Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Semi-salic

I have read that the form of succession used in Imperial Russia was "semi-salic".

What does this mean exactly? Under what circumstances could a woman, or descendants down the female line, succeed to the throne?
 
Under rules set out by Tsar Paul I females can only succeed once the male line has become extinct. Then the nearest female blood relative to the last male Tsar can inherit.
 
Thanks, MarkUK.

I wonder how far back the "extinction" would have to go. ie. there remain a number of male-line descendants of Nicholas I at present, but if all these produced no male heirs, I suppose it would go back to other male-line heirs of Paul I.

Are there in fact any male-line heirs of Paul I other than those from Nicholas I? Did Paul's grandson, Grand Duke George Mikhailovich produce any heirs?
If he did, I never hear them discussed.
 
Presumably as far back as the founding of the Romanov dynasty in 1613. That is why there is a dispute over the true heir to the Imperial Crown, is it the Grand Duchess Maria, who, under the laws of succession laid down by Tsar Paul, is ineligible as there are male heirs still living.
A similar situation exists in the Scottish nobility, women can succeed to a title, but only when the male line has failed.
 
Maria Vladimirovna is the surviving senior male-line descendant of Alexander II, as her grandfather, Grand Duke Cyril, inherited the rights after the death of Nicholas II and Grand Duke Michael. Since the other male lines are all extinct of dynasts, the throne would still pass through the female Vladimirovchi line if she is ruled ineligible.

With Vladimir Kirillovich's death in 1992, the throne would pass either to (1) Maria, his daughter; (2) through his sisters, Marie and Kira, who married equally; or (3) through his cousin, Princess Olga of Greece, daughter of Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna from her Orthodox marriage to Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark.
 
Last edited:
Did Paul I's son GD Mikhail Pavlovich have any sons? Is that line extinct?


EDIT: even allowing for the losses of 1918, it's pretty astounding that Nicholas I, who had 18 grandsons by his sons, ended up with no male-line descendants who met the criteria of the Pauline laws!

BTW, branchg, how is that Nicholas Romanovich and Dmitri Romanovich do not count as dynasts? Is their parents' marriage considered morganatic?
 
Last edited:
Did Paul I's son GD Mikhail Pavlovich have any sons? Is that line extinct?

BTW, branchg, how is that Nicholas Romanovich and Dmitri Romanovich do not count as dynasts? Is their parents' marriage considered morganatic?

Grand Duke Michael Pavlovich had only five surviving children with his wife, Princess Charlotte of Württemberg - all girls. His line is not extinct though: among his many descendants through his daughters is the current Head of the of the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

In regards to Princes Nicholas and Ddimitri Romanovich, their parents' marriage was most definitely indeed morganatic.
Their mother did not come from a royal house (she was a noblewoman), thus violating Romanov Marriage Laws.
 
In regards to Princes Nicholas and Ddimitri Romanovich, their parents' marriage was most definitely indeed morganatic. Their mother did not come from a royal house (she was a noblewoman), thus violating Romanov Marriage Laws.

Their father, Prince Roman, also married without consent from Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich, another requirement of the Pauline Laws, which automatically results in the loss of all succession rights for the dynast.

Nicholas and Dimitri are also not princes. They are just plain Nicholas and Dimitri Romanov since their father did not seek a style for his morganatic wife upon marriage, again as required by the Pauline Laws.
 
I don't know why Nicholas II didn't adjust the laws and then end up grooming Olga for the position. It's not like it's something that couldn't be changed since he was the one in charge and I believe that it would have been a great PR coup and enabled Alexei to avoid the burden of being the future monarch and let Alexandra breathe a huge sigh of relief.
 
Well, I don't think any country in the world had equal primogeniture back then. It was as good as unthinkable.
 
It would have modernized the Russian RF a long time ahead of the other royal families. It would have definately been groundbreaking.
 
Yes, but Nicholas was more into keeping old traditions than breaking them.
 
Wouldn't you consider his abdication 'breaking an old tradition' as far as the RF was concerned? Are there any other Tsars that abdicated, other than Nikolai and Misha?
 
You guys are expecting Nicolas to be a trendsetter and moderniser..Thats the last thing we can expect him to do.
If he had atleast an iota of foresight and broadmindedness, he would have initiated reforms, atleast after the Bloody Sunday and gradually transitioned the governance into constitutional monarchy. He was the dumbest ruler who blindly believed being a good husband means letting his crazy wife poke into every matter of state, and being a good ruler means totally sticking to ancient practices, instead of having the guts to lead the nation, and in turn the world, change according to times.
How do you expect such a guy to bring equal primogeniture..
He just sat still,and then gave up without any fight. Its an other thing that even if he tried to change, things must have gone against him.
But lethargy and inaction makes him the dumbest ruler.
 
Catherine the Great, who had no legal right whatsoever to take the Russian throne anyway :). was reportedly planning to name her grandson Alexander as her successor, rather than her son Paul, and Paul then changed the succession laws to exclude women. So if one tsar/tsarina could change the succession laws, presumably another one could as well. I don't think Nicholas would've dreamt of making Olga his successor, but theoretically I don't see why he couldn't have done.
 
He was the dumbest ruler who blindly believed being a good husband means letting his crazy wife poke into every matter of state,
'

Well, he was a naturally passive personality and I believe his biggest mistake is how he wanted someone to come along and take it off his hands. But go figure, he never trusted the Russian people, whose opinion of he got from his wife, who was in my view made the mistake of viewing the people as a bunch of 'noble savages' who needed people like her (enlightened because of her position) to direct them.

Too bad he didn't trust the Duma and politicians and people.
 
He actually reinshrined the Pauline laws in the 1906 constitution and then proceeded to tear that document to shreds.

He had a chance to move the country forwards politically but chose to be more oppressive after 1905/6 rather than less so.
 
The man had little understanding of history, as I see him.
 
I'll never understand it. The constitution could have saved his life and that of his family. If he had just given the Russians a chance, I am sure that he might have lived and had grandchildren and he migth have ended his days as a grandfather/czar.
 
He was forced to sign the constitution - it wasn't something he ever believed in.

Go back to when he was 11 and think about what happened then.

His grandfather - the Tsar Liberator, about to sign a new constitution is blown up and taken back to the palace where he dies and who is looking on - his 11 year old grandson.

The lesson he learnt that day was that the Russian people didn't want a constitution, couldn't be trusted with a constitution, couldn't be trusted at all, and that the only way forward was ruthless suppression of all opposition.

After 1906 he became even more repressive than his father had been because he believed that that was the only way to be seen as a strong Tsar and his wife and mother encouraged him in that belief.
 
All the impressions of life imprint themselves on us when we're young.

In several areas though, times were different and things were for a period a lot more stable. I believe it was Alexandra that was determined to keep the autocracy, her idea of a strong govenrment. Since she came from a background of constitutional monarchy, I am surprised she was so ruthless about this aspect.
 
I believe it was Alexandra that was determined to keep the autocracy, her idea of a strong govenrment. Since she came from a background of constitutional monarchy, I am surprised she was so ruthless about this aspect.
Yeah, I've wondered about that as well.
 
I believe that Alexandra got a taste of the grandeur of the Russian court and she stepped literally into the position of Empress, being able to end up weilding power, power she was untrained to responsibly handle. So go figure her head was turned and she ended up being discontented with what she had and decided to start running the Empire via her husband, despite her lack of training and solid education in that area.

Nicholas was educated and was an ordinary man, but he was run over by his wife. He might have slipped into the role of constitutional monarch, but go figure, he ended up getting overrun by the hemophilia of his son, which ended up with Alexandra protecting Rasputin at all costs, which meant in essence protecting the autocracy. If a Duma had been established with real power, then Rasputin might have been called into account and then possibly sent away.

Perhaps even if Nicholas had told the public about Alexei's illness things would have led to a more solid understanding. Everything that happened was in ignorance of the truth of Alexei's condition.
 
I wonder if he ever considered allowing Olga to inherit if Alexei died without heirs? Surely the family considered the possibility that Alexei would die young and therefore changing the laws of succession may have made the family breathe a little easier. But then, knowing that the crown may possibly go to Alexei might have made Nicholas try harder to conceal the truth and protect the throne for his son, no matter how misguided it was to conceal the truth about the heir's health.
 
I believe that if Nicholas had had the guts to change the succession, that the rest of the Romanovs could have then ended up being told about Alexei's illness and then Olga could have been trained to take over position as Heir and made ready.
 
There were more than enough eligible males among the Romanovs to inherit the throne. Grand Duchess Olga had nothing going for her.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it would have never happened, other family members with eligible sons would have never let that happen. I don't know how the Russians would have liked it.

However, I do think Olga would have been a strong ruler. She was intellectual, bright, kind, the only thing speaking against her was that she might have been too sheltered by her parents. Quite like Maria Feodorovna never stopped treating her son like a baby.
 
Back
Top Bottom