Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?

[Vasillisos Markos]

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?

[Vasillisos Markos]

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.

[Al_bina]

Here is the photo of the abdication document dated 03.03.1917. It is posted in the entry devoted to Grand Duke Mikhail in Wikipedia.ru
Файл:Отказ от прин�ти� пре�тола в.к. Михаила �лек�андровича. 3 марта 1917.gif — Википеди�

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

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.

[AGRBear]

"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

[Vasillisos Markos]

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.

[AGRBear]

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

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

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

[Vasillisos Markos]

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.

[genegirl99]

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....

[Furienna]

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.

[Vasillisos Markos]

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?

[COUNTESS]

You are quite right. So many of the "rules" were for the convience of whomever was in power.

[pgm1952]

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.

[Vasillisos Markos]

Originally Posted by pgm1952

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?

[pgm1952]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

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.

[AristoCat]

Originally Posted by pgm1952

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.

[Tsaritsa]

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.

[Stefanie]

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?

[Daria_S]

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.