Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[AristoCat]

Oh, lots of books mention it all the time. She developed severe scatia and had serious problems moving around.

[Daria_S]

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.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

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.

[Daria_S]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

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

[AristoCat]

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?

[Daria_S]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

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.

[Kellydofc]

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.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

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.

[IloveCP]

Does anyone know if Olga would be a pontential monarch before the birth of her brother?

[Grandduchess24]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

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.

[Vasillisos Markos]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

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.

[IloveCP]

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!

[COUNTESS]

That is true. But, Nicholas was not that innovative.

[Vasillisos Markos]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

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.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

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.

[AristoCat]

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.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

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.

[PrincessKaimi]

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).

[Johann Salvator]

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.