Assassination attempt in 1916

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.

Indeed. Alix had great faith in her faith! . 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).

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.

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.

[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]

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.

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.