Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I guess we were talking about the question 'if Nicholas had been rescued could the abdication be undone?'

The answer is simple... Yes it could have been undone, because it had never happened officially, the abdication was and is illegal. (The succession after the murder of Tsar Nicholas II is something else)

1) The abdication Nicholas made, wasnt so much a surprise to him, he was aware of the possibility of it happening a long time before already.

2) The illegal abdication was an instrument to be able to flee with his family to a safe haven..to reconnect with staff and other officials. wheter this be the Crimea or England (I think it was the first) or another place - that it didnt happen this way was caused by the Empress, who refused to leave the Alexander palace with her children... (she was under a lot of stress and lacked the guidance to act more decisively. Her youngest child had been very sick for years and now all her children were sick. So it isnt strange that she was traumatised and didnt know what to do.)

3) The Imperial Duma, did not exist legally, they continued to assembel without permission of the authority (and that was Nicholas) So agreeing with a non-offical governemental body is simply not possible.

4) Any abdication of a Autocrat of all the Russians is in itself illegal. It is a God given right that no authority on earth can undo. (not even the Tsar himself). The main act of the coronation stresses this.. The Tsar puts the Imperial crown on his head himself, indicating there is no other power but Gods that has given him this right. It would be an act against God to abdicate. (*this is probably why the Empress Catherine II - for instance - was very keen on the execution or murder of her husband and other pretenders.)

5) GD Michael didnt accept the throne, because he knew that the abdication was illegal.

6) GD Michael asked for the creation of a new governemental body through elections to create new fundamental laws for a NEW Russian State. Confirming the fact that under the OLD laws and the old system he could not succeed his brother who had issued an illegal manifesto.

ps sorry for the mistakes in the English language
 
bartholomeus, that is exactly the question that I was asking when I proposed this thread, so thank you. You've answered what I was looking for.

I always wondered if, should Alexei or GD Michael have reached safe haven, either could have stepped up to the Throne.

Your English is fantastic, by the way.

Now I'm going to go start another thread, because I have a second part of this question that I don't think fits well into this one.

Thanks to everyone!
 
Last edited:
I've had a bit of a struggle trying to correctly word this question, so please bear with me.

It's my understanding that the Emperor Paul, son of Catherine the Great, instituted the Fundamental Laws as a direct response to his troubled relationship with his mother, and one of the primary purposes of the Fundamental Laws was the exclusion of females from the line of succession unless male dynasts had died out or become ineligible.

As Emperor, did Nicholas have the power and the authority to undo this, and to set forth a new line of succession? I would think as autocrat, he would - but I simply do not know.

If he did - would it have then been possible for him to institute a line of succession that would have been ordered:

Alexis, son of Nicholas and Alexandra;

G.D. Michael, brother of Nicholas;

Olga, daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra;
(her lawfully born male children of a dynastic marriage; )
(her lawfully born female children of a dynastic marriage; )

Tatiana, daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra;
(her lawfully born male children of a dynastic marriage; )
(her lawfully born female children of a dynastic marriage; )

Maria, daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra;
(her lawfully born male children of a dynastic marriage; )
(her lawfully born female children of a dynastic marriage; )

Anastastia daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra;
(her lawfully born male children of a dynastic marriage; )
(her lawfully born female children of a dynastic marriage; )

then switching over to the cousins, Vladimir and his descendents.


The reason I ask this is, that if it were possible to have made this change, it may then have been possible, probable, and even prudent to send the girls abroad, and continue the dynasty in exile, in a much more direct line. In addition, the emotional attachment that would be preserved toward the direct descendents of Nicholas would have precluded a great deal of the bickering that goes on now. (I am of the opinion that none of the current claimants have any rights to the fictional throne, just so you know where my position lies.) I'm also making the assumption that Alexis would not have survived his illness long enough to marry and father an heir, and that Olga would have reigned after either her father, her uncle, or her brother.

I realize that the family, even before the Revolution, had a rather tight-knit and even unusually strong attachment to the point that the older girls, although highly marriageable, were given all opportunity to decline marriage and stay with the primary family.

I believe that there were a number of eligible suitors for the Grand Duchesses. I have read, for instance, that Louis, Lord Mountbatten, nurtured a deep love for his distant cousin, G.D. Maria; that marriage could certainly have been considered dynastic.

So back to the original question and its outgrowths: was it within Nicholas' power to change the Fundamental Laws with regard to succession, and could he have changed the laws in the manner that I outline?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Maybe Nicholas could have changed the succession laws; but if he would have admitted females in the Succession, his daughters probably would have been between Alexis and Michael, and not after their uncle...
About the possible wedding between Lord Mountbatten and GD Maria, it would have been valid if the Tsar would have changed the Laws, because according to the "real" Laws the marriage would have been morganatic; maybe authorised by the Tsar but morganatic...
 
NotAPretender said:
bartholomeus, that is exactly the question that I was asking when I proposed this thread, so thank you. You've answered what I was looking for.

I always wondered if, should Alexei or GD Michael have reached safe haven, either could have stepped up to the Throne.

Your English is fantastic, by the way.

Now I'm going to go start another thread, because I have a second part of this question that I don't think fits well into this one.

Thanks to everyone!
Click to expand...

Thanks great to be of help..
 
Yes, Nicholas could have changed the succession laws. I dont emmediately remember the source of the next thing that im going to write but I believe there was research done or a draft manifesto on this subject was created, before the birth of the Tsarevitch Alexei. This procedure was dropped after his birth and never seriously talked about anymore, mainly because it would betray the Tsarevitch's illnes to the people.

One must also take into account that there were a lot of men in the Imperial house who all had the right to succeed before one of Nicholas's daughters.

In the times of the empresses Catherine, Anna and Elizabeth. A woman could succeed but she would have to be made heir during her life by the ruling monarch or be appointed by an Imperial council (members appointed by the deceased former Emperor)

The Emperor Paul changed these rules when he issued new house laws, into a strickt 'salic-law'. But these rules have been changed in the following generations..

so it definately would have been possible for Nicholas to do so, but not wise to do without the support of the Grand Dukes, the military leaders and the Church.

Nicholas as Emperor could theoretically issue a manifesto in which he would have proclaimed one of his daughters to be his heir and/or appoint a council that would have chosen an heir on his behalf, and that could perhaps have been a woman.

Theoretically, (if Nicholas would not have appointed a female heir or a Council) if a woman would have the overall power to get rid of any male opponents (and there were a lot Grand Dukes to take into account and with get rid of I mean: make them swear allegiance to her, exile them or remove their political/military or spiritual power in another way) she could be proclaimed Empress with the support of the Russian church and a vast majority of the military leaders. I guess since Nicholas allowed a Imperial Duma to exist in the country, it's members would have to be summoned to recognize the newly proclaimed Empress also.
 
I personally think it would have been much more difficult for Nicholas to allow all of his daughters to take a place in the order of succession.

A female heir - if proclaimed by Nicholas - would have been an exeption. She would - in exile - firstly have to marry a dynast. (not so difficult with all the princes around at that stage) If she would not produce a male heir, there would be a serious succession crisis. I dont know what would have happened.

I think we would end up with the same situation as we have now, serious divisions in the Imperial House.
 
Nicholas was a weak Tsar who was very much dominated by his uncles during his troubled reign. Changing the succession in favor of the female line through his daughters would have resulted in a huge breach with the Grand Dukes and possibly his mother as well.

I doubt he would have done it.
 
absolutely.. I agree completely on the position of the Grand Dukes...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, so I understand correctly (as the Fundamental Laws are something that I am not well schooled in...)

The Emperor would essentially have to have the approval of the other dynasts to change the order of succession?

If yes, then you're right - it would be impossible.

----------------------------
One of the reasons that I posed this is that it seems to me that Nicholas is the last undisputed Head of the Household and Emperor. Everyone that follows who claims these positions has shadows over their claims, some insurrmountable. Nicholas would have been the last person to be able to change the succession from a position of undisputed power.
 
Last edited:
If the Emperor Nicholas II wanted to change te succession he could officially have done it, there is no doubt about that. As Autocrat of All the Russians he needed permission from no one to do it.

Taking into account the previous post on the power of the Grand Dukes and te Church, the weak position of the Tsar - especially after 1905 - the proclamation of one of his daughters as heir would have created serious troubles in the Imperial family, something Nicholas simply couldnt risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not think that Nicholas II would have changed the succession laws. Nicholas II was not known for rocking the boat and would have continued with the male primogeniture. Additionally, The Romanovs had enough males to continue the bloodline. I assume that Nicholas II would have named Grand Duke Michael as his heir because this was what his parents wanted.
 
Al_bina said:
I do not think that Nicholas II would have changed the succession laws. Nicholas II was not known for rocking the boat and would have continued with the male primogeniture. Additionally, The Romanovs had enough males to continue the bloodline. I assume that Nicholas II would have named Grand Duke Michael as his heir because this was what his parents wanted.
Click to expand...

Hi Al-bina!

Yes, I can see where it would make logical sense to name GD Michael as heir after Alexei - he was the "spare" for his lifetime when he wasn't the actual heir. But that would have just forced the succession crisis down a generation, since he had no legitimate heir and his marriage to Nathalie Brasova was non-dynastic; their son George was also a non-dynast. And the Empress was not a fan of GD Michael, to be sure.

Russia had had several capable female rulers. Of course, we know so little about Olga and Tatiana, so we can't really say if they would have been capable or not. But with a nice clutch of daughters in hand, it seems to me that Nicholas and Alexandra could have done a lot worse than turn to the clay at hand for successors.

I guess - that's exactly what they did - "a lot worse."
 
Russian Empress ... I am not sure ... Catherine I was a puppet, I dare to say, for Prince Menshikov and Count Tolstoy backed up by the Privy Council. Anna Ivanovna of Russia was very influenced by much-hated Ernst Johann von Biron. The only relatively independent successful female rulers were: (1)Elizabeth I of Russia, who ascended the throne because she was Peter I's daughter (i.e., captilised on her father's great deeds for Russia); and (2)Catherine II, who became an Empress because she was shrewd enough to capitalise on her husband's love for everything Prussian that was unpopular with Russian power elite/army/common people. What could Grand Duchess Olga or Grand Duchess Tatiana have capitalised on to convince Russian power elite/army/common people of her ability to be an effective ruler? Not much... I believe.
Russia was more Asian in terms of the succession: male heirs via legitimate equal marriages. The succession line would have moved to other branches of the Romanovs: Grand Duke Constantine Nickolaevich and his sons, for instance.
 
And more, the Grand Duchesses, daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra, were not educated to reign...
 
I have always thought it was stupid they couldn't change the law. If one Tsar made a law another can change it. I don't think it's right he should have to ask other dynasts, because of course they're going to say no since it would hurt them in the line of succession. But look, he was TSAR! He had ABSOLUTE POWER! Why did he have to care what they thought? He wasn't on good terms with the Vladmiriovichi, the next in line, anyway. Why not bump them out of it? Michael would not be ahead of Nicholas's children, if he allowed girls.

There were rumors for awhile that Olga would marry Dmitri Pavlovich and in the event of Alexei's death or extreme disability, they could rule together. Of all the children, Olga was the smartest, most compassionate and more complex as a person, and she'd have made a great ruler.
 
I'm definitely not disgreeing! Those girls had not been raised to rule. (Neither had Catherine II or Elizabeth I, for that matter, though.) However, Olga was age 9 at the birth of the Heir, Tatiana was age 8. If Nicholas had seen fit to begin their education to be back-up heirs to their mortally ill brother, he had plenty of time.

It seems like no choices were good ones, but that Nicholas invariably chose the worst options. It was simply time for the monarchy to end, as it did: brutally, and finally.
 
Given your post, the question "Why did not Nicholas II see fit to prepare the eldest daughter to rule to provide for a possible succession crisis"? arises. Perhaps, it seemed highly improbable even to Tsar himself to install a female as an heir to the Russian Imperial throne. At the same time, I agree with you noting that Nicholas II's reign was plagued by poor choices/decisions, which, in their turn, severely crippled chances of the regime survivial.
 
Nicholas was a man who could only see yesterday, not tomorrow. His lack of forsight, as well as his weak and, often, confused choices, never instilled in him that he could do anything and back it up. He was ruled by his wife and his uncles and some ministers. I don't know if he ever had a creative thought of his own, that he was willing to back up. I don't think it would have made much difference, though, today.
 
I'm really enjoying this conversation - thanks for this.

Countess, your point is excellent; hindsight was Nicholas' forte, was it not?

Al-bina, I agree with you - do you suppose that is because Nicholas was, as Countess indicates, so bound to the past (meaning the three generations previous of no-female rulers and rules?) Or do you think that he was a product of his time, believing women to be the weaker sex and thereby a second-best choice for a ruling throne?

Considering that his grandmother-in-law was one of the most memorable monarchs of any time, I find that interesting. Olga, Tatiana, Marie & Anastasia were the great-granddaughters of Victoria Regina, Queen & Empress.

Perhaps I merely long for these young women to have come into their own. Generally, however, I'm not that romantic or rosy.
 
This was a frozen time and the Romanov's were frozen in their places, waiting for fate to over take them and it did. There were many things, a thinking monarch, might have done to allay them.
 
I think Nicholas wouldn't have wanted to change the succession because he was so bound to the past and the rules. That's the main reason. His being autocrat for example largely stayed because he wanted it so, he thought he had to pass down to Alexei what God had given him, unchanged. Also, Alexei might have had children- other royal hemophiliacs did, and Alexei's possible son wouldn't have had hemophilia nor would have been able to pass it down. The best scenario perhaps would have had Alexei marrying and having a son, and Alexei dying before Nicholas, and maybe that son could have come to the throne, albeit likely as a child. Who knows? Could have happened. Olga was intelligent, no doubt about that, while Tatiana was called the '' Governess'' in the family change that to '' Empress'' and wonder about what might have been. But, Olga would likely have made an okay ruler- only, she might have been a hemophilia carrier and passed it down, so maybe making her the heir would have been a short term solution. Who knows what the future would have held?
 
I hope I have not veered off the topic too much ...

NotAPretender said:
... Al-bina, I agree with you - do you suppose that is because Nicholas was, as Countess indicates, so bound to the past (meaning the three generations previous of no-female rulers and rules?) Or do you think that he was a product of his time, believing women to be the weaker sex and thereby a second-best choice for a ruling throne? ... [snipped]
Click to expand...
Here I am inclined to fully agree with Countess. Nicholas II was torn between a dire necessity to introduce some drastic changes into the existing system and an inner need to adhere to traditional ways. Russia had a booming economy, but political reforms lagged far behind. Nicholas II's ineptness and indecisiveness acted as the catalyst that prompted the critical mass of ordinary Russians' dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime to crystallise into the 1905 and 1917 revolutions. He might have introduced some changes of a political/economical nature, but he as well as Russian power elite/ordinary people were not ready mentally to accept one of Nicholas II 's daughters as the Empress.
Furthermore, I dare to say that Empress Olga or Tatiana was not a viable option of preserving the Russian Imperial House. Russians needed another Peter I at that time , i.e., a tough ruthless ruler to implant much needed changes by iron and fire. Yes, I know it sounds bad, but the Bolshevicks/Communists were also cruel in inoculating people with new ways of life. Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was said to fit this position reasonably well because he proved to be an efficient commander of Dikaya or Wild Division.
The Wild Division was an all-volunteer irregular division of the Russian Army, composed of six regiments of Muslims from the Causcasus region. Mikhail was a wildly popular choice as commander among the division's fighters, and photos exist of the tall, handsome Grand Duke attired one of their colorful uniforms.
Click to expand...
Somewhat similar division is the ceremonial bodyguards of King Abdullah of Jordan. Here is the photo http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo140/salmaf/Vanity_Fair_septiembre.jpg. By the way, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich's uniform was very similar to that of the ceremonial bodyguards.
Mikhail proved to be a brave commander of his "Wild Division." It is interesting to note, that, while much of the Army mutinied after the Revolution, these fierce men remained a disciplined fighting force. They only disbanded in 1920 after having continued to fight in the White Army, when they were evacuated to Constantinople with General Wrangel.
Click to expand...
Pikul in "Nechistaya Sila" hinted that the Romanovs had a chance of survival with Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich as the Tsar because he was capable of operating under pressure and making decisions on his own. Additionally, Grand Duke was popular among army commanders and soldiers.

Reference: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich - Alexander Palace Time Machine
The People of Jordan
The picture is courtesy of salma
 
I've always thought and heard that Mikhail was thought of as a weak prospect for an heir- he was never trained, he was the youngest son and there was his morgantic marriage, the fact that to some he seemed to be yet another of those Romanovs living abroad ( for awhile) unsuitably married and not supporting the Romanov family. But the points you raised suggest a different picture, one I never thought of before.
 
Alexei and the throne

I ve wondering about this for a long time and I want your opinon on the matter. I ve been thinking that even if the Monarchy wasn't abolished , there is still the possibility that Alexei would not be the next Tsar. I mean , maybe at his father's death he would choose to renounce his rights, given the bad state of his health , because certainly the pressure of being the Tsar of all Russians could only make him worse. Also, given that haemophiliacs died in general relatively young those days, he might have wanted peace and rest for his life.
I am only making a pure hypothesis here, but do you think this case could be possible? And if possible, do you think that Alexandra and OTMA would support such a desicion?
 
Probably, but again, coming to the Russian throne was a "holy" event. The crown couldn't pass to a woman, so it would go to Alexis' uncle Michael.
 
I personally doubt it that he would have renounced his rights if the Monarchy would not have been abolished. He would have taken it as his duty IMO.
Besides some say that haemophilia reduces its symptoms later in life...

Speaking hypothetical I'm not sure if Alexandra would have supported such a decision, but his sisters possibly...
 
There certainly was a chance he would've chose not to become tsar. I think Alexandra would've at least supported him since she knew of all his difficulties as a child and she was actually scared and worried when Nicholas would bring Alexei to Stavka with him.
Still he loved Russia and I think would've thought it was his destiny to be its ruler, just as Nicholas did before.
 
I actually think it would be interesting to see Nicholas's daughter, Olga as Empress Autocrat of all Russia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
609
Blog Real
Blog Real
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
452
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
488
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
Genealogy of the Royal Family of Bulgaria
Replies
2
Views
1K
tihkon2
tihkon2
K
GD George Alexandrovich (1872-1899) - Nicholas II's brother
Replies
9
Views
3K
Prinsara
Prinsara

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom