Posts Tagged ‘Duke’

Contractor Job News

Contractor Job News

Reliable route for IT contractors looks blocked by permie training. It’s where you belong; say new hedge funds offering guaranteed bonuses, plus perks.

Read more on Contractor UK

Flood victims meet to raise concerns

ABOUT 100 disgruntled insurance customers have attended a community information meeting in Ipswich this evening, looking for answers from the industry.

Read more on News.com.au

Incoming search terms:

• duke

Preemption of State Law Intentional Tort Actions Under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978

Preemption of State Law Intentional Tort Actions Under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978

After years of tight government control over the airline industry, Congress chose to pursue a policy of economic deregulation, enacting the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA). Areas formerly controlled by the federal government, such as the awarding of routes, the entry of new air carriers, and the setting of fares, were left to the airlines and the free market to determine. Congress, concerned that States might attempt to circumvent federal airline deregulation through their own state enforcement actions, included an express preemption clause in the ADA, which bars States from enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” This apparently innocuous provision continues to cause confusion and divide courts over exactly what causes of action are preempted by the ADA.

 

Top-ranked Chicago personal injury attorney, Matthew A. Passen, examines one class of state-law based actions, intentional tort claims, and considers whether such actions are sufficiently “related to” an airline “service” for preemption under the ADA. For example, can a passenger who was refused boarding on a commercial airline and strapped to an immobile chair in the waiting area sue the airline for false imprisonment? Can a passenger detained by airline employees upon landing of an aircraft, wrongfully accused of stealing another passenger’s ring, and arrested by police, seek recourse against the airline for false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress or slander? Can an airline racially discriminate against a passenger or airline employee with impunity?

 

As the following discussion reveals, the answer to these questions often depends entirely on how broad or narrow courts interpret the ADA’s statutory phrase, “related to a . . . service of an air carrier.” If a narrow reading is adopted, plaintiffs will have their day in court. If, on the other hand, a court interprets the preemption provision broadly, airlines will essentially receive immunity from state-law intentional tort actions.

 

Often, the best answer to such questions of statutory interpretation is found by reconsidering the purpose of the underlying statute containing the preemption provision. Here, the purpose of the ADA is straightforward: economic deregulation of the airline industry.

 

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ADA’s PREEMPTION CLAUSE

 

Prior to 1978, the federal government heavily regulated the airline industry.1 Beginning with the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) of 1958,2 Congress created a regulatory organization, known as the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), to serve three main functions: award routes to airlines, control the entry of air carriers into new markets, and regulate fares for consumers.3 Still, Congress preserved state common law actions against airlines by including a “saving clause,” which provided: “Nothing contained in this chapter shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.”4

 

In 1978, however, Congress changed courses with respect to airline regulation, determining that “maximum reliance on competitive market forces would best further ‘efficiency, innovation, and low prices’ as well as ‘variety [and] quality . . . of air transportation services.”5 Accordingly, Congress enacted the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA),6 which gradually ended economic regulation of the airline industry in a series of steps over the years, including the elimination of the CAB.7

 

The ADA, unlike its predecessor, contained express federal preemption clause to ensure that “States would not undo federal deregulation with regulation of their own.”8 The ADA’s preemption clause states:

 

Except as provided in this subsection, a State, political subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States may not enact or enforce any law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any air carrier that may provide air transportation under this subpart.9

 

This preemption standard, while simply stated, has proven far more difficult to apply than Congress could have anticipated.

 

One source of confusion is Congress’ retention of the “saving clause,” which provides that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.” 10 Some courts have found Congress preserved this clause in order to protect the states’ ability to control non-economic matters involving airlines within their respective borders.11 Still, the Supreme Court has referred to the saving clause as “a relic of the pre-ADA/no pre-emption regime,” without power to supersede the specific substantive preemption provision of the ADA. 12

 

The greatest source of confusion surrounding the ADA’s preemption clause concerns the ambiguous language of the statute itself. In particular, courts have struggled to advance a coherent framework for what types of causes of action are “related to a price, route, or service” for preemption under the ADA. Congress neither defined the terms nor specified what types of state action are preempted, and the Supreme Court has not drawn any distinct preemption lines.13 Consequently, lower courts have been left to apply their own, often conflicting, interpretations of the ADA’s preemption clause. Regardless of statutory interpretation, courts remain guided by fundamental principles of preemption doctrine.

 

BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO PREEMPTION DOCTRINE

 

The foundation for federal preemption of state law is based on the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”14 As a general rule, federal law preempts state law in three situations:15 (1) Express preemption: where Congress has explicitly preempted state law;16 (2) Field preemption: where Congressional intent to preempt may be inferred generally from the pervasiveness of a federal regulatory scheme in a particular area;17 and (3) Conflict preemption: where state law conflicts with federal law or interferes with the achievement of congressional objectives.18

 

Where Congress has included an express preemption clause in a statute, courts “typically do not consider the issue of implied pre-emption,” and instead simply “determine whether the state law in question falls within the scope of the statute expressly promulgated by Congress.”19 In other words, according to the Supreme Court:

 

When Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that issue . . . ‘there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre-empt state laws from the substantive provisions’ of the legislation. Such reasoning is a variant of the familiar principle of expression unius est exclusio alterius: Congress’ enactment of a provision defining the pre-emptive reach of a statute implies that matters beyond that reach are not pre-empted.20

 

Because Congress included an express preemption clause in the ADA, courts look to the specific statutory language in order to determine whether a particular state action is preempted. Unfortunately, the literal text of the ADA’s preemption clause is ambiguous; and the Supreme Court has not resolved the uncertainty.

 

SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATION OF

 

THE ADA’s PREEMPTION CLAUSE

 

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the ADA’s preemption provision only twice since 1978. In Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,21 the Court decided whether the ADA preempts States from regulating deceptive airline fare advertisements through enforcement of state consumer protection statutes.22 The Court held such actions were indeed preempted by the ADA.23

 

In reaching its decision, the Court focused on the statutory phrase “related to” in the ADA’s preemption provision. First, the Court looked to Black’s Law Dictionary for guidance, concluding that “the words thus express a broad pre-emptive purpose.”24

 

Second, the Court examined the similarly worded preemption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),25 which the Court had previously interpreted as having a “broad scope.”26 Therefore, the Court held: “Since the relevant language of the ADA is identical [to the ERISA preemption clause], we think it appropriate to adopt the same standard here: State enforcement actions having a connection with or reference to airline ‘rates, routes, or services’ are pre-empted” by the ADA.27 Although the Court in Morales declined to define with particularity the circumstances under which a state law “relates to” airline services, it held the state consumer protection guidelines at issue were sufficiently “related to” airline “price[s]” because enforcement of such guidelines would compel or restrict airline price advertising.28

 

Notably, however, the Court recognized there are limits to the scope of the ADA’s preemption clause.29 Specifically, the Court explained that state action affecting the airlines in “too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner” will not be preempted by the ADA.30 The Court declined to expand on this notion, instead stating, “[t]he present litigation plainly does not present a borderline question, and we express no views about where it would be appropriate to draw the line.”31

 

In 1995, the Supreme Court revisited the ADA’s preemption clause in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens.32 Here, the plaintiffs brought claims against American Airlines for breach of contract and for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act following the airline’s unilateral devaluation of frequent flyer mileage credits earned by the plaintiffs.33 Rather than focusing on the “related to” language of the ADA’s preemption clause, the Court examined the phrase “enact or enforce any law” in the provision.34

 

First, in accord with Morales, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims based on the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act were preempted by the ADA.35 The purpose of the Illinois statute, according to the Court, was “to guide and police the marketing practices of the airlines; the Act does not simply give effect to bargains offered by the airlines and accepted by airline customers.”36 Therefore, because the plaintiffs sought to “enforce [a] law” regulating “the selection and design of marketing mechanisms appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation services,” the plaintiffs’ claims under the Consumer Fraud Act were preempted.37

 

Second, the Court carved out an exception to ADA preemption for the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. The Court explained: “We do not read the ADA’s preemption clause, however, to shelter airlines from suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline’s alleged breach of its own, self-imposed undertakings.”38 Because the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (based on American’s modification of its frequent flyer program) sought to enforce the terms of a voluntary undertaking by the airlines, and did not seek to “enforce any law,” the claim was not preempted by the ADA.39

 

COURTS OF APPEALS’ CONFLICTING DEFINITION OF “SERVICE”

 

Although the Supreme Court interpreted the “related to” phrase in Morales, and the “enact or enforce any law” language in Wolens, the Court has not defined the term “service” of an airline, as it is used in the ADA’s preemption clause. Instead, the United States Courts of Appeals have been left to define the term, resulting in conflicting approaches.

 

In Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit adopted a relatively narrow definition of “service.”40 Because the term “service” is inherently ambiguous, the court looked to the purpose behind the ADA, which Congress enacted to protect “the economic deregulation of the airlines and the forces of competition within the airline industry.”41 As such, only state laws that interfere with economic deregulation and the forces of competition within the airline industry should be preempted.42 Conversely, ADA preemption should not “displace state tort law in actions that do not affect deregulation in more than a ‘peripheral manner.’”43

 

With these principles in mind, the Ninth Circuit defined “service,” as referring to “the prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo, or mail.”44 This definition includes “such things as the frequency and scheduling of transportation, and to the selection of markets to or from which transportation is provided.”45 This definition of “service” does not, however, encompass things such as “the pushing of beverage carts, keeping the aisles clear of stumbling blocks, the safe handling and storage of luggage, assistance to passengers in need, or like functions,” which the court found only peripherally affect airline deregulation or competition.46 Any broader a definition, according to the court, “effectively would result in the pre-emption of virtually everything an airline does. It seems clear to us that that is not what Congress intended.”47 This approach to ADA preemption has been followed by the Third Circuit.48

 

In contrast, the Fifth Circuit adopted a much broader definition of “service.”49 In Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., a female passenger was injured when another passenger opened an overhead compartment and dislodged a case of rum. She brought a state law personal injury claim against Delta Airlines based on alleged negligent operation of the aircraft.50 In order to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim was preempted by the ADA, the Fifth Circuit adopted the following definition of “service”:

 

“Services” generally represent a bargained-for or anticipated provision of labor from one party to another . . . Elements of the air carrier service bargain include items such as ticketing, boarding procedures, provisions of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself. These matters are all appurtenant and necessarily included with the contract of carriage between the passenger or shipper and the airline. It is these [contractual] features of air transportation that we believe Congress intended to de-regulate as “services” and broadly to protect from state regulation.51

 

This definition of “service” is clearly far broader than the Ninth Circuit’s definition in Charas.

 

Still, the Fifth Circuit held the plaintiff’s claims were not preempted by the ADA. The court distinguished between claims related to the “operation and maintenance of the aircraft,” and claims related to airline “services,” holding that claims falling in the former category are not preempted by the ADA.52 With respect to the plaintiff’s claims, the court explained: “One uses the overhead luggage racks or the food and beverages provided in aircraft operation just as one uses the cigarette lighter or built-in cooler compartment in an automobile, and all these devices are available to support the general purpose of navigation.”53 The court rejected Delta’s arguments that the plaintiff’s injuries arose out of the “service” of baggage handling and boarding.54 Instead, the court found: “Whether certain luggage may be placed in overhead bins and whether the flight attendants properly monitor compliance with overhead rack regulations are matters that pertain to the safe operation of a flight.”55

 

Thus, while the Fifth Circuit adopted a broad definition of “service,” it added another layer of confusion with an almost untenable distinction between “service” and “operation and maintenance.” 56 Nevertheless, at least three other Circuit Courts of Appeals have adopted the Hodges court’s definition of “service.”57

 

SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO DEFINE “SERVICE”

 

In late 2000, the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to resolve the conflict concerning the appropriate definition of “service” within the meaning of the ADA’s preemption clause.58 Earlier that year, in Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that a class-action lawsuit challenging Northwest’s smoking policy was not preempted by the ADA.59 Relying on its earlier narrow definition of “service” in Charas, the Ninth Circuit held that allowing smoking on Northwest flights does not constitute a “service” because such decision does not deal with “the frequency and scheduling of transportation, [or] the selection of markets to or from which transportation is provided.”60 Northwest appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.61

 

Justice O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, dissented to the Court’s denial of certiorari. In her dissent, she notes how the Courts of Appeals have “taken directly conflicting positions on this question of statutory interpretation.”62 Given these contradictory interpretations, the dissenting Justices would have granted certiorari in order to “provide needed certainty to airline companies.”63

 

APPLICATION OF THE ADA PREEMPTION CLAUSE

 

TO STATE-LAW INTENTIONAL TORT CLAIMS

 

Also in her dissent to the Court’s denial of certiorari in Duncan, Justice O’Connor suggests that while the underlying case involved a state law personal injury claim based on an airline’s smoking policy, “the legal principle at stake,” namely, the correct definition of “service” within the meaning of the ADA’s preemption clause, “has ramifications for a host of other tort actions against airline,” including “false imprisonment,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and “defamation.”64 This section examines how courts have analyzed and should analyze these types of actions. Such cases often include state law discrimination claims.

 

DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

 

The United States Supreme Court has not decided whether actions against airlines alleging state discrimination violations are preempted by the ADA.65 For lower courts examining this issue, the preemption outcome largely depends on the court’s definition of “service.”

 

A. Employment Discrimination Actions

 

Generally, discrimination suits brought by former airline employees bear “too tenuous, remote or peripheral” a relation to airline rates or services for preemption under the ADA, regardless of the court’s definition of “service.”66 Courts refusing to preempt such actions stress the purpose of the ADA, which “was concerned with the states’ attempt to regulate airline fares, routes and services, not employment practices.” 67

 

For example, in the racial discrimination context, courts generally agree that neither air safety nor market efficiency is appreciably diminished by the operation of state laws forbidding racial discrimination.68 As the Second Circuit explained in Abdu-Brisson: “Unlike the regulation of marketing practices at issue in Morales or the regulation of frequent flyer programs at issue in [Wolens], whether an airline discriminates on the bases of age (or race or sex) has little or nothing to do with competition or efficiency.”69

 

In other contexts, however, enforcement of state discrimination laws may appreciably “relate to” airline “services,” warranting preemption by the ADA. For instance, in 1996, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that state law weight discrimination claims brought by a baggage handler who was terminated for failure to comply with the airline’s height and weight standards were preempted by the ADA.70 Applying the Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the phrase “related to” in Morales, the Michigan Court of Appeals held the plaintiff’s discrimination claims “related to” the “services of an air carrier,” and were preempted accordingly.71 In this case, as well as in other disability discrimination actions where the state law arguably “relates to” airline “service,” the scope attached to these statutory terms ultimately determines the preemption outcome.

 

B. Passenger Discrimination Actions

 

Cases addressing the scope of ADA preemption in discrimination actions brought by airline passengers provide a less coherent body of case law.72 Ultimately, whether or not a discrimination claim is preempted depends on the court’s definition of “service.”

 

Generally, courts have found such claims entirely unrelated to the performance of airline services, and therefore outside the scope of ADA preemption.73 For example, in Doricent v. American Airlines, Inc., a male passenger alleged that prior to his flight’s departure from Haiti, American Airlines employees referred to him using racial epithets, threatened to remove him from the plane, and physically assaulted him.74 The court held the plaintiff’s state law race discrimination claims did not “relate to” airline “services” under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Morales.75 While the airline employees’ behavior might “arguably constitute ‘services’—poor services, to be sure,” the court found this behavior had “nothing whatsoever to do with any legitimate or quasi-legitimate industry-wide practice of affording airline service.”76

 

Still, in other contexts, discrimination claims may have some legitimate bearing on an airline’s ability to render safe and efficient “service.”77 In such cases, even those involving alleged race discrimination, the plaintiff’s discrimination claims might be preempted by the ADA.

 

For instance, in Huggar v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that an airline passenger’s race discrimination claims against Northwest were preempted by the ADA.78 The plaintiff, a 21-year-old black male was removed from a Northwest flight after removing another passenger’s luggage from an overhead bin and throwing it on the floor, threatening to physically assault the passenger, and claiming he could “buy” the passenger.79 The plaintiff’s ten-count claim against Northwest alleged that his ejection from the flight was racially motivated, and included a claim for a violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.80

 

In determining whether the plaintiff’s state law race discrimination claims related to Northwest’s “service” of providing airline transportation, the court employed the following analysis: “the critical inquiry is [sic] the underlying nature of the actions taken, not the manner in which they were accomplished. Therefore, a court should not look to the subjective motivations of the employees because they are irrelevant to determining what constitutes ‘services’ within the meaning of the [ADA].”81 According to the majority, because the plaintiff’s actions clearly posed a safety threat to the other passengers, the airline’s decision to eject him from the flight “related to” the “service” of boarding and seating passengers, notwithstanding the airline employee’s subjective, allegedly discriminatory motivations.

 

As the above case highlights, the preemption outcome in passenger discrimination cases often depends entirely on whether a particular jurisdiction employs a broad or narrow definition of “service.” In order to find the plaintiff’s claims preempted by the ADA, the Huggar court first had to include “boarding and seating decisions” as cognizable “services” under the ADA’s preemption clause. In a similar case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that a passenger’s lawsuit alleging he was discriminated against on account of his handicap in connection with boarding on a particular flight was preempted by the ADA.82 Necessary to the court’s decision was its reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s broad definition of “service,” which explicitly refers to “boarding.”

 

Conversely, jurisdictions employing the Ninth Circuit’s narrow definition of “service” will reach the opposite result under identical scenarios. For instance, the Ninth Circuit held a plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim against American Airlines based on the airline’s refusal to allow the plaintiff to board without a doctor’s certificate (she was in a wheelchair and had a heart problem) was not preempted by the ADA.83 The court’s analysis was probably over-simplistic; it simply held, “the term ‘service’ does not refer to alleged discrimination to passengers due to their disabilities.”84 Consequently, whether a passenger discrimination lawsuit is preempted by the ADA may ultimately depend on the court’s definition of “service.”

 

FALSE ARREST/ IMPRISONMENT

 

Several courts have addressed the issue of whether the ADA preempts false imprisonment and false arrest claims, reaching divergent conclusions.85 These cases can, however, be reconciled.

 

Where the courts have held a plaintiff’s claim for false arrest or false imprisonment is preempted by the ADA, such cases involve incidents where the airline refused or failed to provide a service relating to the transportation of a passenger.86 In these cases, “where the crux of the claim was the airline’s refusal to transport the passenger,” the courts have concluded that the claims related to the services of the airlines, and were therefore preempted by the ADA.87 This makes sense because all Circuit Courts of Appeals agree that “transportation” of passengers is a cognizable “service” under the ADA.

 

Conversely, where the basis of a false arrest or false imprisonment claim “is that the airline caused the passenger to be arrested by authorities without a proper factual basis,” courts have held that such claims are not “related to” an airline “service.”88 For example, if “an airline held a passenger without a safety or security justification, a claim based on such actions would not relate to any legitimate service and would not be preempted.”89

 

OTHER INTENTIONAL TORT CLAIMS

 

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Travel All Over The World, Inc., examined whether a travel agency’s intentional tort claims against Saudi Arabian Airlines, arising out of the travel agency’s unsuccessful attempts to arrange flights to Saudi Arabia for its clients, were preempted by the ADA’s express provision.90 The court organized the plaintiff’s claims into two categories: (1) defamation and slander; and (2) “other” intentional tort claims.91

 

With respect to the first category, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that courts have reached “divergent results” concerning whether claims for slander and defamation are preempted by the ADA.92 Here, the plaintiff based its defamation and slander claims on the airline employees’ making knowingly false verbal and written statements about the travel agency to the agency’s clients; specifically, that the agency “was not a reputable company, that [the agency] had not booked seats on Saudi for many of them, that [the agency] often lied to its clients about reserving seats for them, and that” the agency’s president would not be there to help them.93

 

Even after adopting the Fifth Circuit’s broad definition of “service,” the Seventh Circuit held the statements themselves were not airline “services” within the meaning of the ADA.94 Citing the Supreme Court’s opinion in Morales, the court explained: “It is difficult for us to envision how tort claims based on an airline’s knowingly false statements about a travel agency would have even a ‘tenuous, remote or peripheral’ economic effect on the rates, routes, or services that the airline offers.”95 Furthermore, although the statements refer to the travel agency’s services, the court held they certainly do not refer to the airline’s rates, routes, or services.96 Therefore, the plaintiff’s defamation and libel claims were not preempted by the ADA.

 

With respect to the second category of “other” intentional tort claims, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference and fraud, the Seventh Circuit reached a different opinion. Only where these claims are based upon the same slanderous and defamatory comments that the court already found not preempted, could such claims withstand preemption scrutiny.97

 

Yet, the Seventh Circuit doubted this would hold true for the plaintiff in Travel All, as with most plaintiffs. Instead, the “other” intentional tort claims were most likely “based, at least in part, on [the airline’s] canceling the confirmed tickets of [the agency’s] clients and requiring these clients to purchase their tickets directly through [the airline].”98 To the extent that the plaintiff’s intentional tort claims rely on this “conduct” of the airline, rather than the airline employee’s allegedly slanderous and defamatory “comments,” the court held such claims “expressly refer to airline ‘services,’ which include ticketing as well as the transportation itself,” and are therefore preempted by the ADA.99 Again, this holding depends entirely on the court’s adoption of the Fifth Circuit’s broad “service” definition in Hodges, as opposed to the Ninth Circuit’s narrow definition of “service” in Charas.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The ADA’s preemption clause continues to cause confusion and divergent opinions throughout our nation’s courtrooms. The fundamental problem concerns the seemingly benign phrase “related to a price, route, or service” of an air carrier. The Supreme Court has done little to clear the fog surrounding this issue. Aside from expressly declining the opportunity to define “service,” the Court’s interpretation of the phrase “related to” has recently come into question.

 

In Morales, the Supreme Court interpreted the “related to” language of the ADA broadly, based largely on the “broad scope” previously applied to the similarly worded ERISA preemption clause.100 Yet, in recent years the Supreme Court has been narrowing the reach of ERISA’s preemption provisions.101 Indeed, the phrase “related to” in ERISA’s preemption clause “appears to be developing, to some degree, to mean whether state law actually ‘interferes’ with the purposes of the ERISA legislation.”102 Although the literal text of ERISA’s preemption clause is “clearly expansive,” like the ADA, the Supreme Court has held that for practical purposes the statute must be interpreted more narrowly, “lest its reach stop nowhere.”103 Analogously, it is unclear whether the ADA’s “related to” phrase should likewise receive a narrower interpretation to mean: whether state law actually interferes with the purpose of the ADA.

 

The larger question involving the ADA preemption clause concerns the proper definition of “service.” The Supreme Court has expressly declined to answer the question, despite the objections of three Justices.104 If the Court is not going to answer this question, Congress should. A clear definition of “service,” from either the Supreme Court or the Legislature, “would provide needed certainty to airline companies.”105

 

The question becomes: What definition of “service” should the Supreme Court or Congress adopt for the ADA’s preemption clause? This question must be answered in light of the fundamental purpose behind the underlying statute—courts should look to the objectives of the ADA as a guide to the scope of state law that should survive. The ADA is an economic deregulation statute designed to promote competitive rates, routes and services among the nation’s airlines.106 As such, only those actions directly impacting the airlines’ ability to provide competitive rates, enter new markets, and provide effective transportation to consumers should be preempted by the ADA.

 

The Ninth Circuit’s narrow definition of “service,” which encompasses the “prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo or mail,” best aligns with the purpose of the underlying ADA statute. Furthermore, this definition comports with the Supreme Court’s approach to express preemption clause analysis: “the familiar principle of expression unius est exclusio alterius.”107

 

Neither the language nor the history of the ADA suggests that Congress was attempting to displace all state law tort causes of action against the airlines; nor should the preemption clause act as a safe harbor against claims having only a tenuous impact on airline services.108 The vast majority of state law intentional tort claims cannot be said to frustrate the goal of economic deregulation in the airline industry. Furthermore, such claims do not affect a particular airline’s competitive posture any more so than a lawsuit affects any corporation in America. Accordingly, such actions should fall outside the scope of federal preemption under the ADA.

 

1 For a good discussion of the ADA’s legislative history, see Daniel H. Rosenthal, Legal Turbulence: The Court’s Misconstrual of the Airline Deregulation Act’s Preemption Clause and the Effect on Passengers’ Rights, 51 Duke L.J. 1857, 1869-1872 (2002).

 

2 Pub. L. No. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731 (later codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. §§ 40010-44310 (1994)).

 

3 Matt Andersson, The New Airline Code 62-64 (iUniverse, Inc. 2005).

 

4 49 U.S.C. § 1506 (current version at 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c)).

 

5 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 378 (1992) (citing 49 U.S.C.App. §§ 1302 (a)(4), 1302 (a)(9)).

 

6 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 1301-1557 (1988).

 

7 Matt Andersson, The New Airline Code 67 (iUniverse, Inc. 2005).

 

8 Morales, 504 U.S. at 378; See also Trinidad v. American Airlines, Inc., 932 F. Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (stating that the purpose of ADA’s preemption clause was to prevent states from interfering with the development of an air transportation system driven to higher levels of innovation and efficiency by economic competition).

 

9 49 U.S.C. § 41713 (1997) (emphasis added).

 

10 49 U.S.C. § 40120 (c); Chrissafis, 940 F. Supp at 1296.

 

11 Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 337 (5th Cir. 1995); Morales, 504 U.S. at 425 (Stevens J., dissenting).

 

12 Morales, 504 U.S at 385.

 

13 See Matthew J. Jelly, Federal Preemption by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978: How do State Tort Claims Fare?, 49 Cath. U. L. Rev. 873 (2000).

 

14 U.S. const. art. VI § 1, cl. 2.

 

15 See Susan D. Hall, Preemption Analysis After Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 90 Ky. L.J. 251 (2002).

 

16 Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 95 (1983).

 

17 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp, 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).

 

18 Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963).

 

19 Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003).

 

20 Id.; Cipollone v. Liggert Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504, 517 (1992) (quoting Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 505 (1978)); compare Grier v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (existence of express preemption provision does not mean that implied preemption cannot exist where the express preemption does not apply).

 

21 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992).

 

22 Id. at 378.

 

23 Id. at 391.

 

24 Id. at 383.

 

25 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a).

 

26 Morales, 504 U.S. at 384 (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739 (1985).

 

27 Id. (emphasis added).

 

28 Id. at 390.

 

29 See John T. Houchin, Harris v. American Airlines: Flying Through the Turbulence of Federal Preemption and the Airline Deregulation Act, 51 U. Miami L. Rev. 955, 966 (1997).

 

30 504 U.S. at 390 (quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 100 (1983) (emphasis added)).

 

31 Id.

 

32 American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).

 

33 Id. at 224.

 

34 Id. at 226.

 

35 Id at 228.

 

36 Id.

 

37 Id. (emphasis added).

 

38 Id. at 228 (emphasis added); see also Williams v. Midwest Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 993, 996 (E.D.Wisc. 2004) (holding the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim was not preempted because the airline’s agreement to transport plaintiffs to New York City “was a self-imposed undertaking, and plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce it does not involve the enforcement of any state law”).

 

39 Wolens, 513 U.S. at 232-33. The Court stated that this distinction makes sense in light of the ADA’s saving clause, which does not prevent states from “affording relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term that the airline itself stipulated.” Id.

 

40 Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

 

41 Id. at 1261.

 

42 Id. at 1263 (citing Gee v. Southwest Airlines, Inc., 110 F.3d 1400, 1410 (9th Cir. 1997) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring).

 

43 Id. at 1265.

 

44 Id. at 1261.

 

45 Id. at 1265-66.

 

46 Charas, 160 F.3d at 1266.

 

47 Id.

 

48 See Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 164 F.3d 186, 195 (3d Cir. 1998); Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058; compare Abdulla v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363, 367 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that the entire aviation industry is field preempted).

 

49 Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

 

50 Id. at 335.

 

51 Id. at 336 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

 

52 Hodges, 44 F.3d at 336-37. The court found that claims relating to the “operation and maintenance of the aircraft” concern matters of “air navigation.” Id. at 338 (citing 49 U.S.C.App. § 1301(31) (1998)).

 

53 Id. (emphasis added)

 

54 Id. at 338-39.

 

55 Id. at 339.

 

56 The Firth Circuit admits that “the provinces of ‘services’ and ‘operation and maintenance of aircraft’ overlap somewhat conceptually; no strict dichotomy exists.” Id. at 339.

 

57 See Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058; Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 1998); Travel All Over The World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1433 (7th Cir. 1996); Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248, 1257 (11th Cir. 2003).

 

58 Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058 (2000) (cert denied)

 

59 Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 208 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000).

 

60 Id. at 1115 (quoting Charas, 160 f.3d at 1265-66).

 

61 Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058 (2000) (cert denied).

 

62 Id.

 

63 Id.

 

64 Id.

 

65 Lynette M. Bledsaw, The Express Preemption Provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act Does Not Reach State Civil Rights Claims of Race Discrimination, American Bar Association (2000).

 

66 See Branche v. Airtran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (former airline employee’s state court claim for retaliatory discharge was not preempted by the ADA); Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 165 F.3d 493, 495 (6th Cir. 1999) (former airline employee’s race discrimination claim was not preempted); Parise v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463, 1467-68 (11th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff’s age discrimination claim was not preempted by the ADA); Aloha Islandair Inc. v. Tseu, 128 F.3d 1301, 1303 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding Hawaii law barring physical disability discrimination was not preempted by the ADA); Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding New York age discrimination action was not preempted by the ADA).

 

67 Id.; (citing Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 652 N.Y.S2d 253, 257 (1996);

 

68 Ryan L. Bangert, When Airlines Profile Based On Race: Are Claims Brought Against Airlines Under State Anti-Discrimination Laws Preempted By the Airline Deregulation Act?, 68 J. Air L. & Com. 791, 801 (2003); see Thomas v. United Parcel Service, 241 Mich. App. 171 (2000) (holding that former African-American employee’s race discrimination claim was not preempted by the ADA).

 

69 Abdu-Brisson, 128 F.3d at 84; Wellons, 165 F.3d at 496; Thomas, 241 Mich.App. at 181; see also Wellons v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 165 F.3d 493, 495 (6th Cir. 1999) (“State law claims of racial discrimination—as opposed to claims of discrimination on the basis of physical characteristics that might have some bearing on the individual’s ability to render service safely and efficiently—are not preempted, in our view; they bear ‘too tenuous, remote, or peripheral’ a relation to airline rates or services.”); Thomas, 241 Mich.App. 171, 181 (2000) (“Plaintiffs’ race and gender are wholly unrelated to defendants’ services”).

 

70 Bledsaw, supra note 65; Fitzpatrick v. Simmons Airlines, Inc., 218 Mich. App. 689 (1996).

 

71 Fitzpatrick, 218 Mich. App. At 692. See also Belgard v. United Airlines, 857 P.2d 467, 471 (Colo.App.1992) (“any law or regulation that restricts an airline’s selection of employees, based upon their physical characteristics, must necessarily have a connection with and reference to, and therefore must be one ‘relating to,’ the services to be rendered by the airline”)

 

72 Bangert, supra note 22 at 803.

 

73 Bledsaw, supra note 65 at 5.

 

74 Doricent v. American Airlines, Inc., 1993 WL 437670 (D.Mass 1993).

 

75 Id.

 

76 Id. at *5.

 

77 Bledsaw, supra note 65 at 5.

 

78 Huggar v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 1999 WL 59841 (N.D. Ill. 1999).

 

79 Id. at *1; see also Bangert, supra note 22 at 805-06.

 

80 Id.

 

81 Id. (citations omitted).

 

82 DeTerra v. America West Airlines, Inc., 226 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.Mass. 2002).

 

83 Newman v. American Airlines, Inc., 176 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1999).

 

84 Id. at 1131;

 

85 Chrissafis v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1292, 1298 (N.D. Ill. 1996).

 

86 Id.; see Williams v. Express Airlines I Inc.,, 825 F. Supp. 831, 832-33 (W.D. Tenn. 1993) (holding that plaintiff’s claim for false imprisonment after he was denied admittance to a flight and then strapped to an immobile chair in the airline waiting area was preempted by the ADA); Lawal v. British Airways, PLC, 812 F. Supp. 713, 715 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (holding that plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims where airline personnel detained the plaintiff and forced him to purchase a new ticket were preempted); Galbut v. American Airlines, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 2d 146 (E.D. N.Y. 1997) (holding that plaintiff’s false arrest and false imprisonment claims arising out of airline’s refusal to permit plaintiff to upgrade using stickers the airline had falsely alleged were stolen and the demand for payment for the upgrade were preempted by the ADA); Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 1998) (passenger’s claim for false imprisonment based on the airline’s refusal to permit him to board due to the airline’s failure to ask for photo identification at the point of original departure was preempted).

 

87 Chrissafis, 940 F. Supp. at 1298.

 

88 Id.; see Diaz Aguasviva v. Iberia Lineas Aereas 902 F. Supp. 314, 316 (D. Puerto Rico 1995) (permitting a passenger to pursue a claim that airline personnel falsely identified the passenger as an illegal alien, causing police and customs agents to arrest and detain her); Curley v. American Airlines, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 280, 281-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that plaintiffs claim that the flight crew had falsely arrested the passenger for smoking marijuana, causing him to be strip-searched, was not preempted); Bayne v. Adventure Tours USA, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 206, 207 (N.D.Tex 1994) (refusing to preempt a passenger’s claim that an airline pilot made misrepresentations to police, causing the plaintiff to be taken into custody, detained, and subjected to a luggage search); Rombom v. United Airlines, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 214, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (finding that false imprisonment claims stemming from the airline’s decision to have plaintiff arrested, allegedly motivated by spite, were not preempted).

 

89 Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir. 1998); Chrissafis v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1292, 1289-99 (N.D. Ill. 1996)

 

90 Travel All Over The World, Inc., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423 (7th Cir. 1996).

 

91 Id.; see also Chrissafis , 940 F. Supp. 1292 (recognizing this distinction). In addition to defamation and slander, the “other” intentional tort claims included tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortuous interference with a business relationship.

 

92 Travel All Over The World, Inc., 73 F.3d. at 1433; compare Fenn v. American Airlines, Inc., 839 F. Supp. 1218, 1223 (S.D. Miss. 1993) (finding claims for slander unrelated to airline “services”) with Chukwu v. Board of Directors of British Airways, 889 F. Supp. 12, 14 (D.Mass. 1995) (finding specific claims for slander related to airline “services”) and Pearson v. Lake Forest Country Day Sch., 262 Ill.App.3d 228 (1994) (same).

 

93 Id.

 

94 Id. at 1433.

 

95 Id. citing Morales, 504 U.S. at 383-85.

 

96 Id. at 1433.

 

97 Travel All Over The World, Inc., 73 F.3d at 1434..

 

98 Id.

 

99 Id. (citing Hodges, 44 F.3d at 336); see also DeTerra, 226 F. Supp. 2d at 277 (finding handicapped passenger’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress in connection with his denial of boarding on a particular flight was preempted); Chukwu v. Board of Directors British Airways, 889 F. Supp. 12, 13 (D.Mass. 1995) (concluding that plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the allegation that he had been improperly denied boarding on a flight was preempted by the ADA).

 

100 Morales, 504 U.S. at 384.

 

101 See Abdu-Brisson, 128 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1997); DeBuono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Serv., 520 U.S. 806, 816 (1997).

 

102 Abdu-Brisson, 128 F.3d at 82 (emphasis added); citing New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 655 (1995); Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997) (“We can begin, and in this case end, the analysis by simply asking if state law conflicts with the provisions of ERISA or operates to frustrate its objects).

 

103 Travelers Ins. Co., at 655 (Too expansive an interpretation of “relate to,” according to the Court, “would be to read Congress’s words of limitation as mere sham, and to read the presumption against pre-emption out of the law whenever Congress speaks to the matter with generality. That said, we have to recognize that our prior attempt to construe the phrase ‘relate to’ does not give us much help drawing the line here”).

 

104 See Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058 (cert denied).

 

105 Id.

 

106 See Morales, 504 U.S. at 378.

 

107 See Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 517 (quoting Malone, 435 U.S. at 505).

 

108 Smith v. America West Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

Find More Duke Law Articles

Barefoot, Spirited and Gracious as Ever — Hawaii’s Duke Comes Ashore at Ka’anapali Beach

anapali Beach, Maui (PRWEB) October 14, 2006

Ka` Even as he subdued towering waves and dominated the world of surfing, Hawaii’s Duke Kahanamoku impressed the world with his gentle manner, friendly ease, authenticity and dignified aloha. In this spirit, the beachside restaurant to be created on lovely Ka’anapali Beach will evoke the Duke’s extraordinary ho’okipa (hospitality) and the heyday of Hawaiian surfing over which he presided.

Intrawest Corporation, the world leader in destination resorts and adventure travel, announces their collaboration with T S Restaurants, Inc., Hawaii’s premier high-concept restaurant operator, to create Duke’s Maui at the Honua Kai Resort.

In architectural and interior design, menu and service philosophy, the new restaurant will underscore Intrawest’s commitment to create at Honua Kai a rare community reflecting an extraordinary sense of place, designed in deference to the land and the Hawaiian people. Its rare location on the last available beachfront in Ka’anapali, arguably one of the finest beaches in America, is a T S trademark.

“We’re thrilled to have found in T S Restaurants a partner who knows and loves everything that is extraordinary about Hawaii, and who brings a rich and comprehensive vision for authentic, memorable dining experiences,” said Trevor Dunn, Intrawest’s regional director of lodging. “Their long track record of success will go far in sustaining Duke’s Maui as a flagship amenity for Honua Kai.”

Overlooking the emerald waters and teeming coral beds of Maui’s western shore, with breathtaking sunset views of neighboring islands Molokai and Lanai, Duke’s Maui at Honua Kai will offer leisurely upscale dining featuring a casual menu of the freshest island fish, prime steaks, seasonal produce and local flavors complemented by exotic tropical cocktails. Residents and guests of the resort will also enjoy pool and room service by Duke’s.

“Honua Kai’s homeowners and guests can feel comfortable that when they are visiting the property, they’re going to experience an outstanding level of flavor, freshness, creativity, service and aloha that meets their expectation of a Hawaiian vacation,” said Bill Parsons, CEO of T S Restaurants.

In the tradition of other Duke’s restaurants by T S, guests at Duke’s Maui will love the restaurant as much for its period-inspired interiors and outdoor dining area as for its hospitality and food. The 7,500-square-foot facility (which includes 2,500 square feet of outdoor dining and bar space) will feature an extensive collection of Duke memorabilia, including period photographs, koa outrigger canoes, surfboards and vintage Hawaiiana. Live Hawaiian music performed outdoors amid the sway of balmy island trade winds is a Duke’s hallmark. Interior textures typically feature Hawaii’s endemic botanicals and hardwoods, including thatched palm, rich koa, bamboo and lauhala.

The restaurant will operate seven days a week, offering breakfast, lunch, dinner and bar service. Honua Kai architect, WCIT of Honolulu, plans a one-story, old Hawaiian, open-air style for the residential-scale building. Completion is estimated for late 2008.

The Beach: Muse and Life for Duke Kahanamoku

“I have never seen snow and do not know what winter means. I have never coasted down a hill of frozen rain, but every day of the year where the water is 76 degrees, day and night, and the waves roll high, I take my sled, without runners, and coast down the face of the big waves that roll in. How would you like to stand like a god before the crest of a monster billow, always rushing to the bottom of a hill and never reaching its base, and to come rushing in for a half a mile at express speed, in graceful attitude, of course, until you reach the beach and step easily from the wave to the sand?” ~ Hawaii surfing legend, Duke Paoa Kahanamoku (1890-1968)

Maui: Muse and Life for Honua Kai

“All our work at Honua Kai culminates in one goal: to cherish Maui — one of the most storied and beloved places in the world — by creating the ultimate vacation and lifestyle experience at Honua Kai,” Dunn concluded. “Our choice of restaurant partner and the Duke’s concept reveal how truly uncompromising we are in this regard.”

Intrawest

Intrawest Corporation is a world leader in destination resort and adventure travel. Intrawest has interests in 10 resorts at North America’s most popular mountain destinations, including Whistler Blackcomb, a host venue for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Intrawest owns Canadian Mountain Holidays, the largest heli-skiing operation in the world, and an interest in Abercrombie & Kent, the world leader in luxury adventure travel. The Intrawest network also includes Sandestin Golf and Beach Resort in Florida and Club Intrawest — a private resort club with nine locations throughout North America. Intrawest develops real estate at its resorts and at other locations across North America and in Europe. Intrawest is headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia. For more information, visit www.intrawest.com..

T S Restaurants

T S Restaurants develops, builds and operates high-quality restaurants in California and Hawaii. All restaurants are located in prime locations in Hawaii and California’s best resort areas, with all restaurant concepts reflecting the culture of their respective markets. One of the largest dinner house operators in Hawaii, T S Restaurants is ranked the 89th largest company in the state by Hawaii Business magazine. The restaurants, in order of opening dates, include: KIMO’S (Lahaina, Maui); JAKE’S ON THE LAKE (Lake Tahoe, California); JAKE’S DEL MAR (Del Mar, California); LEILANI’S ON THE BEACH (Ka’anapali, Maui); KEOKI’S PARADISE (Poipu Beach, Kauai); SUNNYSIDE RESORT (Lake Tahoe, California); DUKE’S CANOE CLUB (Kalapaki Beach, Kauai); LA QUINTA CLIFFHOUSE (Palm Springs, California); DUKE’S CANOE CLUB (Waikiki Beach, Oahu); HULA GRILL (Ka’anapali, Maui); DUKE’S MALIBU (Malibu, California); DUKE’S HUNTINGTON BEACH (Huntington Beach, California); and HULA GRILL WAIKIKI (Waikiki Beach, Oahu).

More Information

For more information about Honua Kai, visit www.honuakai.com or call 1-866-678-1310.

Media Contacts:

Heather Kirk or Laura Serena

Immedia PR

For Playground Destination Properties Inc.

888 608 PLAY

This is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, to residents of any state or province in which restrictions and other legal requirements have not been fulfilled. This offer is void where prohibited by law. The prices, plans, amenities, availability and improvements are subject to change without notice. Improvements, facilities and programs are in formative stages, and there is no guarantee that they will be completed or developed.

Playground Destination Properties Inc. is a Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Hawaii.

###

Related Duke Law Press Releases

A History of Richard, Duke of York in Ireland

A History of Richard, Duke of York in Ireland

Outside the Pale, Ireland was divided up into a plethora of individual supremacies some were loyal to the English Crown, some were not. The Gaelic chieftains directed their fiefdoms with little or no recognition of the English administration. Three great Anglo-Irish lordships, straddled the south of the country namely the Butler earldom of Ormond and the Fitzgerald earldoms of Desmond and Kildare. These earls were also caught up in the complexities of their Gaelic neighbours through a complicated system of alliances and antagonisms. In 1449, Richard, Duke of York arrived in Ireland, appointed as Lord Lieutenant. This was a convenient way of removing him from both England and France and prevented him from acquiring any office of major influence. He was well received by both the Anglo-Irish and the Gaelic Irish.

By the time of his departure in 1450, Richard had successively cemented the link between Ireland and the Yorkist cause. When the Yorkist forces were routed in 1459, Richard fled to Ireland where he was given sanctuary, indeed parliament declared that Ireland was bound only by laws passed by its own parliament. Ireland now recognised the rebellious Duke of York as opposed to supporting Henry VI. However, Richard was killed at the Battle of Wakefield in December 1460, his head was chopped off, crowned with a paper crown and set on the walls of York. However, within months the Yorkists triumphed with Richard’s son Edward IV ascending to the throne, therefore averting a fractious division between England and Ireland.

 

Russell Shortt is a travel consultant with Exploring Ireland, the leading specialists in customised, private escorted tours, escorted coach tours and independent self drive tours of Ireland. Article source: http://www.exploringireland.net

Incoming search terms:

• richard duke of york ireland

Duke World Cup 2010

Duke World Cup 2010

World Cup scorecard and database software for Windows computers. Summary of all 32 teams at the 2010 World Cup, nation information, recap of all 18 World Cups, results of every match of every World Cup ever played, and more!

Duke World Cup 2010

How to get the Law of Attraction to work – Even if ‘The Secret’ didn’t

So many people that watched ‘The Secret’ are still not enjoying the success they desire from the Law of Attraction. This unique guide and software package reveals why. The most important guide to Cosmic Ordering and the Loa you’ll ever read…

How to get the Law of Attraction to work – Even if ‘The Secret’ didn’t

Q&A: Wouldn’t it be cool if they made a live-action “Calvin and Hobbes” movie?

Question by FUNdie: Wouldn’t it be cool if they made a live-action “Calvin and Hobbes” movie?

I’m picturing a movie that is mostly live action, but uses CGI in certain parts, like when Calvin is conversing with Hobbes, he is a full-sized CGI character like in the book, but whenever his parents or other people see him, he’s just a stuffed tiger. Then when Calvin uses his Transmogrifier, you show him getting into a cardboard box, but in his imagination it takes him to a CGI world of dinosaurs, etc. You could also use that for his “Spaceman Spiff” adventures. Then there are also his misadventures in class. You could do a lot with that movie, and it would still have to have all the Bill Patterson dialogue and humor.
Tell me what you’d think of it!

Best answer:

Answer by Wynonna
It sounds like a neat idea, but considering the way Hollywood messes up everything (Marmaduke for example), it’s better left on comic strips.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Duke University-culturally Diverse And Eclectic

Duke University-culturally Diverse And Eclectic

Duke University in Durham, North Carolina has long been known as one of the best medical schools in the country. Students come from all across the globe to attend this prestigious school. The school, itself was created in the year 1924 by James Buchanan Duke as a memorial to his late father Washington Duke. The Duke family was a prominent part of the Durham community. They were big into philanthropic endeavors and in 1924, James Duke’s forming of the Duke Endowment gave way to Duke University.

Trinity was opened in 1859. When Washington’s son James created the Duke Endowment in 1924, Trinity University became Duke University. The following is a time line of the Trinity University to Duke University transition and development of Duke. Origination of Trinity University-1838, opening of Trinity University-1859, School of Law open-1904, Divinity School open-1926, Graduate School open-1926, School of Medicine open-1930, School of Nursing open-1931, Pratt School of Engineering open-1939. In 1969, the Fuqua School of Business opened, followed by the Sanford School of Public Policy open- 1971 and the Nicholas School of the Environment opened in 1991.

The student body at Duke University is 6400 strong in the full time undergraduate programs accompanied by approximately 7100 enrolled full time in the Duke Graduate program. The students at Duke come from every corner of the world. The male to female ratio for the entering class of 2012 was 1 to 1. Almost twenty five percent of the students at Duke come from countries other than the US. This diversified student body ranks among the top scoring students in the world.

There are currently sixty four hundred students enrolled at Duke University in a full time undergraduate program in addition to the seventy one hundred full time graduate students enrolled. This brings the total student body population to just under thirteen thousand, five hundred students. These students come from all around the world, equaling an even cut across the board between males and females for the entering freshman class of 2008.

Duke University tuition, room, board and fees run typically about fifty thousand dollars a year. This runs average with other schools in the same classifications. However, Duke is a bit different when it comes to enrollment and financial aid.

Duke believes that young people should be able to get the higher learning that will push them ahead in the future. Because of the Duke Endowment, students who qualify for acceptance at Duke are not subjected to financial analysis. This means that if a student is deemed a good fit for the University but their family does not have the means to cover the costs, the school will cover the costs for them, in full, for the entirety of the undergraduate learning.

Duke pursues all arenas. Known as a medical school, it is also very big where the liberal arts are concerned. The Nasher Museum on campus provides culture and excitement for the surrounding Durham area.

More Duke Law Articles

Whacking unarmed women: gaps in the law of armed conflict.: An article from: Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy Reviews

Whacking unarmed women: gaps in the law of armed conflict.: An article from: Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy

This digital document is an article from Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, published by Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy on June 22, 2002. The length of the article is 3012 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Whacking unarmed women: gaps in the law of armed conflict.

List Price: $ 5.95

Price: $ 5.95

Lastest Duke Law News

Rock the Vote campaigns to spark young voters

Given the importance of the youth vote in the 2008 presidential election, Rock the Vote hopes to excite the same demographic for the November midterm elections. read more

Read more on The Chronicle

Full Cast Announced for Arthur Miller’s Broken Glass at London’s Tricycle Theatre

Lucy Cohu will join the previously announced Antony Sher to play his wife in a new production of Arthur Miller’s Broken Glass that will begin performances at London’s Tricycle Theatre Sept. 30, prior to an official opening Oct. 6, for a run through Nov. 27. Also in the cast are Emily Bruni, Nigel Lindsay, Madeleine Potter and Brian Protheroe.

Read more on Playbill

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia

Early life

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich with three of his brothers(from left to right) : Alexander, Alexei, Vladimir and Tsarevich Nicholas

The Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich Romanov of Russia was born in Saint Petersburg on 14 January 1850 (4 January O.S.). He was the son of emperor Alexander II and empress Maria Alexandrovna. He was a younger brother of Grand Duchess Alexandra Alexandrovna, Tsarevich Nikolay Alexandrovich, Alexander III of Russia, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia and Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia and He was an older brother of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia and Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich.

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich was destined for a naval career since his childhood. At the age of 7 he received the rank of midshipman. The next year Konstantin Nikolayevich Posyet was appointed as his tutor. While the winters were dedicated to theoretical studies, during the summers he trained on Russian warships of the Baltic fleet stationed in Saint Petersburg harbour. The training was rough, but gave him the possibility of getting used to various sailing ships:

in 1860 the yacht Shtandart on a cruise from Petergof to Livada [disambiguation needed]

in 18611863 the yacht Zabava under the flag of counter-admiral Posyet in the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia,

in 1864 the frigate Svetlana in the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea

in 1866 the frigate Oslyabya during an extensive training cruise to the Azore Islands.

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich in his youth

On 18 September 1866 Grand Duke Alexei was promoted lieutenant. He continued his navy career serving as officer aboard the frigate Alexander Nevski on a cruise in across the Mediterranean Sea to Pireaus, where he attended the wedding of his cousin Olga Konstantinovna.

In 1868 he went on a trip to southern Russia traveling by train from Saint Petersburg to Nikolaevsk [disambiguation needed], continuing by ship down the Volga to Astrakhan. He then boarded a military ship for a cruise on the Caspian Sea to Baku, [Petrovsk (now Makhachkala) and then to Iran. He then crossed the Caucasus and reached Poti where the Alexander Nevsky was moored. From there he sailed to Constantinople, Athens and the Azore Islands On the return voyage, on the frigate was involved in a shipwreck off the coast of Jutland during a storm on the North Sea. Though the ship was lost, the crew including Alexei Alexandrovitch was unhurt and could safely reach the shore.

In January 1870 Alexei Alexandrovich reached the age of majority according to Russian legislation. The event was marked by taking two oaths : the military one and the oath of allegiance of the Grand Dukes of the Russian Imperial House. In June 1870 Alexei Alexandrovich started the last part of his training. This included inland navigation on a cutter with a steam engine, on the route from Saint Petersburg to Arkhangelsk through the Mariinsk Canal system and the Northern Dvina River. After visiting the schools and industrial facilities of Arkhangelsk, he started his navigation training in arctic conditions, aboard the corvette Variag. His cruise took him to the Solovetsky Islands, continuing through the White Sea and Barents Sea to Novaya Zemlya. The route continued to Kola Bay and the city of Murmansk, the ports of northern Norway and Iceland. He returned to Cronstadt at the end of September.

Love affair with Alexandra Zhukovskaya

Alexandra Zhukovskaya

In 1869/1870, Alexei had an affair with Alexandra Zhukovskaya, daughter of poet Vasily Andreyevich Zhukovsky, who was eight years older than him. They were parents to a son, Alexei, born on 26 November 1871. Tsar Alexander II was strongly opposed to this relationship.

Some historians claim that they were morganatically married and that the marriage was annulled by the Russian Orthodox Church , because, according to the "Fundamental Laws of the Imperial House", this marriage was illegal. However, articles 183 and 188, which prohibited marriages without the consentment of the emperor, were included in the Fundamental Laws only by the 1887 revision under Tsar Alexander III. The rules valid in 1870 did not prohibit mornaganatic marriages, but simply excluded their offspring from the succession to the throne. There is no evidence either to the marriage or to the divorce. There is also no evidence that the Grand Duke even requested the permission to marry. As Alexandra Zhukovskaya, was not an aristocrat and, besides, the daughter of an illegitimate son of a Russian landowner and a Turkish slave, such a marriage would have been unthinkable.

Upset by his son's affair, Alexander II even refused to grant Alexandra Zhukovskaya a title, which would have officially recognized the Grand Duke's paternity, even if illegitimate. Other European courts also refused to grant her a title. As a solution of last resort, on 25 March 1875 Alexandra was able to secure the title of baroness Seggiano from the Republic of San Marino, with the right to transmit the title to her son Alexei and his firstborn male descendants. It was only in 1883, that Alexander III, the Grand Duke's elder brother, granted the baron Seggiano the title of count Belevsky, and in 1893 approved his coat of arms.

Tour of the United States

On board the frigate Svetlana

Voyage to the United States

After the official visit to Saint Petersburg of an American squadron under the command of Admiral David Farragut in 1867, a high level visit of the Russian Navy was envisaged by the Russian Government. After lengthy negotiations, it was decided that the Russian delegation would be headed by Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich. The official announcement of the visit was made on 29 June 1871 by Nikolay Karlovich Krabbe, Minister of the Imperial Russian Navy.

The Russian squadron, under the command of admiral Konstantin Nikolayevich Posyet on board the frigate Bogalye included the frigates Svetlana and The Admiral General, the corvette Ignatiev and the gunboat Abrek. The Grand Duke was serving as lieutenant aboard the Svetlana. Before reaching the United States, the Russian squadron was to be met by the frigate Vsadnik of the Russian Pacific Fleet. Though all ships were equipped with steam-engines, the squadron made the passage to America mainly under sail, so as to avoid making port on the route for coal supplies. Except for the Grand Duke personal staff, the crew included 200 officers and over 3000 sailors. The squadron set sail out of Kronstadt on 20 August 1871.

The squadron first stopped in Copenhagen, where the Grand Duke paid a visit to King Christian IX of Denmark. In the English Channel the Russians were met by a squadron of the Royal Navy and escorted to Plymouth, where the Grand Duke was met by the Duke of Edinburgh Alfred of Saxe-Coburg. A visit to Balmoral Castle had been scheduled, but had to be canceled because the Prince of Wales was very sick and Queen Victoria extremely concerned. The Russian squadron set sail from Plymouth on 26 September. and, on route to New York, stopped for a few days in Funchal, (Madeira Islands), leaving on 9 October.

The Russian squadron was met by an American squadron under the command of vice-admiral Stephen Clegg Rowan Port Admiral of New York hoisting his flag on the frigate Congress. Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee, commander of the North Atlantic Squadron attended on his own flagship, the Severn. The other ships of the squadron were the Iroquois and the Kansas, attended by several tugs.

A welcoming committee had been formed in New York, chaired by William Henry Aspinwall. Among the members of the committee were Moses H. Grinnell, general Irwin McDowell, Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. rear-admiral S. W. Godon, John Taylor Johnston, Albert Bierstadt, Lloyd Aspinwall and others. After a short delay due to the weather, the Russian squadron anchored in New York harbor on 21 November 1871, where the Grand Duke was greeted by general John Adams Dix. A military parade took place in the city. The Grand Duke then attended a thanksgiving service at the Russian chapel.
Reception by President Grant

On 22 November, the Grand Duke left for Washington by special train, placed at his disposal by the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company. The train had three cars: the "Commissariat" having all the modern improvements of a hotel, comprising store-rooms and pantry, the "Ruby", dining room car to accommodate 28 persons, with kitchen, ice boxes, and a sort of wine cellar, and "The Kearsarge" used as sitting, sleeping and reading room.

On 23 November, the Grand Duke was received by president Ulysses S. Grant The president wife Julia Grant and his daughter Nellie Grant also attended. Most of the members of the cabinet were present at the meeting: Hamilton Fish United States Secretary of State, Columbus Delano United States Secretary of the Interior with his wife, Amos Tappan Akerman United States Attorney General with his wife, George S. Boutwell United States Secretary of the Treasury, George Maxwell Robeson United States Secretary of the Navy, general Frederick Tracy Dent (the president brother-in-law and military secretary), John Creswell Postmaster General of the United States as well as generals Horace Porter and Orville E. Babcock .

The Grand Duke arrived at 1 p.m. in company of minister Katakazi, admiral Posyet and other members of his suite. The president and the members of the cabinet received them in the Blue Room where the presentations were made. The president then escorted the Grand Duke to the Red Room where he was introduced to the ladies. The interview lasted only fifteen minutes, after which the Grand Duke left.

The visit to Washington was overshadowed by President Grant discontent caused by the Russian government refusal to recall Konstantin Katacazi, minister plenipotentiary of Russia to the United States. The entire visit in Washington lasted only one day. No formal entertainment was given in Washington to the Grand Duke, though for all other visits of members of royal families to the White House, formal dinners had been organized. Such dinners had taken place when President John Tyler received Franois d'Orlans, prince de Joinville, when Abraham Lincoln received Prince Napoleon Joseph Bonaparte and even when Ulysses Grant received Kamehameha V, king of the Sandwich Islands. The evening of the visit to the White House, the Grand Duke and his suite dined at the minister Katakazi residence, the only American official attending being general Porter. At his departure the Grand Duke was asked if he intended to return to Washington. Though he expressed his interest to return during a session of Congress, the uneasy diplomatic relations due to Minister Katakazi prevented this from happening. There had also been expectations that a military alliance treaty between the United States and Russia would be signed during the meeting; however this was not the case.

The next day, the Grand Duke left by train for Annapolis where he visited the Naval Academy, thereafter returning to New York.
Farragut in the shrouds of the Hartfort at the battle of Mobile Bayr>Print after the painting by William Page, presented to Grand Duke Alexei as a gift for Tsar Alexander II

The East Coast

In New York, the Grand Duke visited the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Fort Wadsworth and the fortifications on Governors Island. He also reviewed the Fire Department at Tompkins Square. A highlight was the trip by steamer on the Hudson for the visit of the United States Military Academy, West Point.

Several balls were organized in his honor, the most important being the grand balls at the Navy Yard and at the Academy of Music. Alexei also attended opera performances of Faust and Mignon at the Academy of Music. He also went on a shopping spree, stopping at the A.T. Stewart and Tiffany stores where he bought some jewellery and bronze statues.

On 2 December 1871, a ceremony took place at the National Academy of Design, where the Grand Duke was received by Samuel F. B. Morse, William Stoddard, William Page, Albert Bierstadt and several other artists. The painting Farragut in the shrouds of the Hartfort at the battle of Mobile Bay by William Page was handed over to Grand Duke Alexei as a gift of the citizens of New York for Tsar Alexander II. General John Adams Dix presented the picture and the accompanying scroll, with a brief address in which he expressed the hope that it would further cement the union that existed between the United States and Russia. The painting was placed on-board the Russian flag-ship for transportation to Russia.

On 3 December 1871, the Grand Duke Alexei left for Philadelphia where he was received by general George Meade and Admiral Turner. He visited Girard College, Baird Locomotive Works and the Navy Yard. He was particularly interested by the Methodist Fair at the Horticultural Hall, where the ladies presented him an Afghan Hound. .

From 7 December to 14 December, Grand Duke Alexei stopped in Boston, Massachusetts where he stayed at the Paul Revere House. The landau which president Lincoln rode during his visit to Boston, was prepared for the Grand Duke. He was officially welcomed at the City Hall and the State House. During his stay, the Grand Duke visited Harvard University and the suburb of Cambridge, Massachusetts as well as different public schools in the Boston area, being extensively briefed on the American education system. Other highlights of were the battlefield of Bunker Hill and the visit to the shipyards of Charlestown, Massachusetts.

The Grand Duke also attended a Music Festival where 1,200 school children composed the great choir. At the festival, a grand march of welcome, specially composed by Julius Eichberg and dedicated to is Imperial Highness, was presented

A ball in honor of the Grand Duke took place at the Boston Theatre. The audit of the expenses shows that the cost of ball was .678,58 (equivalent of 0.000 today), only .916,29 being covered by the sale of the tickets and other receipts
Detour to Canada

On 17 December, The Grand Duke left by train to Canada. He first stopped in Montreal, where he had breakfast with the mayor of the city, and then visited Lachine, Quebec He then passed through Ottawa and Toronto, finally reaching Clifton Hill (Niagara Falls) on 22 December 1871 by the Great Western Railway. On his way, the train stopped in Hamilton, Ontario where he received a telegram from Queen Victoria, notifying him that the Prince of Wales had recovered from his illness. From Clifton Hill the party left by sleighs for a visit to the Niagara Falls. After having dressed in oil-skinned suits for fishermen at sea, the party also went under the falls. The Grand Duke then crossed the Niagara River over new suspension bridge and then visited the United States part of the falls.

Newspaper caricature of the Grand Duke's buffalo hunt

Visit to the Midwest

On 23 December, Grand Duke Alexei left by train for Buffalo, New York, where he spent Christmas. On Christmas Day, he went to the opera to see the British Parepa-Rosa Opera Company. After the performance he sent soprano Euphrosyne Parepa-Rosa a bracelet studded with turquoise and diamonds. On 26 December, the Grand Duke arrived in Cleveland where he visited the iron mills and other factories in Newburgh Heights, Ohio. He then reviewed the Cleveland Fire Department and visited the National Inventors Exhibition. He then stopped in Detroit on his way to Chicago, where he arrived on 30 December. The city was recovering from the great fire. Joseph Medwill, mayor of Chicago, had written to the Grand Duke:

"We have but little to exihibit but the ruins and dbris of a great and beautiful city and an undaunted people struggling with adversity to relieve their overwhelming misfortunes."

The Grand Duke visited the destroyed part of the city and was impressed by the rhythm of the reconstruction. He gave ,000 USD (equivalent to 0,000 today) in gold to the homeless people of Chicago, Illinois. As an irony, the same day Grand Duke Alexei arrived in Chicago, a special Grand Jury indicted thirteen members of the city Common Council [disambiguation needed] on charges of bribery. Grand Duke Alexei also visited the stockyards and a pork processing plant.

As the Tremont House Hotel had been burnt to the ground, the Grand Duke was accommodated in the New Tremont House which had opened on Michigan Avenue, where he was awarded the “Freedom of the City”. On New Year Day General Philip Sheridan initiated him into the American custom of making “New Year calls upon the ladies”. From 2 January to 4 January Grand Duke Alexei visited Milwaukee, Wisconsin and on 5 January he arrived in St. Louis, Missouri, where he stayed for over a week.

In St. Louis, Grand Duke Alexis attended a burlesque show Buebeard in which Lydia Thompson, a 36-year-old actress was singing a tune “If Ever I Cease to Love”. It is claimed that the Grand Duke was fascinated both by the actress and the song. Supposedly, she had also sung the number privately for the duke during a rendezvous. Lydia Thompson wasn’t the only woman to catch the duke’s eye; while in St. Louis, Alexei became particularly enamored of one of his dance partners, a lady called Sallie Shannon of Lawrence, Kansas.

Finally on 12 January he arrived in Omaha, Nebraska
The Great Royal Buffalo Hunt

Color print by Louis Maurer (1895)

Trip to the hunting grounds

Preparations for the hunt were extensive and had been carried out under the command of General Joel Palmer. Two companies of infantry in wagons, two companies of cavalry, the cavalry’s regimental band, outriders, night herders, couriers, cooks had been mobilized for the event.

The Grand Duke in the company of General Philip Sheridan, General Edward Ord, and General George Armstrong Custer, the latter having been selected to be Grand Marshall of the hunt, arrived at Fort McPherson on 13 January 1872, by a special train provided by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. They were greeted by an enthusiastic crowd, headed by William Frederick Cody (know as Buffalo Bill). After speeches, the Duke’s party set out for the hunting grounds.

The Duke and General Sheridan rode in an open carriage, drawn by four horses. William Frederick Cody escorted the party with five ambulances, a light wagon for luggage, three wagons of “champagne and royal spirits” and fifteen to twenty extra saddle horses. A relay of horses was set up at Medicine Creek, about half way to the camp, where the party stopped for lunch. The journey then continued to they called “Camp Alexis” on the Red Willow Creek. The 2d Cavalry band was in place and in tune; “Hail to the Chief” was played when the Grand Duke arrived. The entire trip covered about 50 miles and took approximately eight hours.

The camp consisted of two hospital tents (used as dining tent), ten wall tents and tents for servants and soldiers. Three wall tents were floored and the Grand Duke was carpeted with oriental rugs. Box stoves and Sibley stoves were provided for the tents.

Cody had discussed the hunt with Spotted Tail, chief of the Brul Lakota, who had agreed to meet the “great chief from across the water who was coming there to visit him.” About 600 warriors of different Sioux tribes, led by Spotted Tail, War Bonnet, Black Hat, Red Leaf, Whistler and Pawnee Killer, assembled to greet the grand duke at the hunting camp. They had been provided with ten thousand rations of flour, sugar, coffee, and 1,000 pounds of tobacco for their trouble – twenty-five wagon loads in all.

At the start of the party, Spotted Tail, dressed in a suit, which didn fit him, with an army belt upside down and an extremely awkward look was introduced to the Grand Duke. Then the Indian chief extended his hand, and greeted the Grand Duke with the customary “How.”

For the amusement of Alexei the Indians staged exercises of horsemanship, lance-throwing and bow-shooting. Then there was a sham fight, showing the Indian mode of warfare, closing up with a grand war dance. It was noticed that Grand Duke Alexei paid considerable attention to a good-looking Indian maiden. Concerned that his mother, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, might receive reports of his flirtations, he wrote her from St. Louis: “Regarding my success with American ladies about which so much is written in the newspapers, I can openly say, that this is complete nonsense. They looked on me from the beginning as they would look on a wild animal, as on a crocodile or other unusual beast.” .

However, a dispute broke out when general Custer, probably having drunk too much champagne, made crude overtures to Spotted Tail’s pretty 16-year-old daughter. Alexei was able to calm down the fight with gifts of red and green blankets, ivory-handled hunting knives and a large bag of silver dollars. A formal council took place in Sheridan tens and a peace pipe was passed around. Spotted Tail seized the chance to press his demand for the right to hunt freely south of the Platte River and for more than one store in which to trade.
Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich killing a buffalo with a pistol shot on 15 January 1872

The buffalo hunt

The big hunt took place on the Grand Duke 22nd birthday, 14 January 1872. For the hunt the Duke wore a jacket and trousers of heavy gray cloth, trimmed with green, the buttons bearing the Imperial Russian coat-of-arms. He wore his boots outside his trousers in the European way, which was unusual for his American hosts. Alexei carried a Russian hunting knife, and an American revolver, bearing the coats-of-arms of the United States and Russia on the handle, which he had recently received as a present. The hunting party approached buffalo herd several miles up the Red Willow Creek. The Grand Duke rode William Cody celebrated buffalo horse “Buckskin Joe”, which had been trained to ride at full gallop with a target so that the best shot could be made. As soon as a herd of buffalo was seen, some two miles away, Alexei wanted to make a charge but was restrained by William Cody. The party moved to the windward and gradually approached the herd. Within a hundred yards of the fleeing buffalo, the Grand Duke, not accustomed to shooting from a running horse, fired, but missed. Cody rode up close beside Alexei, handed him his own famed .48-caliber rifle, “Lucretia,” the one with which he claimed to have killed 4,200 buffalo and advised him not to fire until he was on the flank of the buffalo. When Alexei tried again, he brought down his game. The hide of the dead buffalo was carefully removed and dressed; the Grand Duke took it home as a souvenir of his hunt on the western plains. Twenty to thirty animals were killed on the first day of the hunt. The party returned early to camp, where there was a liberal supply of champagne and other beverages provided, and the evening was spent in frontier style.

The next morning Spotted Tail requested him to hunt by the side of Two Lance, chief of the Nakota Sioux tribe, so that he could see a demonstration of the Indian way of hunting. Coming up to a heard of buffalo, Two Lance demonstrated his skill by killing a large animal with one arrow which passed entirely through the body of the running buffalo. The arrow was preserved and given to Alexei. The Grand Duke killed two buffalo, one of them at 100 paces distance, with a pistol shot.

On the conclusion of the hunt, when returning to Fort McPherson, General Sheridan proposed that William Cody take the reins and show Alexei the old style of stage driving over the plains with the horses at full gallop. The heavy ambulance bounded over the rough prairie, while the occupants could hardly keep their seats. Grand Duke Alexei was pleased with his hunting trip. When he and Cody parted in Fort McPherson, he presented Cody with a fur coat and expensive cuff links.

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich and General George Armstrong Custer in Topeka, at the end of the buffalo hunt

From there the train continued to Denver where the Grand Duke arrived on 17 January. While in Denver, he attended an honorary ball sponsored by the Pioneer Club and visited some mines. Alexei apparently loved the new sport he had just learned and hunted buffalo again near Colorado Springs, on his return trip from Denver through Kansas to St. Louis. However, the horses used to hunt in eastern Colorado were cavalry mounts and unaccustomed to buffalo; several hunters were injured during the resulting confusion. Alexei was unhurt and succeeded in killing as many as 25 buffalo. He even shot a few more from the train on its way across western Kansas toward Topeka, which was reached on 22 January. It is claimed that, by the time they reached St. Louis, the party’s supply of caviar and champagne had been exhausted.

General Custer became one of the Duke’s best friends. He accompanied the Duke and his entourage through Kansas, to St. Louis, New Orleans, and finally to Florida. They continued to correspond with one another up until Custer death.

In the United States, the hunt is remembered as “The Great Royal Buffalo Hunt”. Starting from the year 2000, the Hayes Center, Nebraska organizes each year the “Grand Duke Alexis Rendezvous” featuring a reenactment of the buffalo hunt.

Grand Duke Alexei received as a gift from chief Spotted Tail an Indian wigman and a bow and arrows. The Grand Duke took them back to St. Petersburg. At present they are kept at the museum in Tver. In memory of his adventures in the America, the Grand Duke organized every year a special entertainment. The actors arrived to a village of tents in old carriages drawn by heavy horses. On the palaces lake there were “Indian” pirogues. Men with sword and tomahawks danced with women dressed in long old skirts. The performance was supposed to give the attendance an image of the American Old West.

The southern states

While in St. Louis, the Grand Duke made a short visit to Cincinnati, Ohio on 26 January On 28 January he left by train for Louisville, Kentucky, where he visited the Mammoth Cave He continued his trip by steamer, arriving on 2 February 1872 in Memphis Tennessee aboard the Great Republic. After visiting the city he left on 8 February aboard the James Howard and after a stop in Vicksburg he finally arrived in New Orleans

Poster of the Rex parade of 1872

Visit to New Orleans

In New Orleans Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich attended the 1872 Mardi Gras celebrations, where he was guest of honor reviewing the inaugural Rex parade.

There are many legends related to the Grand Duke visit to New Orleans. Though it has been claimed that local business leaders had planned the first daytime parade to honor the Grand Duke, but this was not true. New Orleans was struggling to recover from the lingering effects of the civil war. At the same time, many city leaders saw the need to bring some order to the chaotic street parades of Mardi Gras day. They had planned the parade all along and took the opportunity to capitalize on the Grand Duke visit. A new krewe of prominent citizens was formed, calling itself the School of Design and its ruler was to be Rex (the organization is now known as the “Rex Organization”). The group of young men who founded the Rex Organization hoped not only to entertain the Grand Duke, but also to create a daytime parade that would be attractive and fun for the citizens of the city and their guests. They selected one of their members, Lewis J. Salomon, the organization fund-raiser to be the first Rex, King of Carnival. Before he could begin his reign, he had to borrow a crown, scepter, and costume from Lawrence Barrett, a distinguished Shakespearean actor who was performing Richard III at the Varieties Theater.

At the same time, Lydia Thompson tour had reached New Orleans and the Bluebeard burlesque was staged at the Academy of Music on St. Charles Avenue. Rumours of the courtship between the Grand Duke and the actress had reached New Orleans and were amplified mainly to ensure a full house. The Duke had already seen the performance and was a no-show, hanging out at the Jockey Club. Besides, the Grand Duke preferences had shifted and he was captivated by the diminutive actress Lotta Crabtree who had one of the main roles in the play The Little Detective. Though the encounter was brief, Alexis sent her a bracelet of diamonds, opals and pearls in Memphis, her next stop after New Orleans.

The Duke however attended the Rex parade. According to legend, the song “If Ever I Cease to Love”, was chosen as anthem of the Rex parade, because it was claimed to be the Duke favorite tune. Actually, the silly song had been written by George Leybourne and published in London in 1871. The song was popular in New Orleans long before the first Rex parade in 1872. the local adaptation of the lyrics was likely done local journalist E.C. Hancock whose newspaper had already published a spoof of the song in 1871. The lyrics of the song were adapted to the occasion and changed to:

“May the Grand Duke Alexis

Ride a buffalo in Texas

If Ever I Cease to Love”

The Grand Duke never rode a buffalo in Texas, but Nebraska doesn rhyme with Alexis.

It is also claimed that the Grand Duke was also given the honour of selecting the official colours for Mardi Gras, and using the heraldic traditions, selected purple for justice, green for faith, and gold for power. The claim that these were the colors of the Romanov family is however incorrect.

The parade which the Grand Duke attended, bears little resemblance to present day parades. Rex rode a horse, not a float and the parade that followed was made up largely of the informal maskers and marchers. There were however bands who stopped and played the Russian national anthem in honor of the Grand Duke. But many traditions such as the selection of Rex, the King of the Parade, the Rex anthem, the parade colors date back to the Grand Duke visit.
The Russian fleet set sail from Pensacola, Florida of 22 February 1872. It is claimed that hundreds of pounds of iced buffalo meat were carefully stowed aboard.

While Libbie Custer, general Custer’s wife, believed the grand duke was more interested in “pretty girls and music” than the country he was passing through, Alexei did spend most of his time trying to get an understanding of the country.

Good Will Mission to Japan

The voyage to the Far East

On its way home the Russian squadron first stopped in Havana, Cuba, which it reached on 29 February. At that time, Cuba was still a Spanish colony and in the middle of the Ten Years’ War against the insurgents, who had attempted to declare the island independence. Though fighting was still going on the western part of the island against the rebels under the command of Carlos Manuel de Cspedes , the hostilities did not prevent governor Blas Villate, count of Valmaceda to receive the Grand Duke with full honors. During his stay in Havana, balls were organized every evening. Alexei also attended the operas Crispino e la Comare and Martha at the Great Theatre of Havana where, at the beginning of the play, the opera choir sang the Russian national anthem. The Grand Duke also visited the works of the Canal de Vento (now called Acueducto de Albear) for the water supply of the city, saw a cock fight in the city of Marianao and a corrida in the “Plaza de Torros” of Havana. In the following days he also went to the Yumur River valley and to the city of Matanzas

The Russian squadron then stopped in Rio de Janeiro where it arrived on 3 June 1872. The Grand Duke entertained emperor Pedro II of Brazil and the imperial court aboard the Svetlana. The Braziliam emperor awarded him the Imperial Order of Dom Pedro I. The Grand Duke looked slightly disappointed and said that he had hoped for the Imperial Order of the Rose, a lower order, because he had never seen a more beautiful order. Pedro II graciously awarded him both orders. Thereafter, he spent several days in Brazil, leaving on 9 June.

Sailing to the Far East, the squadron stopped in Cape Town, Batavia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canton and Shanghai
Telegram sent by Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich to Tsar Alexander II confirming the visit of the Japanese Emperor

Tour of Japan

On 15 October 1872 the Russian squadron cast anchor in Nagasaki harbour, where he was greeted by the governor. The program of the Grand Duke included a ceremonial dinner in his honour, visits to the surrounding countryside and a tournament of 60 best wrestlers of Japan. On 22 October Alexei and his staff visited a little village Inasa where a Russian colony lived. The Russians delegation visited two hotels named “Kronstadt” and “Moscow” as well as the Russian cemetery.

The Russian squadron left Nagasaki on 24 October, the next port of call being Kobe, where the Grand Duke was again greeted by the provincial governor. The Russians were surprised by the jinrikshas which they saw for the first time. They used rickshaws for their trip to the Nunobeki water falls in the proximity of the city. Grand Duke Alexei also attended a performance at the local theatre in Kobe.

On 1 November the Russian squadron set sail for Yokohama. The Grand Duke was met by Prince Arisugawa Taruhito, the Daij daijin (Chancellor of the Realm) who escorted him to Edo Castle. At the castle Alexei met Soejima Taneomi Head of the Gaimush (Department of foreign affairs). who made the arrangements for the accommodation and the entertainment of the Russian delegation. On 5 November, the Grand Duke was officially received by Japanese Emperor Meiji.

Emperor Meiji, presented his portrait a gift for the Tsar, the first time ever a Japanese emperor portrait was given to a foreigner, and asked for a portrait of Alexander II in return. The Great Prince Alexeis promised to send the portrait as soon as he got back to St.-Petersburg, and, as soon as he came on-board the Svetlana, sent his own portrait to thank the Mikado. The exchange continued and, the next day, the Emperor sent over the portraits of his spouse and mother.

On 9 November, Alexei and the Mikado viewed the parade of the Japanese armed forces, and upon his return to the palace, he was introduced to the Empress Masako. After a few days, the Mikado at the invitation of the Grand Duke, the Mikado went to Yokohama to see the Russian squadron. Following the Grand Duke intervention, 34 Japanese Christians were pardoned by the Mikado and released.

On 26 November the Russian squadron set sail for Vladivostok reaching the base of the Russian Pacific Fleet on 5 December nearly a year and a half after it had left from Kronstadt. He then returned to St. Petersburg across Siberia
Palace of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich on the Moika Embankment of Saint Petersburg

Palace of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich

After his return from America, Grand Duke Alexei was concerned about an appropriate residence. He purchased an older building located at 122 Moika River Embankment in Saint Petersburg. The building was completely redesigned and rebuilt by architect Maximilian Messmacher having a total surface of 9,200 sq.m. It is considered one of the most interesting examples of Saint Petersburg eclectic architecture. The architect used a different style for each faade. The wrought iron and stone fence surrounding the palace and its gardens is also an interesting feature. The central gates are still ornamented with the Grand Duke monogram, the meaning of which was overlooked by the Soviet authorities. In 1910 part of the gardens were sold for the construction of a candy factory. Though the palace was declared a national landmark in 1968, it remained in disrepair for many years. At present, the palace is undergoing major restoration. It will be open in December 2008 as the House of Music.

Military career

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich in the uniform of admiral general of Russia

In 1873, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich was appointed head of the Imperial Naval Guards. He was also appointed member of the section for shipbuilding and naval artillery of the Russian Naval Technical Committee.

During the Russo-Turkish War (18771878) he was promoted commander of the Russian Naval Forces on the Danube. On 9 January 1878 he was distinguished with the Order of St. George Fourth Degree for “tireless and successful management of the naval forces and equipment on 14 June 1877 for the construction and maintenance of the pontoon bridges and crossings at Zimnicea, Pietroani and Nikopol and for the successful measures for protecting these crossing from destruction by enemy forces.”

In 1880 he was promoted general adjutant. In 1882 after the accession of Tsar Alexander III to the throne, Alexander III, Alexei was appointed head of the Naval Department, replacing Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaievich. In 1883 he was also appointed General Admiral of the Russian Imperial Fleet. Though his control over the day-to-day affairs of the military is limited, Alexei is involved in naval and military planning. His influence over the Tsar gives him a powerful say in strategic decision-making.

Besides being the head of Russia fleets, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich was also in command of the naval cadet corps, the Moskow guard regiment, the 37-th Ekaterinburg infantry regiment, the 77-th Tenginsk infantry regiment, and the 17-th Eastern Siberian infantry regiment.

As commander in chief of the navy, the Grand Duke’s main concern was the constant modernization of the fleet, taking into account the rapid technological progress. During his tenure he ensured a five-fold increase of the navy’s budget. He was able to launch a series of pre-dreadnought battleships which were replacing the old ironclad ships. Thus he was instrumental in the equipment of the Russian navy with several battleships of various classes:

The Peresviet class, inspired by the British battleship HMS Centurion.

The Borodino class, based on a French design by the shipyards in La Seyne-sur-Mer

The Petropavlovsk class designed at Galerniy Yard, St. Petersburg,

The Navarin class, on the British Trafalgar class battleship

He also had older ironclads of the Imperator Aleksandr II class reconstructed by the Fench La Seyne yard. He also put new cruisers in service (among which the cruiser Aurora).

The Grand Duke was instrumental in the modernization of the Russian navy. reconstructed and developed of the military harbours of Sevastopol, Alexander III in Livada (now Liepja, Latvia) and Port Arthur, increased of the number of navy yards and extended the dry-docks in Kronstadt, Vladivostok and Sevastopol. He also reorganized the navy, defining the conditions for different naval qualifications, drafting of rules for rewarding long-time service of first and second rank ship captains, restructuring of the corps of mechanical engineers and naval engineers, increasing the number of officers and crew.

When tensions mounted in the Far East, Grand Duke Alexei ordered the transfer of additional ships to Port Arthur, including the battleship Petropavlovsk.

Russian academician and naval engineer Alexei Nikolaevich Krylov shows that, despite these achievements, there were severe drawbacks in the Grand Duke activity. There was no strategic planning and ships were not built based on their intended role within the fleet. There were too many ships of different types. Ships were designed mainly by copying the ones of foreign navies, and were therefore technologically 67 year old when they were launched. Their armour and equipment was often inadequate.

The Grand Duke seems to have become aware of some the these deficiencies. He decided to have more battleships of a single type and to have them designed abroad to meet the needs of the Russian navy. However, though the Grand Duke was an admirer of the British navy, the new battleships were conceived in France and had a poor design. The new Borodino class battleships had tumblehome hulls and were unstable, having a high center of gravity. The drawbacks proved to be fatal for the Russian navy.

At the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904 the Russian First Pacific Squadron was able to resist the Japanese attack during the Battle of the Yellow Sea. However, the squadron was destroyed during the battle for Port Arthur, and the Baltic Fleet, sent for reinforcement was completely defeated in the Battle of Tsushima. On 2 June 1905 O.S., Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovitch was relieved of his command and retired.

Life at the Russian court

Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich and the Duchess of Leuchtenberg

His critics talked of Alexei’ life as consisting of “fast women and slow ships,” referring to his womanizing and the defeat of the Russian navy by the Japanese. This statement is not justified, because, despite any drawbacks, his contribution to the modernization of the Russian Navy was outstanding. Away from his desk Alexei devoted his time to the good things of life. He entertained generously and collected fine silver and other works of art to adorn his palace. Sometimes he designed his own clothes. A womanizer, he spent his vacations in Paris or in Biarritz, each time in the company of a different lady.

Around the late 1880s he started a celebrated affair with the Duchess of Leuchtenberg, the morganatic wife of one of his cousins. Born Zinaida Skobelyeva, “Zina” was a strikingly beautiful woman who had married Eugeni of Leuchtenberg as his second wife in 1870. Alexander II made her Countess de Beauharnais and Alexander III raised her to Serene Highness and Duchess of Leuchtenberg. Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich was so besotted with her that he conducted an affair openly, under her husband’s roof and in his full knowledge. Eugeni Leuchtenberg drank away most of his fortune, and for years he and Zenaida lived off his cousin’s generosity. Even after his wife’s death in 1899 the Duke continued to live under Alexei’s roof.

Besides his military duties, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich also was chairman of the Imperial Commission for the Promotion of Ballet.

In 1904, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich was one of the godparents of Tsarevich Alexei, the other godparents being the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom, King Christian IX of Denmark, Grand Duke Ernest Ludwig of Hesse, Crown Princess Victoria of Prussia, Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna, Grand Duke Michael Nikolaevich, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaievna. Besides, all soldiers serving in the military during the Russo-Japanese War were declared godfathers to Alexei.

Death

After the assassination of his brother Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia in February 1905 and his retirement in disgrace from the navy in June that same year, Alexei Alexandrovich spent most of his time in a Paris house which he had bought in 1897. At his house in Avenue Gabriel he kept open door for writers, painters, actors and especially actresses. He had always been less interested in the armed services than in art and fashion, and he had long since been recognized as a connoisseur of the social, artistic and literary life of Paris. His massive frame was a familiar sight at restaurants and theaters, particularly on first nights. His last public appearance, a week before his death, was at the dress rehearsal of a new play at the vaudeville. Decades of comfort and good living eventually took their toll on the Grand Duke’s health. He died of pneumonia in Paris on 27 November (14 November O.S.) 1908. His death was said to have devastated Tsar Nicholas II, his nephew, who reportedly claimed Alexei as his favourite uncle. In 2006 the diary of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich was found in the Russian National Library along with Yussupov funds. The journal, written in English, begins in 1862 and ends in 1907. It has not been published yet.

Popular culture

The Grand Duke’s western hunt is alluded to in the film version of Maverick, starring Mel Gibson. In the film, the Duke is hustled, after he has grown bored with hunting animals, into thinking he has killed a Native American.

He is also described by Boris Akunin in his novel “The coronation of the last Romanov” (, ) where he is presented as the character Georgi Aleksandrovich.

The 1973 Lucky Luke comic book Le Grand Duc features a Russian Grand Duke who visits the Wild West.

Notes

^ a b c d .. – - ( ) –
^ Jacques Ferrand – Descendances naturelles des souverains et Grand-Ducs de Russie de 1762 1910, Paris, 1995

^ Jacques Ferrand – Les familles comtales de lncien Empire de Russie, Paris, 1999

^ 1797 Fundamental laws of Emperor Paul I of Russia.
^ a b Stanislaw Dumin – Les Romanov et la rpublique de Saint-Marin

^ The Question settled. Confirmation of the Grand Duke visit to America New York Times, 30 June 1871
^ Grand Duke Alexis. His Departure For America In August The Fleet Fitting Out At Cronstadt The Probable Programme. The New York Times, 16 May 1871
^ Preparations for the American Tour of the Grand Duke. The New York Times, 19 June 1871
^ Grand Duke Alexis. Departure of His Imperial Highness from Cronstadt. He is in Command of a Royal Squadron. The New York Times, 21 August 1871
^ Imposing Reception of the Grand Duke Alexis at Plymouth. The English Fleet Tender Him an Imperial Salute. Festivities at the Royal Navy Club-House. The Duke of Edinburgh Receives His Royal Cousin. Preparations at London for the Duke’s Reception. The New York Times 18 September 1871
^ Departure of the Russian squadron for New York The New York Times, 27 September 1871
^ The Russian Reception. Alexis Not Yet Arrived. Dates from Madeira The New York Times, 29 October 1871
^ Official Reception of Prince Alexis Personals. The New York Times, 4 October 1871
^ The Coming Reception of the Grand Duke Alexis. – The New York Times, 27 April 1871
^ Honors To Alexis. A Cordial Welcome To The Russian Grand Duke. The New York Times 22 November 1971
^ On Board the Mary Powell. The Grand Duke’s Reception by the Committee The New York Times 21 November 1871

^ On the Mary Powell. The Grand Duke Reception The New York Times 22 November 1871
^ The Grand Duke. Departure from New-York for the National Capital. A Special Train at His Service Throughout the Visit. Enthusiastic Reception by the People of Baltimore. Safe Arrival of the Visitors in Washington. The New York Times 23 November 1871
^ a b White House – Royal And Titled Guests, 1908

^ The Grand Duke Pays His Respects to the President. – The New York Times, 24 November 1871
^ The City of Brooklyn.; The Grand Naval Ball. Honors to Grand Duke Alexis at the Brooklyn Navy-Yard The New York Times, 24 November 1871
^ Arrival In This City. The Grand Duke Reaches This City at the Appointed Hour Programme for the Coming Week. The New York Times, 25 November 1871
^ The Grand Duke Visits the Federal Military Fortifications. . The New York Times, 25 November 1871
^ A Quiet Sunday for the Grand Duke and His Party. The New York Times, 27 November 1871
^ The Grand Duke. His Movements Yesterday- The New York Times 28 November 1871
^ Prince Alexis. Yesterday’s Festivities in Honor of the Grand Duke. The New York Times, 29 November 1871
^ How Alexis Passed the Day A Shopping Excursion The New York Times, 30 November 1871
^ The Grand Duke’s Visit. A Trip to West Point The New York Times 2 December 1871

^ The Season of Opera The New York Times, 2 December 1871

^ Grand Duke Alexis. How He Passed His Time Yesterday And Last Evening. Presentation Of Admiral Farragut’s Picture The New York Times 3 December 1871
^ The Grand Duke: Reception at Philadelphia The New York Times, 5 December 1871
^ Return of the Grand Duke The New York Times, 6 December 1871

^ Duke Alexis in Boston The New York Times, December 9, 1871

^ Alexis Visits the Boston Public Schools He Asks for Statistics, Reports, and Rules and Regulations The New York Times 13 December 1871
^ The Russian Prince -How He Passed His Second Day in Boston. Particulars Concerning the Ball The New York Times, 10 December 1871
^ Expense of Boston Ball in Honor of the Grand Duke The New York Times, 20 December 1871
^ Telegraphic Brevities The New York Times, 15 December 1871

^ The Grand Duke. Breakfast with the Mayor of Montreal The New York Times, 16 December 1871
^ The Grand Duke. Breakfast with the Mayor of Montreal The New York Times, 16 decembrie 1871
^ Royal Party at the Falls of Niagara. Telegram from Queen Victoria The New York Times 25 December 1871
^ Reappearance of the Grand Duke Alexis from the Canadian Snows His Future Movements The New York Times, 23 December 1871
^ Westward Progress of the Grand Duke of Russia The New York Times, 27 December 1871
^ Chicago The Grand Duke and New Year Day The New York Times, 4 January 1872
^ About Carnival

^ a b c d Norman E. Saul – Concord and Conflict: The United States and Russia, 1867-1914. University of Kansas Press, 1996, ISBN 978-0700607549

^ The Grand Duke Alexis arrived at Omaha The New York Times, 13 January 1872
^ The Hunt of the Grand Duke Alexis

^ Buffalo Hunting by the Grand Duke The New York Times 14 January 1872

^ a b Jean Day – Buffalo Hunting – The Red Devils Chapter 29

^ Grand duke enjoyed Topeka visit – Topeka Capital-Journal, The, 21 May 2001
^ The Grand Duke Alexis

^ William F. Cody The Adventures of Buffalo Bill Cosimo Classics, 2005 ISBN978-1596056275

^ Andreas’ History of the State of Nebraska

^ Buffalo Hunt in Nebraska by the Grand Duke Alexis of Russia in 1872

^ When a Romanov came a huntin’ Grand Duke Alexis: Russian came to Kansas in 1872 to go after the buffalo – By Bill Blankenship
^ The Hunt fo the Grand Duke Alexis

^ a b Walt Sehnert – The Grand Duke Alexis – McCook Gazette, Monday, 31 December 2007
^ Grand Duke Alexis Rendezvous

^ a b c
^ The Grand Duke Alexis. Cincinnati Redeeming its Character for Courtesy. The New York Times. 29 January 1872
^ The Grand Duke going to Louisville, Ky The New York Times 28 January 1872
^ The Grand Duke Alexis. The New York Times 30 January 1872

^ Movements of the Grand Duke Alexis The New York Times. 2 February 1872
^ The Grand Duke Alexis was at Vicksburg yesterday The New York Times 11 February 1872
^ Arrival of the Grand Duke at the Crescent City. The New York Times 13 February 1872
^ Errol Laborde – Mardi Gras.- History 2: The First Bathurst

^ History of Mardi Gras in New Orleans
^ Ned Hmard – New Orleans Nostalgia “She Was Only the Stable Master Daughter”
^ Rex King of Carnival

^ Renee Kutcher – Krewes Mardi Gras at www.miniature.net

^ New Orleans Know-It-All

^ Discovery of the American West

^ Arrival of the Grand Duke Alexis in Havana The New York Times, 1 March 1872
^ Arrival of the Grand Duke and Suite at Havana State Dining. The New York Times 1 March 1872
^ Cuba: The Progress of the War – The New York Times, 3 March 1872

^ Alexis The Grand Duke in Havana-His Arrival and Reception The New York Times, 11 March 1872
^ Alexis.; The Grand Duke’s Sojourn In Havana–The Ball At The Palace–A Sunday Cock-Fight–A Trip To Matanzas–At The Theatre–A Festive Week. The Palace Ball. Trip To Matanzas. At The Theatre. A Bull-Fight. The Duke’s Departure. The New York Times, 15 March 1872
^ The Alexander Palace Time Machine

^ Brazil – The New York Times, 23 July 1872

^ Arrival of the Grand Duke Alexis at Cape Town. – The New York Times, 24 August 1872
^ South Africa: The Grand Duke Alexis’ Visit to Cape Town Ended – The New York Times, 6 September 1872
^ -Arrival of the Grand Duke Alexis at Hong Kong. -The New York Times, 18 September 1872
^ China: Movements of the Grand Duke Alexis. – The New York Times 13 October 1872
^ China: The Grand Duke Alexis -The New York Times, 16 November 1872

^ a b Imperial Russian State Council, 1902

^ Japan: Reception of the Grand Duke Alexis – The New York Times, 17 December 1872
^ .. –
^ a b
^ Palace of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich

^ Palace of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich

^ Pepsi Nunes The Evolution of the Imperial Russian Navy and the Grand Dukes 1850-1917 Atlantis Magazine, Vol.2, 2001 Nr3-4., Vol.3 2002, Nr.1

^ a b c Zeepvat, Romanov Autumn, p. 150

^ a b c d Zeepvat, Romanov Autumn, p. 151

^ Romanovs of Russia

^ a b Van der Kiste, The Romanovs 1818-1959, p. 179

^ Journal of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich

References

Chavchavadze, David. The Grand Dukes. Atlantic, 1989. ISBN 0938311115

Ferrand, Jacques, Descendances naturelles des souverains et grands-ducs de Russie, de 1762 1910 : rpertoire gnalogique,1995.

Nunes, Pepsi, The Evolution of the Imperial Russian Navy and the Grand Dukes 18501917. Atlantis Magazine, Vol.2, 2001 Nr34., Vol.3 2002, Nr.1

Van Der Kiste, John. The Romanovs 18181959. Sutton Publishing, 1999. ISBN 0-7509-2275-3.

Zeepvat, Charlotte. Romanov Autumn. Sutton Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7509-2739-9

Ancestry

v  d  e

Ancestors of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Peter III of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Paul I of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. Catherine II of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Nicholas I of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18. Friedrich II Eugen, Duke of Wrttemberg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Sophie Dorothea of Wrttemburg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Friederike Dorothea of Brandenburg-Schwedt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Alexander II of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. Frederick William II of Prussia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Frederick William III of Prussia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Frederika Louisa of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Charlotte of Prussia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22. Charles II, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. Friederike Caroline Luise of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Louis I, Grand Duke of Hesse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. Karoline of Zweibrcken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26. Georg Wilhelm of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Louise of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27. Luise of Leiningen-Heidesheim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Marie of Hesse and by Rhine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28. Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. Charles Louis of Baden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29. Karoline Luise of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Wilhelmine of Baden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30. Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Amalie of Hesse-Darmstadt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31. Karoline of Zweibrcken

 

 

 

 

 

 

v  d  e

Grand Dukes of Russia

1st Generation

Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich  Alexander Petrovich  Paul Petrovitch  Peter Petrovich  Paul Petrovich  Peter Petrovich

2nd Generation

Peter II

3rd Generation

Peter III

4th Generation

Paul I

5th Generation

Alexander I  Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich  Nicholas I  Grand Duke Michael Pavlovich

6th Generation

Alexander II  Grand Duke Constantine Nicholaevich  Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich  Grand Duke Michael Nicholaevich

7th Generation

Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich  Alexander III  Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich  Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich  Grand Duke Nicholas Constantinovich  Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich  Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich  Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich  Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich  Grand Duke Dimitri Constantinovich  Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich  Grand Duke Michael Mikhailovich  Grand Duke Viacheslav Constantinovich  Grand Duke George Mikhailovich  Grand Duke Peter Nicholaevich  Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich  Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich  Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich
8th Generation

Nicholas II  Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich  Grand Duke George Alexandrovich  Grand Duke Alexander Vladimirovich  Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich  Grand Duke Boris Vladimirovich  Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich  Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovich  Grand Duke John Constantinovich*  Grand Duke Gabriel Constantinovich*  Grand Duke Dimitri Pavlovich

9th Generation

Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich  Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich

10th Generation

Grand Duke Michael Pavlovich**

11th Generation

Grand Duke George Mikhailovich**

*born a Grand Duke, but stripped of his title by Alexander III’s ukase of 1886, limiting the style to only male-line grandsons of a tsar

**title granted by Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia

Categories: House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov | Imperial Russian Navy admirals | Members of the State Council of the Russian Empire | Russian royalty | Recipients of the Order of Saint Stanislaus (Russian) | 1850 births | 1908 deaths | Recipients of the Order of Saint George IV Class | Recipients of the Order of Saint Andrew the First-CalledHidden categories: Articles with links needing disambiguation

Find More Duke Law Articles