Talk:Duke of Holstein-Gottorp

Paul of Russia's giving the lands to Denmark

Might anyone be able to explain why he did this? Was it part of a diplomatic agreement or settlement? --Ashley Rovira 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An exchange was made - Holstein-Gottorp went to the King of Denmark, who greatly wanted it, in exchange for the Counties of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, which were given to Paul, who then granted them to his cousin, the Prince-Bishop of Lübeck (I think). I don't believe that this was actually Paul's own decision - I believe his mother, Catherine the Great, forced him to do this. Presumably, she wanted to court good relations with Denmark. john k 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This was in 1773 in the treaty of Tsarskoje Selo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LostPast (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup needed June 2007

re:

History of Schleswig-Holstein

and

List of rulers of Schleswig-Holstein

These three need integrated, and the redirect needs to be titled Dukes of with this page becoming the Holstein-Gottorp article. In short, this is confusing as all hell, but the territories held by this branch of the family are distinct enough for deliniation.

• {clean|date=June 2007|This relationship as a cadet branch and the difference between that and the territories needs careful deliniation. Note the partition of the territory was eventually reversed, then eventually became titular. Much from the history needs cross loaded here.|FrankB 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)}

titular?

The list here seems wrong. My understanding was that the dukes lost their lands in Schleswig after 1720, but maintained their lands in Holstein until 1773, when they were traded for Oldenburg. Certainly, I don't understand the notion of treating the utterly titular dukes after 1773 the same as the ones between 1720 and 1773, who were considered princes of the Holy Roman Empire and still ruled lands in Holstein. john k (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The legal and overlordship rights in Schleswig remained complicated because theoretically each male of the family had an equal claim, primogeniture being an alien concept to Danish feudalism when the duchy was established. But de facto the Kings of Denmark, especially after becoming hereditary, exercised sovereignty over Schleswig and merely divided revenues with the various dukelings. In Gottorp the same thing happened once they lost their share of Schleswig. They were more than compensated by inheriting Russia, cadet lines ruling Gottorp, the Bishopric of Lubeck and the Principality of Eutin as appanages under the Tsar's nominal authority. The reason this gets so confused is because there is a parallel debate underway: a discussion about whether, even if the claim to the Russian throne is muddied among Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp morganauts and females, there is a valid claim to retain a "princely" or "ducal" for members of the male line. The theory runs, all Romanov morganauts are at least "Dukes of Schleswig" and probably "Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp" independently, because Denmark never codified Ebenburtigkeit and Oldenburg's Ebenburtigkeit rules can't apply automatically to the Romanov Holsteins. Guy Stair Sainty champions this theory and, here, it has been intermittently revived over the years by reincarnations of some of the banned or long "gone" users like Arrigo, Shilkanni, Tfoxworth and others who re-write the history to make it look as though there is an unbroken line of princely dukes down to the present. Problem is that neither the Tsars of Russia nor the Grand Dukes of Oldenburg ever allowed morganatic cadets to use any version of "Duke of Shleswig" or "Duke of Holstein" in their titles, so there must be a presumption that these were deemed subsidiary titles of the dynasty and not free for the taking. FactStraight (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Extinction of the Romanovsky-Ilyinsky

There's an additional problem. Even if we were to accept Prince Dimitri Pavlovich Romanovsky-Ilyinsky as titular Duke, there is a distinct lack of male heirs to then inherit the title. Hhe has no sons, and his only brother is also without sons. There are no paternal uncles, either. The Romanovsky-Ilyinsky line currently looks like it will become extinct in time, after which there seems to be no conceivable single heir. If it's not an extinct title at this point in time, it shortly will be. The article should say something about that (although we are qualifying what is only a theoretical claim) Indisciplined (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the remaining Romanov male-line descendants would be considered dynastic members of the House of Holstein-Gottorp (didn't Paul's house laws apply to whatever ghost claims to Holstein-Gottorp remained as much as to Russia?). But if Ilyinsky is to be considered such, then next in line after his brother should be able to be determined. The Yurievskys are illegitimate, since they were born before Alexander II's marriage to their mother, so you'd presumably find the claimant among the descendants of one of Nicholas I's two youngest sons (I'm pretty sure Constantine doesn't have any surviving male line descendants; I'm not sure that Nicholas does, either; Michael certainly has descendants). But this all feels a little bit OR. I'm not sure any of this belongs in the article. john k (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Map?

Shouldn't this map be included in the article somewhere? john k (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• COA Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov chivalric.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)