Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => Alexandra Feodorovna => Topic started by: Mahonemo on September 18, 2011, 02:59:52 PM

Title: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Mahonemo on September 18, 2011, 02:59:52 PM
I am looking for information on the assassination attempt on the Tsarina three days after Christmas in 1916. All I know so far it was made by an officer, who was hung the following morning. Any help would be appreciated.
Michael Mahoney
mahoneyresearch@gmail.com
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: nena on September 18, 2011, 04:34:40 PM
Well, I'll try to find something for you, I have it in one my book, which is away of me -asap I get it, I'll post it. I only remember that one said: "Tsarina, to be killed".
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: historyfan on September 18, 2011, 07:51:34 PM
Was there an actual attempt, or just a rough outline of a plan?  I haven't heard there was actually an attempt made.  That was right after the murder of Rasputin - wouldn't there have been much made of an assassination attempt so soon on the heels of the death of Russia's most hated man?
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: nena on September 19, 2011, 02:11:47 AM
Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich wrote in his diary after Rasputin's murder: " All that they have done...is just a halfway, because Alexandra Feodorovna and Protopopov also should be murdered obligatorily...it is logical...But I can't do it alone, how? I an not a murderer.". Of course, it was heard, those rumors, and Grand Duke was sent on his estate Grushevka. Also, Shulgin had been thinking about an assasination at Tsar in late December of 1916. Simply there was a chaos in those months in Russia, and yes, those were speculations, and it was not attempted!
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Talya on September 19, 2011, 02:25:20 AM
You could hardly call this an assassination attempt, but in December 1916 a plot was uncovered that included several grand dukes and aristocrats to remove Alix and make retire to a convent.

Also, nena, what day was that diary entry? And what book? Thanks in advance :)
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: nena on September 19, 2011, 02:40:05 AM
Indeed, nothing happened, but surely there were plans to remove the Empress. The date was not put, and all credits go to Radzinsky's book on Rasputin.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: blessOTMA on October 03, 2011, 11:14:53 AM
If one was going to over thrown AF,  would always be a half measure as long as NII was on the throne...if they wanted to remove AF, one does it by removing N II. Just killing AF was a  crazy idea . The throne is still a mess...but who to put on? the hopeless Valladimirs?...with GD Kirill married to a divorced woman? Instead of placing Dimity P at Rasputin's murder, they should have put him on the throne as a fresh start. I believe it's possible he was placed at Rasputin's mudrer to ruin him as a choice for the throne. It was a hopeless botch up. The Romanovs started the Russian Revolution and then  just proved the ability to rule was gone from the family.  As for Nicholas Mikhailovich's diary passage...there one sees the problem in one sentence...they plot and plot but cannot do what they think should be done. The work requires doing as well as scheming...or others will step in and finish the job. Plus there seems no clear leader . It was revolution by committee! lol!....that's why one sees Maria Pavlovna  the elder jump the gun and try to gather in Olga N  and gain an advantage for her son's cause...it shows no discipline among the plotters . They didn't seem to have an actual plan...just endless conversations
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Russian Art Lover on October 20, 2011, 02:46:24 PM
Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich wrote in his diary after Rasputin's murder: " All that they have done...is just a halfway, because Alexandra Feodorovna and Protopopov also should be murdered obligatorily...it is logical...But I can't do it alone, how? I an not a murderer.". Of course, it was heard, those rumors, and Grand Duke was sent on his estate Grushevka. Also, Shulgin had been thinking about an assasination at Tsar in late December of 1916. Simply there was a chaos in those months in Russia, and yes, those were speculations, and it was not attempted!

Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich repeats these thoughts in a letter written to Dowager Empress Marie Feodorovna at the very end of 1916 - note that, like other members of the family, he thinks Alix should be "eliminated", but it is all very much in the abstract sense, no concrete steps:

"I put before you the exact same dilemma. After we have removed the hypnotist, we must try to incapacitate the hypnotised. No matter how hard it is, she must be sent as far away as possible, either to a sanatorium or to a convent. We are talking about saving the throne - not the dynasty, which is still secure, but the current sovereign. Otherwise, it will be too late... The whole of Russia knows that the late Rasputin and A. F. are the one and the same. The first has been killed, now the other must also disappear…"

[GA RF, F. 642, Op. 1, D. 2350, L. 34 (verso), 35]
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: blessOTMA on October 20, 2011, 09:55:31 PM
That's amazingly cold blooded...and yet he sat back?  Exactly how did Nicholas Mikhailovich think this would happen? 

We are talking about saving the throne - not the dynasty, which is still secure, but the current sovereign

Does this mean he wishes to keep Nicholas II on the throne after AF "disappears" ...since he is writing to N II's mother, I think perhaps so.That might of been thier biggest problem in realizing their plan. It would be a hopeless half measure, ineffective and hardly worth the crime. So when  Nicholas Mikhailovich later told a French diplomat that “our courage failed us at the last minute” , perhaps  what he was alluding to is this trying to both over throw a sovereign and keep one at the same time.
 
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 21, 2011, 12:44:46 AM
Instead of placing Dimity P at Rasputin's murder, they should have put him on the throne as a fresh start.

This way, maybe he would have had a chance to marry Olga, since OTMA was considered the only good thing dynasty had.

The Romanovs started the Russian Revolution and then  just proved the ability to rule was gone from the family.

not only from the family. Whole Russia was unable to rule itself. The provisional Governement was a complete zero and unsertood nothing of what was to do. Lenin seemed to understand, at first ("Land, Peace and Power") but what did he? He gave peace, of course, but at which conditions? If germany had won, it would have taken half of the Russian Empire. He never really gave land - IMHO people in the kholkov were slave as well as they were during tsarism. Free only on the paper, just like after 1861. Power? Oh yes. Stalin had power. But if we consider "power to the people" the way in which the Urals autonomously decided to kill the IF, well, it reallyh a good example.

Anyway. I quote you. The whole family was anable to rule. Nicholas was not prepared to be Emperor, he was not able, and this is known. But none else in the family was. His cousins and uncles shouted, but they were as unable as he was. I really find romanovs GDs incapable and hypocritical people. I really despise them because they were able only to speak, also without reflect. I've always read that the family would have preferred Michail on the throne. Skipping now the fact he had married a divorced woman, had a morganatic son who couldn't have been heir & everyting else: Michail was not able! The Dowager Empr. stated he was better than his eleder brother, but IMHO he wasn't.
Of course Michail was a witty man, but not born to rule as Nicholas wasn't. And when i was reading his abdication manifesto yesterday, I was burning with anger. The whole family wanted you to be tsar instead of your brother, they all stated you were better, and what are you in fact? A coward.
You would say that none would have liked to be tsar in that particular moment of crisis. Of course. But they had MADE A REVOLUTION. If you protest, you MUST be ready to do something ACTIVELY to change things. As BlessOTMA stated, the family wanted to remove Nicholas & AF but they had no idea of what to do. NO IDEA. None of them was able or willingly to do something. They were great at shouting but none was so brave to RULE.
Michail, first of all, was a real COWARD, IMHO. If he didn't want to rule, why did he approve his cousins' and uncles' manifesto? He could have stayed apart from everything.
On the contrary, he behaved like a real coward. None was able to replace an unable tsar.

Sorry for my strong words but this things really makes me angry. I'm deeply sure that if you protest against something, you should be ready to do something else in response.
They didn't - and this is why i despise them. Nicholas was unable to rule and made so many mistakes, but at least he tried to do his best (but he hadn't the capabilities to do). The rest of the family was a group of hypocritical and stupid people, or, at least, they behaved that way.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Russian Art Lover on October 21, 2011, 01:18:18 AM
Sorry for my strong words but this things really makes me angry. I'm deeply sure that if you protest against something, you should be ready to do something else in response.

I think this is a very good post, and maybe puts in a nutshell the whole "case for the prosecution" against the other Romanovs in the events of 1916-17. They should have had a definite plan, centred around some figure, whether it was Misha (brother), Dmitry Pavlovich & Olga, Alexis, whoever, and led by such major family figures as the Dowager Empress, Ella, maybe the Vladimiroviches... But Sunny is right - protesting is the easy part ... what did they have to offer in the place of Nicky and AF ???

The one thing I am not sure about is the following, which I know is a widespread theory and I think appears in Massie, but the poster also suggests they do not agree with it:

"I've always read that the family would have preferred Michail on the throne. Skipping now the fact he had married a divorced woman, had a morganatic son who couldn't have been heir & everyting else: Michail was not able! The Dowager Empr. stated he was better than his eleder brother, but IMHO he wasn't."

In contrast to this belief, Sergei Witte recorded a conversation he had with Marie about Nicholas: "Do you mean to say that His Majesty does not have the character to be an emperor?" "That is correct," Marie Feodorovna replied, "but should anything happen, he would be replaced by Misha, who has even less will and character."

[S. Y. Witte, Vospominaniya, Moscow, 1960, Vol. 3, p. 43.]
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 21, 2011, 06:27:39 AM

In contrast to this belief, Sergei Witte recorded a conversation he had with Marie about Nicholas: "Do you mean to say that His Majesty does not have the character to be an emperor?" "That is correct," Marie Feodorovna replied, "but should anything happen, he would be replaced by Misha, who has even less will and character."

[S. Y. Witte, Vospominaniya, Moscow, 1960, Vol. 3, p. 43.]

RussianArtLover, this is very, very interesting. Thank you so much! When i wrote Misha was preferred, i referred to sa document (Fall of the Romanovs, page 90) in which Nicholas was requested to abdicate in favour not of Aleksej, but of Michail. I also recall i read that Misha was thought to be better than Nicholas among the family, maybe i read it in The lost Word of N&A, by Kurth, but i've not the book here, so i cannot check, alas.
But what you posted is very interesting, so thank you very much. At least, Marie Fedorovna had a clear and objective vision of her children. ("At least" means at least her, among the family).
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: blessOTMA on October 21, 2011, 06:12:22 PM
Very interesting....I have often thought if Misha was preferred, it was because Minnie felt she could control him far more than Nicholas , who was a lost cause if one wanted to control him , Alix had that covered and forever ...and I have wondered if Misha  ran off with a spectacularly  unsuitable woman in part as a means of breaking free from this idea/ control. As their mother points out, Misha was even less able for the role of Tsar. Nicholas was a fine gentleman would have been a sterling constitutional monarch...but that's not what was required.

It seems the family conspirators could not agree on a replacement and that was a major cause of the collapse of their schemes ...if one is waiting for others to give you power in such a situation, well there's the problem. In such times, you take power. As a family they had forgotten that key element . So they could not act decidedly...only endlessly undermine the throne. Perfect recipe for disaster
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 22, 2011, 12:43:59 AM
Very interesting....I have often thought if Misha was preferred, it was because Minnie felt she could control him far more than Nicholas , who was a lost cause if one wanted to control him , Alix had that covered and forever ...

I thought the same. And I also think that, is Misha had become tsar, the GDs would have hated Natasha also, like they hated AF - none of them 2 was a "dagmar - like" woman (the kind of tsaritsa they wanted). But anyway.

I've always thought that, in any case, the family was adrift. I mean: so many morganatics marriages & everything, to us it sounds stupid but in that time it was un umbreakable rule.
And i was thinking: who signed that manifesto?
Michail: morganatica marriage to a commoner & divorced woman (!!!) from whom had a son who would'nt have could be the heir because was considered illegitimate and didn't wear the family's name. His marriage was not accepted in the first moment.
Kirill: not allowed marriage (because Ducky was his first cousin and this is not permitted in Orthodoxy), and moreover Ducky was divorced. I'm not sure but i think their daughters didn't have the family name. But i could be wrong.
Pavel Aleks. Morganatic marriage, 3 illegitimate sons, quite abandoned his legitimate ones and sergej and ella took care of them.

I don't remember well, maybe also Nicolasha was in the second manifesto? If he was, anyway. We know his wife. (Stana of Montenegro).
To summarize: those who signed the document were memeber of the family who were somehow put aside because of their marriages -  i think they hated the system, the law that didn't let them have a recognized marriage, and then Nicholas And AF as personification of that law & system. But that's IMHO, just a thought.
But if you add Boris' marriage to ksesinkaja (!!!), Olga A's to an official, and Maria Pavlovna (younger)'s to a commoner... well, the situation in the R family was not so "pure".
In the end, I think that N and AF was the last 2 people who were conforming to a moral code that was faiding, they kept hold on to a world and values system the war and history were carring away, and they didn not recognize.
I also think this is quite because everyone said that OTMA were naive and "out of the world": the moral values and strong edyucation N&AF gave them was no more regarded as immutable in a world which was changing rapidly.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: blessOTMA on October 22, 2011, 11:47:30 AM
Indeed Sunny...that's why as I say Dimity P should have been put forward, instead of removed from consideration by placing him at Rasputin's murder.... But I believe jealousy between family factions played a part in the collapse of thier schemes ( one can hardly call them plans! ) They were fighting each other somewhat more than anything else....Miechen running to AP to snare Olga N...so obvious and ridiculous...I can't see
 NII and Alix  NOT realizing that was a warning....Miechen doesn't do something like that unless something is on the boil...imo
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 23, 2011, 01:50:28 AM
Indeed Sunny...that's why as I say Dimity P should have been put forward, instead of removed from consideration by placing him at Rasputin's murder.... But I believe jealousy between family factions played a part in the collapse of thier schemes ( one can hardly call them plans! ) They were fighting each other somewhat more than anything else....Miechen running to AP to snare Olga N...so obvious and ridiculous...I can't see
 NII and Alix  NOT realizing that was a warning....Miechen doesn't do something like that unless something is on the boil...imo

I second you completely. The problem is, NII and AF were too sure that God was going to prevent them from human's evil. They didn't think how powerful human evil (jealousy for example) can be.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: blessOTMA on October 23, 2011, 03:24:23 AM
Indeed. Alix had great faith in her faith! . 
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Olgasha on October 24, 2011, 06:11:01 AM

Michail, first of all, was a real COWARD, IMHO. If he didn't want to rule, why did he approve his cousins' and uncles' manifesto? He could have stayed apart from everything.
On the contrary, he behaved like a real coward.
I totally NOT agree with you, Sunny. There were many cowards in this family, but certainly not Michael. And I think it is so unfair to say about him 'a coward', when he was just feared for his life and life of his family - when no one couldn't ensure he was safe, on the contrary - he was told that take over the throne = bloodshed. In this  unimaginably dangerous situation Michael had made actually the only possible decision he could. Who said, the whole family wanted him to be a Tsar? Certainly not! Michael was just first person on whom Nicholas could dump the whole mess, which he did with his wife.
So if I understand you correctly, in your opinion, Sunny, Mchael was just should take the throne and die. And then no one would have said he was a coward, isn't it?.

If he was really a coward, he would survive the revolution like his cousins, those who fled abroad, because life was more precious to them than Dynasty and throne and Russia.



Sorry for this off-topic, but I just had to write it.


Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 24, 2011, 06:37:40 AM
So if I understand you correctly, in your opinion, Sunny, Mchael was just should take the throne and die. And then no one would have said he was a coward, isn't it?.

Not exactly; my words have been strong, and i'm sorry for that. Obviously it is simply IMHO, only my personal view, nothing more.
I'll try to better explain what i meant.
I perfectly understand it was a terrible situation. I wouldn't blame him simply because he abdicated. On the contrary! What i meant - maybe i've not been clear - is that if he didn't want to be emperor (perfectly understandable) he shouldn't have signed that GDs manifesto agains Nicholas. Since the manifesto clearly required the abdication of Nicholas to have Michail as a regent. I'm quoting from The Fall of the Romanovs, page 87 - 91. On page 90 appear 3 request of abdication for Nicholas. One from Nikolasha, the second (the one i'm referring to) from General Brusilov. This latter clearly writes: "I ask you to report His Imperial Majesty (...) to abdicate the throne in favour of His Majesty's Heir tsarevitch with Grand Duke Michail Aleksadrovich as regent."

What i meant is: did Michail know of this request? i can't say for sure, but it's likely since he signed the manifesto. So: IF he knew, and agreed, he acted IMHO like a coward because he firstly accepted this request and then, when Nicholas called him to reign (and so following that precise request) he refused. First he agreed and then was scared and refused. And this would be very odd.
If he did not know, well, it was not his fault, of course (and he did not act like a coward as i said, and i was completely wrong and i'm sorry) but if i were him i'd have been more careful after signing that manifesto, since, after Alexej, he was obviously the Heir. You see, he signed that manifesto, which required a Constitution, a provisional cabinet who granted peolpe's will and a Parliament. I'm not saying it was a stupid request - on the contrary! - but it was obvious that in a political crisis, being the Heir so ill, he (Michail) COULD have been brought into that chaos. Or, at least, it sseems obvious to me.

Quote
he was just feared for his life and life of his family

this is right, i was seeing only the political side.
Indeed, Nicholas did the same - he abdicated because he thought it was better for Russia and for his family. Alas, he was wrong.

In the other post, anyway (i know you did not mention it, but just to be precise), i did not mean having a morganatic marriage is wrong - i simply tried to reason like AF would have done - morganatic marriages were still considered out of law, and the law should have been changed if Michail had become tsar, otherwise his son couldn't have been the Heir. But this just a "What if"!
I meant to underline that people who signed that manifesto and went to Alix to ask Nicholas's abdication were all people who wanted a political change and also a change of Laws. Personally, i don't find ANYTHING wrong in morganatica marriages!



Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Alixz on October 24, 2011, 01:52:44 PM
But do remember that it has been said that Michael grabbed at his last chance to marry Natasha while Alexei was still healthy enough to perhaps live to inherit.

They ran away to another country to marry just so that Nicholas II couldn't stop them.

I have always thought that with all of the morganatic and against church law marriages that Dmitri Pavlovich was the only one who was even remotely qualified (by law not by experience) to take over as Tsar.  But in the beginning, Michael was to be regent, not Tsar.  It was Nicholas who took Alexei out of the line of succession (and probably illegally) and then gave the "mess" to Michael, who knew when he married Natasha that he was taking himself and his heirs out of the line of succession. He had already made his decision and made it plain years before when he and Natasha married.

As for Kyrill and Ducky - yes they were first cousins and she was divorced - but Kyrill's mother had not been Orthodox when he or his siblings were born and that is yet another law that had to be applied.

I think that is why Marie Pavlovna tried to secure Olga N for Boris.  Get him a wife who had Imperial and legal Imperial blood and then Boris might have a way to take over.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 25, 2011, 12:37:15 AM
But do remember that it has been said that Michael grabbed at his last chance to marry Natasha while Alexei was still healthy enough to perhaps live to inherit.

They ran away to another country to marry just so that Nicholas II couldn't stop them.

I was thinking of this while writing my last post. It's clear Michael did not want to be tsar - and who can blame it for it? He was a family guy like Nicholas.
What i found shameful is that he asked his brother to abdicate perfectly knewing the situation (=Alexej's illness). But, once again: "shameful" is onlu IMHO.

I have always thought that with all of the morganatic and against church law marriages that Dmitri Pavlovich was the only one who was even remotely qualified (by law not by experience) to take over as Tsar.  But in the beginning, Michael was to be regent, not Tsar.  It was Nicholas who took Alexei out of the line of succession (and probably illegally) and then gave the "mess" to Michael, who knew when he married Natasha that he was taking himself and his heirs out of the line of succession. He had already made his decision and made it plain years before when he and Natasha married.

As for Kyrill and Ducky - yes they were first cousins and she was divorced - but Kyrill's mother had not been Orthodox when he or his siblings were born and that is yet another law that had to be applied.

i'm sure that the R family wanted a political change to have law changes. A lot of laws to change, indeed, and they understood that Nicholas and Alexandra were far too conservative to allow them. I think they hoped that another tsar or another governement would have abolished or changed some of those laws.
Once again, IMHO.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Olgasha on October 25, 2011, 03:41:03 AM
if he didn't want to be emperor (perfectly understandable) he shouldn't have signed that GDs manifesto agains Nicholas. Since the manifesto clearly required the abdication of Nicholas to have Michail as a regent.

The GD's manifesto he signed (after GD Pavel and GD Kirill, was that one proposed a new constitution, creation of constitutional monarchy after war and formation of a new government.  Michael indeed signed that, and then, when it ceased to be relevant, he asked to remove his name. But it was not a manifesto against Nicholas.

I'm quoting from The Fall of the Romanovs, page 87 - 91. On page 90 appear 3 request of abdication for Nicholas. One from Nikolasha, the second (the one i'm referring to) from General Brusilov. This latter clearly writes: "I ask you to report His Imperial Majesty (...) to abdicate the throne in favour of His Majesty's Heir tsarevitch with Grand Duke Michail Aleksadrovich as regent."
You are quoting not a manifesto, but responses sent to Pskov by commanders, when Nicholas was still not sure - to abdicate or not. The commanders advised to abdicate.

What i meant is: did Michail know of this request? i can't say for sure, but it's likely since he signed the manifesto. So: IF he knew, and agreed, he acted IMHO like a coward because he firstly accepted this request and then, when Nicholas called him to reign (and so following that precise request) he refused. First he agreed and then was scared and refused. And this would be very odd.
Not if situation could change dramatically from one hour to the next.
But anyway - when Nicholas signed his abdication in Pskov, Michael was on Millionnaya Street in Petrograd and he had no idea , what his brother decided to do after his first abdication in favour of Aleksei (with Michael as a Regent) - that he had abdicated once more ("Not wishing to be parted from our beloved Son").  Michael didn't know that he was new Emperor until Friday, March 3, probably when the delegation of Duma came at Milionnaya St. to meet him.
So when he signed GD's manifesto (which should also sign Nicholas after his return to Petrograd), he didn't know about his brother's decision. Actually when exactly he agreed to be a Tsar? He was told suddenly that he is already a new Emperor, nobody asked him whether he wants it or not. Letter of apologizes (for this unexpected "suprise") from Nicholas to his younger brother not reached the addressee.

 It was said Michael let  himself to be persuaded to give up the throne - but in fact his manifesto is not the abdication ("I have taken a firm decision to assume the Supreme Power ONLY IF such be the will of our great people") . It was not his fault that there was no universal suffrage and soon after the power had passed into the hands of the bolsheviks.
If the situation in the country after abdication of Nicholas II was different, Michael could be a good constitutional monarch. But as you said, Sunny, it is only "what if"...

There were many cowards in Romanov family, there were even a traitors (like was Kirill Vladimirovich in my opinion), but to call Michael 'a coward' it is just injustice.




Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on October 25, 2011, 07:47:48 AM
there were even a traitors (like was Kirill Vladimirovich in my opinion)

In my opinion, too. He was indeed, but IMHO.The worst thing is that he later proclaimed himslef Protector of the Throne or something like this, and, indeed, he was the first one in succession after Nicholas, Alexej and Michail's death. I can't thing of what could have been if monarchy had been restored with such a person like Tsar.

but to call Michael 'a coward' it is just injustice.

As i wrote, his behaviour could be considered coward if he know about the requests which were sent to Psok and then changed decision. Being things as you stated, his behaviour was NOT coward, so if things really went the way you wrote, i was wrong and apologize!
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Naslednik on November 06, 2011, 01:13:03 AM
Michael was only a heartbeat and a hemorrhage away from the throne in 1912 when he lied to his brother.  He wasn't a coward, but I seriously question his self-discipline and his fidelity to Nicholas (and MF).
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on November 06, 2011, 03:05:58 AM
Michael was only a heartbeat and a hemorrhage away from the throne in 1912 when he lied to his brother.  He wasn't a coward, but I seriously question his self-discipline and his fidelity to Nicholas (and MF).

I have to admit that my judgment of Michail's behaviour in 1917 also depends on what he did in 1912. It is obvious he did not want to become tsar or even heir. Nothing to blame here - his decision. But maybe he'd have better to sign a public manifesto saying he did not want it instead of marrying secretely and so on.
Anyway, i hope he thought well on what this refuse could bring - that is, if Aleksej had died, the title of heir would have passed to Kirill and to a secondary branch of the family - Moreover, to a person like Kirill. We all know him - he really was NOT loyal to Nicholas!

Of course i'm not saying something like: Nicholas was an angel, his relatives werre bad boyes because weren't loyal to him. I'm just trying to see it from NII and AF's eyes.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Olgasha on November 06, 2011, 12:43:15 PM

Michael was only a heartbeat and a hemorrhage away from the throne in 1912 when he lied to his brother.  He wasn't a coward, but I seriously question his self-discipline and his fidelity to Nicholas (and MF).
I have quite different view. He promised not to marry Natalia and for two next years he tried not to break that promise, but situation was getting worse and worse - for few years Natalia had endured humilitation and they both felt that they could not live in this way any longer. And it was also Nicholas' fault that his brother came to the conclusion that there is no other way but marriage.
 In some way his intransigent family forced him to make a choice.
So in my opinion - yes, he broke his word, but it was a matter of honor, not fidelity to Nicholas.

I have to admit that my judgment of Michail's behaviour in 1917 also depends on what he did in 1912
 maybe he'd have better to sign a public manifesto saying he did not want it instead of marrying secretely and so on.
Anyway, i hope he thought well on what this refuse could bring - that is, if Aleksej had died, the title of heir would have passed to Kirill and to a secondary branch of the family - Moreover, to a person like Kirill.
He knew that, and probably that's why he formulated his manifesto in 1917 in this way, making actually impossible to take the throne by no other - if he didn't abdicate, no one could take the throne, it's simple.

Anyway, if we are talking about what he did in 1912, the point is that he know nothing about Alexei's hemophilia! If he knew the truth, he could have acted differently.



Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Sunny on November 06, 2011, 01:36:24 PM

Anyway, if we are talking about what he did in 1912, the point is that he know nothing about Alexei's hemophilia! If he knew the truth, he could have acted differently.

Alas, that is false. He did not know Alexej suffered of haemophilia, but he knew he was ill in October 1912 (when he married Natalia) and quite died.

From a letter of Michail to his mother, 31 october 1912 (NS) (Lifelong Passion page 347)

"(...) on the 16/29 October (...) I was married to natalia Sergeevna Brassova
(...) But i never want to distress you and might never have decided on this step, were if not for little Alexej's illnes, and the thought that as Heir I could be separated from Natalia, but now that can no longer happen!"

Michail himslef explained he has married because he did not want to become Heir - as an Heir, he coudln't have married Natalia, so married her when Alexej was still alive.
Nasledik was right.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Olgasha on November 06, 2011, 03:23:18 PM
Everyone has right to their own opinion.

Of course Michael knew about that crisis in 1912 (but not of haemophlia), and indeed he wrote to his brother as you are quoting, Sunny, but it could not be true, rather just an excuse, which was pretty tactless - Alexei's illness couldn't be a reason why he married, because the secret wedding in Vienna was planned before that crisis.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Mahonemo on September 12, 2013, 12:37:55 PM
Update: the assassination attempt took place on 10 January 1917 (New Style) as Alexandra was enroute to work at a hospital. The killer was an army officer. He was arrested and hung on 11 January.
Anyone have anything else?
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: rgt9w on September 12, 2013, 05:50:29 PM
Where did you find this information?
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Lady Macduff on September 15, 2013, 04:23:14 PM
I haven't ever come across any references to an attempt being made on Alexandra's life.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Jen_94 on September 15, 2013, 05:24:42 PM
I haven't heard of such a thing until now either to be honest.

Lady Macduff, quoted from an old post...

Grand Duke Nicholas Mikhailovich wrote in his diary after Rasputin's murder: " All that they have done...is just a halfway, because Alexandra Feodorovna and Protopopov also should be murdered obligatorily...it is logical...But I can't do it alone, how? I an not a murderer.". Of course, it was heard, those rumors, and Grand Duke was sent on his estate Grushevka. Also, Shulgin had been thinking about an assasination at Tsar in late December of 1916. Simply there was a chaos in those months in Russia, and yes, those were speculations, and it was not attempted!

Mahonemo, I would be interested to know where you heard that?
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: Mahonemo on September 24, 2013, 02:02:05 PM
An Ambassador's Memoirs, Volume III, page 162.
He puts the date as 12 January 1917 (OS) which is 25 January 1917 (NS).
Do you have any information?

Michael Mahoney
mahoneyresearch@yahoo.com
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on September 24, 2013, 05:28:43 PM
I think Paleologue may have been recording gossip. If there was a attempt to kill Alexandra at this time it would have made front page news throughout the Russian Empire and possibly the world. Note by this time censorship in Russia had totally broken down. There are numerous accounts of the final days of the Russian monarchy but not one mentions an assignation attempt on her.

In the book section there is the book "The Diary of Olga Romanov" which has face book postings for 11, 12 ,13 January 1917 which you might want to check out.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: historyfan on September 24, 2013, 08:55:29 PM
However (and someone may have already mentioned this - if so, please forgive me for redundancy) there were certainly suggestions of this sort, and possibly outright plots. Attempts, though? As has been said, those weren't documented.
Title: Re: Assassination attempt in 1916
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on September 30, 2013, 05:12:40 PM
This is from the book "The Watchful State Security Police and Opposition in Russia 1906-1917" John Daly
"The political circles of Petrograd, according to a police report of 13 January, excitedly discussed an alleged attempt on the life of the empress by either Prince S. V. Gagarin or prince V. N. Obolenskii, two courtiers."

This is most likely the story.