Kartli-Kakheti legacy.
  2. It is, however, true that the distinction Maria Vladimirovna Romanova's supporters make is that her mother Leonida's descent from a dynasty that had reigned more recently by a couple of hundred years than the Rurikids and Gedyminians justifies distinguishing between Maria Vladimirovna's dynasticity and the non-dynasticity of most other descendants of the Romanovs who belong to the Romanov Family Association. They argue, in effect, that such a distinction was commonly made by other reigning dynasties in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, which accepted the Ebenbürtigkeit of the House of Orléans, which ceased to reign in the 19th century, but not that of, for example, Irish clan chiefs, some of whom reigned into the 17th century. On this point, the Treaty of Georgievsk becomes potentially relevant, because it constituted an international treaty guaranteeing a certain status to the ruling dynasty of Kartli-Kakheti, a guarantee not possessed by Rurikids or Gedyminians. But the treaty is ambivalent on this point. On the one hand, it does guarantee the dynastic status of the "the Heirs and descendants of his House" of the Kartlii-Kakheti kings (not merely "descendants of the kings") and required that the treaty's terms could only be changed by mutual agreement between Russia's and Kartli-Kakheti's monarchs. But on the other hand, in the treaty's list of Georgian families that were to be treated as nobility (not royalty) in the Russian Empire, the Mukhraneli are included -- and they were eventually accepted into Russia with legal status as ordinary nobles. In and of itself, the latter point is not decisive: In France, Britain and Sardinia, the Condés, Cumberlands, and Carignans were simultaneously princes of the blood royal and nobles, and their legal status as nobles did not differ from that of other nobles, except in precedence, yet they retained Ebenbürtigkeit. On the other hand, it is true that although Nicholas II of Russia promised Grand Duke Constantine Konstantinovich that he would not "treat" his daughter's marriage to a Bagration-Mukhransky as unequal, and unlike most unequal marriages the couple was welcomed into the Imperial family, she was required to renounce her succession rights prior to the wedding. When evidence is so mixed, it's crucial that people get all the facts to develop a POV -- so Wiki need not have one. Lethiere 21:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just one minor correction: the Bagrations claims of great antiquity is hype that should not perhaps be taken at its face value. Their male line cannot be traced behind David Soslan, while the male-line ancestors of Princess Yurievskaya ruled Russia since the 9th century and (if we accept Snorri's evidence and the popular identification of Rurik with a scion of the House of Hedeby who ruled Dorestad) descended from the first man known as king in the Swedish language. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Correction" to what? Where have we been discussing the relative antiquity of dynasties? The Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs had zero antiquity as rulers, and were deemed equal. Both the Dolgorokys and the Bagrationi were far more ancient as ruling dynasties than the Romanovs. If anything, the relevant criterion for marital equality seems to be recentness of sovereignty -- not "ancientness". Lethiere 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to your remark that "the distinction Maria Vladimirovna Romanova's supporters make is that her mother Leonida's descent from a dynasty that had reigned more recently by a couple of hundred years than the Rurikids and Gedyminians justifies..." etc. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:20, 16 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)

Your point is well-taken, and I agree that Romania/Sigmaringen is an apt analogy. Even though the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens were a non-reigning but senior branch of the Hohenzollerns that lacked the royal rank of the Romanian line, they were 1. still eligible to inter-marry with reigning dynasties, and 2. still eligible to inherit the Romanian throne. In fact, in every dynasty, non-reigning cadets are considered to be dynastic if they descend in the male (and sometimes even the female) line of the dynasty's founder. Nonetheless, if a Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen prince had sought to marry a Romanov princess in 1911, no one would have questioned the fact that the H-S ranked as equal, whereas the B-M were not considered equal in 1911. On the other hand, other dethroned imperial dynasties (Habsburg, Hohenzollern) still enforced marital standards in 1948 (when Vladimir wed Leonida), but their pretenders had lowered those standards from the strict ebenbürtig rules of the monarchy. Lethiere 05:13, 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)

Princess Tatiana Konstantinovna of Russia's marriage was considered legally (although not socially) morganatic. The reason that she had to renounce is because Russia's laws automatically deprived her morganatic children of succession rights, but left her own rights intact. To prevent the possibility of her succeeding to the crown and creating dynastic havoc by attempting to de-morganatize her offspring by imperial fiat (as it was widely believed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria planned to do), Russian Imperial policy was to require that any dynast marrying morganatically must also renounce his/her own rights of succession. This is well-documented in the 1911 Imperial memorandum that was initiated to accomodate Tatiana's wedding, which was the first dynastically-approved-but-unequal marriage to take place among the Romanovs (not counting Alexander II's 1880 mésalliance with Princess Catherine Dolgoroky, which was done suddenly and secretly to legitimise the couple's illegitimate children). Lethiere 05:13, 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)

Yes and no. You cannot simply cite the Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs and then discount them as an exception. They were exactly like the Battenbergs and Tecks in England; a "Gotha-3rd-section" princely family not strictly equal by European dynastic standards, but accepted as equal by a dynasty that found it advantageous to find suitable husbands for royal daughters without forcing them to move abroad (The Spanish also chose to generate home-grown spouses, with their Orléans, Sicilian and Bavarian infantes, but the Borbóns managed to choose fully royal --although often uprooted -- princelings to naturalise. Leonida's sister-in-law was among them, King Juan Carlos's mother was another.) Aside from Russia's Beauharnais Leuchtenbergs, the only other princes étrangers naturalised in Russia were the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayns. Their status was unusual, for not only was their foreign title confirmed, but they were one of the 20 or so families whose members were recognized in Russia as Serene Highnesses. In Russia you are correct: they inter-married with the nobility rather than the Romanovs, but the Sayns had equality rules, and when these were complied with descendants often married back into mediatised dynasties, yet when the rules were violated the result was deemed morganatic in Germany. Their Russian princely title and Sérénissime was affirmed in 1899 (but remember that the morganatic branch of the Beauharnais were also given a ducal title and HSH by the Tsar in 1890). As a mediatised rather than reigning house, it is intriguing to wonder how they might have been regarded if one of Nicholas II's daughters had, for example, taken a fancy to HSH Prince Gustav Alexander zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn (1880-1953), whose mother belonged to a French ducal family and paternal grandmother was a Princess Bariatinsky, whose elder brother wed a mediatised countess in 1911, and whose father renounced his princely title to make a second, morganatic marriage to a Russian commoner in 1883. Romanov house law required dynastic spouses to belong to "a royal or reigning family" -- the "or" necessarily implied that the family need not be both. Lethiere 05:13, 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)

I removed the problematic passage, but I don't really see any monarchist/legitimist bias in the article.--KoberTalk 20:00, 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 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in truth about Bagrationi Dynasty please read this[edit]

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:

  • 1800: (a) King Giorgi XII is dies 1801(he is the last king of Georgia and direct ancestor of HRH Prince Nugzar
    • (b) Georgia annexed by Imperial Russia
  • 1803: Imperial Russia exiles from Georgia to Russia all the representatives of HRH Nugzar's direct salic ancestors (the Royal family)
  • 1804-1812: Imperial Russia adopted a decision that only Georgia's King`s sons and daughters preserve the titles of "Georgian princes and princesses" (Gruzinski) (Gruzinsky - from russian literally "of Georgia" - Dynastic Princely title)
  • 1833: Imperial Russia adopted the second decision, the grandsons of King Erekle II and King Giorgi XII were granted a title of "Georgian prince" --- Gruzinski, which became their surname .
  • 1865: Russian Emperor Alexander II granted all the representatives of this Royal branch of the Bagrationis (Prince Nugzar's ancestors) the title of "the Most Respectful." Prince Nugzar's family were considered along with other royal families, and some very prominent high nobles in Russia, to be one step below the prestige of the Imperial House of the whole Empire.
  • 1917: Russian Empire was abolished. HRH Nugzar's ancestors still retained their titles. None of them renounced their Royal rights or prerogatives!
  • 1921: Georgia annexed by Soviet Russia. HRH Nugzar`s ancestor Peter (I) still used his title of "the Most Respectful Prince Gruzinski." Same with Peter (II), he was even jailed by communists in 1944-1951, but he never renounced his Royal rights.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klarjelly (talkcontribs) 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.

As for the surname of Pss.Anna`s children[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Varaz (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is a policy, not a person. —A link for the reader's convenience: Line of succession to the former Georgian throne. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Worrying silence[edit]

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)

Undersourcing and over-stating[edit]

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: " 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)

You also deleted the royal intermarriages info which who the Bagrationis wed historically. This is important information in the article and why would you remove that? As for the oldest Christian dynasty it really is so. GeorgianJorjadze 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
These allegations must be sourced and you keep re-inserting them without adding reliable sources which can be independently verified. There is a real dispute about how old the Bagrationi dynasty is (particularly relative to the Capet patriline and the Irish kings), so anything about it must have appropriate footnotes. Virtually every dynasty engages in marriages with other dynasties; that fact isn't particularly notable here because it is covered in the articles on individual kings and princesses. But notable or not, it must be properly footnoted or it can't stay in the article. FactStraight (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Current head of the Bagrations[edit]

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)

What does this prove? The Gruzinsky claim comes from being descendants of George XIII while the Mukhrani claims their right because they are the eldest heir males of Alexander I of Georgia (both lines' shared ancestor) and thus the entire Bagrationi dynasty. Also they are related to the elder Mukhrani line which ruled as Kings of Kartli until Vakhtang VI of Kartli was exiled to Russia. Either way these are both claims with supporters and it is neither my nor your place to choose a side. Have you heard of the Legitimists and Orleanists situation in France? Throughout your edit the bias and POV is obvious. You cannot edit to promote the claim of one line and remove or erase the claim of another line.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What does this prove? Can not you see the differences? Mukhranians were never royals. Do you know that there are tones of direct descendants of Bagration-Davitishvilis in Georgia? But it does not give them the right to claim the Georgian throne or claim their headship of the dynasty. Bagration-Davitishvilis also descend directly from Alexander I of Kakheti but none of them claim the Georgian throne because it never belonged to them and they were never royals just like Mukhranians. Mukhranian Bagrations were always a princes not a royals and putting him with the direct royal descendant like Nugzar is laughable and unacceptable in every way. So before you add him back read a bit about the subject to call them royals. Having a "Bagration" in the family name does not mean you are or were royal. Jaqeli (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop editing the article against consensus. You continue to justify biasing articles on the Bagrationis by arguing your own personal interpretation of the Gruzinskys' status relative to that of the Mukhraneli. That is not a legitimate basis for editing Wikipedia articles: we must reflect what the reliable sources show. Even discounting the websites of both the heads of the Gruzinsky and Mukhraneli branches, the journalism and literature indicate that each branch has supporters for its claims to re-enthronement based upon differing historical and genealogical interpretations. You are entitled to your personal preference -- but Wikipedia is not. Please desist. FactStraight (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Please present the source that he is royal. Until you do not present such source he cannot stay in the bar as the "head" of the Bagrations. I've presented the source which is supported by 6 PhDs and Professors and the Metropolitan and the member of the Georgian Orthodox Church's Holy Synod. Now present yours if there is any as I know no one who supports such person who calls himself a "royal" when in reality he's low level Tavadi. Jaqeli (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
David Bagrationi-Mukhraneli's dynasticity is explicitly acknowledged already in the article with footnoes and in other reliable sources. For example, this excerpt from the highly-respected news service AFP published on 8Feb2009: "A prince and a princess from Georgia's ancient Bagrationi dynasty were wed in a lavish ceremony here Sunday, bringing together two feuding strands of the royal house that once ruled this Caucasus nation...Her father, Nugzar Bagrationi-Gruzinsky, said the wedding marked an historic day for his country. 'The most important thing is that this day will be beneficial for Georgia's future,' he said...'This is a double holiday as we are celebrating both King David's day and the wedding of representatives of our royal Bagrationi dynasty that was abolished by Russia,' one of the guests, opposition Conservative party co-leader Zviad Dzidziguri, told journalists before the ceremony...Various branches of the family have laid claim to the Georgian throne, with the Mukhraneli and Gruzinsky branches considered the most likely contenders. David Bagrationi-Mukhraneli is the son of Jorge de Bagration y de Mukhrani, a prominent racing driver whose branch of the family settled in Spain after World War II. A cousin of Spain's King Juan Carlos, the father died in 2008 after settling in Tbilisi. The two houses have long feuded over their claims to the throne and historians say any children from the marriage would resolve the dispute." Even before the prospect of marriage between David Mukhraneli and Ana Gruzinsky arose, David was publicly acknowledged as a major contender for the Georgian throne (if restored), by respected journalist Gerald Warner in The Telegraph 8Aug2008: "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. This could be the holistic reinvention of itself this unfortunate nation needs." (This Warner quote was deliberately adulterated on a royalty website a few years ago when David's name was deleted and Nugzar's was substituted by someone whose anti-David arguments are almost identical to those now being posted on Wikipedia's Bagrationi talk pages. I exposed the fraud here). Also, see this article's footnote #40 (at present) from The Georgia Times 2Aug2009: "Two members of the two royal dynasties of Georgia: 32-year old David Bagrationi-Mukhraneli and Anna Bagrationi- Gruzinskaya, got married yesterday in Tbilisi...David Bagrationi- Mukhraneli was born and grown up in Spain. In mid 20th century Irakli, his grandfather, was officially recognized as a legal throne aspirant by the emigrant organizations. After Irakli's death his son Georgi became his heir. Georgi has three adult sons and a daughter, and all of them, except David, still live in Spain..." In Wikipedia's article on David, footnote #6 from, 9Sep2008: "Prince Davit Bagrationi Mukhran Batonishvili (b. Madrid, 1976)...The sole heir to the throne of Georgia who lives in the country...President Mikhail Saakhasvili returned their nationality and recognized them as the legitimate royal family." In David's footnote #7 from El Confidencial 8Feb2009: "His Royal Highness David de Bagration y de Mujrani, hereditary prince of Georgia and Spanish citizen, was married today with Anna Mujraneli, representative of another branch of the imperial family of Bagration (Gruzinski)." Clearly there are plenty of sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability that document David Mukhraneli's status as a royal claimant to the Georgian throne. FactStraight (talk) 11:16, 19 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)

In specific response to your initial inquiry, I enumerated five different sources which document that David Bagrationi is regarded as a prominent contender in the event of restoration of the Georgian monarchy. Three of the five citations include unambiguous English language quotations. Each source I provided was online, verifiable, not affiliated with one side or the other in the royal rivalry and is a reliable source. The latter qualification is the decisive one for English Wikipedia. You have dismissed all of them as irrelevant, unqualified and "laughable", furthermore asserting -- without documentation -- that "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" (which is inaccurate on its face). Next, you demand that I produce new documentation to "prove" the legitimacy of the Mukhraneli claim according to your -- not Wikipedia's -- criteria, as if it were Wikipedia's function to evaluate scholarship in order to "decide" which pretender has the more "legitimate" claim. Finally, you substantiate your own allegations by reference to the website of advocates for the rival of the head of the Bagrationi Mukhraneli! I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you review Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutral point of view. FactStraight (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Armenian dynasty[edit]

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)

They were assimilated into the Georgian nation within a generation, so their roots are Armenian but they are not. Just like the current Queen of England isn't German.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Dynasties cannot "assimilate" their origins. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about their origins.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 09:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Well, House of Glücksburg has German origins and is called a German House even though it has had kings in four countries not including Germany. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a poor example, they have been around for two centuries not eleven and they consider themselves German. The Armenian branch died out a thousand years ago while the Georgian house is around to this day. No Bagrationi has ever thought of themselves as anything but Georgian.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 06:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
House of Windsor is a comparable example from modern times.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 06:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Eupator makes a very good point here. The dynasty was quickly acculturated. As for the suggestion to classify "all of the monarchs" as "Armenian Georgian", this is simply ridiculous. How can one describe, say, Erekle II or Solomon II as Armenian? Do the 7th/8th-century roots make Armenian all subsequent generations, including those that flourished a thousand years after their ancestors' assimilation? --KoberTalk 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Washlist of non-RS/outdated sources[edit]

  • The Curious Case of Ms. Orange, E.J. Edwards, p50 -- a novel, not WP:RS
  • More moves on an Eastern chequerboard, Sir Harry Luke, p71 -- not WP:RS
  • Handbook for Travellers in Russia, Poland, and Finland, John Murray, p322 -- outdated and idem
  • The Chautauquan, Volume 22, Theodore L. Flood, Frank Chapin Bray, 1895, p698 -- outdated and not RS
  • Walter Curley (1973). Monarchs-in-Waiting. Cornwall, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co. pp. 87, 217. ISBN 0-396-06840-5. -- was an ambassador, no indication that he held any degree or special expertise in this field of scholarship
  • Joseph Valynseele (1967). Les Prétendants aux Trônes d'Europe. France: Saintard de la Rochelle. p. 179. -- seems to be WP:RS, only says that the oldest is the Capetian dynasty, (hence has nothing to say/to do with the Bagrationi)
  • L. G. Pine (1992). Titles: How the King became His Majesty. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, Inc. p. 170. ISBN 9781566190855. -- also non-RS

Hence I removed all of them and the material it was seemingly meant to support. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

These source may fail our standards, but the fact that the dynasty is one of the oldest in the word remains in place whether someone likes it or not. --KoberTalk 04:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You sound mad, not really needed. You should try finding other sources instead that back up the claims, cause these sources will have to go, as they violate WP:RS. That's as far as I'm concerned. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Sound mad? Your unprovoked attack goes beyond the content dispute. Next time you insult me you will be reported. Clear? --KoberTalk 04:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
How about we remove the unreliable sources and tag the sentence with a {{cn}} and you can find a reliable source. OK?
"You sound mad", hardly sounds like an "unprovoked attack". So let us just stick with finding a reliable source for the sentence in question. OK? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it may sound like a compliment to someone, but not to me. Let WP:ANI decide on this in case the insult recurs. I agree with you that the reliable sources are to be found.--KoberTalk 04:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Kober, responding with 'whether someone likes it or not' when a person makes a bold and clearly constructive move to remove loads of non-WP:RS material that had been there for, I-don't-know-for-how-many-millenia, makes it clearly sound as if you have very strong issues about it. In other words, it makes it sound as if you are angry about it. Sure, one can say like "fine, he/she probably didn't mean it that way". However, after this, we see another comment, which includes the blunt one-liner "Clear?", (aka capishe?, understood buddy?). Surely doesn't give much credibility to the supposed constructive initiation of a dialogue.
FYI, I tried to find RS sources myself (before removing) that would back up the explicit "oldest in the world/Europe" claim. Unfortunately however, even a thorough search was to no avail. Thus, given that the sources are unacceptable per the guidelines, and that they had been in place for a long time, I simply made a bold move and removed the material altogether. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, perhaps, is the claim that their origin is "controversial"? There is so source to support this claim, and I have tagged it. Perhaps outdated sources would have found it "controversial" that the belief in the legendary Biblical origin of the Bagrationi was being questioned. However, controversy means an ongoing scholarly controversy and no such controversy is indicated - Toumanoff indeed states, unequivocally, that "all this has now come to be accepted in modern Georgian historiography". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The controversy claim has been tagged for two weeks without a response, so I have removed that content from the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)