Nobility and directory

Nobility of Russia

History and Register of the Nobility of Russia

Jurisdiction
Russia
Entry type
Directory
Editorial status
Reviewed - Verified
Thumbnail for version as of 18:56, 13 May 2011

Nobility of the World

Volume VIII – Russia

Lesser CoA of the empire of Russia.svg
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The History and Register
of The Nobility of Russia

The Russian nobility (Russian: Дворянство Dvoryanstvo) arose in the 14th century and essentially governed Russia until the October Revolution of 1917. The Russian word for nobility, Dvoryanstvo (дворянство), derives from the Russian word dvor (двор), meaning the Court of a prince or duke (kniaz) and later, of the tsar. A noble was called dvoryanin (pl. dvoryane). As in other countries, nobility was a status, a social category, but not a title.

russiannobility.jpg

The History of the Nobility of Russia

The nobility arose in the 12th and 13th centuries as the lowest part of the feudal military class, which composed the court of a prince or an important boyar. From the 14th century land ownership by nobles increased, and by the 17th century it composed the bulk of feudal lords and constituted the majority of landowners. They made Landed army (Russian: поместное войско) – the basic military force of Muscovy. Peter the Great finalized the status of the nobility, while abolishing the boyar title.

From 1782, a kind of uniform was introduced for civilian nobles called uniform of civilian service or simply civilian uniform. The uniform prescribed colors that depended on the territory. The uniform was required at the places of service, at the Court, and at other important public places. The privileges of the nobility were fixed and were legally codified in 1785 in the Charter to the Gentry. The Charter introduced an organization of the nobility: every province (guberniya) and district (uyezd) had an Assembly of Nobility. The chair of an Assembly was called Province/District Marshal of Nobility.

russian-nobles.jpg

By 1805, the various ranks of the nobility had become confused, as is apparent in War and Peace. Here, we see counts who are wealthier and more important than princes. We see many noble families whose wealth has been dissipated, partly through lack of primogeniture and partly through extravagance and poor estate management. We see young noblemen serving in the Army, but we see none who acquire new landed estates that way. (This refers to the era of the Napoleonic Wars. Tolstoy reported some improvement afterwards: some nobles paid more attention to estate management, and some, like Andrey Bolkonsky, freed their serfs even before the tsar did so in 1861.

After the peasant reform of 1861 the economic position of the nobility was weakened. The influence of nobility was further reduced by the new law statutes of 1864, under which their right of electing law officers was repealed. The reform of the police in 1862 limited the landowners authority locally, and creation of all-estate Zemstvo local government did away with exclusive influence of nobility in local self-government.

After the October Revolution of 1917 all classes of nobility were legally abolished. Many members of the Russian nobility who fled Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution played a significant role in the White Emigre communities that settled in Europe, in North America, and in other parts of the world. In the 1920s and 1930s, several Russian nobility associations were established outside Russia, including groups in France, Belgium, and the United States. In New York, the Russian Nobility Association in America was founded in 1938. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a growing interest among Russians in the role that the Russian nobility has played in the historical and cultural development of Russia.

imperialfamilyofrussia.jpg

The Acquisition of Nobility

There were several methods by which nobility might be acquired. One of them was the acquisition of nobility by military service. Between 1722 and 1845 hereditary nobility was given for long military service at officer rank, for civil service at the rank of Collegiate Assessor and with any order of the Russian Empire. Between 1845 and 1856 nobility was bestowed for long service at the rank of Major and State Counsellor, to all holders of the Order of Saint George and the Order of Saint Vladimir, and with the first degrees of other orders. Between 1856 and 1900, nobility was given to those rising to the rank of Colonel, captain of the first rank, and Actual State Counsellor. The qualification of nobility was further restricted between 1900 and 1917 – only someone rewarded with the order of Saint Vladimir of the third class (or higher) could become a hereditary noble.

imperialrussianball.jpg

The Privileges of the Russian Nobility

Russian nobility possessed the following privileges:

  • The right of possession of populated estates (until 1861), including virtual ownership of the serfs who worked on the estates.
  • Freedom from required military service (1762-1874; later an all-estate compulsory military service was introduced)
  • Freedom from zemstvo duties (until the second half of 19th century)
  • The right to enter privileged educational institutions (Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, School of Jurisprudence and Page Corps)
  • Freedom from corporal punishment.
  • The right to have a coat of arms, introduced by the end of the 17th century.
coronationofnicholasII.jpg

The Russian Nobility – The Legal Aspects and Historical Status

Under the Imperial regime, Russia was governed primarily, if not exclusively, by statutory law, i.e., by duly enacted laws and regulations which were incorporated in the 16 volumes of the Complete Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. Accordingly, all matters pertaining to one’s personal status were also subject to certain statutory provisions which could be amended, supplemented or repealed not otherwise than under the rules of legislative procedure. Under Russian Imperial law, viz. on the strength of Section 2 of the Statutes on Ranks, vol. IX, Compl. Code of Laws, the entire population was divided into four classes:

1. Nobility;

2. Clergy;

3. Urban residents;

4. Rural residents.

The rights, privileges and duties of each of these groups were strictly defined in the respective parts of the said Statutes. Section 15 of the latter sets forth the following definition of the term “Nobility”: The status of nobility is the consequence of the quality and virtues of those commanders who, having distinguished themselves in ancient times by meritorious acts, and having thereby attributed to their services the quality of distinction, conveyed to their descendants a noble rank.

Such having been the legislator’s conception of nobility, it is not surprising that the Imperial Government should have invariably protected and preserved the rights and privileges of this class. This official attitude was most strikingly expressed in the so-called “Granting Edict” (Jalovannaya Gramota) of Empress Catherine II of April 21, 1785* (Compl. Coll. Of Laws 16187) which not only confirmed, but substantially increased the favors and exceptions bestowed on the nobles by virtue of the manifesto of Emperor Peter III, of February 18, 1762.

In this connection it should be noted that Empress Catherine II paid particular attention to the consolidation of the juridical status of persons belonging to the hereditary nobility by conferring their rank upon their children of both sexes (art. 37 Statutes on Ranks). Moreover, the daughter of a hereditary nobleman, marrying a commoner, was not deprived of her nobility station (art. 48 same Statutes).

*All dates are according to old style, i.e., 11 days behind in the 18th century; 12 days behind in the 19th century and 13 days in the 20th century. It is also significant that, in the way of exception of the general procedural rules, court decisions, by venture of which persons of noble birth were to be deprived of their special privileges, could not take effect without His Majesty’s sanction (Ibidem, articles 80 and 81). At the same time Imperial legislation, seeking to prevent the possibility of the extinction of noble, especially eminent families, as a result of the cessation of their male descendants, used to encourage the petitions for conveying such family names to male blood relatives even in side lines.

In the Russian hereditary nobility there were families that bore titles of princes, counts and barons. Such titles were either: (a) hereditary; or (b) granted by the Czar in recognition of exceptional services rendered to the State; or (c) acquired by adoption of a male by a titled nobleman; or (d) by the transfer, under a procedure provided by the law, to a noble family of a title belonging to another family related to a former by blood. Here only the latter method of acquisition of a title (d) by hereditary nobleman shall be dealt with.

Section 79 of the Statutes on Ranks above referred to reads: A nobleman, who has neither sons nor male relatives bearing the same family name, shall have the right to petition for the transfer of the said family name, together with the escutcheon and title assigned thereto, to some of his male relatives, or the husband of a female relative who prior to her marriage bore the transferor’s family name. With respect to petitions of this kind the regulations appended hereto shall be complied with.

On the strength of article 4 of the Appendix to the said section 79, only males belonging to the hereditary nobility were entitled to submit petitions for the transfer to their family names the names and titles of other noble families, while article 5 of the same Appendix provided that such transfers could be effected only to persons of male sex who also belong to hereditary nobility, and not prior to their having reached full age (21 years).

The procedure of submitting such petitions was described in article 12 of the said Appendix, which provides: The petition for the transfer of a family name shall be addressed, during the life time of the petitioner, to His Majesty, and it shall be accompanied by the respective certificates: 1. the effect that the person accepting the family name has given his consent thereto, and 2. to the effect that all other requisite conditions, provided in articles 1-11 of this Appendix, have been complied with.

Article 13 of the same Appendix reads: The transfer of family names, escutcheons and titles shall be made not otherwise than with His Majesty’s consent, upon the examination of the petition therefore, in a duly established manner, by the Department of Heraldry of the Ruling Senate, and subsequently, by the First Department of the State Council.

Summing up the statutory provisions above referred to, it shall be observed that under the laws of Imperial Russia, the following were the requisite conditions for the transfer of a nobleman’s family name to a person of male sex mentioned in Section 79 of Volume IX of the Complete Code:

1. that the prospective male transferor, belonging to hereditary nobility, has no sons or male relatives bearing his name;

2. that the transferee be a male belonging to hereditary nobility;

3. that the transferee be of full age (21 years);

4. that the transferee give his consent to the transfer to him of the transferor’s family name;

5. that the prospective transferor’s petition be addressed to His Majesty;

6. that the said petition, together with respective certificates, be preliminarily examined and be found factually correct and valid, first, by the Department of Heraldry of the Ruling Senate, and secondly, by the First Department of the State Council; and

7. that His Majesty give His Imperial approval of such a transfer.

Turning to the question whether in pre-revolutionary Russia the family name of a nobleman’s relative in the female line could be transferred to the said person of noble birth, it should, in the first place, be borne in mind that even with respect to the succession of the Russian Imperial Throne the principle excluding persons of female sex therefore was never unconditionally acknowledged or rigidly complied with.

It will be recalled that the Salic law, from which the said discriminatory practice was derived, has framed the following rule: Of Salic land no portion shall come to a woman; but the whole of the inheritance of the land shall come to the male sex. (Chapter LIX, paragraph 5). In Russia, however, the following historical incident, standing in direct conflict with the above Salic dictum, may be cited. In 1730, after the death of Emperor Peter II, male descendants of Peter the Great ceased to exist. In view of this situation his daughter Empress Elizaveta Petrovna proclaimed her nephew Peter-Ulrich, her sister Anna Petrovna’s son, the wife of Duke Charles-Friedrich of Holstein, heir to the Russian Throne; Peter-Ulrich, assuming the name of Peter Fedorovich, married Princess Sophia-Augusta of Anhalt, who became known as Ekaterina Alexeevna, the future Empress Catherine II. Of this marriage in 1754, a son Paul was born. Meanwhile, in 1762, upon the death of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, her sister’s son Peter II Fedorovich ascended the Russian Throne.

And even after the enactment on April 5, 1797, of the basic Statute on Imperial Succession, while that right was preferably granted to persons of male sex, nevertheless on the strength of articles 27 and 30 of the Fundamental Laws, the possibility of the female line succeeding to the Throne was specifically anticipated. At this point it may be interesting to mention the fact that in Western Europe, too, the transition of Royal succession to female lines, because of the extinction of male descendants, is a common phenomenon, and in such cases the Royal dynasty assumed a new name.

The example of Great Britain is particularly characteristic, since from 1837 up to the present time, i.e., in the course of only one century, the ruling dynasty has changed its name three times: In 1839 Victoria, the only daughter of the Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George III, having married Prince Albert of Saxen-Coburg-Gotha, and being the last descendant in her line, transferred the name of her husband to her heirs, which name, however, in 1971, was changed to that of Windsor. At present, in view of the fact that once more a woman has succeeded to the British Throne, the ruling dynasty has acquired the name of Mountbatten after the name of Queen Elizabeth’s II husband, the Duke Philip.

The example of Spain is equally noteworthy. That country, up to the revolution of 1831, was ruled by the Bourbons. Alfonso XII (1874-1885), the father of the last King Alfonso XIII (1902-1931), ascended the Throne on the ground that his mother was the last descendant in the Hapsburg-Bourbon royal family, and thus the succession passed into the female line.

As regards the transfer by Russian nobles of their family names, titles and escutchcheons, same, as stated, could be effected only by persons of the male sex. However, in the law there was no interdiction to transfer nobility family names, whether titled or not titled, from female to male lines. As a matter of fact such transfers, of course with His Majesty’s consent, occurred quite often. The first instance of this kind took place during the reign of Peter the Great (1689-1725) when Prince Droutzkoy-Solokinsky assumed also the name of his father-in-law Romeiko-Gourko.

By virtue of an Imperial ukaz of April 8, 1798, Senator N. I. Lodijensky was granted the right to assume the family name and title of the Princess Ramodanovsky’s, his ancestors in the female line, and to bear and in the future hereditarily the name of Prince Ramodanovsky-Lodijensky. (Comp. Karnovich, Family Names and Titles in Russia p. 94, St. Petersburg, 1886, in Russian).

Thus, as early as in the XVIIIth Century, the practice of substitution of one family name by another related with the former in the female line was legally sanctioned. In the course of the XIXth and XXth Centuries such transfers were numerous. It suffices here to cite but a few examples.

A. On June 11, 1885, by virtue of an Imperially sanctioned opinion of the State Council, Count Felix Soumarokov-Elston was authorized to assume the name and title of his father-in-law, Prince Nikolai Borisovich Youssoupov on condition that the combined name of Prince Youssoupov Count Soumarokov-Elston be borne exclusively by his, Felix Soumarokov’s Elston, senior male descendent.

B. On the 29th day of April 1902, by virtue of an Imperially sanctioned opinion of the State Council Baron P. P. Mestmacher transferred his family name and title to his nephew V. V. Budde, a Lieutenant in the Grenadier horse guard, and he was ordered hence forth to call himself Baron Mestmacher-Budde; C. On June 10, 1854, by virtue of an Imperially sanctioned opinion of the State Council, Major-General Prince A. F. Golitzin was authorized to add to his name that of his grandfather on the maternal side, Prince Prozorovsky.

D. The title of Count conferred upon the well-known Caucasian General Evdokimov, was conveyed to his wife’s niece’s husband Dolivo-Dobrovolsky.

E. The Family name of Mavrin was added to that of Glinka.

F. Prince S. D. Abamelek was granted the Imperial permission to add to his name that of his father-in-law Lazarev and to bear henceforth the name of Prince Abamelek-Lazarev.

G. Maslov received His Majesty’s permission, to add to his name the family name and title of his mother, nee Princess Odoyevsky, “in view of the extinction of the latter’s line.” H. His Majesty granted the petition of N. A. Demidov for adding to his name that of Prince Lopoukhin, his grandson’s uncle in the female line.

I. Count Shouvalov was permitted to add to his name that of Prince Woronzow, his grandfather on the maternal side.

J. On May 19, 1872, by virtue of an Imperial ukaze the sole great grandson, by the daughter of the late Acting Privy Councilor Count Michael Speransky, the Prince Michael R. Cantacuzene, was grated permission to add to his name and title, the title and the family name of Count Speransky and to be called hereafter Prince Cantacuzene, Count Speransky.

Of such instances a long list could be complied. It might, however, be stated that among Russian family names, bearing the titles of princes and counts, as recorded by the Department of Heraldry of the Ruling Senate (ed. 1914), 80 represented those to which other family names and titles, derived from female lines, were added. But even the latter number should be increased since instances of such transfers did take place after the year 1914. Their exact number cannot be ascertained at the present time because of the lack of authentic documentation. These lawful Imperially sanctioned changes in the family names of the Russian nobility in pre-revolutionary Russia must be strictly distinguished from arbitrary changes, subject to few formalities, practiced in some other countries, not excluding the United States.

France in particular is a country boasting of a large number of titles, such as “vicomte”, “prince”, “duc”, “marquis”, etc., with no pretense of legal or historical justification. Moreover, their bearers -a thing inconceivable in Imperial Russia – have purchased the nobility status, as well as titles, from the Kings or even from the Popes.

The practice of usurping French titles came into vogue especially as a result of the so-called “Great” Revolution of 1789-1799. It is known, for instance, that the real name of the ancestors of the poet Lamartine was “Alamartine” which was later arbitrarily changed to “Lamartine”, and after a while the title of “vicomte” was added. Likewise Balzac appropriated to himself the status of nobility, and began to call himself Honore de Balzac, with no excuse whatsoever, so that one of his biographers, Antoine Buch, justly labeled him “usurpatuer de noblesse”. Well-known British historian F. M. Thompson in his latest book, “Napoleon Bonaparte”, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1952, page 121) states that Napoleon, during his time as an Emperor (nine years), created new peerages in the amount of 3,457 people. The new titles of nobility were distributed as follows:

31 Dukes

452 Counts

1,500 Barons

1,474 Chevaliers

Moreover, these titles “if supplanted by sufficient income varying from 10,000 pounds for Princes and 150 pounds for a Chevalier became hereditary.” Aside from that, he created many titles of Princes, which were given mostly to the Generals for military services. Thus, Napoleon created 4,000 titles during nine years of his reign-five times more than all the Russian Emperors bestowed during 300 years of their reigns! In comparison, in old Russia, according to the “List of Titled families and persons of the Imperial Russia” (see the Edition of the Department of Heraldry of the Ruling Senate, St. Petersburg, 1892), there were altogether 762 titled names of which 178 were princely names. The 762 titles belonged to persons of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Georgian, Tartar, Lithuanian, and other origins).

In England, on the other hand, peerage appears to be, in a large measure, a semi-political institution; many members thereof having been created ad hoc. Harold Nicolson, in his book, King George The Fifth, has made the following significant admission: Queen Anne it seemed had in 1712 created twelve new peers in order to avert opposition to the Peace of Utrecht; but that had been a very small number and very long ago. William IV, in 1832, had, after much wriggling, promised Lord Grey to create eighty new Peers in order to secure the passage of the Reform Bills.

And turning to more recent times, the same author posed this question: How could the King (George V) be certain that, in yielding to Mr. Asquith’s solicitations, in promising to create as many as 500 new Peers, he would be accurately interpreting the considered wishes of the nation? These few examples demonstrate the fact that in some Western countries the nobility status as well as titles were, and are being, acquired in a manner quite different from that which, traditionally, prevailed in pre-revolutionary Russia, where these matters were subject to scrupulous legislative provisions and most formal procedure. This is the reason why in Russia, with her population of almost 200,000,000, the number of titled families, in the way of percentage, was the smallest of any other country.

It now remains to review briefly the present-day legal status of the Russian nobles residing outside of the Russia, and the method in which they may effect transfers to their names those of related families, whether in male or female lines. The Provisional Government, which succeeded the Imperial Government, did not change the laws of the Russian Empire concerning the rights of personal and hereditary noblemen to family names, titles and escutcheons. After the coup d’йtat of February 27, 1917, the Provisional Government, by virtue of its decree of May 13, 1917, granted the power of ratifying the escutcheons of private persons, which was formerly vested in the Emperor, to the Department of Heraldry of the Ruling Senate, which body did actually approve sixty escutcheons pursuant to petitions filed prior to the revolution. Among such escutcheons was one of the titled family of the Count Dmitriev-Manonov.

As a result of the Communist revolution some 4,000,000 people, mostly belonging to the educated classes, were swept out of Russia. The bulk of these refugees eventually settled in Western Europe and in America. Meanwhile by the decree of the Central Executive Committee of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government of November 12, 1917 (Coll. En. 1917, No. 3, Sect. 31) all ranks and titles were abolished in Russia and by the decrees of the Soviet of People’s Commissars of November 24, 1917 (Coll. En. 1917, No. 4, Sect. 50) and of December 14, 1917, No. 9, Sect. 123) the Ruling Senate and the State Council, respectively, were abolished.

The aforementioned Soviet decrees have not, and cannot have, an extra-territorial effect, and those Russians who have left Russia and refuse to submit to the Soviet Government are not, and cannot be, bound by whatever legislation that Government chooses to enact. In particular, the Russian йmigrйs may well disregard the Soviet decree of November 13, 1917, abolishing all ranks and titles.

Hence, there arises the question in what manner the Russians of noble descent, residing outside the Russia, can exercise the rights, which they enjoyed under the provisions of Sect. 79 of Vol. IX of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. In our opinion the method and procedure of the transfer of Russian family names should follow as closely as possible the statutory provisions thereon contained in the said Code of Laws.

Inasmuch as both the Ruling Senate, with its Department of Heraldry, and the State Council are non-existent, their functions in connection with the verification of the applications for the transfer of family names, titles and escutcheons should be assumed by the Genealogical Committee of the Russian Nobility Association in France or in the United States, and if the claims of the applicants therefore should be found factually correct and valid, such applications should then be submitted for approval to the living Head of the Russian Imperial House, being Her Imperial Highness The Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna of Russia, de jure Empress Maria I of All The Russias, Head of The Imperial House and Family of Holy Russia.

nobility-russia.jpg

The Princes of The Russian Empire

The list of the Russian princely families that were still extant in 1700:

Riurikovichi

  • from the House of Chernigov:
    • Odoevsky
    • Massalski
    • Eletsky
    • Bariatinsky
    • Obolenski
    • Repnin
    • Dolgorukov
    • Shcherbatov
    • Myshetsky
    • Oginski
    • Volkonsky
    • Gorchakov
  • from the House of Galicia:
    • Drutskoy-Sokolinsky
    • Drucki-Lubecki
    • Babichev
    • Putyatin
  • from the House of Smolensk:
    • Vyazemsky
    • Kozlovsky
    • Korkodinov
    • Dashkov
    • Kropotkin
  • from the House of Yaroslavl:
    • Prozorovsky
    • Shakhovskoy
    • Khvorostinin
    • Lvov
    • Zasekin
    • Troekurov
    • Dulov
  • from the House of Rostov-Beloozero:
  • Lobanov-Rostovsky
    • Kasatkin-Rostovsky
    • Shchepin-Rostovsky
    • Beloselsky-Belozersky
    • Sheleshpansky
    • Ukhtomsky
    • Vadbolsky
  • from the House of Starodub:
    • Romodanovsky
    • Gundorov
    • Gagarin
    • Khilkov

Gediminovichi

  • Golitsyn
  • Kurakin
  • Khovansky
  • Trubetskoy
  • Woroniecki
  • Nieswicki
  • Volynsky

The Eastern Princes

  • Sibirsky
  • Cherkassky
  • Meshchersky
  • Engalychev
  • Yusupov
  • Urusov
  • Kudashev
  • Kugushev
  • Tenishev
  • Dondukov, etc.

In 1801, the Russian Emperor recognized a lot of princely families from Georgia. These include: Bagration, Gruzinsky, Imeretinsky, Mukhransky, Dadianov, Gurielov, Abamelik, Abashidze, Abkhazov, Agiashvili, Amilakhvarov, Amirejibov, Andronikov, Argutinsky, Avalov, Babadyshev, Baratov, Bebutov, Begtabegov, Chavchavadze, Chelokaev, Cherkezov, Chkheidze, Cholokov, Dadeshkeliani, Davidov, Diasamidze, Djandierov, Djaparidze, Djavakhov, Djordjadze, Eristavov, Gelovani, Guramov, Gurgenidze, Iashvili, Karalov, Kobulov, Lionidze, Machabeli, Magalov, Makaev, Mikeladze, Orbeliani, Palavandov, Pavlenov, Ratiev, Rusiev, Saginov, Shalikov, Shervashidze, Sumbatov, Tarkhanov, Tsertelov, Tsitsianov, Tsulukidze, Tumanov, Vachnadze, Vakhvakhov, Vizirov, Zurabov. The following families obtained their princely titles from the Emperors of Russia after 1700:

  • 30.5.1707 Menshikov
  • 31.7.1711 Kantemir
  • 5.4.1797 Bezborodko
  • 19.1.1799 Lopukhin
  • 8.8.1799 Suvorov
  • 29.7.1812 Kutuzov
  • 30.8.1814 Saltykov
  • 30.8.1815 Barclay de Tolly
  • 22.8.1826 Lieven
  • 4.9.1831 Paskevich
  • 6.12.1831 Kochubey
  • 8.11.1832 Osten-Sacken
  • 1.1.1839 Vassiltchikov
  • 16.4.1841 Tchernyshov
  • 10.11.1843 Czetwertynski
  • 6.4.1845 Voronzov
  • 25.6.1847 Giray
  • 21.12.1849 Tarkovsky
  • 23.2.1853 Chingiz
  • 18.12.1852 Romanovsky
  • 26.8.1856 Orlov
  • 18.4.1861 Swiatopolk-Mirski
  • 19.1.1865 Cantacouzene
  • 4.1.1867 Mingrelsky
  • 26.6.1875 Mavrocordato
  • 5.12.1880 Yurievsky
  • 31.3.1884 Sturdza
  • 14.8.1886 Persidsky
  • 23.11.1892 Dabizha
  • 9.6.1893 Muruzi
  • 11.8.1896 Gantimurov
  • 15.8.1915 Paley
  • Alexander_von_Benckendorff.jpg

    The Counts of the Russian Empire

  • 1706 Sheremetev
  • 20.4.1707 Golovkin
  • 23.2.1710 Apraxin
  • 8.7.1710 Zotov
  • 18.2.1721 Bruce
  • 7.2.1722 Apraxin II
  • 7.5.1724 Tolstoy
  • 24.10.1726 De Vieira
  • 24.10.1726 Lowenwolde
  • 5.1.1727 Skavronsky
  • 24.2.1728 Munnich
  • 3.1730 Saltykov
  • 28.4.1730 Ostermann
  • 19.1.1731 Jaguszinski
  • 19.1.1732 Saltykov II
  • 13.8.1740 Lacy
  • 29.3.1740 Bruce II
  • 25.4.1742 Efimowski
  • 25.4.1742 Hendrikov
  • 25.4.1742 Tchernyshov
  • 25.4.1742 Bestuzhev
  • 16.4.1744 Razumovsky
  • 15.7.1744 Ushakov
  • 15.7.1744 Rumyantsev
  • 5.9.1746 Shuvalov
  • 17.2.1760 Buturlin
  • 22.9.1762 Orlov
  • 22.9.1767 Panin
  • 10.7.1775 Potemkin
  • 25.9.1789 Suvorov
  • 30.10.1790 Saltykov III
  • 6.5.1793 Krechetnikov
  • 1.1.1795 Fersen
  • 1.1.1795 Potemkin II
  • 12.11.1796 Bobrinskoy
  • 5.4.1797 Voronzov
  • 5.4.1797 Bezborodko
  • 5.4.1797 Dmitriev-Mamonov
  • 5.4.1797 Zavadovsky
  • 5.4.1797 Buxhoeveden
  • 5.4.1797 Kamensky
  • 5.4.1797 Kakhovsky
  • 5.4.1797 Gudovich
  • 5.4.1797 Mussin-Pushkin
  • 9.6.1797 Osten-Sacken
  • 8.4.1798 Sievers
  • 21.4.1798 Stroganov
  • 22.2.1799 Lieven
  • 22.2.1799 Pahlen
  • 22.2.1799 Kushelev
  • 22.2.1799 Rostopchin
  • 4.4.1799 Denisov
  • 4.4.1799 Kochubey
  • 5.5.1799 Arakcheev
  • 5.5.1799 Kutaisov
  • 15.9.1801 Vasiliev
  • 15.9.1801 Tatishchev
  • 15.9.1801 Protasov
  • 12.12.1809 Gudovich II
  • 29.10.1811 Kutuzov
  • 29.10.1812 Platov
  • 2.5.1813 Miloradovich
  • 29.12.1813 Barclay de Tolly
  • 29.12.1813 Bennigsen
  • 30.8.1816 Tormasov
  • 1.7.1817 Lambsdorff
  • 19.4.1818 Vyazmitinov
  • 12.12.1819 Konovnitsin
  • 12.12.1819 Guriev
  • 8.4.1821 Osten-Sacken II
  • 25.12.1825 Orlov II
  • 22.8.1826 Tatishchev II
  • 22.8.1826 Tchernyshov II
  • 22.8.1826 Kuruta
  • 22.8.1826 Pozzo di Borgo
  • 22.8.1826 Stroganov
  • 25.6.1827 Diebitsch
  • 15.3.1828 Paskevich
  • 9.6.1829 Tohl
  • 1.6.1829 Oppermann
  • 22.9.1829 Kankrin
  • 6.12.1831 Vassiltchikov
  • 8.11.1832 Golenishchev-Kutuzov
  • 8.11.1832 Benckendorff
  • 1.7.1833 Essen
  • 1.7.1833 Levashov
  • 25.6.1834 Mordvinov
  • 1.7.1835 Novosiltsev
  • 1.1.1839 Speransky
  • 26.3.1839 Kiselev
  • 26.3.1839 Kleinmichel
  • 18.4.1842 Bludov
  • 19.3.1843 Kossakowski
  • 24.12.1843 Przezdiecki
  • 1.7.1846 Uvarov
  • 1.7.1846 Baranov
  • 1.7.1847 Adlerberg
  • 19.9.1847 Nikitin
  • 2.10.1847 Rudiger
  • 3.4.1850 Vronchenko
  • 3.4.1850 Perovsky
  • 26.8.1852 Muravyov
  • 26.8.1856 Berg
  • 26.8.1856 Olsufiev
  • 26.8.1856 Grabbe
  • 26.8.1856 Zakrevsky
  • 26.8.1856 Sumarokov
  • 26.8.1856 Putyatin
  • 20.11.1856 Perovsky II
  • 17.4.1859 Evdokimov
  • 23.4.1861 Rostovtsev
  • 23.4.1861 Lanskoy
  • 27.5.1862 Luders
  • 17.4.1865 Muravyov II
  • 28.10.1866 Lutke
  • 18.3.1871 Brunnow
  • 1.1.1872 Korff
  • 19.3.1873 Miloradovich II
  • 29.4.1874 Kotzebue
  • 12.12.1877 Ignatiev
  • 17.4.1878 Loris-Melikov
  • 20.8.1878 Milyutin
  • 19.2.1880 Valuiev
  • 9.2.1881 Baranzov
  • 23.11.1883 Delyanov
  • 21.3.1884 Belyovskoy-Zhukovsky
  • 20.1.1890 Reutern
  • 21.2.1896 Simonich
  • 1.1.1902 Solsky
  • 18.9.1905 Witte
  • 1912 Dmitriev-Mamonov II
  • 18.11.1913 Freedericksz
  • 29.1.1914 Kokovtsev
  • III.1915 Brasov
  • We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
    Cookies settings
    Accept
    Decline
    Privacy & Cookie policy
    Privacy & Cookies policy
    Cookie name Active

    Privacy and Cookie Policy Last updated: 11 August 2026

    Neue Gotha respects your privacy and is committed to handling personal data lawfully, fairly, and transparently. This Privacy and Cookie Policy explains who is responsible for personal data, what information we process, why we process it, how long we retain it, who may receive it, and the rights available to individuals under the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”) and applicable national data-protection and electronic-communications law.

    1. Who is responsible for your personal data?

    The controller responsible for the processing described in this policy is:

    • Legal name: Neue Gotha Historical Register gUG
    • Trading or project name: Neue Gotha
    • Postal address: Musterstraße 12, 10115 Berlin, Germany
    • Email: editor@neuegotha.de
    • EU/EEA representative: Not applicable (the controller is established in Germany).
    • Data Protection Officer: No Data Protection Officer has been appointed. Privacy enquiries are handled through editor@neuegotha.de.

    Questions about this policy or requests concerning personal data may be sent to the email or postal address above.

    2. Scope of this policy

    This policy applies to personal data processed through https://neuegotha.com, correspondence with the Neue Gotha editorial office, material submitted for editorial consideration, and editorial or archival records concerning identifiable living individuals.

    It does not govern independent third-party websites or services linked from this website. Those providers are responsible for their own privacy practices.

    3. Personal data we process and why

    Processing activity Personal data Purpose Legal basis Retention
    Website delivery, logging, and security IP address; date and time of access; requested page or file; referring page; browser, operating-system, and device information; error and security-event data Deliver the website, maintain availability, diagnose faults, prevent abuse, and protect the website and its users Article 6(1)(f) GDPR — our legitimate interests in operating a secure and reliable website. Where processing is required by law, Article 6(1)(c) GDPR may also apply. Routine access and error logs are retained for 14 days. Records isolated for investigation of a suspected security incident may be retained for up to 90 days after the incident is resolved, or longer where required for legal claims.
    Editorial correspondence and enquiries Name, contact details, message content, correspondence history, and any documents or other information voluntarily provided Respond to enquiries, assess corrections or submissions, maintain editorial records, and protect legal rights Article 6(1)(f) GDPR — our legitimate interests in conducting editorial work and responding to correspondence; Article 6(1)(b) GDPR where processing is necessary to take steps at an individual’s request before entering into a contract; Article 6(1)(c) GDPR where retention or disclosure is legally required Correspondence is ordinarily retained for 24 months after the matter closes. Material required to document an editorial decision, resolve a dispute, meet a legal obligation, or establish, exercise, or defend a legal claim may be retained for the applicable limitation period.
    Editorial, genealogical, and archival records Names; titles and styles; dates and places associated with public or genealogical events; family relationships; jurisdictions, offices, and public roles; images; biographical information; source and citation information; and correspondence relating to accuracy or provenance Research, document, preserve, verify, correct, and publish material concerning dynastic, genealogical, heraldic, and institutional history Article 6(1)(f) GDPR — our legitimate interests and those of readers, researchers, and institutions in maintaining an accurate historical and genealogical reference work, subject to a documented necessity and balancing assessment. Applicable national rules implementing Article 85 GDPR concerning freedom of expression and information may also apply. For as long as the information remains relevant to the legitimate editorial or archival purpose, subject to accuracy review, correction, restriction, erasure, and applicable archiving or legal requirements
    Cookie-consent and language preferences Consent choice, language preference, cookie identifiers, and related technical information Remember privacy choices, demonstrate consent where required, and provide the language selected by the visitor Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for strictly necessary preference and consent-management functions; Article 6(1)(a) GDPR for optional storage, access, or associated processing based on consent As stated in the cookie table below
    Optional external services IP address, page URL, device and browser information, language choice, and service-interaction data, depending on the provider Provide optional translation, embedded content, analytics, or similar features actually enabled on the website Article 6(1)(a) GDPR — consent. Non-essential services remain disabled until consent is given. As described for each service and by the relevant provider

    We do not use personal data for solely automated decisions that produce legal effects or similarly significant effects concerning individuals.

    4. Editorial and archival information obtained from other sources

    Neue Gotha is an editorial and historical reference project. Some information in the register may concern identifiable living individuals and may not have been collected directly from those individuals.

    Depending on the record, information may be obtained from official gazettes and public registers; archives and libraries; published books and scholarly works; institutional publications; reputable news sources; publicly accessible websites; submissions from the individual concerned or their authorised representative; family representatives; and other documented sources.

    The categories of information may include the categories listed under “Editorial, genealogical, and archival records” above. The material may be made available to website visitors and may be indexed by search engines. Neue Gotha seeks to use relevant, proportionate, and appropriately sourced information and to distinguish documented fact from uncertainty or editorial interpretation.

    Individuals may contact the editorial office to request access, correction, contextualisation, restriction, or erasure. Requests are assessed under the GDPR and applicable national law, taking into account accuracy, source integrity, the public interest, freedom of expression and information, archival considerations, and the rights and freedoms of other people. No provision of this policy removes a right granted by applicable law.

    Neue Gotha does not intentionally publish special-category personal data or information concerning criminal convictions about living individuals unless a specific lawful basis and any additional legal condition have been identified and documented.

    5. Cookies and similar technologies

    Cookies are small text files stored on, or read from, a visitor’s device. Similar technologies may perform comparable functions. Some are strictly necessary for a website or a service expressly requested by the visitor. Others, including many analytics, advertising, social-media, translation, or embedded-content technologies, require prior consent under applicable EU electronic-communications rules.

    Neue Gotha does not place or access non-essential cookies, or activate non-essential external services, before valid consent has been given. Visitors may accept or reject optional purposes separately and may withdraw consent at any time by selecting the permanently available “Cookie settings” control. Withdrawing consent does not affect processing that was lawful before withdrawal. Strictly necessary technologies cannot be disabled through the consent tool, but they may be controlled through browser settings where technically possible.

    The following table reflects the technologies currently deployed on the website. It is updated whenever a plugin, host, analytics tool, embedded service, or cookie configuration changes.

    Name Provider Purpose Category Duration Third-party access
    _scc_session Neue Gotha / managed hosting and site-control provider Maintains a short-lived session for website security and site-control functions Strictly necessary Browser session The contracted hosting or site-control provider may access the identifier when providing technical support
    _tccl_visit Neue Gotha / managed website-analytics provider Distinguishes a single website visit and reduces duplicate counting within the same session Analytics — disabled until consent 30 minutes Yes; the contracted analytics provider processes the identifier on Neue Gotha’s behalf
    _tccl_visitor Neue Gotha / managed website-analytics provider Assigns a pseudonymous visitor identifier used to produce aggregated website-usage statistics Analytics — disabled until consent 12 months Yes; the contracted analytics provider processes the identifier on Neue Gotha’s behalf
    googtrans Neue Gotha / Google Translate Stores or applies the visitor’s language selection for the translation feature Functional — disabled until consent 12 months Google may receive technical and service-interaction data when Google Translate is activated
    ng_gt_default_applied Neue Gotha / website translation plugin Records whether the website’s default translation setting has been applied Functional — disabled until consent 24 hours No direct vendor access is assumed; Google may receive data if activation causes Google Translate to load
    eu_cookies_bar_consent Neue Gotha / locally hosted EU Cookies Bar plugin Stores the visitor’s cookie choices and prevents the banner from being shown unnecessarily Strictly necessary 6 months No, provided the consent plugin remains locally hosted and does not transmit consent records to its developer
    wordpress_test_cookie Neue Gotha / WordPress Checks whether the browser supports cookies when an authorised user visits the sign-in page Strictly necessary Browser session No; the cookie is processed by Neue Gotha and its contracted host

    Authorised editorial users may receive WordPress authentication, security, or preference cookies when they sign in. wordpress_logged_in_[hash] maintains an authenticated session for up to two weeks when “Remember Me” is selected; wordpress_sec_[hash] protects administrative access for the session; and wp-settings-[user_id] stores an editor’s interface preferences for up to one year. These internal cookies are processed solely for editorial access and site administration.

    6. Google Translate, web fonts, and other external content

    Where enabled with the visitor’s consent, Neue Gotha may use Google Translate to provide machine-generated translations. Activating the service may cause the visitor’s browser to connect to Google and disclose technical information such as the IP address, requested page URL, browser or device information, and language or service-interaction data. Machine translations may contain errors and do not replace the original editorial text.

    Website fonts are hosted locally by Neue Gotha and do not require a connection to Google. Google Translate remains an optional external service that is activated only after the visitor provides consent.

    Information about Google’s processing is available in the Google Privacy Policy and Google’s explanation of how it uses information from sites and applications that use its services.

    Embedded material from another website may allow that provider to process personal data as if the visitor had visited the provider directly. Non-essential embeds remain blocked until consent is obtained. Each enabled provider is identified in this policy and in the consent interface.

    7. Recipients of personal data

    Personal data may be disclosed only where necessary to:

    • hosting, content-delivery, backup, website-maintenance, email, security, and consent-management providers acting under contract;
    • translation, analytics, media, or other external-service providers selected by the visitor through the consent interface;
    • professional advisers, insurers, auditors, or other specialists where necessary to protect legal or operational interests;
    • courts, regulators, law-enforcement bodies, or public authorities where disclosure is required or permitted by law; and
    • the public and search engines where personal data form part of a lawfully published editorial or archival record.

    8. International data transfers

    Some service providers may process personal data outside the European Economic Area. Where the GDPR restricts such a transfer, Neue Gotha relies on an applicable European Commission adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards under Article 46 GDPR, such as the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, together with supplementary measures where required.

    Cloudflare and Google may transfer limited technical information to recipients in the United States. Where the recipient is validly certified, the transfer is based on the European Commission’s adequacy decision for the EU–US Data Privacy Framework. Where that mechanism is unavailable or does not cover a transfer, the relevant provider’s European Commission Standard Contractual Clauses and supplementary technical and organisational measures are used. Information about the applicable safeguards, including how to obtain a copy, may be requested from editor@neuegotha.de.

    9. How long we retain personal data

    We retain personal data only for as long as necessary for the purposes described in this policy, including security, editorial integrity, source verification, dispute resolution, and compliance with legal obligations. The specific periods or criteria are stated in the processing and cookie tables above.

    When a retention period ends, information is deleted or anonymised unless continued retention is required by law, is necessary for legal claims, or is justified by a documented editorial or archival purpose. Encrypted rolling backups are retained for 35 days and are then overwritten automatically, unless a backup has been isolated for incident recovery or a legal hold.

    10. Security

    Neue Gotha uses appropriate technical and organisational measures designed to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure, or access. No method of internet transmission or electronic storage is completely secure, and absolute security cannot be guaranteed.

    11. Your data-protection rights

    Subject to the conditions and limitations in the GDPR and applicable national law, an individual may have the right to:

    • obtain confirmation as to whether personal data concerning them are processed and request access to those data;
    • request correction of inaccurate or incomplete personal data;
    • request erasure of personal data;
    • request restriction of processing;
    • object, on grounds relating to their particular situation, to processing based on legitimate interests;
    • receive personal data they provided in a structured, commonly used, machine-readable format and transmit those data to another controller where the right to portability applies;
    • withdraw consent at any time, without affecting the lawfulness of processing carried out before withdrawal; and
    • lodge a complaint with a competent data-protection supervisory authority.

    To exercise a right, contact editor@neuegotha.de. Please identify the information or record concerned and the nature of the request. We may request information reasonably necessary to verify identity and protect personal data from unauthorised disclosure. Requests are normally answered within one month, subject to any extension permitted by law.

    Where a request concerns published editorial or archival content, applicable rights may be limited where necessary and proportionate to reconcile data protection with freedom of expression and information or other rights recognised by law. Each request will be assessed individually.

    12. Complaints

    We encourage individuals to contact us first so that we can try to resolve a concern. Individuals also have the right to complain to the supervisory authority in the EU or EEA country of their habitual residence, place of work, or the place of the alleged infringement.

    For this Berlin-based controller the supervisory authority is the Berliner Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit, Alt-Moabit 59–61, 10555 Berlin, Germany; telephone +49 30 13889-0; email mailbox@datenschutz-berlin.de; website https://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/.

    13. Children

    The website is intended as a general historical and reference resource and is not directed specifically at children. We do not knowingly request personal data directly from children for an online service requiring parental consent. If you believe a child has provided personal data inappropriately, please contact us.

    14. Changes to this policy

    We may update this policy when our processing activities, service providers, technologies, or legal obligations change. The current version will be published on this page with a revised “Last updated” date. Where required, we will provide additional notice or request renewed consent before introducing a new processing purpose.

    Decline All
    Save settings Accept All
    Cookies settings