Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?

[PrincessKaimi]

Thanks for the details, Johann.

[Daz_Voz]

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?

[MarkUK]

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.

[Daz_Voz]

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.

[MarkUK]

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.

[branchg]

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.

[Daz_Voz]

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?

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Daz_Voz

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.

[Daz_Voz]

Thanks, Artemisia

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

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.

[Daz_Voz]

All very interesting, thanks.

[AristoCat]

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.

[Furienna]

Well, I don't think any country in the world had equal primogeniture back then. It was as good as unthinkable.

[AristoCat]

It would have modernized the Russian RF a long time ahead of the other royal families. It would have definately been groundbreaking.

[Furienna]

Yes, but Nicholas was more into keeping old traditions than breaking them.

[Alexey 1904]

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?

[vkrish]

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.

[Alison H]

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.

[AristoCat]

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.

[Iluvbertie]

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.