Author Topic: Not allowed to be Tsar?  (Read 22809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Taren

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
    • The Chick Manifesto
Not allowed to be Tsar?
« on: February 14, 2007, 02:18:29 PM »
I was in class last week and my World Civilizations professor and I were discussing different royals. We got on the subject of the Romanovs and he mentioned that because Alexei had hemophilia a document was drafted a few years after his birth that said that he could never be Tsar. I've never heard anything about that and since he's been wrong before about royals (saying hemophilia was in every royal house in Europe thanks to QV) I'm taking this with a grain of salt unless someone can tell me for sure one way or the other. So can anyone properly refute this?

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2007, 03:39:49 PM »
All, I can say is I have read pretty much everything on the Romanovs and never heard of this, so it's news to me. I think that Alexandra would have had quite a few things to say about that document, because she was so committed to preserving her son's right to the throne. ;) Since there is no evidence of that, I would have to conclude either she wasn't aware of it ( unlikely) or it never happened. Did this person think Alexandra knew about it or not, and what about Nicholas? It sounds unlikely to me.

Sometimes people who teach history get caught up in either making it boring, or having interesting interpretations, which may or may not be accurate. This one doesn't sound accurate to me- and anyway, who would have drafted such a document? Nicholas? It doesn't sound like something he would do, and who could have done it beyond his back, because he was autocrat, even after the 1905 revolution, he still had much power. As well, until 1912, it wasn't really well known the Tsarvitch had had hemophilia, which you would have had to have knowledge of to do such a thing. I would not call a 1912 ( seven years after Alexei's birth) a few years, and anyway, what about the abdication, would not such a document's existence have come out then, or would Nicholas have kept it secret, and just signed Alexei's right away for other reasons, like he in fact did, that he wished Alexei to be with his family?  He did say that was because of his illness, of course, and that was the main factor he considered. All in all, this sounds out there to me..
« Last Edit: February 14, 2007, 03:41:30 PM by imperial angel »

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2007, 05:32:15 PM »
Good grief. The teacher was most likely referring to the abdication itself. THAT denied the succession to Alexei. When  just 12-14 years old- that IS a "few years" .
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline Taren

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
    • The Chick Manifesto
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2007, 06:08:35 PM »
Good grief. The teacher was most likely referring to the abdication itself. THAT denied the succession to Alexei. When  just 12-14 years old- that IS a "few years" .
]

No. He specifically stated to me that there was a document made up that said that because of Alexei's illness he could never be Tsar. He said nothing about the abdication.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2007, 06:30:19 PM »
Well if it was the it abdication would make sense, but a document makes NO sense. I wonder if he might be trying to say one thing, and is really saying another? I don't think such a document ever existed. ??? How much does he know about the abdication itself? That might give you a clue..

Offline Taren

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
    • The Chick Manifesto
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2007, 06:45:33 PM »
Well if it was the it abdication would make sense, but a document makes NO sense. I wonder if he might be trying to say one thing, and is really saying another? I don't think such a document ever existed. ??? How much does he know about the abdication itself? That might give you a clue..
You're right. Had he mentioned the abdication it would have made sense, because from everything I've read (such as Alexandra saying she didn't look forward to having to give up her jewels to her son's wife one day) prior to the abdication there was nothing (barring death or an unequal marriage) that would have made it impossible for him to become Tsar. Hemophilia is a serious disease, but it's not as though it messed with his mind or something. My guess is that he doesn't know as much as royals as he thinks he does (i.e. saying all of QV's daughters passed hemophilia on to every royal house in Europe, including to the Italians). I'm writing about the royals and WWI for my term paper and am including a diagram showing the hemophilia in the family just to enlighten him.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2007, 08:17:32 AM »
That's a great idea- it sounds like he needs enlightening, on both the hemophilia issue and Alexei not allowed to be Tsar, because the two things you mentioned were the only things prior to the abdication that would have mattered.

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2007, 08:24:12 PM »
No. He specifically stated to me that there was a document made up that said that because of Alexei's illness he could never be Tsar. He said nothing about the abdication.
I think he's quite wrong. I believe Nicholas's abdication specifically states that he abdicated for himself AND on behalf of Aleksei. (That's why there's so much debate about who was really the last tsar of Russia -- it's technically illegal to abdicate on anyone's behalf.) If a document existed that denied Aleksei's right to the throne in the first place, there would have been no need for Nicholas to abdicate for Aleksei in March of 1917.

Also, why would Alkesei's illness have been kept a secret if he couldn't ever be tsar? That was the whole motive behind the secrecy -- the public couldn't know how frail their future tsar was.
THE LOST CROWN: A Novel of Romanov Russia -- now in paperback!
"A dramatic, powerful narrative and a masterful grasp of life in this vanished world." ~Greg King

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2007, 09:32:49 PM »
Absolute rubbish. If there was some document saying Alexei could not be Tsar, why would Alexandra have bothered telling the Tsar in numerous letters to preserve the throne for Baby, and many other words to that affect? Why would have she bothered with Rasputin?

Offline Jarian

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
    • freewebs.com/mariaromanov
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2007, 10:15:05 PM »
Your teacher needs some history  lessons himself ;)

Offline dunya

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2007, 12:22:53 PM »
If Alexey was not allowed to be Tsar; why would Nikolay II has given up the throne on behalf of Alexey. Then he has decided to gave it up for both of them because he wanted to be with his son. And Alexey had no chance other than being a tsar unless ofcourse if he chose to disclose his ilnness.

I dont think he could have lived enough to be the Tsar though anyway, as I know it at those times, Alexey living till that age was considered to be a miracle.

So, maybe we could put it like this, he was allowed to be the tsar however he couldnt be efficient due his illness. He''ll have to give up eventually even if he became the tsar in the first place.

Offline Binky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2007, 02:08:26 PM »
Absolute rubbish. If there was some document saying Alexei could not be Tsar, why would Alexandra have bothered telling the Tsar in numerous letters to preserve the throne for Baby, and many other words to that affect? Why would have she bothered with Rasputin?

I think she would want her little boy cured even if he could not be the tsar.  She was a good mother and she loved him very much.  And of course she wanted him to get the throne because she knew that's why god gave him to to her.  Just like god gave her Rapsutin to help him get well.  Alexandra always wanted her way which was that Alexei would be the tsar and she would make a big stink if there was some document that siad he could not be tsar.

Offline Taren

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
    • The Chick Manifesto
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2007, 09:42:05 PM »
Thank you all for reiterating what I knew to be true! In addition, as of last night my professor has informed me of these other "little known facts":

Alexandra was a princess of Denmark
Nicholas and Wilhelm II were first cousins (as in Nicholas was also a descendant of Queen Victoria who just happened to pass on hemophilia to every royal family including the Italians)
Nicholas and Alexandra had five daughters, one of whom died in early childhood
Alexei frequently tried to kill himself
Alexander III died in 1892
Alexandra miscarried several sons -at least five
The uprising on the Battleship Potemkin happened at least a decade after 1905
Alexander III despised Nicholas II with a passion (we're talking Hanoverian style)

I attempted to correct him. While I did get him to admit Alix was German, he refused to believe there were only four daughters and told me to look it up. When I told him that I had read several books, including Massie's, he told me Massie's book was fluff. Yeah, so many fluff writers get Pulitzers.

Sorry to complain about my professor like this. Maybe who's been force fed the wrong information will see these things and realize they were taught wrong.

Offline Sarushka

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
  • May I interest you in a grain of salt?
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2007, 10:17:33 AM »
Wow. That's just grossly inaccurate, as you well know. And this guy's a professional teacher? Kinda makes me wonder how much other misinformation he's spreading...
THE LOST CROWN: A Novel of Romanov Russia -- now in paperback!
"A dramatic, powerful narrative and a masterful grasp of life in this vanished world." ~Greg King

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2007, 11:42:53 AM »
Thank you all for reiterating what I knew to be true! In addition, as of last night my professor has informed me of these other "little known facts":

Alexandra was a princess of Denmark
Nicholas and Wilhelm II were first cousins (as in Nicholas was also a descendant of Queen Victoria who just happened to pass on hemophilia to every royal family including the Italians)
Nicholas and Alexandra had five daughters, one of whom died in early childhood
Alexei frequently tried to kill himself
Alexander III died in 1892
Alexandra miscarried several sons -at least five
The uprising on the Battleship Potemkin happened at least a decade after 1905
Alexander III despised Nicholas II with a passion (we're talking Hanoverian style)

I attempted to correct him. While I did get him to admit Alix was German, he refused to believe there were only four daughters and told me to look it up. When I told him that I had read several books, including Massie's, he told me Massie's book was fluff. Yeah, so many fluff writers get Pulitzers.

Sorry to complain about my professor like this. Maybe who's been force fed the wrong information will see these things and realize they were taught wrong.


Well, he needs correcting, and you are not wrong to complain about him. I guess sometimes those who know history as a hobby have the first advantage, the most knowledge ;)