Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession? - Page 2

**MAfan** · #21 11-11-2008, 08:37 AM

Yes, Michael was killed on July 16, while Alexis on July 18, so the heir became Grand Duke Kirill Wladimirovic, and when he died on 1938 his heir was his next brother

branchg · #22 11-23-2008, 08:55 PM

Cyril's heir was his son, Vladimir, who succeeded his father as Head of the House in 1938 until his death in 1992. The question then became whether his daughter, Maria, should be considered a dynast.

**MAfan** · #23 11-24-2008, 09:26 AM

The wedding of Kirill and Victoria Melita was not recognised, so theyr children weren't dynasts.

branchg · #24 11-24-2008, 10:58 PM

Their marriage was most certainly recognized by Nicholas II and their children were listed as dynasts in the Court Circular.

Russophile · #25 11-25-2008, 07:20 PM

Wasn't it recognized through pressure of Meichen?

**MAfan** · #26 11-26-2008, 08:52 AM

Sorry, but can you explain better what do you mean?? What is/was "Meichen"?

branchg · #27 11-26-2008, 10:47 AM

"Meichen" was the nickname for Grand Duchess Marie, wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovitch and uncle of Nicholas II. She was the mother of Grand Duke Cyril.

I'm sure court pressure was a factor in Nicholas II reversing his decision on the marriage of Cyril and Victoria Melita, but more likely it was simply a matter of enough time had passed and increasing troubles with the Empire.

**MAfan** · #28 11-26-2008, 11:39 AM

Was she the one that plotted to dismiss Nicholas II in 1915-16?

branchg · #29 11-26-2008, 04:49 PM

I don't think it's accurate to say Marie was "plotting" to overthrow Nicholas II. It's important to note, however, that by 1915, the Tsar and Tsarina were virtually isolated from the rest of the imperial family, including Dowager Tsarina Marie, due to their obsession with their son's illness, the war and the upheaval over Rasputin and his murder.

The imperial family as a whole was appalled and disgusted with Nicholas and Alexandra for letting the entire system slide downward, even though it likely would have self-destructed anyway.

Russophile · #30 11-26-2008, 05:07 PM

Indeed, it was happening N's watch so he was to blame.

bartholomeus · #31 03-09-2009, 06:55 AM

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

NotAPretender · #32 03-09-2009, 09:51 AM

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!

NotAPretender · #33 03-09-2009, 10:27 AM

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!

**MAfan** · #34 03-09-2009, 12:56 PM

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...

bartholomeus · #35 03-09-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender

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!

Thanks great to be of help..

bartholomeus · #36 03-09-2009, 01:57 PM

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.

bartholomeus · #37 03-10-2009, 05:06 AM

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.

branchg · #38 03-10-2009, 08:24 AM

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.

bartholomeus · #39 03-10-2009, 08:36 AM

absolutely.. I agree completely on the position of the Grand Dukes...

NotAPretender · #40 03-10-2009, 09:46 AM

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.