Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I actually think it would be interesting to see Nicholas's daughter, Olga as Empress Autocrat of all Russia
Interesting, probably not feasible. Alexandra, if you remember, was always reminding Nicky to be "strong for Baby (Alexis)" so he could inherit. She was fixated on Baby inheriting and Olga ascending would have upset that apple cart. Alix was very strong willed (read: STUBBORN as an ox), don't think Olga could have come up against that and won.
 
Besides the inequity the girls faced, they had the weakest link in the chain as the heir. What could be done about, I don't know. Russo is right, Alexandra would have protected Alexis' right, even against her own daughters.
 
But to consider Olga as future Empress, don't we have to accept that Alexei would have died first?
 
After Michael's return from exile, and, this was long before Nicholas II had abdicated, the two had signed papers which made Michael in line of the throne after Alexei. But first, Michael had to agreed Michael's children, by his wife, would never be heirs to the throne...

This means, Nicholas II had made the decision that his daughters would not be in line of the Russian throne.

Once the papers were signed, I assume, unless something happen to Michael, that this decision of Nicholas II's was final.

AGRBear
 
So, then, it would Alexei or nobody! But I'm thinking, if Nicholas had the power to alter the order of succession, couldn't he also alter the law that only males inherited the throne? I mean, wasn't this within his powers as Sovereign? He could point to Catherine the Great as an example of a great ruler (even though she was not a Romanov by birth):cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
It would be worth mentioning that Catherine II was the reason Paul I introduced a very strict male primogeniture. Technically speaking, Catherine II usurped the throne that rightfully belonged to her son.
 
Bear, when did they sign these papers?? I do remember something like this though my brain is a bit fuzzy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bear, when did they sign these papers?? I do remember something like this though my brain is a bit fuzzy.

Why would Nicholas and Michael need to sign any papers? Since the daughters could not inherit the throne, if Alexei died without issue, then Michael would be the next in line, right? Or are you and AGR Bear saying that any sons of the daughters could be next in line to inherit after Alexei?
 
Why would Nicholas and Michael need to sign any papers? Since the daughters could not inherit the throne, if Alexei died without issue, then Michael would be the next in line, right? Or are you and AGR Bear saying that any sons of the daughters could be next in line to inherit after Alexei?
I suppose to make it legal--legal for heirs. I remember something in the Crawford book where Michael was saying to Natasha that he wasn't the heir any more and was free to marry. I can't remember the paper signing very well, though I know it's there. I remember it.


(I'm getting OLD VM!! :eek:)
 
I suppose to make it legal--legal for heirs. I remember something in the Crawford book where Michael was saying to Natasha that he wasn't the heir any more and was free to marry. I can't remember the paper signing very well, though I know it's there. I remember it.


(I'm getting OLD VM!! :eek:)

Russo dear,

You are not getting old, just better like wine.:flowers:

I remember reading that quote by Michael -- didn't he say it after the birth of Alexei? I think Michael was very relieved there was finally a male heir and he was free of worry about being the next in line and having to conform to proper behavior.
 
Russo dear,

You are not getting old, just better like wine.:flowers:

I remember reading that quote by Michael -- didn't he say it after the birth of Alexei? I think Michael was very relieved there was finally a male heir and he was free of worry about being the next in line and having to conform to proper behavior.
See, I remember that as well. And papers he signed it's just the papers I can't remember where I was reading that.

Thanks dear! :flowers:
 
When Nicholas received word that his brother Michael had secretly married without his permission, he was extremely upset.

Rosemary and Donald Crawford wrote in their book MICHAEL AND NATASHA p. 135-136 that Nicholas II "...deeming it expedient to estblish a guardianship over the person, estate and affairs of the Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich, we have considered it advisable to take upon ourselves the chief control of the guardianship and to entrust to the Central Administration of the Imperial Domains the direct contol of estate, personal and real and also funds possessed by Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich" 15 Dec 1913.

Two weeks later on the 30th of Dec , a Nicholas II's manifesto removed Michael from the Regency.

Michael was in exile in Europe and could not return to Russia until Nicholas II summoned him back.

At the start of the war, 1 Aug 1914, Michael cabled Nicholas and asked permission for he and Natasha to return home. Permission was granted.

>>Michael went to the front in command of a Cossack brigade. But neither Nicholas nor Alexander ever received or uttered a word to the bold and beautiful Nathalie Cheremetevskaya.<< p. 247 Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra.

I am still looking for the source about Michael regaining the position of Regent....

AGRBear
 
Nicholas Ii wrote to Michael by telegram at 2.56 after he had abdicated:

"Imperial Majesty, Petrograd", and, it read:

>>To His Majesty the Emperor Michael: Recent events have forced me to decide irrevocably to take extreme step. Forgive me if it grieves you and also for no warning-- there was no time. Shall always remain a faithful and devoted brother. Now returning to HQ where hope to come back shortly to Tsarskoe Selo. Fervently pray God to help you and our country. Your Nicky."<<

p. 308 MICHAEL AND NATASHA by Rosemary and Conald Crawford.

AGRBear
 
I just finished Nabokov's "Speak memory" his father drafted the papers for Michael's abdication.
 
I don't think there were any papers drafted by Nicholas and Michael explicitly removing the daughters from succession; instead, Nicholas abdicated and removed Alexei from the line of succession, then Michael abdicated and ended the Romanov dynasty. OTMA could not inherit the throne, so there was no need to draft any documents removing them from the line of succession.
 
I just finished Nabokov's "Speak memory" his father drafted the papers for Michael's abdication.

Are you talking about his letter to the Duma or something other than the letter. A real abdication separate from the letter?

Did Michael sign the abdication?

AGRBear
 
I don't think there were any papers drafted by Nicholas and Michael explicitly removing the daughters from succession; instead, Nicholas abdicated and removed Alexei from the line of succession, then Michael abdicated and ended the Romanov dynasty. OTMA could not inherit the throne, so there was no need to draft any documents removing them from the line of succession.

I've been lead to understand this is correct. However, because Michael had been in exile, I believe Michael was asked to sign papers agreeing that he'd be Regent for Alexei. Added to this, he signed papers which agreed that his, Michael's children by his wife, would not inherit the throne.

Does anyone know of the actual document in any source so this can be proven?

AGRBear
 
Al bina,

Do you know where one can find a translation of the document found in the link you posted?

VM
 
I believe that GoogleTranslate and BabelFish can be of help. The site has not got any full documents posted. There are excerpts from personal diaries/official documents and recollections of the people, who participated in the event (e.g., Alexander Kerensky, Pavel Milyukov, V.D. Nabokov) and reactions of various people to the news.
As far as understood, Grand Duke Mikhail was coerced by Prince Lvov among other people to abdicate because of the threat to massacre all the Romanovs and people loyal to them.
 
Thank you for the reply. I will need to find a translation because I would love to read the entire document. Does anyone know where the document was set forth in a biography or historical book?
 
When trying to locate a copy of the document, I ran across the following excerpt from the "abdication" papers Michael signed:

"A heavy burden had been laid upon me by the will of my brother, who in a time of unexampled strife and popular tumult has transferred to me the imperial throne of Russia. Sharing with the people the thought that the good of the country should stand before everything else, I have firmly decided that I will accept power only if that is the will of our great people, who must by universal suffrage elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly, in order to determine the form of government and draw up new fundamental laws for Russia. Therefore, calling for the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has arisen and has been endowed with full authority on the initiative of the Imperial Duma, until such time as the Constituent Assembly, called at the earliest possible date and elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage, shall by its decision as to the form of government give expression to the will of the people."

I agree with the blogger that Michael neither accepted or disavowed the throne but instead said it was up to the Russian people to decide what form of government they wanted. In other words, he would rule as a constitutional monarch if that is what the people wanted.
 
Are you talking about his letter to the Duma or something other than the letter. A real abdication separate from the letter?

Did Michael sign the abdication?

AGRBear
Bear, here's the Wiki on it--take it with a grain of salt.
Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't own the book, it went back to the library. it's an excellent resourse for what upper middle class Russian life was like pre-Revolution. However, Nabokov habitually skips around on his subjects and time periods within pre-revolution. Good read, however, though it will really tax your brain with his extensive vocab.
 
"A heavy burden has been thrust upon me by the will of my brother, who has given over to me the Imperial Throne of russia at a time unprecedented warfare and popular disturbances.

Inspired like the entire people by the idea that what is most important is the welfare of the country, I have taken a firm decision to assume the Supreme Power only if such be the will of our great people, whose right it is to establish the form of government and the new basic laws of the Russian state by universal suffrage through its representatives in the Constituent Assembly

Therefore, invoking the blessing of God, I beseech all the citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has come into being on the initiative of the Duma and is vested with all the plenitude of power until the Constituent Assembly, to be convoked with the least possible delay by universal suffrage, direct, equal and secret voting, shall express the will of the people by its decision on the form of government."

Signed: "MICHAEL."

He signed it with the Imperial MICHAEL and not GD Michael or citizen Michael Alexanderovich Romanov.

MICHAEL AND NATASHA
by Rosemary and Ronald Crawford
p. 311
 
Okay, we are all agreed that Michael would not take the throne unless it was the will of the people. And we also agree that Nicholas abdicated on behalf of himself and Alexei.

But there was a comment on this thread that Nicholas and Michael, together, removed the OTMA from the line of succession. Again, since OTMA could not take the throne, why would there need to be written documentation stating the same? And, if someone is correct that there was such a document, what are the contents or where can we find it? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
The Bolsheviks/Soviets took control before the Provisional Govt.'s Assembly's election occur on the 28th of Nov, therefore, Michael declaration to the Provisional Govt. no longer was an issue, in other words it was null and void, and, as the betrayed Tsar of Russia, Michael could have reestablished himself, found some troops that were still loyal and fought the Revolutionaries who were under the leadership of Lenin, who was being supported by the Germans. But he didn't. Why didn't he? Those, who had supported him to lead the country into a new govt., had no intentions of placing Michael into any kind of position as they plotted their own rise to power. Michel was left high and dry, so to speak. He was arrested many times by different factions.... Although he gained permission to leave Russia at one point, it wasn't going to happen....

AGRBear
 
O

...[in part]...

But there was a comment on this thread that Nicholas and Michael, together, removed the OTMA from the line of succession. Again, since OTMA could not take the throne, why would there need to be written documentation stating the same? And, if someone is correct that there was such a document, what are the contents or where can we find it? Inquiring minds want to know.

I believe there are discussion that Nicholas II could not have placed any of his daughters as his successor because of the law passed by Paul I, however, I'm sure, if he had wanted to do so, his ministers would have found a way, and, it would have been proclaimed and accomplished.

My thought had been that if Nicholas II upon Michael's return, had reestablished Michael as Alexei's Regent that Nicholas II had made up his mind not to place any of his daughters as his successor. Knowing that Alexei would not live very far into adulthood, and, probably never have children, if he did live into his 20s, that his brother Michael would then have been Alexei's successor. When Nicholas II abdicated, he changed the succession and gave Michael the crown, which reinforces my thoughts on this.

AGRBear
 
Some discussion on another thread about who is the head of the
Romanovs ended with the conclusion that the Tsar decided which dynastic marriages were valid. This leads me a to a question which has nagged at me for some time.

If the Tsar was the ultimate decision maker, why didn't Nicholas change the rule of succession to include his daughters? If it was Paul who changed the rule about women inheriting because he despised his mother, Catherine the Great, why couldn't Nicholas do the same? Was there any pressure to keep women from the throne?

If he had changed the laws of succession, who knows what might have happened to the Romanovs.
 
If not to let woman rule, but allow woman to pass their claim to the throne to their male heirs. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time to slip that provision in....
 
Back
Top Bottom