This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Georgia (country) High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Genealogy Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is untrusted source, such kind of division of Bagrationi Dynasty is incorrect, I ask admin to check the genuine source of genealogy of the Bagrationis. Otherwise we get the same picture like in the others related to Bagrationis which contain lots of misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.143.17 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more concrete? What exactly is a misleading information? Jaqeli (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person makes a good point. I doubt there ever any of these arbitrary splits made in the dynasty.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the contributions of that IP user? I am pretty sure he/she suggests Mukhranian nobles to be removed from this family tree. Jaqeli (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This chart is made by idiots ! full of mistakes !!! :))) Delete it Idiots!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.169.207.205 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Emperor's New Spy: Stop removing the information which is an established facts. We all agreed that the Mukhranians are tavadi nobles thus they were non-dynastic nobles and had no relations to the royal house itself. You've been told that they were nobles and tavadis so stop your actions and stop advocating the Mukhranian claims into the encyclopedia. You and user FactStriaght are clearly advocating the nobility family and want to show as if they are a royalty or were in the past so I suggest you stop and protect neutrality. This is not some kind of Spanish or Russian news agencies who retype what one wants but an encyclopedia. Stop it right now or get aware first with the Georgian feudal system how it worked in the past and you'll see you're wrong. Jaqeli (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, stop WP:Advocacy. Discuss and address your grievances on talk page and don't jump from page to page, from user to user. Jaqeli (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting to the previous, more NPOV version because I agree with the edit summary recently left on this article by User:The Emperor's New Spy to explain the same revert, "All members are part of the Bagrationi dynasty thus are dynastic. Stop making arbitrary splits in the dynasty that are not supported by the sources." FactStraight (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your WP:Advocacy and stop making a nobility into a royalty. They were non-dynastic as they were tavadi nobles. Tavadi can not be a member of the royal dynasty because tavadis are not royal, they are nobility. Tavadi by all definition means they have nothing to do with the royal dynasty itself. They were part of House of Mukhrani not of Bagrationi dynasty. The only reason we include this line into this family tree is that David Bagration of Mukhrani is a natural father of Giorgi Bagrationi. There are many other noble lines as well which Wikipedia cannot and shouldn't accommodate as all of them are a non-dynastic thus non-royal lines. I suggest you again get aware with the Georgian feudal system. As I see you misunderstand word "Prince" here. This "Prince" means the nobility prince not the royal prince. Mukhranians were noble princes, thus tavadi, thus non-royal, thus non-dynastic. For more clarification what tavadi means see Talk:Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani. Jaqeli (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is clearly indicated in the edit summaries, you continue to edit against consensus, and are therefore subject to reversion. FactStraight (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, keep out your advocacy editing Wikipedia. I repeat, we agreed that they are tavadi. That literally means that tavadi princes are non-dynastic and non-royal in every sense possible. Tavadi cannot be a royalty by all definition and such sources abound. Jaqeli (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your alleged rationale for your edits is irrelevant: You may not keep reverting to your preferred version against consensus. FactStraight (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqeli, true, the Mukhrani produced both royal and non-royal branches, but how can the family members who ruled as kings be considered as "non-royal"? Also, the claim to their "non-dynasticity" does not hold any water. Dynasty is a sequence of rulers, whether royal or non-royal.--Kober^Talk 06:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kober: You're right. Now everything's clear. I've corrected and removed the statement about the kings who were genealogically from Mukhrani. Jaqeli 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kober: Can you please once again explain to user @FactStraight: what is the meaning of tavadi and which lines are royal and non-royal in this family tree? He just does not want to understand. Jaqeli 09:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope the splitting is unnecessary and seems to be driven by POV. The only distinction needed is who was a monarch and who was not, which the crowns help differentiate. This article is about the Bagrationi dynasty, which every member here is part of.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The anachronistic coat of arms in all these trees should be removed to. It is a gaudy and unnecessary decoration and not even the coat of arms used by the Bagrationi dynasty at the period of history in question. We can't retroactively attribute that coat of arms to these people.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. The Mukhranians are not part of the Bagrationi dynasty. They are a members of House of Mukhrani. That's why they have their own noble family. Wikipedia cannot accommodate all the noble lines that once broke from the Bagrationi dynasty. If they were royal then of course we could but again, as they are not royal the only reason we keep this noble line here is that of being a natural father and their dynastic marriage with the royal line of the Kingdom of Kartli and Kakheti. And how on earth that COA is anachronistic? Do you doubt that Prince Vakhtang-Almaskhan of Georgia was a royalty or what? That's his personal COA and all the COAs held by the royal members of the dynasty is a COA of a dynasty and not some fictional COAs created by some to fulfill their fantasies. Jaqeli 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"And how on earth that COA is anachronistic? Do you doubt that Prince Vakhtang-Almaskhan of Georgia was a royalty or what? That's his personal COA and all the COAs held by the royal members of the dynasty is a COA of a dynasty and not some fictional COAs created by some to fulfill their fantasies" – He lived from 1761 to 1814, to apply a coat of arms he used or later descendants used to their ancestors who lived before it was designed is anachronism. You can't apply a modern title or coat of arms to older figures who never use them. That is anachronism. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bagrationi dynasty refers to entire family including the many lines and branches. The Gruzinsky and Imeretinsky are as much branches as the Mukhranians and all are part of the dynasty as the Valois, Bourbons, Courtenay are of the Capetian dynasty.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop beating the air. You're literally fighting for no purpose which makes no sense and jump from one topic to another. That COA cannot be anachronistic as this family tree needs a COA and we should have it and it should be of a royalty only. In this case we have Prince Vakhtang-Almaskhan who was son of King Erekle II and his COA is a COA his father's dynasty used thus these family trees can use it as well. If you bring some other COAs which are not disputed and was used by a royalty whether of the royal members of Kingdoms of Kartli, Kakheti or Imereti then we can put them in. As for branches. Imeretinsky and Gruzinsky are not "branches" but they were a title for the royal princes with royal blood origin and those two later were transformed into a surname not a branch or not some kind of noble family. Those two cannot be compared with the Mukhranian nobles as they originally were nobles and they were defined as nobility and had their own noble family just like Tsereteli, Andronikashvili, Chavchavadze and many more. Imeretinsky and Gruzinsky were royalty where Mukhranians were not as they are tavadi. Jaqeli 10:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kober: Should we include Prince Bakar of Kartli in the family tree? Did he actually reign? His signature says მეფე ბაქარი i.e. King Bakar though. Jaqeli 11:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mobile Wikipedia version of this page displays completely blank. Perhaps there is a better way to format this page technically so that it is visible on all platforms? 76.10.186.222 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanoff just had a baby in 2022. please add that kid in family tree. 108.30.14.88 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.14.88 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added. His name is Alexander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.14.88 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]