This part investigates the question to what extent the SMOM is the only legitimate successors of the original Knights Hospitaller, as it is claimed. In particular, it raises the question whether the Russian branch of the Order, often designated as the Russian Tradition, can legitimately claim to have the same origin.
Nature of the Russian tradition
On 24 June 1928, twelve Russian descendants of Family Commanders of the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory formed the Union of Descendants of Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Russian Grand priory of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in Paris. In 1988, knightly order expert James J. Algrant (1926-2018) contacted Grand Duke Wladimir, who had a key role in the group. Algrant reports the following:
In Paris on 24 June 1928 a group of twelve exiled Russian noblemen, descendants of “family commanders” of the Russian Orthodox Grand Priory formed this union. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, in exile in France, agreed to be the union’s “Grand Prior”. When the Union of Descendants was formed, he accepted to become its head and soon tried to effect a rapprochement with the S.M.O.M. The conditions offered by the S.M.O.M. that the Union subject itself to the via Condotti (4) and receive only Roman Catholic members was unacceptable to the Grand Duke and the reconciliation never took place. Thus, the Grand Duke remained Grand Prior of the Union until his death in 1933. After his death, the presidency of the Union passed to Grand Duke Andrei Wladimirovich (brother of Grand Duke Kyrill Wladimirovich, head of the imperial house of Russia who also became its “protector”.) Following Grand Duke Andrei’s death in 1956, the Union was directed by its Secretary General Georges de Rticheff. In 1962 the latter petitioned Grand Duke Wladimir Kyrillovich, head of the imperial house to become the Union’s “protector”. We personally asked H.I.H. Grand Duke Wladimir in August 1988 about his protection of the Union. He confirmed that both he and his father had indeed been its protector but that it never was or was ever meant to be a revival of the Russian Grand priory. Rather it was, what its name implied, merely a union of descendants of the original “family” or “hereditary” commanders. After de Rticheff’s death the group virtually disappeared from the scene in France, but a new “Sovereign Order of the Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St.John of Jerusalem” (see XVII) claiming to be descended from this Union was created in the United States in 1977 in close cooperation with the Association of the Russian Nobility.
James J. Algrant, C.St.L.
The statement by HIH Grand Duke Wladimir in August 1988, is contradicted by the original formation statement of 24 June 1928 (bold font by me, JvBQ):
We, the undersigned representatives of titled families and Hereditary Commanders of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, instituted in virtue of the decree by Emperor Paul I for the Russian Nobility and in conformity with the regulations ratified by the Imperial Throne on 21st July, 1799, unanimously confirm the following:
The commanderies of our ancient ancestors were founded on their family fiefs, having the inviolable perennial privilege constituted on the same bases as the entailed estates of the Empire.
Later events have limited the activity of the Grand Priory of Russia; a revolution had provoked a deficiency in the legitimate power throughout the Empire; yet nothing could weaken our hereditary right as a regular affiliation and as a sovereign order of chivalry. We were born with this privilege and we retain it without further question in law.
Circumstances dictated that we should now sustain without futile and vain ostentation, the prerogatives acquired by our ancestors. The tragic test which overwhelmed our Fatherland calls us to an activity full of abnegation and sacrifice worth of the best traditions of the illustrious Order of St John of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, our duty that all of us shall initiate the following:
1. Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the 4/13th of January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.
2. Appeal to direct descendants of other Russian Hereditary Knights of Malta in order to urge them to rally with us with in the fold of the Grand Priory of Russia which we are reconstituting abroad.
3. Solicit H.R.H. the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovitch, great grandson of the Emperor Paul I, Russian Grand Master of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, to take over during his lifetime the functions of Grand Prior of Russia, the first holder of which was the Grand Duke Heir to the Throne, who eventually became Czar Alexander I of Russia.
4. Solicit His Imperial Highness to submit tot H.M. the King of Spain, who at the beginning of the Great War was so kind to accede to the request of the late Emperor Nicholas II to grant his High Protection to Russians abroad, the following request: To temporarily assume instead of the Emperor, the dignity as well the prerogatives of an August Protector for the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St John of Jerusalem.
5. To invest our elected superior, His Imperial Highness with unlimited powers for life in all decisions relative to the regular re-establishment of the Grand Priory of Russia as well as its statutory regulations in conformity with the fundamental charter of old with eventual amendments necessitated by the exceptional conditions of Russian migrants abroad.”
Statement Paris Group, 24 June 1928. Source: De Taube, 1955, pp. 40-41.
The original statement clearly specifies that the Paris Group sees itself “as a sovereign order of chivalry” with the intention to “Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the 4/13th of January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.“. This makes Grand Duke Wladimir’s 1988-statement untruthful. Probably, Grand Duke Wladimir did not want to jeopardize his ties with the Order of Malta, which invested him as Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion in 1961. The Order of Malta also claims – contrary to the Romanov-family’s official statements – that his daughter, Grand Duchess Maria, is the current head of the Romanov family:
On October 1, 2021, at St. Isaac’s Cathedral, a solemn wedding ceremony was held for the heir to the Romanov dynasty, the Grand Duke, Georgy Mikhailovich Romanov and the daughter of Italian diplomat, Rebecca Bettarini. According to the Russian Imperial House, this is the first wedding of a House representative to take place in Russia in over 120 years.
Georgy Mikhailovich Romanov is the son and heir of the head of the Russian Imperial House of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna – the only child from the marriage of Vladimir Kirillovich Romanov, the head of the Russian Imperial House in exile (son of the Russian Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, who proclaimed himself in 1924 the emperor in exile) and Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani.
russiaembassy.orderofmalta.int, 2 October 2021
In the footsteps of the betrayal of Grand Duke Wladimir, his daughter also misrepresented the formation history and activities of the Paris Group:
The Chancellery of the Russian Imperial House occasionally receives inquiries from individuals and organizations about its relationship to groups that refer to themselves as the “Order of St. John of Jerusalem,” including so called “Orthodox” and “Russian” “Orders of Malta,” “Priories,” “Commanderies,” and so on.
In each such instance, it is necessary to clarify that no one has the legal right to use modified names or symbols of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (hereinafter referred to as the Sovereign Order of Malta), which has a unquestionable historical and legal continuity from the moment of its founding, and which is recognized as a sovereign entity under international law, and which maintains diplomatic relations with more than 100 States around the world.
The Orthodox Russian Grand Priory was founded by Emperor Paul I in 1798 and was abolished by Emperor Alexander I in 1817. Since then no legitimate authority has reestablished it. Local attempts to revive its activities on a legal basis have not been successful, and all “Orthodox Order of St. John” organizations are illegitimate and offer a means of deception, including the trafficking in false “knighthoods.”
Unfortunately, sometimes members of ancient Russian noble families, some of whose ancestors were members of the genuine Sovereign Order of Malta, have taken part (presumably out of ignorance or carelessness) in the activities of some of these pseudo-Order of Malta organizations. This is especially regrettable because it discredits historic traditional values, and damages the good name of these ancient families and the reputations of their descendants in Russia and the world over.
Source: “Official Statement from the Chancellery of the Head of the Russian Imperial House, H.I.H. the Grand Duchess Maria of Russia“, 30 April 2014. http://imperialhouse.ru/en/interest/interest.html
This statement is echoed by a number of admirers of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna. However, the authority of the aforementioned statement is questionable because the Romanov Family Association does not accept the headship of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna as head of the Russian imperial family (see: Appendix 7 and 8, bold font by me, JvBQ):
During my recent stay in St Petersburg I was repeatedly asked to comment upon several articles that have lately appeared in the media concerning my relative Maria Wladimirovna.
FIRSTLY: I would like to say it once more – as it has been stated so often in the past – that it is incorrect that Maria Wladimirovna be titled as Grand Duchess. The last Grand Duchess of the Imperial family was of course the sister of the martyred Tsar Nichols II, Olga Alexandrovna, who died in Canada in 1960. Today, the living members of the Imperial Family all bear the titles of Princes and Princesses.
SECONDLY: – as it has been stated so often in the past – it is misleading that MW should be titled Head of the Imperial Family, as by right and as recognized as such by all other members of the Imperial Family, it is my elder brother Nicholas Romanovich, who is the Head of our Family.
THIRDLY: I was told that Maria Wladimirovna intends to take up residence in Russia, which is not unusual as many other émigré Russian families have done so.
It is however very important to emphasize that if she decides to do so, she then does that as an individual, and certainly not to symbolize “a return of the House of Romanov”. Her entourage, who introduce themselves as representatives, advisers, lawyers or whatever other professionals, are not acting in the name of the Imperial House of Romanov. They are acting on behalf of Maria Wladimirovna as an individual – and as nothing else but that.
To terminate, I would like to refer to a meeting taken place in Paris in 1992 with the participation of all the then living senior male descendants of the House of Romanov: Without exception, and considering the great sufferings endured by the Russian people, we were all in agreement not to put forward any claims of any kind, or expect any kind of privileges.
July 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
It has come to my knowledge that George, son of Franz Wilhelm von Hohenzollern, Prince of Prussia, styling himself as ”The Tsarevich”, during a recent visit to Moscow, has bestowed the Imperial Russian Order of Saint Anne upon various persons.
This action was not only farcical, but it also lacks respect for the memory of a glorious Imperial Russian Order. Therefore this can only be condemned by the descendants of the Imperial Romanov Family.
April 2010
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
During the summer of last year, after a visit to Saint Petersburg, I issued a press release in which I informed the media that the entourage of my relative, Princess Maria Wladimirovna, was titling her as Grand Duchess and Head of the Imperial Family.
I did point out that both titles ware misleading as the last Grand Duchess of the Imperial family had been Olga Alexandrovna, the sister of the martyred Tsar Nicholas II, who died in Canada in 1960. Furthermore, I pointed out that the Head of the Imperial Family was my elder brother Nicholas Romanovich who not only by right but also is recognized as such by all other members of the Imperial Family.These past days, I have learned that the same entourage of my relative, who introduce themselves as representative and advisers, are now titling her as
“Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess of Russia and de jure Empress and Autocrat of all Russias”.
It seems that there are no limits to this charade that wishes to resuscitate pompous and obsolete patterns, seeking servile homage and titles, honours and orders of a non-retrievable era, risking to fall into a Russia-wide ridicule.
As a Romanov, I firmly believe that all members of my family must first of all limit themselves to be a proud historical link with a past, which no great nation can ever forfeit.
26 May 2010
Press releases by the Romanov Family Association
It is very sad to see that the illustrious Russian noblemen in exile who, in 1928, legitimately revived the Russian Grand Priory have been betrayed by Grand Duke Wladimir and his daughter Grand Duchess Maria, driven by their membership of the Order of Malta. It is downright despicable that Grand Duchess Maria, who is rejected by her family, in 2014, unjustifiably defames the Russian Grand Priory by stating that they “are illegitimate and offer a means of deception, including the trafficking in false “knighthoods.” (see the aforementioned statement of 30 April 2014).
The nature of the 1928 Paris Group is simply what it states in its formation document, to: “Re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta created and regularised by a treaty signed on the 4/13th of January, 1799, between the Throne of Russia and the Sovereign Order of Malta.“.
Case study: Dame Emma Hamilton
Emma Hamilton was the mistress of the British naval hero Admiral Horatio (afterward Viscount) Nelson. She facilitated Nelson’s victory over the French in the Battle of the Nile (1 August 1798) by securing Neapolitan permission for his fleet to obtain stores and water in Sicily. On 21 December 1799 (Gregorian calendar), the Tsar awarded Hamilton with the small cross of the Russian Order of Malta for paying for and organising the delivery of grain to the starving population of Malta during a famine (see: David Huntington. (1815). Memoirs of lady Hamilton: With illustrative anecdotes of many of her most particular friends and distinguished contemporaries, p. 279 and Hellman, Jesse. (2015). Lady Hamilton, Nelson’s Enchantress, and the Creation of Pygmalion. DOI Shaw. 35. 213. 10.5325/shaw.35.2.0213). The Tsar wrote in his appointment (in French): “Having learned with particular satisfaction the active part that you have taken in maintaining tranquility and good order among the inhabitants of Malta, we have kindly given you a proof of our benevolence by decorating you with the small Cross of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, which you will find attached. Upon this we pray to God Milady Hamilton, that he may keep you in his holy and worthy guard.” (sources: Pettigrew, T.J. Memoirs of the Life of Vice-Admiral Lord Viscount Nelson (in Two Volumes, Vol.II) Publisher T. and W. Boone (London), pp. 618-623; Style, L. The Story of Emma’s Maltese Cross, published in the The 1805 Club’s Kedge Anchor magazine, autumn 2019). Horatia Nelson, christened as Horatia Nelson Thompson (1801 – 1881), was the illegitimate daughter of Emma Hamilton, and Horatio Nelson. The family tree can be found here.
Prior to 1812, British subjects often assumed foreign titles and honorific prefixes, the exception being that persons in the military (like Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté and General Sir Charles Imhoff) required the King’s warrant to accept and wear a foreign decoration and assume the honorific prefix, which included “Sir” (source: communication from Mr. Stephen Lautens GCJ, B.A., J.D.). Since then, the regulations regarding these matters have become stricter (see my article: Regulations regarding the acceptance of foreign orders and titles by British nationals). This explains why Hamilton is mentioned as Dame Emma Hamilton in the diploma of the College of Arms, granting her a coat of arms on 19 November 1806, showing the Maltese cross; Per pale Or and Argent, three Lions rampant Gules, on a chief Sable, a Cross of eight points of the second):
TO ALL AND SINGULARTo whom these presents shall cme Sir Isaac Heard Knight GARTER Principal King of Arms and George Harrison Esquire CLARENCEUX King of Arms of the South East and West parts of England from the River trent Southwards send Greeting. Whereas DAME EMMA HAMILTON of Clarges Street Piccadilly in the County of Middlesex (only issue of HENRY LYONS of Preston in the County of Lancaster) Widow of the Right Honorable Sir William Hamilton K.B. hath represented unto the most noble Charles Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal and hereditary Marshal of England that she intermarried with the said Sir William Hamilton in the Year 1791 and having attended him during his Embassy from our most gracious Sovereign to His Majesty the King of the Two Sicilies and rendered great service at that Court during an important juncture as appears by the following clause in a Codicil bearing date the twenty first day of October 1805 and annexed to the last Will and Testament of the late Right Honorable Horatio Viscount and Baron Nelson Duke of Bronte in Sicily &c deceased “Whereas the eminent services of Emma Hamilton Widow of the Right Honorable Sir William Hamilton have been of the very great Service to our King and Country to my knowledge without her receiving any reward from either our King and Country First that she obtained the King of Spain’s letter in 1796 to his Brother the King of Naples acquainting him of his intention to declare War against England from which Letter the Ministry sent out Order to the then Sir John Jervis to strike a stroke if opportunity offered against the Arsenale of Spain or her Fleets, that neither of these were done is not the fault of Lady Hamilton the opportunity might have offered. Secondly the British Fleet under my Command could never have returned the second time to Egypt had not Lady Hamilton’s influence with the Queen of Naples caused Letters to be wrote to the Governor of Syracuse that he was to encourage the Fleet being supplied with every thing should they put into any Port in Sicily. We put into Syracuse and received every supply went to Egypt and destroyed the French Fleet. Could I have rewarded these services I would not now call upon my Country but as that has not been in my power I leave Emma Lady Hamilton therefore a legacy to my King and Country that they will give her as capable provision to maintain her rank in Life”
And the said Dame Emma Hamilton not finding any Armorial Ensigns registered to her Family in the College of Arms and unwilling to use any without lawful authority she therefore requested the favor of his Grace’s Warrant for our granting and assigning each Armorial Ensigns as may be proper to be borne by her and her Descendants according to the Law of Arms. And forasmuch as the said Earl Marshal did by Warrant under his Hand and Seal bearing date the twenty ninth day of September last authorize and direct Us to grant and exemplify such Armorial Ensigns for LYONS accordingly. Know Ye therefore that We the said GARTER and CLARENCEUX in pursuance of his Grace’s Warrant and by virtue of the Letters Patent of our several Offices to each of Us respectively granted have devised and do by these Presents grant and exemplify to the said DAME EMMA HAMILTON the Arms following that is to say Per Pale Or and Argent three Lions rampant Gules, on a Chief Sable a Cross of eight points of the second ; as the same are in the margin here more plainly depicted to be borne and used for ever hereafter by the said Dame Emma Hamilton and her Descendants according to the Laws of Arms.
In Witness whereof We the said GARTER and CLARENCEUX Kings of Arms have to these Presents subscribed our Names and affixed the Seals of our several Offices this nineteenth day of November in the forty seventh Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and six.
College of Arms MS Grants 24, pp. 73 and 74. published by the Emma Hamilton Society.
The case of Dame Emma Hamilton proves that the Russian Tsar awarded his Order to foreigners and that, at the time, these awards were accepted in England. The entitled the recipient to use the prefix Sir/Dame.
Founding fathers of the Russian tradition
In order to obtain insight regarding the historical context of the Paris Group, it is essential to learn more about its individual members. The section below is far from complete and additional information and corrections are most welcome.
Dmitri Alexandrovich Sheremetev/Cheremeteff
Count Dmitri Alexandrovich Sheremetev/Cheremeteff (1885-1963), buried Cimetière de Sainte Genevieve des Bois Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois, Departement de l’Essonne, Île-de-France, son of Count Alexander Dmitrievich Cheremetiev (1859-1931).
The Sheremetevs were one of the most prominent boyar families of the Russian monarchy. Field Marshal B.P. Sheremetev was the first in Russia to be granted (in 1706) the title of count (N. Novikov. Genealogical book of princes and nobles of Russia, pp. 124-128). The marriage of the son of B.P. Sheremetev with the heiress of A.M. Cherkassky marked the beginning of a colossal “Sheremetev fortune”. Count N. P. Sheremetev, remains in Russian history as a philanthropist who built and decorated the Ostankino and Kuskovo estates near Moscow, and also founded the Hospice House. In Petersburg, the Sheremetevs owned the Fountain House. In addition to the comital branch, there are less well-known untitled branches of the family; one of them owned Yurin Castle.
Prince Serge Constantinovitch Belosselsky Belozersky
Prince Serge Belosselsky Belozersky (1867–1951) was one of the largest landowners in Russia. He was the son of general Konstantin Esperovich Belosselsky-Belozersky and Nadezhna Dmitrovna Skobeleva (1847–1820), the sister of general Mikhail Skobelev.
In 1887, Belosselsky Belozersky graduated from the Corps of Pages, and was made cornet in the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment. Continuing to be listed, he was first attached to the Russian Embassy in Berlin, and then in Paris.
In 1894, Belosselsky Belozersky retired. Two years later, he returned to active service. In 1896-1905, he became adjutant of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich. In 1906, already in the rank of colonel, he was listed again in the Life Guards Cavalry Regiment. In August 1908, Belosselsky Belozersky was appointed commander of the 3rd Dragoons Novorossiysk Regiment and became an advisor of the Tsar. Soon afterwards he was promoted to major-general of Her Majesty’s Life Guards Lancer Regiment, and at the end of 1913, of the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Guards Cavalry Division, which involved him in the First World War.
In November 1914 Belosselsky Belozersky temporarily commanded the 2nd Guards Cavalry Division, and then became Chief of the 3rd Don Cossack Division (1914-1915). On December, 29, 1915 Belosselsky Belozersky was appointed commander of the Caucasian Cavalry Division, with which he made the march across Persia through Kermanshah in the detachment of General Baratov. On 10 April 1916, Belosselsky Belozersky was promoted to lieutenant-general.
From 1917, by order of the Minister of War, Belosselsky Belozersky served on the staff of Lieutenant-General Mannerheim (his friend) and participated in the war between the Finnish White Army and the Red Army. In May 1919, at the end of the Finnish Civil War, he arranged several meetings between General Yudenich and General Mannerheim. In 1919, he was appointed representative in Finland of the Special War Mission in London to provide material assistance to the armies of Generals Miller, Yudenich and Denikin, and for Admiral Kolchak. In 1919, he participated in the formation and supply of the North-Western Army. After Mannerheim’s failure in the presidential elections in Finland, he remained in Helsinki until the end of 1919, as a representative of General Yudenich. Then (1920), he went to England and was a member of the Special Mission until its dissolution.
Belosselsky Belozersky was also one of the first international polo players and a member of the Olympic Committee. At the 1900 Paris Olympic games, Belosselsky Belozersky took part in equestrian events. Between 1934 and his death in 1951, Belosselsky Belozersky lived in Lyons Crescent (England), The Red Lion Hotel and finally in Dry Hill Road. He also spent time with his eldest son Serge in New York and an apartment in Kensington (source: russianestonia.eu)
Belosselsky Belozersky has lived in England for more than thirty years. He died on April 20, 1951 in Tonbridge and was buried in the local cemetery.
Count Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff
Count Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff was third son of the cavalry general Count Illarion Ivanovich Vorontsov-Dashkov and his wife Elizaveta Andreyevna Shuvalova (1845-1924). Upon graduation from the Corps of Pages (first class) in 1898, he was promoted to cornet in His Majesty’s Life Guards Hussar Regiment. Woronzoff-Dachkoff was promoted to lieutenant colonel on 6 December 1902, and to staff sergeant – on 6 December 1905. On 5 September 1909, he was appointed Adjutant to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and he remained listed in the Life Guards Hussar Regiment. Woronzoff-Dachkoff was promoted to captain on 11 March 1911, and promoted to colonel on 6 December 1913. On 23 August, 1914, he was appointed commander of the Kabardian Horse Regiment with the outbreak of World War I. In 1926, he was awarded the St George’s Weapon For Courage, which was a grade of the Order of St. George (according to the 1913 Statute of the Order). The St. George’s weapon was established to be awarded to generals, admirals and other senior officers “ for outstanding military feats that require undoubted dedication ”. Woronzoff-Dachkoff excelled during the battle at the river Stypa:
For being the commander of the Kabardian Horse Regiment in the battle on 10 September 1915, during the battle on the river Stypa, to determine the location of the enemy at the division front, commanding two companies of the 128th Infantry Stary Oskol Regiment, six guns and two cavalry regiments, he successfully performed the reconnaissance, and the capture of Hill 392 gave the division a firm foothold along the whole front and subsequently develop a successful advance in neighboring sections of the 11th Corps.
Воронцов-Дашков, Илларион Илларионович. Проект Русская армия в Великой войне.
On 24 March 1916, Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff returned to the position of Adjutant to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and remained in the Guard Cavalry.
During the Civil War, Hilarion Woronzoff-Dachkoff participated in the White movement (a loose confederation of anti-communist forces that fought the communist Bolsheviks), in the All-Union Revolutionary Army and in the Volunteer Army. In May 1920, he arrived in the Crimea (see: Archives Nationales. Intérieur. Fichier central de la Sûreté nationale: dossiers individuels de WA à WZ (fin XIXe siècle-1940), Dossiers 12662 à 12765 [19940484/142]).
Prince Pavel Alexandrovich Demidov
Prince Pavel Alexandrovich Demidov (1869-1935) was a representative of the second line of the senior branch of the Demidov family and author of the genealogy of the Demidov family. At the beginning of World War I, Pavel Demidov was appointed by Nicholas II as the HIM’s Stalmeister, and subsequently served as the General Director of the Russian Southwestern Red Cross Service. After the revolution, he emigrated to France.
The family descents from Nikita Demidovich Antufyev (1656–1725), a blacksmith and serf from the western Russian city of Tula, who assumed the surname Demidov in 1702. He began to accumulate his family’s fortune by manufacturing weapons and, after receiving land grants from Tsar Peter I the Great, by building and operating an iron foundry at Tula. Antufyev was ennobled by the Tsar in 1720.
Demidov was the great-great-great-great-grandson of the founder of the family, Nikita Demidov, and the son of chamber junker Alexander Pavlovich Demidov (1845 – 1893) and his wife Alexandra Alexandrovna, née Abaza (1853-1894) . The great-great-grandfather of P. A. Demidov, Alexander Grigorievich (1737 – 1803), was the brother of the founder of the Demidov Lyceum in Yaroslavl (now Yaroslavl State University), Pavel Grigorievich Demidov (1739-1821).
On 14 April 1958, Grand Duke Vladimir signed a diploma in favour of Paul Demidoff;
“de faire droit à Votre requête et de confirmer Votre titre de Commandeur Héréditaire de l’Union des Descendants des Commandeurs Héréditaires et Chevaliers du Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de St. Jean de Jérusalem en tant que descendant direct de Demidoff Nicolas fils de Nicétas qui, par grâce de Mon trisaïeul, S.M. l’Empereur Paul I-r Grand Maître de l’Ordre de St. Jean de Jérusalem avait été élevé le 2I Juillet 1799.”
(translation)
“to grant Your request and to confirm Your title of Hereditary Commander of the Union of the Descendants of the Hereditary Commanders and Knights of the Russian Grand Priory about St John of Jerusalem as a direct descendant of Demidoff Nicholas son of Nicétas which, by grace of My great-great-grandfather, H.M. the Emperor Paul I Grand Master of the Order of St John of Jerusalem had been elevated 21 July 1799.”
Source: http://www.orderstjohn.org/osj/dem1958.htm)
Dmitri Boutourline
Dmitri Boutourline was a member of an ancient Russian family, descending from the Moscow boyars. The genealogy is included in the Velvet Book (Russian: Бархатная книга, romanized: Barkhatnaya kniga) the (incomplete) official register of genealogies of Russia’s most noble families.
Serge Alexandrovitch Dolgorouky
by Bassano Ltd. whole-plate glass negative, 24 January 1922
Prince Serge Alexandrovitch Dolgorouky (1872 – 1933) was a former general. Dolgorouky was born in Saint-Petersburg on 22 May 1872 to Prince Aleksandr Sergeievich Dolgorouky and Countess Olga Petrovna Shuvalova. Prince Serge Alexandrovitch Dolgorouky married Irina Vassilievna Naryshkina and had one child. He passed away on 11 Nov 1933 in Paris, Île-de-France, France.
The Dolgorouky dynasty, also called Dolgoruky, Dolgoruki, Dolgorukov or Dolgorukii (Russian: Долгоруков), seems to descend from the Rúrikovich, being a minor branch of the rulers of the Principality of Obolensk. The House of Dolgorukov is a princely Russian family. They are a cadet branch of the Obolenskiy family (until 1494 the rulers of Obolensk, one of the Upper Oka Principalities) and as such claiming patrilineal descent from Mikhail of Chernigov (d. 1246).
The founder of the Dolgorukov branch of the Obolenskiy is Prince Ivan Andreevich Oblenskiy (15th century), who, for his vengefulness, was given the nickname of “Долгорукий Dolgorukiy“, i.e. “far-reaching”. Obolensk was incorporated into the expanding Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1494, and the House of Dolgorukov became a powerful noble family in Russia.
Denis Davydoff
[Denis Davydoff]
Leon Wassillijewitsch Narychkin
Leon (Lew) Wassillijewitsch Narychkin (1875-1931) married on 17 October 1908 in Paris Countess Alexandra von Zarnekau (1883-1957, Paris, Île-de-France), eldest daughter of Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg and his Georgian wife, Princess Agrippina Japaridze, Countess von Zarnekau, formerly married to the Georgian Prince Dadiani. Countess Alexandra married secondly to Lev Vassilievich Naryshkin. During World War I, Countess Alexandra worked as an administrator of the Russian hospital at Saloniki. After the war, she moved to Paris, France, where she died on 28 May 1957. See for the genealogy: Князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский. Русская родословная книга, 2 тт. С.-Петербург: Издания А. С. Суворина, 1895. p. 18; Almanach de St-Pétersbourg: Cour, Monde et Ville, 1912 (St-Pétersbourg, 1912), p. 356; Almanach de St-Pétersbourg: Cour, Monde et Ville, 1912. St-Pétersbourg: Societé M. O. Wolff Editeurs, 1912. p. 356; C. Arnold McNaughton, The Book of Kings: A Royal Genealogy, in 3 volumes (London, U.K.: Garnstone Press, 1973), volume 1, page 216.
Prince Nikita Wladimirovich Troubetzkoy
Prince Nikita Troubetzkoy (1902-1980), son of Vladimir Vladimirovich Troubetzkoy (1868–1931) and Helene Mikhaylovna Onou Troubetzkoy (1870–1955). Buried at the Batignolles Cemetery, Paris, France.
The Troubetzkoy is a boyar family of Lithuanian-Russian princes, who originally owned the Trubetskoy principality. The genealogy is included in the Velvet Book (Н. Новиков. Родословная книга князей и дворян Российских и выезжих (Бархатная книга). В 2-х частях. Ч. I. Тип: Университетская тип. 1787. Род князей Трубецких. С. 44-46). All representatives of the family lived after 1750 descend from Lieutenant General Yuri Yuryevich Trubetskoy (1668-1739), Russian statesman , privy council, senator, and the youngest of the two princes Trubetskoy of the end of the 17th century.
In 1700, without much success, Yuri Yuryevich Trubetskoy negotiated in Berlin with the Prussian elector about joining the Northern Union. Around 1710, he visited many countries and learned the Italian language, in which he communicated in Moscow with the Dutch traveler and artist Cornelis de Bruyn (1652 – 1726) for a “quite a long time” (see: Cornelius de Bruyn (1652 – 1726), “Travels in Muscovy, Persia and part of the East-Indies …,” Mapping Cultural Space Across Eurasia, accessed 19 January 2023, https://eurasia.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/items/show/1009).
Dmitri Jerebzoff (Zherbetzov)
[Dmitri Jerebzoff]
Nicholas Tchirikoff
[Nicholas Tchirikoff]
Count Dmitry Adamovich Olsoufieff
Olsoufieff (1862 -1937) was Russian public figure, statesman and land owner. He was district leader of the Kamyshinsky nobility (1893-1902), an elector from the Kamyshinsky district in the provincial Zemsky Assembly, an honorary magistrate of Dmitrovsky (Moscow province) and Kamyshinsky districts, the chairman of the Saratov provincial Zemstvo board (1902-1904), member of the State Council from Saratov provincial Zemstvo (1906-1916), chairman of the Saratov archival scientific commission, He was also chairman of the board of Saratov society of agriculture, chairman of the local board of the society of water rescue in Kamyshinsk, vice-president of the department of the Trust of the Empress Maria Alexandrovna for the blind, honorary inspector of the local four-class school, honorary trustee of the Kamyshinsk department of the diocesan school board (Source: Граф Д. А.Олсуфьев — патриот, политик, человек. Клуб исторических изысканий КамышинStar. Дата обращения: 26 декабря 2022).
Organisation
The aforementioned members were joined by four other Russian nobles:
- Count Wladimir Borch, Hereditary Commander of the Catholic Grand Priory of Russia
- Prince Wladimir Galitzine (aspirant member)
- Count Andre Lanskoi (aspirant member) and
- Count Alexander Mordviboff (aspirant member)
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, a dynast of the Russian Empire, naval officer, author, explorer, the brother-in-law of Emperor Nicholas II and advisor to him, became the Union’s Grand Prior. Mikhailovich tried to constitute reciprocity with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but did not succeed.
The thirteenth Hereditary Commander, Andrei Alexandrovitch Bariatinsky, was not able to attend the meeting in June 1928. His uncle, Prince Vladimir Vladimirovitch Bariatinsky, was invited to join the Council of the Russian Grand Priory circa 1929. At the time the Council were seeking recognition from the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and Prince Vladimir was a second cousin to Prince Don Ludovico Chigi della Rovere Albani, Bailiff of the Sovereign Council and later Grandmaster of the SMOM. Present at the gathering in 1928 was Count Vladimir Borch, a Hereditary Commander of the Catholic Grand Priory of Russia.
The conditions offered by the SMOM were unacceptable for the Union: the subordination to the SMOM and the condition that only Roman Catholic members were to be admitted. Mikhailovich remained Grand Prior of the Union until his death in 1933. After his death, the headship of the Union passed to Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich (1879-1956), brother of the head of the Russian Imperial House, Grand Duke Kyrill Vladimirovich (1876-1938).
In February 1955, Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich registered the Paris-based Grand Priory-in-Exile with the French administration as a foreign association, named “Russian Grand Priory of St. John of Jerusalem “. The statutes state that it is not a representation for France of the SMOM, but the organisation of the Grand Priory on French soil to “re-establish the activity of the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta“. Under his direction, applicants who made claims to the hereditary commanders were carefully examined and those who qualified were admitted and obtained an official diploma. After the death of Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich in 1956, the Union was governed by its Secretary-General, Georges Sergueievitch de Rticheff, who died in 1975. In 1962, Rticheff successfully asked Grand Duke Wladimir Kyrillovich, head of the Russian Imperial House, to become the Union’s Protector.
By 1955, out of 14 possible commanders, only six were members of the Paris Group (Taube, p. 50). These family members were listed in italics, and the families in which the direct descendants had ended were marked by a Latin cross. The number of qualified commanders who belonged to the Paris Group continued to decline until the 1970s, and the lines of several hereditary commanders, who became extinct continued. For example, in 1974, Nicholas Tchirikoff, the Dean of the Paris Group, died without an heir to the Commandery.
Extension of the Paris Group: Priory of Dacia
There exists to this date a legitimate extension of the aforementioned 1928 Paris Group, called the Priory of Dacia:
There had been strong Imperial Russian links with Denmark prior to the Revolution. Emperor Nicholas II’s mother, Marie Feodorovna, had been the daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark After the Revolution, following a short stay in London, the Dowager Empress returned to her native Denmark, where she died 13th October 1928. In 1938, discussions took place between the Paris group, and a group of gentlemen in Denmark; Baron Palle Rosenkrantz., Prebend Ahlefeldt Bille, and Prebend Holger Christian Wenck von Wenckheim. In 1950 H. K Ostenfeld joined the “Danish Initiative Committee”. Authorisation for the creation of a Danish Priory was granted by Grand Duke Andrew, October 19th, 1938, and the Priory under the name of “The Ecclesiastical Knightly Order of Malta of Saint John of Jerusalem, Priory of Saint Andrew“, and began its formal life on April 10th, 1939. It was later to be known as “The Autonomous Priory of Dacia of the Order of Malta“.
In the summer of 1938, the Danish Committee wrote to Commander G. Gadd, Grand Duke Cyril’s personal representative in Copenhagen, about the possibility of joining the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Gadd suggested, that a direct approach to Grand Duke Cyril ought to be made. When Grand Duke Cyril received the Danish Committee’s letter, he passed it on to his younger brother Grand Duke Andrew, who had accepted responsibility for the Russian Grand Priory. Grand Duke Andrew, then asked Baron Michael de Taube the legal consultant to the Hereditary Commanders to discuss the matter with the Danes. Baron Michael de Taube had been Professor of Law at St Petersburg University and first legal adviser for the Russian Foreign Office, Senator of Russia and a member of the Council of the Empire.
Initially the first consideration was to widen membership of the Russian Grand Priory itself to include in a seamless way, a Danish group. The final conclusion of the discussions, was that a Priory would be created to serve the “North”, under the title of Dacia. Prebend Wenck von Wenckheim as leader of the group became the first Prior. The war years halted any real activity of the Priory, and Baron Michael de Taube and Grand Duke Andrew gave assistance in continuing the work in the post war period.
After the sudden death of Wenck von Wenckheim in 1957, John K Ostenfeld who had joined the Committee in the post war period, became the Prior but retired from Office in 1968 succeeded by Baron Niels Sandberg Stouge 1968-1969. In the period of 1968 to 1970 disputes caused the separation of a Swedish Commandery. Part of this period was during the leadership of acting Prior, Helmuth Kieldsen 1969-1971. The problems were put to a firm end when in 1971 John K Ostenfeld was re-appointed Prior. By the mid 1970s, the Priory and the Paris Headquarters had lost contact with each other. Two factors had conspired to bring this about; the disputes within the Dacia Priory and its changes of personnel, and the increasing isolationism of the aging Paris administration which was in stark contrast to the previous pro-active role undertaken by Baron Michel de Taube.
Author: The Reverend Dr Michael Foster SSC MIWO. Date of Publication. First published 8th May 1998. Revision 27th August 2001. Revision 28th July 2004. Revision 18th November 2004. https://sites.google.com/site/osjmilitaryprioryna/general-information/the-russian-grand-priory.
The Priory of Dacia enjoyed the patronage of Grand Duke Andrew, who also was the protector of the Paris Group:
Der Protektor des
Paris, den 17, Nov 1950
Russischen Grosspriorates
des MalteserordensAn den Ordensrat des
[EN] The protectorate which I took over the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of Malta after the death of my cousin, H.S.H. Grand Prince Alexander, naturally includes the Danish Priory – (Prioratus Daciae) – after it was established as an autonomous part of the Grand Priory of Russia in the summer of 1939.
[EN] Should a member of the Royal Danish House also wish to assume the Protectorate over the Danish Priory of our Order, I would very much welcome it.
/s/.
Grossfürst Andrie von Russland.Geschäftführendes Mitglied
des rüssischen Ordensrates
/s/.
Michael Frhr. v. Taube.Translation:
Letter to the Dacia Priory from Grand Duke Andrei of Russia confirming that he is the Protector of the Priory of Dacia. Source: Public Record Office Copenhagen, Denmark. Priorate Dacia af St. Johannes af Jerusalems Orden Arkiv nr: 10266. Jvf. RA. Priv. ark. c. litra P nr. 1006-1.
The forgoing documents prove that the Priory of Dacia is a legitimate extension of the 1928 Paris Group.
Authoritative witness statements
The Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, headquartered in Paris, and governed by its Grand Prior, Count Pierre Cheremetieff and its Lieutenant Grand Prior, Prince Stephan Belosselsky Belozersky makes the following statement on its website:
L’Empereur de Russie Paul Ier, Protecteur puis Grand Maître
Le 12 juin 1798, Bonaparte en route pour l’Egypte, s’empara de l’île de Malte. Il en expulsa l’Ordre. Les chevaliers, indignés de la capitulation de leur Grand Maître Ferdinand von Hompesh, le déposèrent et quelques deux-cent chevaliers trouvèrent refuge auprès du Tsar Paul Ier, chevalier et Protecteur de l’Ordre depuis 1797, qu’ils élurent 72ème Grand Maître le 27 octobre 1798. Le Tsar accepta cette dignité et fut revêtu des insignes des Grands Maîtres de l’Ordre le 29 novembre 1798. Cette élection fut, dans un premier temps, acceptée par le Pape. Elle fut aussi reconnue par une majorité de cours européennes.
Les 29 novembre et 28 décembre 1798, Paul Ier créa un Grand Prieuré de Russie pour ses sujets orthodoxes qui s’ajouta à la branche russe catholique existant en Russie depuis la Convention qu’il avait signée le 4 janvier 1797 à Saint-Pétersbourg avec le Grand Maître de l’Ordre François de Rohan, portant création « pour toujours » (littéralement, en russe « pour les temps éternels ») d’un Grand Prieuré de Malte en Russie. Dès cette époque, ce Grand Prieuré Russe reçut en son sein de nombreux gentilshommes russes orthodoxes mais aussi des sujets catholiques romains, surtout polonais et quelques protestants. En effet, il était, selon la volonté du Tsar – véritable précurseur à ce titre – mixte et ouvert à toutes les personnes jugées dignes d’y être admis sans distinction de nationalité, de confession et de classe sociale.
Le 21 juillet 1799, afin d’assurer la pérennité de l’Ordre quelque soit les vicissitudes de l’Histoire, le Tsar Paul Ier institua « partout et à jamais» vingt et un « Commandeurs de familles » héréditaires choisis dans les plus illustres familles de la noblesse russe auxquelles son fils, le Tsar Alexandre Ier, en ajouta deux autres. Ces vingt-trois Commanderies héréditaires constituèrent la véritable colonne vertébrale du Grand Prieuré Russe, qui en fonde et transmet, aujourd’hui comme hier, la légitimité à la fois historique et juridique.
Ces caractères font ainsi de ce Grand Prieuré, depuis sa fondation, un Ordre spécialement russe de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem.
En 1800, le Grand Prieuré Russe comptait quelques quatre-cent chevaliers et dames (de son côté le Grand Prieuré Catholique n’en comptait que deux-cent).
Les Tsars successifs ont toujours reconnu et maintenu le Grand Prieuré Russe jusqu’au Tsar Nicolas II lui-même qui fut reçu bailli grand-croix ainsi que la Tsarine Alexandra et les oncles du Tsar, les grands-ducs Serge et Paul.
Depuis la Révolution de 1917, l’assassinat du Tsar Nicolas, de la Tsarine Alexandra et de leurs enfants ainsi que l’exil des familles des Commandeurs héréditaires, le Grand Prieuré Russe a été maintenu et confirmé par ces derniers et leurs descendants qui poursuivent la mission assignée à leurs familles par Paul Ier : en France, en 1928, 1955, 1977, 2004, 2006.
Aujourd’hui, sous la gouvernance de son Grand Prieur, S.E. le comte Pierre Cheremetieff et de son Lieutenant Grand-prieur, S.E. le Prince Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky, tous deux de la dynastie rourikide qui régna sur la Russie pendant près de mille ans, le G.P.R. rassemble environ 250 chevaliers, dames et donats répartis en France, en Italie, en Belgique, au Canada et aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique.
Le Grand Prieuré de Russie ne s’affirme pas comme un Ordre indépendant et reconnaît le seul Grand Magister authentique à l’Ordre de Malte.
Œuvres Hospitalières
Au sein de chaque Prieuré national, une structure complémentaire s’ajoute à la structure chevaleresque dénommée Œuvres Hospitalières de l’Ordre, structure qui opère de façon autonome et distincte dans la poursuite d’œuvres caritatives mais sous le contrôle du Prieuré national.
De nombreux bénévoles ou amis qui ne souhaitent pas nécessairement faire partie de l’Ordre sont ainsi invités à participer à divers projets philanthropiques en partenariat avec les chevaliers et dames.
[English translation]
The Emperor of Russia Paul I, Protector and later Grand Master
On 12 June 1798, Bonaparte, on his way to Egypt, seized the island of Malta. He expelled the Order. The knights, indignant at the capitulation of their Grand Master Ferdinand von Hompesh, deposed him and some two hundred knights found refuge with Tsar Paul I, knight and Protector of the Order since 1797, whom they elected 72nd Grand Master on 27 October 1798. The Tsar accepted this dignity and was invested with the insignia of Grand Master of the Order on 29 November 1798. This election was initially accepted by the Pope. It was also recognised by a majority of European courts.
On 29 November and 28 December 1798, Paul I created a Grand Priory of Russia for his Orthodox subjects, in addition to the Russian Catholic branch that had existed in Russia since the Convention he had signed on 4 January 1797 in St. Petersburg with the Grand Master of the Order, François de Rohan, establishing “for ever” (literally, in Russian, “for eternal time”) a Grand Priory of Malta in Russia. From that time onwards, this Russian Grand Priory received many Russian Orthodox gentlemen, but also Roman Catholic subjects, especially Poles and some Protestants. In fact, according to the will of the Tsar – a true precursor in this respect – it was mixed and open to all persons deemed worthy of admission, without distinction of nationality, confession or social class.
On 21 July 1799, in order to ensure the Order’s continuity regardless of the vicissitudes of history, Tsar Paul I instituted twenty-one hereditary “Family Commanders” chosen from the most illustrious families of the Russian nobility, to which his son, Tsar Alexander I, added two others. These twenty-three hereditary Commanderies constituted the backbone of the Russian Grand Priory, which today, as in the past, establishes and transmits both its historical and legal legitimacy.
These characteristics have made the Grand Priory a specifically Russian Order of St. John of Jerusalem since its foundation.
In 1800, the Russian Grand Priory numbered some four hundred knights and ladies (the Catholic Grand Priory numbered only two hundred).
Successive Tsars have always recognised and maintained the Russian Grand Priory, up to Tsar Nicholas II himself, who was made a Bailiff Grand Cross, as well as Tsarina Alexandra and the Tsar’s uncles, Grand Dukes Sergius and Paul.
Since the Revolution of 1917, the assassination of Tsar Nicholas, Tsarina Alexandra and their children and the exile of the families of the Hereditary Commanders, the Russian Grand Priory has been maintained and confirmed by the latter and their descendants who continue the mission assigned to their families by Paul I: in France, in 1928, 1955, 1977, 2004, 2006.
Today, under the governance of its Grand Prior, H.E. Count Pierre Cheremetieff and his Lieutenant Grand Prior, H.E. Prince Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky, both from the Rurikid dynasty that ruled Russia for nearly a thousand years, the G.P.R. brings together some 250 knights, dames and donats spread over France, Italy, Belgium, Canada and the United States of America.
The Grand Priory of Russia does not claim to be an independent Order and recognises the Grand Magister in the Order of Malta as the only authentic Grand Magister.
Hospitaller Works
Within each national Priory, a complementary structure is added to the chivalric structure called the Hospitaller Works of the Order, which operates autonomously and separately in the pursuit of charitable works but under the control of the national Priory.
Many volunteers or friends who do not necessarily wish to be part of the Order are thus invited to participate in various philanthropic projects in partnership with the knights and ladies.
http://grand-prieure-russe.org/
The previous section established that in 1928 a group of Russian nobles re-established the Russian branch of the Order of Malta. To examine if this act was legitimate, it is crucial to examine the continuity of the Order since its creation by the Tsar in 1797 until the Russian revolution. This section quotes two contemporary witnesses proving that the Russian branch of the Order of Malta was active in Russia until the 1917 revolution: Arthur Campbell Yate and Mikhail Alexandrovich Taube. It also presents modern research, which confirms these statements.
Arthur Campbell Yate (1853-1929)
Arthur Campbell Yate, FRGD, FRHistS, is a reliable witness in this context, considering the fact that he is independent and knowledgeable regarding the subject:
Yate, Lt-Colonel Arthur Campbell, Indian Army (retired); s. of Rev. C. Yate; b. 1853: educ: Shrewsbury and St. John’s College, Cambridge; joined the Army, 1875; became Lieut-Colonel, 1882; Bombay Staff Corps, 1879; served in Afghan War, 1879-81; Afghan Boundary Commission, 1884-85; Burmese War, 1886-88; Intelligence Officer, Northern Shan States, 1887-88; travelled in Persia, Caucasus and Central Asia, 1881-90; Fellow, Royal Geographical Society; Honorary Organising Commissioner of St. John’s Ambulance Association, India, 1900. Publications: Lieut-Col. John Houghton, a Hero of Tirah; The Army and the Press in 1901; England and Russia Face to Face in Asia. Address: Beckbury Hall, Shifnal, Shropshire. Clubs: United Service, Athenaeum, St James’.
The Indian Biographical Dictionary (1915) by C. Hayavadana Rao, Yate, Lt-Colonel Arthur Campbell
His statement reads as follows:
The Island of Rhodes.— We must seek probably in the general ignorance of the past history of the Rhodes the solution of the fact that even the most classical of our British journals fait to grasp the idea that the history of the past may possibly, under fostering influences, have some hearing upon the future destiny of this island. Personally, ever since Italy occupied it, I have been allowing my mind to ruminate, academically, upon the possibility of restoring it to the Knight’s of Saint John of Jerusalem. At the time when an ungrateful Europe, headed by Philippe IV. Of France (Le Bel- Heaven save the mark 1) and his creature, Clement V., were diabolically suppressing the Templars, and doing nothing themselves either to check the Turk or protest the Holy Land, the Hospitallers (alias Knight’s of Saint John) were quietly occupying and fortifying Rhodes. The Byzantine Emperor of the moment, Græculus csuriens, could not protect Rhodes himself, and refused the Hospitallers’ offer to hold it for him, acknowledging his suzerainty. The refusal decided the Grand Master to hold it without permission; and so well did they hold it that it was not until sixty-nine years after the Grand Signor had taken Coustantinople that the Turks succeeded in driving them out. To tell the story of the sieges, which they underwent, and of the incessant naval warfare which they waged against Turk and corsair, is beyond the scope of this short note. Their defence of Rhodes was magnificent; the history of the sieges must be read, For a time they held Smyrna, but Taimur (Tamerlanc) the Lame dove them from it, and also, I think, took their fortified slave-refuge at Budrum, built of the masonry of the ancient Halicarnassus. Budrum for a century was the haven of refuge of the escaped Christian slave. If anyone would read of the Rhodes, of the Knights, and of Budrum, I must refer him to the fine library at St. John’s Gate, Clerkenwell, the principal remnant of the old Grand Priory of England. If any would know what slavery in the hands of the Turk, or Moor, or Barbary corsaic meant, let me refer him to Sir Lambert Playfair’s “The Scourge of Christendom.” The successful defence of Rhodes by the Knights in 1430 won for them the devotion of all Christendom. Their evacuation of it on January 1, 1523, with all the honours of war, after a six-month’s sledge, drew from the lips of Charles V. the words, “Never was a place more nobly lost.” Then he gave them Malta. This suffices to justify my contention that, theoretically, no one had a better right to Rhodes
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part I, p. 23
And:
than the Knights of St. John. Since 1523 many are the vicissitudes through which they have passed, viz. : The secession of the bailiwick of Brandenburg at the time of Luther’s reformation; the suppression of the Order in England and Ireland by Henry VIII. In 1539, and in Scotland in 1563; and finally the revolution in France (1792) and Napoleon’s seizure of Malta (1798). The order has survived those vicissitudes and holds a high position throughout Christendom, firstly by the distinction of many of those who are numbered among its members, and secondly by the eminence to which it has attained as a promoter of “first aid” and ambulance work. There exists first and foremost the Catholic Order, with its headquarters and Grand Master at Rome and its grand priories in Austria, Italy and Rohemia, and its “associations” in France, Spain, England, and Germany; secondly, the Johanniter Order at Berlin; and last, but not least in distinction and power, the Grand Priory of England. Independent as these three actually are of each other at this moment, there seems no reason why a closer union should not be formed. After the two centuries of estrangement, the Brandenburg bailiwick returned, some time in the first half of the eighteenth century, into the fold of the Order. The Grand Priory of England has its Ophthalmic Hospital at Jerusalem on a site granted by the Sultan. The Johanniter Order hols the Muristan of Jerusalem, the old site of the Order’s chef-lieu, presented, I believe, by the Sultan to the Crown Prince Frederick forty-five years ago. The French Republic has just shown that, thought its earliest aspirations after “liberté, egalité, fraternité” took the form of unfettered madness, the reverence for the great traditions of the past has returned. France, with the consent of Italy and Turkey, has secured possession of the finest of the three old auberges (inns or hostels) which belonged to the French Knights of Provence, Auvergne, and France in the fifteenth century, Everyone knows that they stand to-day much as they were left, with the arms of their countries, Grand Masters, Grand Crosses, and Knights carved upon them.
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part I, p. 24
Amid the obvious uncertainty, which, owing to the susceptibilities of the Great Powers and the ambitions of Italy, turkey, and Greece, encircles the destiny of the Ægean Islands, one possible solution of a difficult situation, which might satisfy all, suggests itself. It is understood that the Ægean islands, when allotted, are not to be fortified or used as naval bases. Rhodes, administered by the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem- and in making this suggestion I presume the united action of the chef-lieux of Rome, London and Berlin- under the guarantee of the Great Powers, would surely be, by the very cosmopolitanism of its administrators, exempt from such temptations as might be calculated to once more sow and foster the seeds of discord. The traditions of Rhodes claim it emancipation from Turkish rule. If Christendom wills that no one Power holds it, then let the Knights hold it in the name of all the Powers. It has had a great commercial past. It will have a greater commercial future; for, whatever others may do, the grand priory of England will, we trust, extend to them the privileges of the “open door.”— A. C. YATE.
And in the article’s addendum:
THE FUTURE OF RHODES.
To Part I. of the Journal for 1914 of the CENTRAL ASIAN SOCIETY I contributed a short note, giving a brief summary of the close ties which, from a historical point of view, entitled Rhodes to the strongest sentiments of sympathy and interest on the part of the Christian nations of Europe. I pointed out the magnificent part which the old Order of the Knights Hospitallers had played in the retention of this island in the face of Islam from A.D. 1310 to 1523. I then
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part II, p. 35
And (bold font by me, JvBQ):
drew attention to the fact that there existed to-day in Europe three branches of this great Order-the Roman, with its “Cheflieu” at Rome ; the “Johanniter” at Berlin; and the Grand Priory of England at Clerkenwell. I pointed out that there was no unity between these branches, no sign of initiative on the part of any one of them, and that, while their great social influence might enable them to appeal to the courts, aristocracies, and Governments of almost all the Christian nations in Europe, not a thing was being done, not a move made. A sentimental interest was affected in an old Hospitaller castle in Cyprus-whose Lusiguan Kings bullied the Knights – but for Rhodes not a hand was moved.
Although I got little encouragement and scarcely even succeeded in rousing a feeble interest, I however, with the kind assistance of one or two friends whose sympathies were not lukewarm, pursued my aim until I was able to ascertain, on the authority of the Foreign Office, that it had been decided by the Six Great Powers-“Les Six Grandes Impuissances,” as some diplomatic wag has christened them-that Rhodes was to go back to Turkey. Italy holds it at present, and Italy will not part with it till she gets all she wants in return. So there is still hope. When the Six “Grandes Impuissances” cannot agree, an international agent, like the Hospitallers, may step in.
I forgot to add above that the great affection for and interest in the Order displayed by Paul the First of Russia one hundred and fifteen years ago, is by no means dead. There exist in Russia to-day “Hereditary” Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. These men are undoubtedly adherents of the Eastern or Greek Church. No such thing as a “Hereditary” Knight of the Order of St. John is known elsewhere. Russia, without the authority of the Order, invented it. We presume that these “Hereditary” Knights hold the hand of St. John the Baptist, the most treasured relic of the Order, presented to the Grand Master about 1485 by the then Sultan of Turkey and shamelessly despoiled by Napoleon in 1798. The Knights took the relic, shorn of its jewelled casket, to Russia, and there it still is, if report be true. And yet not all the sympathy and sentiment which unites Catholic, Protestant, and Greek Churches to the hallowed memory of Rhodes in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, can move Christendom to emancipate Rhodes!
Journal of the Central Asian Society Vol. I, 1914 Part II, p. 36
Baron Mikhail Alexandrovich Taube (1869-1961)
From 1896 to 1899 Taube was a privat-docent at Kharkov University. From 1909 to 1917, he taught at its law school. From 1892 to 1917, he worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, specializing in maritime law. Taube participated in a number of international conferences on this issue and defended Russian interest. From 1909, he represented Russia at the International Court of Arbitration in the Hague. Taube was a supporter of conservative views. From 1911 to 1914 he was the Minister of National Education. After A.L. Kasso’s death, from October 1914 to January 1915, Taube had been his successor. From 1915. – From 1915 he was a senator; from 1917 he was a member of the State Council. In 1917, Taube emigrated to Finland, where he became Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of A.F. Trepov in exile. He then taught at Uppsala University in Sweden. In 1928, Taube moved to Paris, where he worked at the Carnegie Endowment for Europe and the Russian Institute at the Faculty of Law of the University of Paris. From 1932 to 1937, Taube worked in Germany at the University of Münster. From there he returned to Paris. Taube maintained relations with representatives of the tsarist family, notably as legal adviser to Grand Duke V. Kirill Vladimirovich. He was a member of the “Icon” (Икона) Society and the Supreme Monarchic Council. Taube was a member of a number of Russian historical, archeological, philosophical, philological societies and regional archive commissions. He was the member of Russian Apostolate which promoted the ideas of unification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Taube mainly focussed on history and modernity of international law. Furthermore, he made an important contribution to the development of genealogy in Russia: he was one of the founders of the Russian Genealogical Society and a member of the Historical and Genealogical Society. After the emigration his scholarly interests largely shifted towards church history; in particular, he devoted several studies to the Agrapheans and the history of relations between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (see: Biography of St. Petersburg State University and Columbia University Libraries, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Taube Papers, 1890-1960, Bib ID 4078137).
His statements read as follows:
Le fils et successeur de Paul, Alexandre Ier, lui-même grand-prieur de Russie du vivant de son père, adopta vis-à-vis des chevaliers une ligne de conduite absolument différente. Tout en assumant le titre de Protecteur de l’Ordre, il en refusa la grande maîtrise et, devenant de plus en plus indifférent à cette institution sous l’influence des idées ultra-nationales d’après 1812, — et d’un mysticisme protestant à la Mme de Krudener — finit par se détourner définitivement de l’Ordre de Malte.
[EN] Paul’s son and successor, Alexander I, himself Grand Prior of Russia during his father’s lifetime, took a completely different line with the knights. While assuming the title of Protector of the Order, he refused the Grand Mastership and, becoming increasingly indifferent to this institution under the influence of the ultra-national ideas of the post-1812 period – and of a Protestant mysticism in the style of Madame de Krudener – ended up turning away from the Order of Malta for good.
De Taube, 1955, chapter I
and:
Sous les règnes suivants, ceux d’Alexandre II (1855- 1881) et d’Alexandre III (1881-1894), le Gouvernement impérial se rendait toujours parfaitement compte de l’existence d’un Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean représenté par l’ensemble des descendants directs de ses premiers commandeurs héréditaires. Ce fait est prouvé, par exemple, par un document officiel appartenant aujourd’hui à l’un de ces commandeurs héréditaires russes de nos jours, le prince Cyrille Troubetzkoy (demeurant à Paris) ; c’est l’état des services original du fils aîné du général-aide-de-camp prince Vassily Serguéévitch Troubetzkoy du début du XIX siècle, le prince Alexandre Vassiliévitch établi en 1889 et portant la notation suivante “ En sa qualité d’aîné de la famille — commandeur héréditaire de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, dont il porte les insignes conformément à l’autorisation Souveraine du 19 octobre 1867 ”
[EN] During the subsequent reigns of Alexander II (1855- 1881) and Alexander III (1881-1894), the Imperial Government was always fully aware of the existence of a Russian Priory of the Order of St. John represented by all the direct descendants of its first hereditary commanders. This fact is proven, for example, by an official document belonging to one of these present-day Russian hereditary commanders, Prince Cyril Troubetzkoy (living in Paris); This is the original service record of the eldest son of the General-Aide-de-Camp Prince Vasily Sergeevich Troubetzkoy from the beginning of the 19th century, Prince Alexander Vasilyevich, drawn up in 1889 and bearing the following notation: “In his capacity as the eldest of the family – Hereditary Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the insignia of which he wears in accordance with the Sovereign’s authorisation of October 19, 1867”.
De Taube, 1955, sub 18
and:
Il ne faut pas oublier enfin, que les capitaux, comme les propriétés immobilières qui appartenaient au Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem n’ont certainement pas disparus après la mort de Paul Ier, et l’Empereur Alexandre Ier en ordonna l’inventaire et leur gestion en qualité de propriété de l’Ordre, indépendant des propriétés de l’Etat oukaze du 26 Février 1810 au maréchal comte Saltykoff, concernant les capitaux de l’Ordre.
Et celui du 20 novembre 1811 donné au Sénat Dirigeant relativement aux biens immobiliers des commandeurs héréditaires — il est indubitable, que tous les détails concernant cet Avoir du Grand-Prieuré russe au cours des XIX et XXe siècles pourraient être facilement établis par des actes officiels, conservés aux archives russes, soit aux Archives d’Etat (Gossoudarstvenniy arkhiv) ou à celles du “Cabinet de Sa Majesté”.
[EN] Finally, it should not be forgotten that the assets and real estate belonging to the Russian Grand Priory of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem certainly did not disappear after the death of Paul I, and Emperor Alexander I ordered their inventory and management as the property of the Order, independent of state property, or the order of 26 February 1810 to Marshal Count Saltykoff concerning the Order’s assets.
And that of 20 November 1811 given to the Senate Ruler concerning the real estate of the hereditary commanders – there is no doubt that all the details concerning this property of the Russian Grand Priory during the 19th and 20th centuries could easily be established by official acts, preserved in the Russian archives, either in the State Archives (Gossoudarstvenniy arkhiv) or in those of the “Cabinet of His Majesty”.
De Taube, 1955, sub 26
and:
Somme toute, comme on voit, on était loin en Russie d’avantguerre d’oublier le tsar grand-maître Paul Ier, fondateur du Grand Prieuré Russe, et une coïncidence significative voulut que, l’annéemême du déclenchement de la première guerre mondiale qui engendra la révolution et la fin de la période impériale fut marquée par la publication d’un livre très bien fait d’après des documents officiels sur l’Ordre de Malte en Russie c’étaient, comme on dirait, pour la Russie, une oraison funèbre de son Grand Prieuré Russe, ainsi qu’un rappel de son existence à ses commandeurs héréditaires émigrés à l’étranger.
[EN] All in all, as can be seen, the Tsar Grand Master Paul I, founder of the Russian Grand Priory, was far from forgotten in pre-war Russia, and it was a significant coincidence that the very year of the outbreak of the First World War, which brought about the revolution and the end of the Imperial period, saw the publication of a very well-done book based on official documents on the Order of Malta in Russia, which was for Russia, as one might say, a funeral oration for the Russian Grand Priory and a reminder of its existence to its hereditary commanders who had emigrated abroad.
De Taube, 1955, sub 23
Modern research by Mikhail Asvarish confirms the aforementioned statements by Yate and Taube. His book Russian Knights of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. XVIII–XIX centuries lists 1.600 Russian subjects (both Russians and foreigners in the Russian service), decorated with the Maltese cross, starting with B.P. Sheremetev and ending with members of the imperial house at the end of the 19th century.
Current status of the Russian Grand Priory
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta claims to be the only legitimate successor of the ancient Order of Saint John:
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta wishes to point out the proliferation all over the world of bodies and associations which, using symbols and names not unlike those of the Order of Malta, are trying in every measure to represent themselves as legitimate and recognised orders of Saint John. These organisations have no connection whatsoever with the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta whose institutional seat is located in Rome, at Via Condotti 68, and which maintains bilateral diplomatic relations with over 100 States and the European Union, and has permanent observer status at the United Nations. The Sovereign Order of Malta does not recognise any historical or legal legitimacy in organisations and associations that take advantage of the names and emblems of the Order of Malta by using them for financial ends.
Source: https://www.orderofmalta.int/press-publications/clarification-mimic-orders/
This claim is untruthful. The Russian Grand Priory has a comparable legal and social-cultural status:
- The historical facts show that since the nineteenth century, the two Russian Priories had found themselves vis-a-vis the central organisation in Rome and were no longer in a strong liaison (see: Livre des Ordres de Chevaliers, Anonym. Bruxelles u.a. p. 269).
- The aforementioned witness statement by Lt-Colonel Yate clearly proves that there existed a group of hereditary knights of Malta in 1914, which was created by the Tsar in 1799.
- The statement of Baron von Taube is an authoritative source that has been written by an expert who is recognized in his field of expertise. Modern authors criticizing the legitimacy of the Russian Priory, cannot be seen as authoritative, since they lack legal expertise, as well as first-hand information.
- The fact that this group consists of a number of descendants of the original Hereditary Commanders provides a genuine historical link between the Russian Grand Priory before the 1917-revolution and the one established in 1928. This group of Russian exiles who remained active in France had received the protection of the Romanovs in the person of the Grand Dukes Cyril and Andrei.
This means that the Paris group, formed in 1928, and consisting of descendents of the hereditary knights, is a perfectly legitimate Order with an authentic lineage to the original Order of Saint John. The only direct successor of the Paris group is the Grand Prieuré Russe de l’Ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, based in Paris, and lead by Pierre Cheremetieff and Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky. This cannot be said for the other Orders of Saint John, since they lack an unbroken historical lineage. Recognition or rejection by the Pope does not constitute historical legitimacy, and it is therefore irrelevant that the Russian Grand Priory is not recognised by the Vatican or the SMOM. It is strange that the Russian Grand Priory recognises the Grandmaster of the SMOM as their Grandmaster, because their is no reciprocity and no material relationship. I recommend revoking the recognition as it is a senseless act of submission to an order that has a lesser historical claim to authenticity.
Summary
Part 3 shows that there exists compelling evidence that:
- A Russian Grand Priory was formed in the 19th century as a life line for the Order of Malta which was abolished by Napoleon.
- This Russian Grand Priory existed during the19th and 20th century and developed into a separate organisation, independent from the re-established Order by the Vatican in 1879.
- The Priory was continued in Paris in 1928 as a Russian Order of Saint John.
- The Order lead by Pierre Cheremetieff and Stéphane Belosselsky Belozersky is the modern successor of the 1928 Paris group.
Parts 1, 2 and 3 can be summarized as follows:
| Name of entity | Foundation | Status |
| Hospitallers with nursing purpose | documented since 1023, but probably much earlier | Dissolved end of 12th century by Saladin |
| Military Order of Saint John | end of 12th century | Abolished 1806 by Napoleon |
| Bailiwick Brandenburg | before 1351 | Dissolved 1811 by Frederick William III of Prussia |
| Grand Priory of Russia of the Order of Malta | 1797 | Abolished 1917 by the communist Decree on the Abolition of Estates and Civil Ranks; regrouped in Paris 1928 and still active. Grand Prieur: le comte Pierre Cheremetieff. Offspring: Priory of Dacia. |
| Johanniterorden | 1852 | Active. Herrenmeister: Prince Oskar of Prussia |
| The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem | 1876 | Active. Grand Prior: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester |
| Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) | 1879 | Active. Lieutenant of the Grand Master: John T. Dunlap |
| Johanniterorden i Sverige | 1920 | Active. Kommendator: Otto Drakenberg |
| Johanniter Orde (The Netherlands) | 1946 | Active. President/Coadjutor: Jhr E. Karel Greven |
Conclusions
Legal perspective
In most legal systems, two basic structures of company mergers can be distinguished. Either the target company is merged into an existing company, or a new company (“NewCo”) is formed. In both cases, the target companies are dissolved by operation of law (automatically). At the end of the process, only the surviving company remains (see: e.g. Rosenbaum, J. and J. Pearl. Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers and Acquisitions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 2009, p. 276). Analogously, this article considers the surviving entity of the Knights Hospitaller, the entity that holds the control and assets of (a substantial part of) the original entity. It has been shown that none of the modern Orders who claim to be a successor of the original Knights Hospitaller, hold the control and assets of the original entity. Therefore, from a legal perspective, no surviving entities from the original Knights Hospitaller exist today, despite all the claims by modern revivals.
Social-cultural perspective
From a social-cultural perspective, no modern Order can claim authenticity or legitimacy of origin regarding the original hospital in Jerusalem. The reason is obvious: the nature of the modern Orders cannot be compared to the original entity, which required the brothers to fully surrender themselves to God. The same is true for the Order as a combat unit. None of modern Orders of Saint John can be designated as such. Perhaps the only exception is the volunteers who are running many of the relief projects across the world. They are the genuine successors of the monks that, more than a thousand years ago, created the hospital in Jerusalem.
Literature
- De Taube, Baron Michel. L’Empereur Paul Ier de Russie, Grand Maître de l’Ordre de Malte et son “Grand prieuré Russe” de l’Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem, Paris, 1955.
- Михаил Асварищ, Российские кавалеры ордена Св. Иоанна Иерусалимского. XVIII–XIX вв. Биографический справочник, Фонд «Русские Витязи», 2022. ISBN 978-5-907245-66-2.
- Милославский Ю. Г. Странноприимцы: Православная ветвь Державного Ордена рыцарей-госпитальеров Св. Иоанна Иерусалимского. СПб.: Царское Дело, 2001
- Захаров В. А. История Мальтийского Ордена в России, 2006.
Other sources
- Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, F. 28, 105 pcs. chr., between 1698–1816 (XXVIII), Op. 1.
Disclaimer
This article is a historical essay and not in any way intended as Russian propaganda. I strongly condemn the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and am alarmed and concerned by the terrible suffering in Ukraine. I emphasise the urgent need for promoting peace and the rule of international law, and the importance of long-term bridge building.
See also the similar Statement on the Invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Nobility Association.
Nobiliary law - Adelsrecht - Droit nobiliaire 