Could Nicholas II have changed the Imperial Succession?

[NotAPretender]

On March 15, 1917 (March 3 o/s,) Nicholas II abdicated his throne:

"In agreement with the State Duma WE have acknowledged it as beneficial to renounce the throne of the Russian state and lay down Supreme authority. Not wishing to separate OURSELVES from OUR beloved SON, WE hand over OUR succession to OUR Brother, the Grand Duke MICHAEL ALEKSANDROVICH..."

My question is this: had the royal family not been executed, had they been "rescued" (never mind the improbability of that) and gone into exile, could Nicholas have proclaimed that he was repudiating his abdication?

(I really fully the unlikelihood of a sequence of events that would lead to Nicholas being in a position to reclaim the throne for his immediate family.)

[Michael HR]

I would not have thought so as his abdication was legal and final. But, his abdication for Alexis could have been reversed as many saw that as illegal as Nicholas II had no right to abdicate on behalf of anyone else. If they had been recused Alexis may have become Tsar with Michael as regent I imagine. Nicholas and Alexandra would not have been allowed to be regents on his behalf and no doubt would have resided at livadia

[branchg]

It would have been hard for Nicholas II to reverse his abdication and passing of his rights to his brother, Michael. As far as renouncing on behalf of the Tsarevitch, his son was a minor and a very ill one at that. He certainly could exercise legal rights on behalf of his minor child as the parent.

Grand Duke Michael was Tsar and passed his sovereign authority to the Provisional Government, the successor head of state at the time. That definitively ended the dynasty's reign on the imperial throne until a referendum of the people decided whether they wanted a monarchy, and if so, who they wanted as Tsar.

[Michael HR]

I agree with the second part and is my view of the sucession question today, a matter for the Russian people.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by branchg

It would have been hard for Nicholas II to reverse his abdication and passing of his rights to his brother, Michael. As far as renouncing on behalf of the Tsarevitch, his son was a minor and a very ill one at that. He certainly could exercise legal rights on behalf of his minor child as the parent.

Grand Duke Michael was Tsar and passed his sovereign authority to the Provisional Government, the successor head of state at the time. That definitively ended the dynasty's reign on the imperial throne until a referendum of the people decided whether they wanted a monarchy, and if so, who they wanted as Tsar.

So is this what Maria is hoping for like Al_Bina said, she wants it back a la Spanish style?

[branchg]

Maria knows there is no way a restoration of the monarchy will happen anytime soon. I think she would like to have some recognition and position from the Government, similar to what happened in Romania and Serbia with their former royal families, but even that is a long shot at best.

Given the realities of Russian nationalism and chauvinism, I doubt anyone wants a woman, especially since Maria's mother is a Georgian, not exactly a positive thing right now. Her son, George, is a Hohenzollern on his father's side, certainly another big strike against them.

I just don't think it will happen. And if it did, I have a feeling the Government would find another Romanov to assume the throne.

[Mermaid1962]

Or could the abdication have been undone considering that it was done under duress?

[Michael HR]

I do not think it was duress. Nicholas took the advice of the Generals and abdicated. Unless the Duma and the Church offered him the Crown again but the other Romonov's might have had something to say.

[Al_bina]

Everything can be undone with the help of lawyers and money. This is not the case with the current Russian Imperial family as they tend to lack financial support and adequate lobby from Russian rich and mighty.
I strongly believe that the restoration a la Spain is the only possibility for Grand Duchess and her son to ascend the throne. Her extremely vocal support of the current government is a good indicator of the aforementioned. At the same time, I agree with branchg that (1)the possibility of monarchy reinstatement is very, very faint; and (2) Russian government may still select another person to crown.
The St. Petersburg Times - Opinion - A Monarchist Solution for Russia

More to the point, after the death of Francisco Franco, Spain faced many of the same challenges as post-Soviet Russia. One of the generalissimo’s wisest acts was to restore monarchy upon his death. Under King Juan Carlos’ wise stewardship and moral authority, Spain has gone through the difficult process of reconciliation, democratization and integration into the West, overcoming the heritage of a bloody civil war, repression and isolation — something that Russia has yet to start.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by branchg

Given the realities of Russian nationalism and chauvinism, I doubt anyone wants a woman, especially since Maria's mother is a Georgian, not exactly a positive thing right now.

That is an interesting point. I was just made aware that sexual harassment of women is ongoing in Russia and their lawsuits against bosses making unwanted advances and even assaults are dismissed.
Maria does not have the deck stacked in her favor!

[Next Star]

I think Nicholas II's abdication could have gone through and he also could have given up his son's rights too being it has been mention before by another member Alexi was a sick child.The oppostion of the goverment were afraid that the czar would still somehow gain power and that is now the tragedy come about with him and his wife and children.

[Michael HR]

Would you have put Nicholas back on the throne? I know I would have not done so due to his history. Just why someone else did not step in I do not know. GD Nicholas was the obvious choice at the time

[Michael HR]

I think I would go further back than the abdication. There is so much of Nicholas reign that you could correct with hindsight. The war with Japan for example? That led to 1905 and then to 1917

[Anna was Franziska]

When I first got into the Romanovs when I was 12, I used to fantasize about going back in time and saving them- by giving them a copy of "Nicholas and Alexandra" so they could see what they did wrong and stop it. Since they believed in Rasputin and the supernatural and mysticism, I don't think I'd have a problem getting them to believe I was from the future!

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Michael HR

I do not think it was duress. Nicholas took the advice of the Generals and abdicated. Unless the Duma and the Church offered him the Crown again but the other Romonov's might have had something to say.

We have no idea what occurred between Nicholas II and his generals at this point in time.

We do know that the generals around Nicholas II had been plotting his downfall before March of 1917. With deliberate acts, they isolated Nicholas II from any of the soldiers who would have been able to protect him from these traitorous generals. So, in all probability, Nicholas II wasn't given a choice. I believe this falls under the legal term of "being under deress".

GD Kyril certainly didn't waste any time to show his true colors, he left Alexandra and her children unprotected, and, went off to the duma to swear his allegiance.

According to the generals who were witnesses, Nicholas II signed a document that gave the crown to his son, BUT, they tell us that it was destroyed and a new document was created. The second document named Nicholas II's brother Michael as his successor.

Two illegal acts by Nicholas II immediately leap into view. The first being that once he had signed the first document, his son Alexei became his successor and his brother Michael became Regent. Papers had already been signed and considered legal and binding. This legality could not be undone by Nicholas II. Therefore, the ex-Emp. Nicholas II held no power once so ever to create a new document. GD Michael, Regent of Emp. and Tsar Alexei was the moment Nicholas II lefted his pen the one in power. Since it is only heresay that this document exsisted, I'm not sure what the Russian courts would rule. The second illegal act was the fact that the Emp. did not provide the proper wording for not giving the crown to his son, Alexei, but, instead to Michael. It is believed he purposely worded the document as he did with the knowledge that it was not a proper document.

Oh, and by the way, the uncrown Emp. Michael I did not give up his crown when he sent the document to the Prov. Govt.. And, if you have ever seen the document he signed it just as the ruling Emp.of Russia should have. It was his arrest that prevented him from ruling. The rumor that he gave up his power as Emp. was created probably by the Prov. Govt. then repeated by the Bolsheviks. And, like the old saying goes, if the lie is repeated enough times, people believe it.

AGRBear

[BorisRom]

You can see the original of Nicholas's II abdication on a site of the State Archive of the Russian Federation.
"1917 ãîä. Ìèôû ðåâîëþöèé". Ýêñïîíàòû âûñòàâêè. Àðõèâû Ðîññèè.

The abdication is addressed... to the chief of a staff (Alekseev).and it is signed by Nicholas II... with a pencil. I think, he has expressed the indignation against the plot of generals thus (by this way) too.

[BorisRom]

Many interesting documents of 1917 (in Russian):
Àðõèâû Ðîññèè. Ëåòîïèñü ñîáûòèé. Âûñòàâêè

[MAfan]

Nicholas abdicated to the trone for Alexis, and only then, when he thought that if Alexis was Czar they could not live together a "normal" life, he abdicated for Michael...so the second abdication was illegal, Alexis became Czar and, when he died, Michael became succeded him as Czar. (I don't know if my if-clause is written correctly, I hope you can understand...)

[lexi4]

That is exactly how it happened. And as others have said, the legality of Nicholas abdicating on behalf of his son has been debated for decades.
As to the original question, i think once Nicholas stepped down, it was permanent.

[Michael HR]

Was not Michael killed first? If he was then on the death of Alexis the throne would have passed to the next in line. But at the time it was in the favor of Michael who handed power to the government bringing to an end the dynasty