Volkonski
M Sjostrom
literature why the Russian Volkonsky (and Obolensky) lineages do not have
the Y DNA of the genuine Rurikids.
Almagro (1843) reports that the claim of the Volkonski to the princely rank
and title was disputed for centuries by those Rurikids who were descended in
legitimate lines from St.Michael of Chernihiv.
It was only near 1700 when some monarchs decided to accept their claim to
princely title.
The Volkonski held large inherited lands (principality) along the small
river of Volkona.
Almagro has a story that the illegitimacy of their princely claim would have
been due to their forefather being illegitimate son of a Rurikid prince.
Such an explanation is an easy concoction in slavic culture which viewed
patriarchal lines as descents. However, in light of Y DNA results, it is
clear that the Volkonski (and some Obolenski) are not descended in unbroken
male line from genuine Rurikids. Rather like they were inheriting their
lands and claim via a woman.
My hypothesis about this is: instead of an illegitimate son to have received
the landed inheritance, it was grandson(s) via a daughter of the Rurikid
lineage who inherited that.
There either was a grandfather or uncle, sonless, of the genuine Rurikid
lineage, holding a small rincipality, and he assigned the inheritance to
son(s) of a daughter of his family. Or, alternatively to husband of such a
daughter, which then in normal passage of events ended up to that daughter's
son(s).
This explains perfectly why the subsequent lineage of the Volkonski do have
a different Y DNA than genuine Rurikids, but have an accepted landed
heritage from some Rurikid branch, and still were regarded ineligible to
hold the Rurikid princely rank, disputes ensuing for centuries.
The Slavic cultural perception of princely rank was that it belonged to
heirs in unbroken male line. And that daughters were not able to convey it
to their children. In that context, the 'legitimacy' to hold that rank - and
the illegitimacy of the Volkonski claim - are directly applicable in this
case, allowing for my hypothesis to hold true.
As weakly as are known the precise filiations and even names in the
St.Michael of Chernigov progeny in the 1200s and 1300s, this sort of event
may have plausibly occurred just then there, leaving the particulars
undocumented. So that the only we get, is that fact about centuries-long
dispute over the legitimacy of their princely claim.
-----
Almagro (1843, pseudonym of a genealogist),
I have had occasion to read that book's printed translation in Swedish:
Adliga Familjer i Ryssland, notiser om de förnämsta. printed at Berg/Flodin,
Stockholm 1843, 110 p.
-----------
as to some of the tested Obolenski: possibly some adoption from the
Volkonski....
M Sjostrom
(for example, has the /Genealogisches Handbuch des fürstl... Häuser/ this
claimed Sergei, born 1888 ?????)
prince Nikolai Petrovich Obolenski (1775-1820)
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00153007&tree=LEO
his son:
prince Grigori Nikolaievich Obolenski (1811-1877)
his son:
prince Andrei Grigorievich Obolenski (1843-1921), who married secondly
(sometime in 1888) Mariya Anossova (1871-1922)
who had in 1888 allegedly given birth to:
Sergei (born 24 August 1888) [if this birthdate is correct, his conception
seems to have been illicit, whatever there occurred]; married (in USSR)
his son:
Andrei Sergeievich, uses surname Obolensky (born in about 1920s, in USSR)
his son:
Yuri Andreievich, uses surname Obolensky (born in 1949)
I have understood that the mentioned Yuri (b 1949) has tested his Y DNA, and
it turned out to NOT be that of Rurikids (their genome is from Baltic Sea,
varyag background). Instead, it was something of a typical Slavic genome.
The thing means there had been a Non-Paternity Event in his claimed princely
Rurikid lineage.
M Sjostrom
http://www.monarhist.ru/monarhist/Obolenskiy.htm
appears to include a piece of information, which indicates that the
legitimacy of the branch where Yuri Andreievich Obolensky is descended
from, was in dispute in Russia,
and it was only in 1904-1905 when this Sergei 'Andreievich', who could have
been an NPE, got recognized - seems to me a sort of legal verdict in case of
suspect paternity.
rough translation: "....Obolensky, Sergei Andreevich (1883-1942) got added
to the nobility registers at Moscow on 21 Dec 1904. Confirmation by the
Senate on 9 April 1905, verdict number 1278"
It looks to me that a key would be that the family itself has not registered
this young claimant to nobility registers and to their family tree in his
childhood, it was only when he was adult that a claim succeeded.
Probably he was one of those 'legal sons' who actually were not biological
sons.
So, it is left to individuals' conscience to determine whether Sergei
(1883-1942) was or was not the son of this prince Andrei Grigorievich
Obolensky
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00153270&tree=LEO
M Sjostrom
markers is not enough to give a determination of closeness of kinship.
another point: I think Andrzej is misusing the term 'well matching', seeing
that he has not more than 37 markers and there are an amount of differences
already in that, numbering to about 5 mutations. 5 of 37 is plenty.
As I said, 37 markers is not enough. I have seen some cases on basis of 67
markers, where the 37 portion shows 'match' with a few differences, but then
the additional 30 markers (from 38 to 67) show that there is a great
difference, much greater than anticipated on basis of the 37.
This phenomenon is mostly because almost all of the markers 38-67 are slow
to mutate, while there are about 14 relatively rapidly mutating markers in
that first 37. Those rapidly mutating seem to make a sort of statistical
noise, which in some cases leads to incorrect ideas, hasty conclusions, and
untenable claims. I have seen somewhat drastic changes of conclusions in a
few cases, when comparing in ftdna data who were predicted as kinsmen by 37
markers and then what happened with 67 markers.
by the way, it seems from historical research that the alleged 'Yuri
Mikhailovich Taurussky' is not a historical person, instead being a sort of
myth, existing in minds of people several centuries later. Because, there
seems to be no contemporary attestation about 'Yuri Taurussky'
2010/5/30 Andrzej Bajor >
>
>
> Providing that the prince Yuri Taurussky is the CMA of the Volkonsky and
> Obolensky princes, Y.A. Obolensky is well matching the prince Oleg
> Volkonsky, as well as John Pentecost-Volkonsky, who was said to be a genetic
> son of the prince Boris Dmitrievich Volkonsky (in fact, the test confirmed
> that he is).
>
>
M Sjostrom
remote branches of the same patriline, within around 500 years - as their
paper trails have such a connection of lineages.
105765 Pentecost R1a1 13 25 17 10 10 14 12
12 11 13 11 29 16 9 10 11 11 23 14 21
33 12 15 15 16 11 11 19 23 17
16 18 19 35 39 14 11 11 8 16 17 8 12
10 8 12 10 12 22 22 15 10 12 12 13 8
13 25 21 12 12 11 13 12 11 12 11
160455 Volkonsky R1a1 13 25 15 10 10 14 12
12 11 13 11 30 15 9 10 11 11 23 14 21
32 12 15 15 16 11 11 19 23 17
16 18 19 35 40 14 11
Andrzej Bajor has claimed that the following two would be kinsmen of
Volkonskies matching well.
the Obolensky result, NPE suspected
96461 Obolensky R1a1 12 25 17 10 10 14 12
12 11 13 11 30 16 9 10 11 11 23 14 21
33 12 15 15 16 12 11 19 23 17
16 18 19 34 41 14 11
polish Szuyski result
110642 Szuyski R1a1 13 25 15 10 11 15 12
12 11 13 11 29 14 9 10 11 11 24 14 20
30 12 15 15 16 12 11 19 23 17
16 17 19 35 39 15 11 11 8 17 18 8 11
10 8 11 11 12 22 22 15 11 12 12 13 8
13 23 21 12 12 11 13 12 11 12 13
I say that this haplotype would be relatively usual among the Slavs, and it
seems that a bigger number of tested men actually do have a Y DNA which
branched from this same a millennium or two ago.
The Obolensky tested has in 37 markers 5 or 7 differences to Pentecost and
to Oleg Volkonskiy. A relatively big number. As said, 37 markers is quite
insufficient to determine in any reliability the century of branching within
almost two millennia. If the kinship is earlier than a couple of centuries
ago, but not as far as two millennia ago, 37 markers are often giving false
conclusions about degree of proximity.
The Szuyski is a very clear case in that their difference to Volkonskies in
67 markers is about 20 markers. This means they are separated by perhaps two
thousand years. Not essentially closer. To be essentially closer, is
actually quite impossible.
So, knowing the span of historical epoch in easttern Europe, it is a pure
happenstance that these two Slavic families share a MRCA about two millennia
ago. a happenstance coming from this haplotype being well-spread among slavs
of pertinent regions.
M Sjostrom
firstly he married noblewoman Anna Nikolaievna Naumova, daughter of secret
councillor Nikolai Pavlovich Naumov and his wife, princess Anna Petrovna
Galitzina.
secondly he married a merchant's daughter, Maria Pavlovna Anossova.
Anna Nikolaievna Naumova, who was director of a theater school in Moscow,
had according to Europäische Stammtafeln III/5 p 903 (which says Ikonnikov
as its source) and according to Genealogisches Handbuch d. adels, fürstliche
Häuser, 1987, p 476, deceased in 1882.
according to same genealogies, the second wife Maria Pavlovna Anossova
(whose Obolenski marriage took place in 1888), was born in 1871 at Riazan.
The boy Sergei who is reported by his descendants as having been born in
1883 (and 1883 is plausible in light of his career and life events)
cannot thusly been birthed by the first wife who was dead in 1882,
and he hardly was birthed in 1883 by the second wife who was born in 1871 -
and whose marriage did not take place until 1888, that 1888 being plausible
date for marriage of a young woman born in 1871 and thusly sixteen or more
at that time.
The father was not married at the time of 1883. There was neither of his
wives biologically capable to have a child in that year.
This stinks as some sort of adoption.
Russian aristocrats occasionally adopted (and received
permissions/confirmations) to their own noble rank and title some children
of some others. von Daehn. Orbeliani adopting a bastard of Bariatinski. ...
the 1905 senate confirmation gives an air of a terribly late thing, as
princely houses had received their confirmations already early in the
previous century, or even earlier.
And, the fact that the Obolensky house had already decades earlier received
its conformations from the Senate of its hereditary princely rank,
means that the 1905 seek for such confirmation was superfluous - except if
it was needed to confirm a young man who was not rightfully having the
earlier-confirmed hereditary right.
2010/5/30 M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com>
M Sjostrom
the Volkonski have three branches, traditionally held to be descended from
three sons (Konstantin, Ivan and Fedor) of Fedor Ivanovich of Volkhona, who
was slain on 8 September 1380 at battle of Kulikovo
(being presumably in his middle years at that time)
M Sjostrom
some sketch about those three lineages:
1 Ivan 'the fathead', lord of Volkhona
1.1 Fedor Ivanovich of Volkhona (slain 1380 at Kulikovo field)
1.1.1 Konstantin Fedorovich of Volkhona, lord of Konino and Pavskino
1.1.1.1 Vasili Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1 Dmitri Volkonski, voivode of Tula
1.1.1.1.1.1 Ivan Dmitrievich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Fedor Ivanovich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ivan Fedorovich 'tsherny' Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Vladimir Ivanovich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Dmitri Vladimirich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Alexander Dmitrievich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Piotr Alexandrovich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Mikhail Petrovich Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Peter Mikhailovich Volkonski, field
marshal
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Grigori Petrovich Volkonski - - - -
Estonian branch
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Peter Volkonski, lord of Keila-Joa
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Gregor Volkonski, lord of
Keila-Joa
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Andrei Wolkonsky
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Oleg A. Wolkonsky
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 prince Aleksanteri Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 prince Peter Volkonski
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 prince Alexandre Volkonsky
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 prince Cyril Volkonsky
1.1.2 Ivan Fedorovich Koninski (? from the Volkhona)
1.1.2.1 Alexander Ivanovich
1.1.2.1.1 Roman Alexandrovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1 Konstantin Romanovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Fedor Konstantinovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Mikhail Fedorovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Andrei Mikhailovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Mikhail Andreievich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Fedor Mikhailovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Semen Fedorovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Grigori Semenovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Mykola Hryhorovych Repnin-Volkonski - -
- - Ukrainian branch
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Vasyl Mykolayvych Repnin, duke of
Yahotyn
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Mykola Vasyliovycg Repnin, duke of
Yahotyn
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Vadym Mykolayvych Repnin, heir of
Yahotyn
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Igor Vadymovych Repnin, duke of
Yahotyn
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Michel Repnin
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 prince Sergei Grigorievich Volkonski, general,
decembrist
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1 prince Mikhail Sergeievich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 prince Peter Mikhailovich Volkonski - - - -
- the musician branch
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 prince Michel (Mikhail Petrovich)
Volkonski, musician
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 prince Andre (Andrei Mikhailovich)
Volkonski, composer
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Peeter Volkonski, in Estonia
1.1.2.1.1 Timofej Alexandrovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1 Fedor 'jastreb' Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Roman Fedorovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Semen Romanovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Grigori Semenovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Nikolai Grigorievich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Ivan Nikolaievich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Grigori Ivanovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Boris Grigorievich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Alexander Borisovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Dmitri Alexandrovich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Boris Dmitrievich Volkonski
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 John P.
1.1.3 Fedor Fedorovich of Tarussa - (? Volkhona)
1.1.3.1 Ivan 'tsherny'
1.1.3.1.1 Perfili Ivanovich
1.1.3.1.1.1 Yuri Perfilievich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1 Fedor Yurie Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 Timofej Fedorovich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Ivan Timofejevich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Grigori Ivanovich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Alexander Dmitrievich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Mikhail Grigorievich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Alexander Mikhailovich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Dmitri Alexandrovich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Alexander Dmitrievich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Ivan Alexandrovich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Viacheslav Ivanovich Volkonski
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Valentin Volkonsky - - - - - - -
- Volynian branch
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 prince Oleg Valentinovich Volkonsky
M Sjostrom
apparently the Volkonskies were not regarded as Rurikids (in male line) yet
in the 1500s-1600s
The surviving text remains of the Velvet Book, when making a big account of
agnatic descents from St.Michael to the late 1600s (the epoch of Sophia,
Ivan V and emperor Peter),
actually does not list any Volkonski by name nor mention then in any
explicit way. There is only an obscure mention to the effect that a few
Rurikid princes who held Konino & Spazh (and possibly Tarusa) -whose male
family became extinct because of Tatar wars- would have been sort of
grandsons of Juri of Tarussa: "Koninsky Knjazi and Spashsky have gone out
Toruskih, and have got exhausted in wars Tatar"
The Velvet Book does not mention Ivan 'golova tolsta' the fathead as male
Rurikid.
information gleaned from the book Almagro (1843), i.e Peter Dolgorukov:
for centuries in late medieval and early modern epochs, real Rurikids of
S.Michael's descent, refuted the princely title from the Volkonskies,
regarding them not legitimate to hold the kniaz honorific and rank.
Dolgorukov was in a good position to know of family knowledge among the
legitimate progeny of St.Michael, because he himself was member of one such
family, i.e princes descended from Obolensk dukes.
My view is that the real Rurikids (such as, the family of Dolgorukov)
preserved a piece of knowledge, vaning to somewhat distorted content as to
its details when centuries passed, that the Volkonskies were not male-line
Rurikids
my premier hypothesis about this is that the Volkonskies of 1300s inherited
some Rurikid land via a woman, but they did not inherit the male gene
because a woman breaks its biological passage, and although they claimed to
have inherited seemingly a principality, it would probably have come as
maternal inheritance.
So, I would describe the Volkonskies not as Rurikids,
but as a family of lesser Ruthenian dukes, hereditary chieftains and
magnates, who are of a Slavic ethnic and Slavic genetic root (R1a haplotype)
- they are descended in male line from the Slavic magnates who held the
valley of Volkhona riverlet, they were not princely Rurikids according to
Almagro (1843) and according to recent genetic testing.
2010/5/27 M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com>
>
> there is an explanation derivable from historical records and genealogical
> literature why the Russian Volkonsky lineages do not have the Y DNA of the
> genuine Rurikids.
>
> Almagro (1843) reports that the claim of the Volkonski to the princely rank
> and title was disputed for centuries by those Rurikids who were descended in
> legitimate lines from St.Michael of Chernihiv.
> It was only near 1700 when some monarchs decided to accept their claim to
> princely title.
>
> The Volkonski held large inherited lands (principality) along the small
> river of Volkona.
>
> Almagro has a story that the illegitimacy of their princely claim would
> have been due to their forefather being illegitimate son of a Rurikid
> prince. Such an explanation is an easy concoction in slavic culture which
> viewed patriarchal lines as descents. However, in light of Y DNA results, it
> is clear that the Volkonski are not descended in unbroken male line from
> genuine Rurikids. Rather like they were inheriting their lands and claim via
> a woman.
>
> My hypothesis about this is: instead of an illegitimate son to have
> received the landed inheritance, it was grandson(s) via a daughter of the
> Rurikid lineage who inherited that.
> There either was a grandfather or uncle, sonless, of the genuine Rurikid
> lineage, holding a small rincipality, and he assigned the inheritance to
> son(s) of a daughter of his family. Or, alternatively to husband of such a
> daughter, which then in normal passage of events ended up to that daughter's
> son(s).
>
> This explains perfectly why the subsequent lineage of the Volkonski do have
> a different Y DNA than genuine Rurikids, but have an accepted landed
> heritage from some Rurikid branch, and still were regarded ineligible to
> hold the Rurikid princely rank, disputes ensuing for centuries.
> The Slavic cultural perception of princely rank was that it belonged to
> heirs in unbroken male line. And that daughters were not able to convey it
> to their children. In that context, the 'legitimacy' to hold that rank - and
> the illegitimacy of the Volkonski claim - are directly applicable in this
> case, allowing for my hypothesis to hold true.
>
> As weakly as are known the precise filiations and even names in the
> St.Michael of Chernihiv progeny in the 1200s and 1300s, this sort of event