Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeah, but one hundred years ago, women had little to no right to inherit the thrown in most monarchies. So I guess Russia wasn't extreme on that issue.
 
I am not saying that the Russian view on who could inherit is extreme. My question was why didn't Nicholas, when it looked like he would never have a son, simply change the law so women could inherit once again? After all, it was his ancestor who changed the law so women could not inherit.

I thought of this after much discussion on another thread about who is the head of the royal family and whether a descendant from a morganatic marriage, let alone a woman, could claim to be head of the family. Many people wrote that the Tsar determined whether a marriage was dynastic or morganatic. If so, and because the Tsar made the rules, why not change the succession law?

There is precedent. Even though the Church said marriage between first cousins was forbidden, Nicholas relented and allowed Kiril and Victoria Melita to return to the royal family again. Why couldn't he have changed the law of succession as well?
 
Last edited:
You are quite right. So many of the "rules" were for the convience of whomever was in power.
 
Even if Nicholas could have shifted the line of sucession from Alexei to Olga or someone else in the family, he probably would not have done it. He was far too conscious of his autocrat status and proud to do anything that constituted a constitutional shake up. He was very bitter about signing the Duma into effect in 1905 thus ending his absolute rule (officially whereas unofficially he still felt like an autocrat). He hated anything that messed with his absolute rule so he would have certainly hated shifting the line of sucession.
 
Even if Nicholas could have shifted the line of sucession from Alexei to Olga or someone else in the family, he probably would not have done it. He was far too conscious of his autocrat status and proud to do anything that constituted a constitutional shake up. He was very bitter about signing the Duma into effect in 1905 thus ending his absolute rule (officially whereas unofficially he still felt like an autocrat). He hated anything that messed with his absolute rule so he would have certainly hated shifting the line of sucession.

But that is exactly my point -- Nicholas wielded absolute power and before the Duma came into effect, he was desperate to have a son. I know that his brother could take his place but why didn't Nicholas, wielding his absolute authority, change the law of succession? Do you think he did not to spare his daughters from sitting on such a dangerous throne?
 
Vasillisos Markos said:
But that is exactly my point -- Nicholas wielded absolute power and before the Duma came into effect, he was desperate to have a son. I know that his brother could take his place but why didn't Nicholas, wielding his absolute authority, change the law of succession? Do you think he did not to spare his daughters from sitting on such a dangerous throne?

It's hard to be sure. I have to say Nicholas and Alexandra seemed to have this blind faith in the survival of their throne and, if I am right, it was not until the last minute that they saw how much the country had turned against them. They probably knew how dangerous the autocracy could be and shielded their daughters from such a prospect, but they also might have thought it was safer than, say, the Greek throne or the Balkan thrones.
 
It's hard to be sure. I have to say Nicholas and Alexandra seemed to have this blind faith in the survival of their throne and, if I am right, it was not until the last minute that they saw how much the country had turned against them. They probably knew how dangerous the autocracy could be and shielded their daughters from such a prospect, but they also might have thought it was safer than, say, the Greek throne or the Balkan thrones.

Alexandra's part in it cannot be underestimated. She was the one who had an unbalanced faith in God and became really as autocratic as any other believer in her own unfallible instincts. She had a 'noble savage' view of the Russian peasantry and it was the biggest mistake of her life.

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 agreed to Constitutional Monarchy he would have been an excellent symbol of what a good monarch should be. He was also too passive and a fatalist, two major mistakes. He never at any point took any sincere initiative to change things or go along with the Duma to work on making things easier for the Imperial Family.

One of his own uncles had to actually threaten to shoot himself right in front of Nicholas if Nicholas did not sign for the creation of a Duma.

There was also Rasputin to consider; Rasputin seemed to be the only one who knew how to help Alexei and since the problem of his hemophilia was kept a secret, no one understood why Rasputin was so important. If they had known, the DUma would not have likely wanted to get rid of Rasputin. If the Duma had exercised real power, they would have been able to likely have Rasputin removed from the sphere of the Imperial Family. Keeping Alexei's problem a secret was the biggest mistake ever made.

It was all around a horrible no-win situation. If a Constitutional monarchy ahd been installed, putting Olga at the headship of the family would have in fact drastically reduced the stress that Nicholas had to deal with and a huge personal problem would have been solved at a stroke of the pen. But Nicholas wouldn't do a single thing to help himself and neither did Alexandra. They seemed to seek destruction rather than work to avoid it. There were tons of things that should have been done and Nicholas was a failure ot both keep his wife out of politics and should have stopped treating the people of Russia as a problem instead of himself.

God also made Louis XVI King of France, but look at where he ended up when he didn't cooperate with the Estates Generale and you would think that Nicholas would have learned the same lesson. Ironic that both Kings hated being monarch at first, but then ended up clutching it where letting go would have been best. God has a way of turning on those he gives gifts to if they don't use them to better the lot of the people around them. Nicholas failed, Alexandra was a toxic influence, and neither had learned that God doesn't always side with people in palaces.
 
I think it highly unlikely that Nicky knew the meaning of "assertive", let alone how to apply it. I imagine him to have been progressively cowed by his strong mother and sisters on one side and his father and uncles on the other. I see him as never having-or never being allowed to have-his own opinions and always being in agreement with the last person with whom he had spoken. It can't have helped that his father and uncles had the stature which gave them "presence," something that Nicky, at 5'8ish never attained-even the diminutive of his name makes him sound like a small boy-so when he reached the age where it is natural for the young to challenge he probably never felt that he could and this would have diminished him psychologically......and it follows that a person who can't think for themselves must marry someone who can do their thinking for them-not that I believe it to be the role that Alix wanted, more that it was one she was capable of. I can only imagine her frustration, despite her love for him, when she discovered that the man she had expected to be all-powerful, THE Tsar, was, in reality, little more than a child needing constant reassurance and direction. Rasputin, at times, must have come as welcome relief-he believed in himself, he was positive and I feel that she thought that if she could infuse some of that positivity into Nicky, it would be a good thing. As for Olga, bought up differently, she probably would have been capable of removing some of the stress from her father, as it was, I don't believe she had been given the requisite guidelines.
Just an afterthought.One glaring difference between Nicky and Rasputin is that Rasputin seemed to believe that God helped those who helped themselves and Nicky believed that God helped those whose position on earth He had ratified.
 
Alexandra being unfriendly and Nicky being in a way enslaved to her IMO contributed a lot that this all ended in a catastrophe. In the end the family was completely isolated but doesn´t seem to have been aware of that. The fact that the eldest daughter even didn´nt want to marry a person from another country just for the reason to stay in Russia and IMO even to stay with her family is IMO quite strange and gives an impression how strong Alexandra had driven the family already into isolation over the years.
I know this may sound crazy - but: Why didn´t Alex try to have another son? She had two brothers but only one was sick with haemophilia. So there was a chance IMO that another son might have been healthy. (The same with her grandmother Victoria) And why would it have been such a catastrophe if one of Nicky´s brother´s became the heir?
 
I would guess Nikolai and Alexandra didn't try to have another son/child due to Alexandra's health and fear of having yet another child with the same condition as Aleksey. That's only my guess though. there may have been other reasons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would guess Nikolai and Alexandra didn't try to have another son/child due to Alexandra's health and fear of having yet another child with the same condition as Aleksey. That's only my guess though. there may have been other reasons.
No you are correct. Alix's health was not good and they stopped. I forget which book I read where they mention that. VM might know.
 
Oh, lots of books mention it all the time. She developed severe scatia and had serious problems moving around.
 
I believe Massey and Rodzinskii both mention that, and the book called 'A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra in Their Own Words' provides several entries/observations regarding her health after the Aleksey's birth. Hope this helps. If more information is needed, just ask, and I'll see what I can do.
 
Ooo! It's Romanov week!
I asked the question of why they didn't have more children as well and somebody pointed out to me that it was highly likely that another son would have the same condition Alexei had. Also Alexandra became kind of obsessive about her sons health and it aged her considerably worrying about him and trying to keep him healthy. Plus I read that she suffered from guilt that Alexie had gotten the disease from her and I wouldn't want her to suffer that guilt with a second child.
 
Ooo! It's Romanov week!
I asked the question of why they didn't have more children as well and somebody pointed out to me that it was highly likely that another son would have the same condition Alexei had. Also Alexandra became kind of obsessive about her sons health and it aged her considerably worrying about him and trying to keep him healthy. Plus I read that she suffered from guilt that Alexie had gotten the disease from her and I wouldn't want her to suffer that guilt with a second child.

If you're interested in learning about Alexandra, give this book a go. It's a biography of her by Greg King.

Amazon.com: The Last Empress: The Life and Times of Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarina of Russia (9780735101043): Greg King: Books
 
Nicholas surely could have changed things and then it would have undone a huge amount of pressure on the Imperial Family. Why didn't he just do it?
 
Nicholas surely could have changed things and then it would have undone a huge amount of pressure on the Imperial Family. Why didn't he just do it?

The man was as stubborn as a mule when it came to the monarchy and its' traditions, including the salic law, which prevented women from inheriting the throne. I think he would have seen any change to that as betrayal to his duty/divine power/whatever. I'd guess he was a man he didn't change his convictions easily, or if he did, then he rarely implemented them due to fear. I think changing the line of succession would have given the family a chance to breathe (relieve some of the pressure, as AristoCat pointed out), but I doubt that Nikolai saw it as such. When Nikolai fell ill in the early 1900s (1902 perhaps), there was talk of making GD Mikhail the successor, but once Nikolai got better, all talks stopped. I think he just wanted to do what he thought was right and in according with tradition, consequences be damned. Well, we know how that ended.

Just my thoughts of course.
 
I think that if Nicholas and Alexandra hadn't managed to produce Alexei then Nicky might have actually been persuaded to change the law. I could see Alexandra being a bulldog on the subject of wanting one of her children to succeed to the Russian throne. And I do sincerely think that as Tsar Nicholas II could have changed the male only rule at any point he wanted to.
 
The male only rule only came around, if I remember correctly, less than a century before Alexie was born, so I wouldn't see how it would be so hard for him to change it. It was a ridiculous rule really when it had been proven that the country would do just fine being run by a woman. I tend to wonder if that rule wasn't around, if the events that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century would have happened. N*A wouldn't have been so desperate for a boy or so secretive about letting people know one of their children was so sick, because there were 4 back ups. Plus though a Zsar would want their own child to succeed them, I don't see why one of Nicholas' nephews or even brothers couldn't be the Zsar after him if there was never a son born. With Michael, it was just too little to late.
 
Does anyone know if Olga would be a pontential monarch before the birth of her brother?
 
IloveCP said:
Does anyone know if Olga would be a pontential monarch before the birth of her brother?

Didn't they have a law where the throne can only be passed to the males because since 1901 Russia awaited the birth of a czarivich and insted another grand duchess was born, Anastasia and the glory of a czarivich wasn't until 1904 when the heir was born and would succeed his father , Olga was a girl and wouldn't have been able to be czarina ,plus I don't think she was ready if that time really came.
 
Does anyone know if Olga would be a pontential monarch before the birth of her brother?

Pursuant to laws enacted by Tsar Paul, the son of Catherine the Great, Olga could not be considered for the throne despite being the eldest daughter of the Tsar. Women were barred from the throne.
 
I knew women were banned but,it was possible that the Tzar would consider changing the law because it took a long time to have a male heir.Anything was possible.

Just a thought!
 
That is true. But, Nicholas was not that innovative.
 
I knew women were banned but,it was possible that the Tzar would consider changing the law because it took a long time to have a male heir.Anything was possible.

Just a thought!

My dear IloveCP,

Earlier, either on this thread or on another thread, we posed the question whether Nicholas could have changed the law of succession. I certainly think he had the ability, as autocrat, or he could have tried to persuade the Duma to change the law once it was created. However, I have never read anything which shows that Nicholas attempted to do this.

Until Alexis was born, the presumptive heir was first George, Nicholas' brother, and after George died, then Michael, the youngest of Nicholas' two brothers. It may be because these two men were in the wings that Nicholas was content to let the law of succession remain as it was and leave the matter to God to determine if he and Alexandra would ever have a son.
 
I don't know a lot about successions and the baring of women; but if Paul could make the law, I see no reason why another Tsar couldn't have gotten rid of the law. I also don't know why there was such histeria to get a male heir and keep his illness a secret. Its not like there weren't others who couldn't have picked up the mantle if he couldn't have done the job.
It kind of reminds ms of Henry VIII and his desire for a son; he wanted a boy so bad he could hav married Mary off and hoped she had a son to succeed him.
 
It kind of reminds ms of Henry VIII and his desire for a son;

An apt description. Henry VIII did so much damage to get a son and ended up wrecking his country. It was possible that Olga or the others could be married off and the son could end up reigning as Tsar, not Alexei. It was not an impossible situation.
 
I don't know a lot about successions and the baring of women; but if Paul could make the law, I see no reason why another Tsar couldn't have gotten rid of the law. I also don't know why there was such histeria to get a male heir and keep his illness a secret. Its not like there weren't others who couldn't have picked up the mantle if he couldn't have done the job.
It kind of reminds ms of Henry VIII and his desire for a son; he wanted a boy so bad he could hav married Mary off and hoped she had a son to succeed him.
I think (key word here--think!) the reason was that Peter the Great and Catherine had so many children die that anybody who was left alive was all right with them to rule. This is an excellent question as far as women ruling because Catherine II was certainly very intelligent, well read and prime for the job. It sort of seemed that after that pinnacle the general concensus was that women weren't up to the job. However, that is just an observation I have.
 
It's difficult to answer the question of why male primogeniture was/is preferred throughout European nobility, but it is. And it's true for many other places as well. It may have to do with having to narrow down the field, to avoid fratricide most of all (see the history of Wales).
 
We should keep historical perspective. I think by the time of Nicholas II Russia applied the agnatic succession, meaning no female can inherit the throne. I doubt Nicholas could seriously wanted to change that to male-prefrence primogeniture, in short males first but not excluding females. Even if he wanted that he would've had great opposition from Russian ruling class and from his own family.
Does this mean he was 'not open enough to new things'? It only means he was a man of his time, we should not see it from a 2011 perspective.

Remeber that absolute cognatic primogeniture (Sweden) was only invented in 1980.
 
Back
Top Bottom