THE ROYAL HOUSE OF GEORGIA
Canada Delegation

TH 

Click here to edit subtitle

Misleading Information

MISLEADING INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THE KINGDOM OF GEORGIA AND ITS RIGHTFUL HEIRS


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


By last scientific research which was conducted in purpose of final determination of the real origin of the royal line of Kartli has been completed, that states that Bagration-Moukhranski line is genealogically senior must be corrected

This issue remained obscure for nearly 200 years among scientists. The real reason was to determine the real origin of King Konstantine II of Kartli (the first King of Kartli after collapse of Georgia). 


After the study of all works of previous researchers that was conducted during almost two centuries the entire picture got clear for modern researchers. Scientific analysis has shown that no one from the old scientists were sure who was the real father of King Konstantine of Kartli. Some of them were thinking that King Konstantine wa son of the last King of all Georgia Giorgi VIII which is totally not proved by the historical documents.  Another part of the researchers were placing King Constantine into different positions in the genealogical table but questions still remained. 


In the beginning of 90th, doctor of historic science Mrs. Mzia Surguladze together with Dr. Micheil Kavtaria adopted one version that Constantine was the son of the elder brother of Giorgi VIII- Prince Demetre although was not completely provable because by the documents which were discovered later and are already available for the scientists today shows different. Therefore the same researchers - Dr. Mzia Surguladze and Dr. Mikhail Kavtaria already have approved and signed the last research work by which the mentioned King Konstantine II of Kartli belongs to the Cadet younger line of Kings of Georgia.


This new research also is approved by the President of the Georgian Genealogical Society Dr. Yury Chikovany.


There are also widely publicized myths that in the early 1990, the Georgian government and His Holiness the Patriarch recognized George (Jorge) Bagration-Mukhranski as the heir to the Georgian throne. No such evidence of this exists at all, especially in written form. However, there is an interesting written letter by Maria Bagration, Prince David's aunt, which indicates that her father excluded Giorgi (David's father) and his descendants from their rights. If true, then David, and his siblings, would not even be princes of the nobility of Georgia, let alone royal claimants.


While the royal line (Gruzinski) was recognized with the prenominal title of "Serene Highness" and "the Most Respectful" and as "Princes of Georgia," as a royal house by Imperial Russia, the Mukhrani noble house, were only ". . .  confirmed as Prince Bagration of Moukhrani by decrees of the Council of the Empire 20 Sep 1825, 25 Mar 1826 and 8 Dec 1850, of Senate 25 Mar 1836, 7 June & 7 Jul 1847, 10 May 1850, 16 Apr 1858, 2 Dec 1864 and 1 Mar 1872).


The senior line, the line of the kings, it is important to remember, that the marriage between David, a Prince of the high nobility, and HRH Anna, Princess of the royal blood, does not give David "de jure" sovereignty or make him a royal. Only HRH Prince Nugzar, the rightful heir, could make him a royal or give him any sovereign rights. If Prince Nugzar, the heir or "de jure" monarch and king of Georgia, passes away and the marriage between David and HRH Princess Anna is still intact, David would be head of the home, but not head of state.


That would be HRH Princess Anna's exclusive right as Prince Nugzar has designated her as his heir, and the more ancient history and traditions of ancient times provides for female succession, when no male heir can be found, because succession is primogeniture., Gruzinski Royal House.


Unfortunately, there are some inaccuracies on the Website that should be addressed. The following will only introduce this. One must be willing to see the facts and not merely rely on opinions or a one sided approach. In an effort to correct wrong impressions, the following is submitted.


Recent April 2013 Prominent Event Honoring the Father of HRH Prince Nugzar, the Head of the Royal House of Georgia said: A "good faith" gesture on their part would be to tell the truth and not make false impressions or claims.

It is important to understand that no other line of kings exists for Georgia. HRH Prince Nugzar is the rightful lineal successor of the last Kings of United Georgia, the rightful successor of the last Kings of the kingdoms of Kartli-Kakheti Kingdom, and by the genealogical and dynastic point of view, the rightful head of the Imereti line as well.



WRONG STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS


Wrong statement: The Georgian government recognised the position and rights of H.R.H. Prince Giorgi Bagrationi as Head of the Royal House as well as his legitimate right as heir to the Crown of Georgia. This formal recognition places the Royal House of Bagrationi in a unique position among the former reigning houses.

Answer: First of all, this never happened. Contact any Georgian embassy. And second, the Mukhraneli Bagrationi line are not a Royal House, they are a non-sovereign offshoot princely line of the high nobility and nothing more.

Wrong statement: “The Bagration Mukhraneli is the oldest line of the Bagration Family and they are directly descendent of the last King of united Georgia, Alexander I."

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

Wrong statement: By request of the Spanish King Alfonso XII, due to the Royal wedding of Infanta Maria de las Mercedes de Baviera y de Borbon with H.R.H. Prince Irakli Bagration Mukhraneli, Vladimir Kirilovich Romanov, Head of the Romanov Imperial Family, issued a statement in which he recognized the Royal blood of the Bagration Mukhraneli.

Answer: This is obviously a false statement as the marriage between a prince of Mukhrani, a noble, and an Imperial princess was declared to be legally of unequal rank or status, or morganatic, and the 1910 Almanach de Gotha confirmed the same to be their status. In addition, the Infante Juan of Spain, the father of King Juan Carlos I, then Head of the Royal House, declared them to be a non-royal line. He ". . . considered the issue of this marriage to be disqualified from the Spanish succession." (Line of succession to the Russian throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Clearly, their (Mukhranski`s) royal status has been called into question.

While the royal line (Gruzinski) was recognized with the prenominal title of "Serene Highness" and "the Most Respectful" and as "Princes of Georgia," as a royal house by Imperial Russia, the Mukhrani noble house, were only ". . . confirmed as Prince Bagration of Moukhrani by decrees of the Council of the Empire 20 Sep 1825, 25 Mar 1826 and 8 Dec 1850, of Senate 25 Mar 1836, 7 June & 7 Jul 1847, 10 May 1850, 16 Apr 1858, 2 Dec 1864 and 1 Mar 1872)." (HISTORY OF THE BAGRATID DYNASTY) This was not a royal or sovereign status.

The Infante Juan of Spain, designated heir of King Alfonso XIII of Spain, refused to recognize "his god-son as a Spanish dynast," because his mother had married a non-royal, the grandfather of Prince David. Prince David Bagrationi-Mukhraneli is from this line, which is a line of non-reigning, non-dynastic princes of the high nobility of Georgia.  (Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Wrong statement: In the case of Bagrationi Imeretinsky line, the last member passed away in 2009 (Nino Bagration Imeretinsky)...

Answer: HRH Princess Nino Bagration-Imeretinski (1915-2009), the former head of Imereti Royal House and the chief of "the House of Bagrationi" in 2006 signed an important memorandum where she on behalf of Imereti royal branch recognized the rightful claim and sovereignty of the Bagrationi-Gruzinski family for the whole dynasty of Bagrationi. Prince Nugzar is descended from this line as well through Queen Khoreshan.

We ask a simple question:  what David's ancestors were doing when Crown Prince Nugzar's direct ancestors and near relatives headed all the popular uprisings against Russian Empire in XIX th century?


We will answer: nothing! Sat in their own estates and were encouraged from the Russian officials while the members of royal family were fighting for country. In fact, Prince (King) Gregory I (1789-1830), a descendant of the great King of United Kartli-Kakheti (Georgia) Kingdom, Erekle II, courageously fought to restore the Kingdom in the rebellions of 1812 (in same year he was proclaimed as the King of Georgia by nation). Sovereignty was fiercely defended. The whole Royal family was then exiled to Russia.

Wrong statement: in the 16th century, in 1512, Prince Bagrat Bagrationi, the brother of David X (King of Kartli), received the Mukhrani region with more than 60 villages as the Principality, named after as Samukhranbatono and owners of it – as Bagration-Mukhranbatonis or Bagration-Mukhranelis

Answer: Mukhranbatoni branch of offshoot princes of the high nobility (Prince David's ancestors) lost all sovereign and royal rights when King of Kartli - Konstantin II's (1478-1505) older son King David X (1505-1525) took the throne of Kartli instead of their direct ancestor; the younger son - Prince Bagrat Mukhranbatoni, who began the Bagrationi-Mukhranski branch. No one of this lesser line has reigned over any kingdom since the time of King Konstantin II of Kartli in 1505. They did not rule over anything after this time, not a principality, a county or a barony --- not even a tiny lordship. They had a relatively small fief compared to many other princes, but not real rulership or sovereignty like the non-royal lords of England. Only the head of the house chosen by the king was a "Prince of Mukhrani."  No other family members shared in the title. Many of the Mukhrani family worked for the kings, Prince Nugzar's ancestors, as designated or assigned, some acted in the high capacity as ambassadors for the kingdom. But no one of this family actually ruled over a territory.

The point is, the kings were everything --- everyone and everything else were subservient to them. The king decided who of each line would hold the title of prince. No one else in the family had this exalted title. Sometimes the youngest member of the family was chosen to be the head of the family. There were no letters patent or titular rights. The kings, Irakli I, Teimuraz II and Irakli II, for example, decided who could be a prince of Mukhranbatoni from the whole Mukhranski family line. All others held no title, but the family was considered noble. The Princes were non-sovereign vassals of the king and they did not have vassals of their own. The kings ruled supremely and absolutely. For example, the royal house not only had the right, but actually took the princedom; the large feudal territory, away from the princes of Aragvi in 1743 and later the lands of the princes of Ksani were forfeit to the crown in 1773 all at the discretion of the kings.

Statement: "it seems that the pretensions of the branch Gruzinsky are stronger than his vital need of continuing his branch."

Answer: Even in Sweden, in 1980, the rule of succession was changed from agnatic to equal primogeniture. This means that the eldest child of the monarch, regardless of sex, is the first in line of succession. This created Victoria (born 1977) crown princess over her younger brother Prince Carl Philip (born 1979). This meant that Victoria was able at the age of 18 to act as a regent, in place of her father when he was out of the country. On June 19th, 2010, she is to marry Daniel Westling (commoner) who will become Prince of Sweden.

Succession to the throne of Netherlands, when the monarch dies or abdicates his or her eldest son or daughter succeeds to the throne. The line of succession is laid down in the Constitution. This happened most recently in 1980, when Princess Beatrix succeeded her mother, Queen Juliana.

If the monarch has no legitimate children, the throne will pass to another member of the Royal House (NOT TO ANY OFFSHOOT BRANCH, LIKE MUKHRANI`S) in accordance with the line of succession as laid down in the Constitution.

According to the plan of the Patriarch of Georgia, before constitutional monarchy could be accepted by the country, the child born from the well-known marriage between David, a Prince of the high nobility, and HRH Anna, Princess of the royal blood, would have to grow up so he could become the future monarch.

Right after the wedding, David declared himself on an Internet site as the head of the house, and his immediate ancestors as kings, when in reality they were never anything more than part of the high nobility of Georgia.  David was visiting the Crown Prince`s apartment and he apologized, from his side, before HRH Prince Nugzar on behalf of his ancestors, who had usurped the dynastic position early in the 20th century. He stated that they did not know about existence of the members of Prince Nugzar family. David confirmed that the Bagration-Gruzinski family had the highest entitlement to the Crown of the kingdom of Georgia. Nobody knew about David’s website that declared anything different, otherwise HRH Prince Nugzar would not have allowed his daughter to marry David. But at this point, what happened cannot be changed. We consider it a mistake which has already done damage to how monarchy is perceived in this land.

If Prince Nugzar, the heir or "de jure" monarch and king of Georgia, passes away and the marriage between David and Anna is still intact, David would be head of the home, but not head of state He is not the rightful heir. That would be HRH Princess Anna's exclusive right as HRH Prince Nugzar has designated her as his heir, and the more ancient history and traditions of ancient Georgia provides for female succession, when no male heir can be found, because succession is primogeniture. This determination is absolute and will not change.

Wrong statement: The Kings of Kartli from the family of Bagration-Mukhraneli were: Vakhtang V, Giorgi XI, Erekle I, Vakhtang VI, Kaikhosro and Iese.

Answer: One prince of Mukhrani, not one of David's ancestors, became the King of Kartli as Vakhtang V (Bakhuta Mukhranbatoni). He was adopted by King Rostom. This prince of Mukhrani and a number of the kings that followed him are the ancestors of Prince Nugzar through Vakhtang VI's daughter Princess Tamar. She married the King of the United Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti, King Teimuraz I.

What is really true is that Mukhrani branch of high-nobility is non-reigning branch! His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar is the rightful successor and heir to all the royal rights to the Kingdom of Georgia. This ancient royal lineage had been sovereign not for a few decades but for many centuries. No other line has such a perfect claim to regal sovereignty as the Prince Nugzar's line. All three kingdoms --- the Imereti, Kartli and Kakheti are all represented in his line down through the generations of the kings of each individual land.

Wrong statement: The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a family dynastic institute of the Royal House of Georgia, founded by Saint Queen Tamar (1184-1213) and was reconstituted in 1939 by the grandfather of the current Head of the Royal House, H.R.H. Irakly Bagrationi Mukran, as the main order of the Royal House.

Saint Queen Tamar constituted this order of knights in order to provide aid to the Empire of Trebizond, and she gave it the Tunic of Our Lord as its emblem and as its insignia, a single-headed eagle, in order to distinguish it from the heraldic emblem of the Trebizond Empire. According to tradition, after the relic was raffled off to the Roman soldiers, it was taken to Georgia, preserved and buried in the Cathedral of Svetitskhoveli, along side the insignias of King David.


Answer: Queen Tamar did not originate an order of chivalry. This never happened in the history of Georgia! The first and only statutes created in the Kingdom of Georgia were considered, but never implemented by Prince Ioan (1768-1830), the son of King Giorgi.

The Georgian Kingdom never had a tradition to grant chivalric honours. Contrary to many European sovereigns, the Georgian kings used to reward their subordinates with a sword, or a castle, or a plot of land. During the last period of the Georgian Kingdom there was a plan to establish certain orders of chivalry. This was instigated by one of the direct ancestors of the present Crown Prince Nugzar, Prince Ioan, the son of the last King of Georgia, Giorgi XII.

On 10th May 1799 Prince Ioan submitted his plan to Giorgi XII which was eventually endorsed. This plan included four Orders. Unfortunately, this plan was never put into place because soon after King Giorgi passed away the Georgian Kingdom was illegally annexed with Russia on 17th January 1801.


Following this historic event, after more than two hundred years, on 25th December 2009 the present Head of the Royal House of Georgia, Crown Prince Nugzar, issued a special decree to establish three chivalric Orders.


Wrong statementH.R.H. Prince Giorgi Bagrationi was recognized as the Head of the Royal House and heir to the Crown of Georgia, and this has been ratified in Georgia by the three presidents. It was President Mikhail Saakashvili who made the royal family’s Georgian citizenship official, providing them with Georgian passports and identity cards and conceding them the status of royalty on both documents. In 2005, H.R.H. Prince Giorgi Bagrationi settled in Tbilisi, where he resided as the rightful King Giorgi XIII until his death on 16 January 2008.


Answer: Neither of above mentioned presidents ever recognized anybody. Nor was there given special status on their passports. Again, contact any of the Georgian embassies. By Georgian law, there nothing special can be written in official passports. Present law of state denies a personal status as a royal.


Historically the Prince of Mukhrani was called Mukhranbatoni that means sort of Owner / Lord / Sir of this fief but not like Europian meaning of Lord ! So, to split this word onto two parts we get "Mukhrani" the name of concrete territory and "Batoni" the owner/Sir. Traditionally this word was used unseparated like "Mukhranbatoni" the Prince Mukhranbatoni. So, the son of Mukhranbatoni was called "Mukhranbatonis shvili", "Shvili" means "Son" or "daughter", that is "Mukhranbatoni's shvili" - "The Son of Mukhranbatoni". The other word "Batonishvili" is traditionally applied for the Royal Princes and Princesses and on English it means HRH Prince or Princess (Russian - Tsarevich). Perhaps Davit in some tricky way, pushed the Ministry of Justice in writing the wrong surname that is instead of writing Davit "Mukhranbatoni's Shvili" or "Mukhranbatonishvili" this last was traditionally used for the children of Prince Mukhranbatoni, instead of it Davit separated word "Mukhranbatoni" in two parts - "Mukhrani" and "Batoni" and put the word "Shvili" (Son) with word "Batoni" so, we got "Batonishvili", which means "Royal Prince", therefore he has the following writing in his Passport - Davit Bagrationi Mukhran Batonishvili - დავით ბაგრატიონი მუხრან ბატონიშვილი.


Obviously, even this kind of spelling do not mean that he is a Royal Prince because otherwise it should have been written in this manner - Batonishvili Davit Bagrationi Mukhrani, that means the title of "Batonishvili" should be in front of the person's name, like Batonishvili Nugzar, Batonishvili Anna. Nevertheless, this trick works especially for the foreigners who do not understand Georgian.

TRUTH PREVAILS


Misleading information in regards of Prince David Bagration-Mukhrani, who is descended from a Georgian noble line, and the rightful heir to the ancient throne of Georgia, His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinski, whose ancestors have played a crucial role in the construction of Georgia national identity.


Prince David's family raised a claim to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia in the early 1900's based on the erroneous presumption that the Royal line of Kartli-Kakheti, which failed to emigrate, before the Communist revolution, could not survive under the Soviet tyranny, yet they did, and so the Mukhranski claim to be the royal line is mute. It is built on a false premise.


We are convinced of the bona fidei and patriotic sentiments of Prince Irakli Bagration-Mukhrani when, in the late 1940’s, he proclaimed himself “Head of the Royal House of Georgia”, in Spain. 


In reality, a self-proclamation by the prince Irakli happened in 1942, not in the Spain but in Nazi Germany - in Berlin. Where in the Adlon hotel was held so-called "elections" between two persons for the headship in the Royal House of Georgia. (which is funny indeed). Why? Because at these so-called elections ran for only two man and only these two man were presented there. No other soul was attended at this false event. Only two princes of high nobility of Georgia - one was prince Simon Tsitsishvili descendant by female line of King Erekle the second from his 5th daughter and prince Irakli Bagration-Mukhranski from 9th daughter.  Ibidem these two man self-drawn a genealogical tree on the hotel sheet (we have this copy) where the last King of Georgia Giorgi XII is shown without offspring, although they at least knew about existence of 3 generation of the Royal House during XIX century, but intentionally they were not indicated. On this paper sheet prince Simon has refused from election in favor of prince Irakli.  Please note that in that time in several parts of Europe already lived even some other representatives of Bagrationi, some even of higher rank than prince Mukhranski was, for example Royal Imeretinski branch of Bagrationi but they were not invited to participate in "elections". Why? Answer is easy - because of scam of the century!


After they finished with "election" of “King" of Georgia they send this sheet of paper to 14 Georgian emigrants called "Georgian Traditionalists" who later have signed this falsehood.


This is how prince Irakli became as "King” of Georgia (self-styles King)


Prince Mukhranski makes entitlement and pretentiousness of senior line genealogically speaking of the whole Bagrationi dynasty. However, junior, or cadet lines, are designations which belong to Salic law, not to the Roman/Byzantine/Persian law of succession, which prevailed in Georgia for hundreds of years.


While the royal line (Gruzinski) was recognized with the prenominal title of "Serene Highness" and "the Most Respectful" and as "Princes of Georgia," as a royal house by Imperial Russia, the Mukhrani noble house, were only confirmed as “Prince Bagration of Moukhrani” by decrees of the Council of the Empire 20 Sep 1825, 25 Mar 1826 and 8 Dec 1850, of Senate 25 Mar 1836, 7 June & 7 Jul 1847, 10 May 1850, 16 Apr 1858, 2 Dec 1864 and 1 Mar 1872.


The senior line, the line of the kings, it is important to remember, that the marriage between David, a Prince of the high nobility, and HRH Anna Bagrationi-Gruzinski, Princess of the royal blood, does not give David "de jure" sovereignty or make him a royal.  It is a well-known historical fact that the last king of united Georgia, King Giorgi VIII, was Prince Nugzar's ancestor. The Bagration Mukraneli line did not descend from him. They were part of the high nobility, not royalty. This line was never designated in any of the ancient or modern documents as having collateral rights. They were nobles and subordinates to Prince Nugzar's ancestors.


Descended from Tsarevich Bagrat Georgievich (b 1776; d ), 4th son of King George XII , penultimate Tsar of Kartli and Kakheti (reigned 1798-1800), Most Serene Tsar and Highness (so styled in the Treaty between the Tsar of Russia and Tsar Irakly II of 24 Jul 1783). Accorded the title Princes of Georgia (Prince Gruzinski) and Serene Highness, for all the male line descendants of King George XII (26 Jul 1865). These titles cf. by the Senate 15 Mar 1867, 17 Dec 1873, 11 Feb 1874, 9 Apr 1879 and 31 Jan 1885.


The Bragrationi-Mukhranski family, as a lesser princely family, did not even have a coat of arms, while the Bagration's reigning family had one for hundreds of years. The arms of the Gruzinski line were officially recognized by the Imperial Russian Empire in the 19th century as belonging exclusively to the line of kings. In the 1940's, the Mukhrany line of non-dynastic princes unlawfully usurped the arms of the Royal House. The arms Prince Irakli Muhransky sent to professor Takaishvili were the arms of HRH Prince Teimuraz --- son of George XII, king of the United Kingdoms of Kartli-Kakheti, the direct line ancestor of HRH Prince Nugzar. From this time forward the Muhransky line began to unlawfully use the arms of the Royal House of Gruzinsky, which never should have taken place as they are not descended from the line of the kings.


With this in mind, an important question begs to be asked concerning the legitimacy of some orders of chivalry. The point is, "All honors must spring from a genuine, authentic source, or fountain of honor, otherwise it must be rejected as worthless pretense." We must, therefore, call into question the validity of those orders which were created by the family of Prince Irakly de Bagration-Mukhransky when the only rightful authority to create a valid order of chivalry belongs His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar, the Head and Chief of the Royal House and Arms of the Kingdom of Georgia. 


Prince David's family raised a claim to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia in the early 1900's based on the erroneous presumption that the Royal line of Kartli-Kakheti, which failed to emigrate, before the Communist revolution, could not survive under the Soviet tyranny, yet they did, and so the Mukhranski claim to be the King of Georgia. 


Both branches descend in unbroken, legitimate male line from the medieval kings of Georgia down to Constantine II of Georgia who died in 1505." Konstantine II, who died in 1505, was king of Kartli only, not of Georgia. His kingly descendants became extinct in 1919 except for the fact that King Giorgi X of Kartli's daughter, Princess Khoreshan, married into Prince Nugzar's ancestral line --- the royal line of the Kingdom of Kakheti. Hence, Prince Nugzar was descends from him through their kings down through several generations. Prince David's Mukhranski line, on the other hand, became a line of nobles after Konstantine II in 1505.


One prince of Mukhrani, not one of David's ancestors, became the King of Kartli as Vakhtang V. He was adopted by King Rostom. This prince of Mukhrani and a number of the kings that followed him are the ancestors of Prince Nugzar through Vakhtang VI's daughter Princess Tamar. She married the King of the United Kingdoms of Kartli and Kakheti, King Teimuraz I.


In other words, the line of all the original kings, including that of the Kingdom of Imereti, through Queen Khoreshan (1659), comes down through the generations to His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar who has the highest monarchical entitlement on earth to all of Georgia from every royal line.


It is a false statement that the Mukhranski line was dynasts in the kingdom of Kartli. King Vakhtang VI (1703-1724) of Kartli, before his resettlement in Russia in 1724, he made a list of royal retinue (two-thousand people) which left for Russia together with their king. This list included everyone from members of royal family, the nobility all the way to simple servants. Everyone was listed according to their rank and their status. This important historical document shows again that the Mukhrani line were part of the nobility, not a part of the royal house. They were not listed as dynasts or as collateral or sovereign. Again, history shows the real truth. This historical document definitively puts an end to such misinformation.

The simple truth is Prince David, and his ancestors, were a non-sovereign offshoot line of princes among other more prominent nobles of the various kingdoms in Georgia. They were servants, not rulers, subservient to the line of the kings who were their overlords and rulers. This line of the kings comes down through history to the current heir, or heir apparent, His Royal Highness Prince Nugzar.


The following was the organization of the Royal Kingdom. Note that the Bagration-Mukhranbatoni house was non-sovereign nobles, not royals as part of the high nobility:

MESSAGE FROM THE CHANCELLERY

The Chancellery of the Royal House of Georgia (Gruzinski) occasionally receives inquiries from individuals and organizations about its relationship to groups that refer to themselves as the “Order of Chivalry” or “Prince of this and that”. We know influenced people that were misled to believe these organizations have the fons honorum (fount of honour) to create order of Knighthood or title of nobility. Unfortunately, sometimes members of ancient noble families, some of whose ancestors were members of genuine Sovereign Orders, have taken part, (presumably out of unfamiliarity or imprudence) in the activities of some of these pseudo-Order organizations. It is necessary to clarify that no one has the legal right to use modified names or symbols of a genuine Royal Family. This is especially regrettable because it discredits historic traditional values, and damages the good name of these ancient families and the reputations of their royal descendants.


The founders of such "Orders" are hoping to satisfy the ambitions of those anxious for recognition but whose personal standing or religious affiliation may have made them ineligible for membership in a genuine Order. Many of the members are sincere and respectable people deluded into believing that they were receiving a real "honor" and persuaded that, through their membership become “noble”. The "self-styled orders" are membership organizations and have not been created by a State or a Monarch.


In the absence of historical continuity, that private revivals, whether patterned after a specific extinct order or just orders in general, really don`t deserve the term "order of knighthood", because, outside of the medieval or early modern context, and without a definite link to that context, such designation is meaningless. The charitable activities of some private revivals are worthy of praise, but they in no way compensate for the lack of historical continuity they so crave. The urge to use the term "order of knighthood" and to imitate the ceremonies, costumes, coats of arms and reverberating titles of the Self-styled Order seem to be motivated much less by adherence to ideals of chivalry, than by misguided snobbery.


The Royal Georgian House of Bagrationi-Gruzinski, a House that directly descends from an unbroken line of kings and a queen that ruled over 1,000 years and is today the heir to the throne of Georgia.


Very often when one is puzzled about what he or someone else should do in a certain situation, one must be willing to see the facts.


We must remember that Mukhranski family has almost 80 years of experience of building its own false "world" and during this period they managed to mislead many innocent people while in the Soviet Union the true Royal family was trying to survive. Of course it's hard to change someone's position especially if his belief has grew through the decades and now when someone is telling them that he/she was mistaken in joining a Chivalric Order or paid/obtained a title of nobility it's just hard to admit easily. People at least must be aware that they were misled but we'll never try to persuade them to do anything against their will.


It is no shame for a bona fide innocent person having joined some pseudo order of chivalry believing of having receive genuine honors from organizations about its relationship to groups that refer to themselves as “Order of Chivalry” or “Prince of this and that”. We know influenced people that were misled to believe these organizations have the fons honorum to create order of Knighthood or title of nobility. Unfortunately, sometimes members of ancient noble families, some of whose ancestors were members of genuine Sovereign Orders, have taken part, deceptively out of unfamiliarity or imprudence, in the activities of some of these pseudo-Order organizations. It is necessary to clarify that no one has the legal right to use modified names or symbols of a genuine Royal Family. This is especially regrettable because it discredits historic traditional values, and damages the good name of these ancient families and the reputations of their royal descendants.


We are hereby making it known and effective, that all persons known to be involved or promoting in the creation of pseudo organizations are rejected into our Royal Family.


It is Difficult to recognize our own mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. But those mistakes don't matter at all. What does matter is how fast you can recover from them and learn. We praise those that value and accept the truth.


In many instances people realizing they have made a huge mistake in having joined in good faith a pseudo order, inquire with us if we could consider award them with the same honors they have obtained from a supposedly prince. The Royal House of Georgia cannot endorse nor validate for any unauthorized actions.  


Regrettably, we do not replace any awards from a not de jure sovereign; all memberships must first be applied and revised it by our royal commission. Once an individual is accepted by the royal standard, we will be happy to greet anybody, that in good faith in the past has joined a pseudo order, who has demonstrated to be an honest and deserving person".

 

ERRORS  INFORMATION ON A BOOK OF ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD (Georgia Chapter one) ABOUT THE KINGDOM OF GEORGIA AND ITS RIGHTFUL HEIRS

We respectfully requested that the following errors be corrected as they are historically inaccurate and therefore misleading. Corrections are written in highlight and indented:


This ancient ruling family purportedly descends from Ambat I, Prince of the Bagratids in 314, ancestor of Varaz-Tirot's, appointed Viceroy of Armenia by the Shah of Persia in the 620, where he was ruling until circa 645 when this post was confirmed by the Bizantine Emperor; He was great-grandfather of Ashot III (726-61), ancestor of the lines of the Kings of Georgia, and of the Kings of Armenia (the Latter extinct in the male line); his grandson, Ashot (I), became Eristav of Kartli in 809. The Latter's great-grandson, Adarnase II, farther consolidated his rule and a later descendant, George I (996-1027), united the Kingdoms of Abasgia and Iberia into the Kingdom of Georgia.


*Historically the Bagrations family goes back to the VIII century B.C. The antiquity of this family has been confirmed from Georgian, Armenian and Byzantine historical sources. The oldest representative of this family confirmed through historical sources is Bagadat, who lived about 716 B.C. (T. Dundua. “Bagrat, son of Bivrat” from “Scientific and cultural heritage of the Bagrationis”, Tbilisi, 2003, p. 74.). According to Armenian historical sources, the origins of the Armenian Bagratids do back to the second century B.C. (N. Adonts. Armenia in the age of Justinian. St. Petersburg, 1908, p 413.)


Besides, the real name of Ambat I (Prince of the Bagratids), mentioned in the previous paragraph was Smbat. Varaz-Tirots was the chief (Marzpan) of Hyrcanus (the area located on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea). In 628 he was appointed as Marzpan (ruler) of Armenia by the Shahin Shah of Iran Kavad II.  The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius I (610-641) appointed Varaz-Tirots as first among equals (Primus Inter Pares) Prince of Armenia. The representatives of the Bagratids from the VII century to the IX century, with a few exceptions, were the bearers of this title.


The Bagratids became powerful and from the IX century onwards they assumed royal power, particularly in Armenia (885), Georgia (898), Hereti (east of Kakheti) in 893, and Kakheti (1037). (Ovanes Draskhanaketsi, History of Armenia (786-925), Yerevan, 1986, p 119; Sumbat Davitis dze. History and the story of Bagratids. Tbilisi, 1976, p. 34-54; Chronicler of Kartli (Georgia), Tbilisi, 1976, p. 48.)


As regards Ashot I Kurapalate, this was not the Eristavi of Kartli, but the Erismtavari of Kartli which is quite different. In 813, following the Arab conflict, Ashot was forced to move in southwest Georgia, where he established the Principality of Tao-Klarjeti. He received the title of Kurapalat from the Byzantine Emperor Leon V (815-820). In 898 his great-grandson Adarnase II Kurapalat became King of the Kartvelians (Georgians). The great-great-grandson of Adarnase II (King Bagrat III) became ruler of Kartli in 975. Three years later, in 978, he also became King of Abkhazia (Abazgia). After the demise of his stepfather, David III, Kurapalat received the title of Kurapalat from the Byzantine Emperor Basil II "the Bulgar-slayer" in 1008. But after demise of his father, Gurgen II, he received the title of King of Kings. Therefore, it was Bagrat and not Giorgi I who succeeded in unifying Georgian territories into a centralized state, which continued to exist till 1466 under its last king Giorgi VIII (1446-66). 


George I was an ancestor of the existing lines of the family which, at various times, shared sovereignty of Georgia and its dependent and neighboring principalities and Kingdoms, later rejecting the over-lordship of the Emperor at Constantinople.


*Thus Giorgi I was the son of the first King of United Georgia and so he was a common ancestor for all the existing lines of the present Bagrations, as well as were all his later descendant Kings, except the last King of all Georgia Giorgi VIII, who became founder of only the Kakhetian royal branch.


Bagrat V was King of Georgia (1360-95) and King of Imeretia (1360-86), but dissension among his descendants left Imeretia independent while Georgia itself was ultimately divided into Kartli and Kakhetia until reunited in the eighteenth century.


*King Bagrat V the Great (1360-1393) did not die in 1395 as indicated. He was the King of all Georgia and never was king of Imeretia separately. As a result of the conquests of the central Asian ruler Tamerlane, the power of the Georgian king was attenuated and the provincial rulers (Eristavi) of western Georgia, who were the descendants of Queen of Queens Rusudan of Georgia. Thus, for many years they managed to become the rulers of west Georgia and not just of Imeretia.  


Bagrat V's second son, Constantin I (1405-12) was founder of the two lines of Bagration (Kings of Georgia, Princes of Mukhrani) and of Kings of Imeretia (recently extinct in the male line). Alexander I (died 1446), was father of George VIII, Tsar of Kartli, and Dmitri III, founder of the line of Tsars of Kakhetia (died 1476), the last to rule in Georgia.


*The second son of King Bagrat V, Constantine I, was King of Georgia between 1407 and 1412 and not from 1405 as indicated. Constantine I was the father of King Alexander I and the grandfather of the last King of Georgia, Giorgi VIII and his brother Prince Dimitri, who died in 1452. King Giorgi VIII established the Kingdom of Kakhetia. At that particular time the princes of Mukhrani did not yet exist. They became an offshoot branch from the Royal House of Kartli in 1512. King David XI of Kartli (1505-1525), from the domain lands of the Kartlian Kingdom had allocated territories of lands to his younger brother, Prince Bagrat. Later on, this land became a Princelet, however without any sovereign rights. Similar princelets without sovereign rights were established, for example: the Eristavi of Aragvi, the Eristavi of Ksani, Tsitsishvili, Orbeliani and others.


Besides, King Giorgi VIII was never King of Kartli since he was the last ruler of Georgia. Prince Dimitri was not the founder of the Tsars of Kakhetia; this Royal House was established by the last King of Georgia, Giorgi VIII, in 1466.


Succession to the Georgian throne and the thrones of Kartli and Kakheti was not dictated by primogeniture, nor was it limited to males. Nonetheless, the succession remained confined primarily to the male line descendants of the House and when females inherited they married into other branches of the Bagratid family. The throne often passed from father to eldest son, but not necessarily so, occasionally passing to brothers before reverting to a senior representative line.


*When a female inherited the throne there was no requirement for her to marry into other branches of the Bagratids. Otherwise the first husband of Queen Tamar wouldn't  have been Yury Bogolyubsky, the Son of the Grand Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky of Vladimir-Suzdal. The same applies for Queen Russudan; she married Ghias ad-Din, a younger son of 'Abdu'l Harij Muhammad Mughis ad-din Tughril Shah, the Emir of Erzurum.

 

The last ruling Kings were from a junior branch that deposed the senior line in 1725. The system of succession was such that while it would seem more likely that the legitimate claim rests with the surviving Gruzinski Princes, the claim by the Bagrations of Mukhrani cannot be dismissed and this branch has energetically pursued its claim to represent the House, as the senior male representative line.


Teimuraz II, who became King in 1725 was able to demand greater autonomy from Persia, while remaining an ally. He appointed his elder son , Irakly II, Tsar of Kakhetia, in 1744 and he later united Georgia as Tsar of Kartli and Kakhetia on his father's death.

 

*If one talks about the last ruling Kings as a junior branch it would seem a rather strange because in Georgia the Salic law was never followed, but the Persian-Byzantium law of succession. Thus, it was important to ensure that the line should have always be royal. The offshoot branches, for example Princes Mukhrani and Princes Davitishvili, no matter how senior or junior they were from a genealogical point of view, were never considered for the succession or inheritance of the Georgian throne. Besides, the issue about the real origin of the line of the Kartlian Kingdom is still under research. In recent times, scholars found more evidences which proves that the father of King Constantine was not the elder brother of the last King of all Georgia, Giorgi VIII, but a distant cousin from the junior line of King Bagrat V. Until this research is concluded we are not going to elaborate more on this issue.


A note about Vakhtang VI: in 1724 (not in 1725) the King of Kartli was forced to renounce the Kartlian throne, but he was never compelled to leave the country, although he did. In 1724 he went to Russia. King Vakhtang VI was the grandson of King Vakhtang V, who was adopted by King Rostom (1633-1658), the last representative of the first Kartlian royal line. From 1727 to 1735 the throne of the independent Kartli Kingdom was vacant. In 1735 the Shah of Iran Nader appointed as King of Kartli and Kakheti the nephew of Teimuraz II, Aleksander III (1735-37). But already in 1744 Shah Nader recognized Teimuraz II as King of Kartli and his son Erekle as King of Kakheti. Through this act eastern Georgia was de facto unified under the sovereign father and son and later, in 1763, de jure. Later on, all this led to de jure unification of entire Georgia under the "Treaty of the Iberians" which was implemented by King Erekle II in 1790.


Irakly II, after breaking with the Shah of Persia placed Georgia under the protection of Russia by treaty of 24 July 1783. This stated that Georgia had never been a vassal of the Shah of Persia, or any other power, and that the Georgian Tsar recognised for himself and his descendants the supreme power and protection of Russia, swearing to support the Russian Crown and come to the aid of Russia if in need, while the Russian Emperor reciprocated by guaranteeing the sovereign integrity of Georgia. Russia farther undertook to assist the Georgian Tsar in the recovery of those former possessions of the Kingdom that had been alienated earlier.


Irakly's son, George XII, died on 28 December 1800 and, on 12 September 1801, the latter's son and heir King David was dispossessed by the annexation of Georgia to Russia in breach of the 1783 Treaty. Russia confered on the children of the exiled King and his family the title of Princes of Georgia (Prince Gruzinsky) and Serene Highness, for all the male line descendants of King George XII (by Imperial Ukase 26 July 1865). This line, was believed to have become extinct in 1935 with the death of Prince Michael Alexandrovich of Georgia, when the line of Princes Bagration of Mukhrani, founded by Constantine I, 8th Prince of Mukhrani (ruling 1658-68), younger brother of King Vakhtang V of Georgia, assumed the headship of the House.

 

*From 1804 the children and grandchildren of both King Erekle II and Giorgi XII started to bear the title of Tsarevich/Tsarevna - Prince/Princess of Georgia. From 1865 onwards they received the title of Serene Highness. It is stated that this royal line was believed to have become extinct with the demise of Tsarevich Michail Aleksandrovich Bagration-Gruzinsky. This is an unfounded statement, especially when considering that in 1935 both Constantine and Peter (II), the sons of the former Head of the Royal House of Georgia, the late Prince Peter (I)(1857-1922), were still in good health and pursued the headship of the royal house.


As regards Constantine I, in reality this was a simple prince of Mukhrani who had no sovereign rights. The princes of Mukhrani never ruled in their princelets, thus saying that Prince Constantine was ruling is simply incorrect. Therefore the princes of Mukhrani were never considered as ruling princes, same with other similar degree princes of the Kartli-Kakhetian Kingdom. Possibly this myth was fabricated in the thirties of XX century, when this princely branch emigrated.


Two surviving lines, however, have emerged from the chaos of the former Soviet Union, and are presently represented by Prince Nugzar Petrovich Gruzinsky, born at Tbilisi 25 August 1950, a film director, who succeeded his father as senior representative of the Royal House of Kartli and Kakheti. He is married with two daughters. The only other surviving line is presently represented by a distant cousin (descended from a younger son of the penultimate King Giorgi Iraklievich), Prince Eugene Petrovich Gruzinsky, born in 1947, married (it is not known whether he has issue) and living in Moscow. The Princes of this line have not made any claim, nor have they apparently challenged the claim to the Georgian throne by the senior representative line of Prince Bagration-Mukhranski.


*How they could challenge the claim when author itself writes that these two lines have emerged from the chaos of the former Soviet Union. We prefer using the word “survived” instead of “emerged”, but anyway how they could make a claim when they were still under the threat of the Soviet regime? It would be more correct to write that the princes Bagration-Mukhranskis, whilst living abroad and knowing that the royal family was under the pressure of the Bolsheviks took advantage of the situation and began to assert that they are members of the royal house of Georgia.


The Bagration-Mukhrani line is descended from Constantine II, Tsar of Kartli, who had with other issue, two sons; the elder David VIII (died 1525/6), founded the line of Kings of Georgia extinct in the male line with Rostom, Tsar of Kartli, died 1658.  The younger son, Bagrat I (died 1539), was Prince of Mukhrani 1512-39), grandfather of Bagrat II (died 1624), forth Prince of Mukhrani, Regent of Kartli 1573-74, father of (1) Vakhtang II, seventh Prince of Mukhrani, succeeded as Vakhtang V, Tsar of Kartli 1658 (converted to Islam as Shah Naway I and died 1675), grandfather of Vakhtang VI, Tsar of Kartli (1675-1737), deposed and exiled 1725, whose descendants became extinct in the male line in the late nineteenth century. (2) Constantine I, 8th Prince of Mukhrani 1658-68), father of Prince Teimuraz, confirmed as ruling Prince of Mukhrani 1687. The members of this family were confirmed as Prince Bagration of Mukhrani by several decrees of the Council of the Russian Empire between 1825 and 1872.


*King David VIII (indeed David X, died in 1525) was not the one who established the line of the Kings of Kartli, but his father Constantine II of Kartli (1478-1505).


The real name of King Vakhtang V, before being adopted by the King of Kartli Rostom, was Bakhuta and not Vakhtang as indicated. We want to emphasize that he was adopted before he became king, thus he left his princely origins and continued the royal line of his stepfather, King Rostom. This does not mean that the princes of Mukhrani became part of  the Royalty of Kartli. This is a wrong interpretation of facts, which later was simply confirmed through the written list of nobility made by Vakhtang VI (1703-1724), the grandson of Vakhtang V Shah Naway), where the princes of Mukhrani appear among the noble families of Kartli. This list of royal retinue (amounting to approximately 2,000 people) included all the members of the royal family, the nobility, and servants. Every person was listed according to their rank and status. This important historical document reveals once again that the Mukhrani line was part of the nobility, not part of the Royal House. (David Guramishvili within the Georgian Hussar’s Regiment by S. Kubaneishvili, Tbilisi, 1955, p.122).  Prince Constantine was never a ruling prince of Mukhrani.


In 1687 the King of Kartli, Giorgi XI gave Prince Teimuraz only a house located in Tbilisi without any confirmation of any sovereign rights (see: Central State Historical Archive of Georgia, Fund 1448, Census I, Case № 610, (1687)). Between 1573 and 1574 there was no Regent Prince of Kartli. Between 1569 and 1578 the ruling king of Kartli was David XI (Daut khan), the elder brother of King Simeon I of Kartli (1556-1600).


Prince Irakly Bagration (1909-77) proclaimed himself Head of the Royal House of Georgia and claimant to the throne after the presumed extinction  of the senior branch of the surviving Princes Gruzinsky (1935), following the death of his father in 1957. In 1946 he married as his third wife the D. Maria de las Mercedes de Baviera y Borbon, Infanta of Spain, daughter of Prince Ferdinand of Bavaria, Infant of Spain, by his first wife, Infanta Pilar de Borbon y Austria, youngest sister of King Alfonso XIII. He had issue by his second wife, Maria Antonietta Pasquini dei Conti di Costafiorita, Prince George Bagration, born in 1944, a leading rally driver, who is married with issue and has continued his father's claims.


The Georgian Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ has its origins according to tradition in a collar given for loyalty by the Bagratid Kings in the later middle ages, which was reputedly reformed in the eighteenth century. There is little historical evidence to support that any chivalric institution on the western European model existed in any of the Georgian kingdoms at this early date.


*Prince Irakly Bagration (1909-77) should be labeled as self-styled or self-proclaimed as this was a false and therefore wrongful assertion.


The mentioned tradition “in a collar” never applied to Georgia. This is completely wrong. There were other traditions in Georgia to recognize one’s loyalty. In Georgian history we find that the first person who apparently developed orders of chivalry in Georgia was Prince Ioan (1768-830), the second son of King Giorgi XII.


The present Order was founded by the late Prince Irakly Bagration, whose claims to represent the Georgian royal dynasty have been widely accepted (his sister became the consort of the Grand Duke Vladimir Kyrillovich of Russia, Head of the Imperial House). In recent years the successor of Prince Irakly, Prince George, has been a regular and welcome visitor to Georgia. Hence the standing of the Order may be reviewed, as does not presently have a juridical personality and is unrecognized by any sovereign state. Recognition by the Georgian republic, the convocation of regular assemblies and formation of a legal association of the members are all steps that may be taken in the future. The Order is given in six classes, of which the highest is that of the collar.