The somewhat glib answer to "real" cultural succession is a mixture of no one or it depends on how one interprets culture. Although the Commonwealth had a rich cultural legacy, fitting such early modern idioms into modern-day conceptions of national identity like Polish or Belorussian is a highly difficult task. "Ethnicity" in the in the Commonwealth was highly fluid and plastic concept and common twenty-first century markers of ethnic identity like language do not fit. For example, bilingualism complicates trying to lay specific claim on cultural figures of the Commonwealth. The Lublin Union began a process wherein Polish became the language of state and high culture in the Lithuanian regions, while the local vernacular remained intact and distinct from Polish. No one contemporary nation-state can convincingly lay claim to be the direct heir to the Commonwealth because nationality as a fundamental concept of identity did not exist in the early modern period. Is a poet who writes in Polish but self-identifies as a Lithuanian and comes from the Lithuanian gentry Polish or Lithuanian? There is no easy answer.

This problem has not prevented nationalist activists and some nation-states to try and derive legitimacy from the Commonwealth. Timothy Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999 is a book that delves into both the Commonwealth and how the post-partition generations have tried to sublimate its cultural legacy into their national projects.