There is also THE GRAND DUKE"S WOMAN, by Pauline Gray. Not sure where this fits in with the other mentions, but is about Nathalie [Nathalia]
...you made me to have a different look at M. I realised that I only ever read things about him written by his immediate family, who loved him very much. But looking from a side he does not appear to be such a nice person at all...
There is even a picture of Natalia, Alix, Nicky and Mikhail on Shtandart. Natalia and Alix are sitting face to face, with Alix's back to the camera and Mikhail and Nicky are just being silly, pulling themselves up on poles. I am not sure whether the picture was taken before or after their wedding!
There is even a picture of Natalia, Alix, Nicky and Mikhail on Shtandart. Natalia and Alix are sitting face to face, with Alix's back to the camera and Mikhail and Nicky are just being silly, pulling themselves up on poles. I am not sure whether the picture was taken before or after their wedding!
Maybe it is Natasha maybe not. I can not see if it is her. Her face is a little bit in the shadow. So I can't say for sure if the lady is the Countness or not.
If it is Natasha. Then this picture is made in a time that nobody had a clue what kind of relationship she has with the Grand Duke Michael. If it is her she is introduced as a friend of Michael.
I have a question about divorce in the Russian Orthodox Chrurch. In "War and Peace", Tolstoy satirizes the attempt by Ellen Bezukova to get a divorce by converting to Roman Catholicism and renouncing her marriage to Pierre. All the other charcters in the book are amazed at her ingenuity because they could never imagine a woman with a living husband marrying another man.
But one hundred years later, Natalie divorced her second husband to marry her third-Michael. Did the Church change its position or did Tolstoy employ dramatic license?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v433/feomarie/NatashaMich.jpg)
The general belief is that this photo was taken by Nathalie's husband, Vladimir Wulfert, on one of the many outings the five used to go on. At the time, Wulfert was either unaware or ignoring the fact that MA and his wife were becoming closer.
Wasn't Wulfert Natalia's first husbane? If so, does that mean that after this picture Natalia married yet another guy before marrying Mikhail?
I don't think Tolstoy took dramatic license. I am just speculating that the church changed its position. But considering the dogmatic nature of the Russian Orthodox Church that seems hard to believe.
If I've read Michael & Natasha correctly, the attitudes of Michael's sisters strike me as odd.
Xenia was always the more conventional sister. She seemed more sympathetic (or at least more tolerant) about her brother's dilemma. Olga, who ended a royal marriage to contract a morganatic one, seems to have grown colder toward Natalia as time went on.
Was there, perhaps, a personality clash between Olga & Natalia? Perhaps bad chemistry between the two women?
Here is a picture of a young Michael:
(http://img148.exs.cx/img148/8918/michael0011oo.png)
I have read that George inherited Maria Feodorovnas automobile, and it was the car he drove when he was killed.
She brought several pictures of Micha that I had never seen before, and asked me to keep them. I think poor Micha will be glad, when he is told that I have seen them".
What was Natalie's life in exile like? Did she ever remarry? I'm sure George's early death must have devastated her.
In many descriptions of her, it seems the describers are struck by her exceptional beauty. Anyone have any good pictures to share?
I found this regarding the Nathalie Brasov;
Sergei Aleksandrovich Cheremetevsky ( from the counts Cheremeteff no? ) married Ulia Viatscheslavovna Sventitzkya, daughter of Alexander Pushkin. ( the poet no? ) They had a child ;
Nataliya Sergeievna Cheremetevskaya+ b. 27 Jun 1880, She married, firstly, Sergei Ivanovich Mamantov before 1910.3 She and Sergei Ivanovich Mamantov were divorced before 1911.3 She married, secondly, Captain Vladimir Vladimirovich Wuffert before 1911.3 She and Captain Vladimir Vladimirovich Wuffert were divorced before 1911.3 She married, thirdly, Mikhail Aleksandrovich Romanov, Grand Duke of Russia She died on 26 February 1952 at age 71 in Paris, France.3
Sources ; http://www.thepeerage.com/p10422.htm#i104217
http://www.thepeerage.com/p10200.htm#i101996
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/booboogbs/NatashaJuly1910.jpg) July 1910
Natasha went to live in England with her children,
Children ?
Wsan't George her only son ?
Yes, that young man is GD Dmitriy. He was in love with Natalia.
She had a daughter from a previous marriage, "Tata."
What happened to this daughter ?
Did she got married and had children ?
Now this would be a nice thing to snag. I have the feeling it's going to go for more than the list price
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/search/LOTDETAIL.ASP?sid=&intObjectID=4695887
GRAND DUKE MICHAEL ALEXANDROVICH AND COUNTESS BRASOVA
A collection of five small oblong family photograph albums containing approximately 1,050 images showing the life of the family in various locations, circa 1910-1923, various bindings slightly (worn); together with an oblong octavo album containing 27 carte de visite portraits by Bergomasco and others with French manuscript identification and 40 carte de visite by William Carrick of Russian types, in a papier- maché binding by the Vishniakov factory, the upper cover with a view of Brasovo (the interior loose); and another album with 22 portraits of the Russian Imperial and Danish Royal families, by Bergomasco, E. Hohlenberg of Copenhagen and others, in leather and velvet album, the upper cover applied with a gilt-metal and enamel escutcheon (spine worn and loose);
GRAND DUKE NIKOLAI NIKOLAIEVICH
Six photographs of the Grand Duke at the Supreme Headquarters, Baranovichi, one showing the Grand Duke with the Emperor and other officers and five of the Grand Duke on various occasions and signed on the reverse by the photographer B.P. Andreev (13)
It is often said and written that Natalie was a beautiful woman. I for one just do not see it.
TampaBay
It is often said and written that Natalie was a beautiful woman. I for one just do not see it.
TampaBay
I don't see it either, but perhaps she just wasn't very photogenic? To me, she looks much older than her age - almost matronly - and really very average looking woman. But sometimes there is a lot lost in photos.
George, when grown, reminds me of Dimitry....don't ask me why! But then he was distantly related to him so why not?I thought the same thing! The resemblance is uncanny.
Arleen,
To be fair and honest I have never viewed a really good picture of Natalie.
TampaBay
He could not count on these people which added greatly to his stress as ruler. Most importantly, I think he was truly blind-sided by his own brother's duplicity. To me, Nicholas's stern actions toward Michael were a result of his anguish because he felt he lost the only man in his family he could truly trust and thought, that of all people, Michael would understand his (Nicholas's) position.
Ack. I could go on and on.
More later....
I thnk he had to recognize Ducky and Kyril's marriage because it affected the succession, possibly, if something happened to Alexei, and also Micheal of course. What year did he recognize the marriage of Ducky and Kyril ( I can't recall?) was it after it became clear the sucession through Michael would be morgantic, and thus not acceptable?
Lesley, I have to admit it has been years since I read Michael and Natasha. So I am not exactly sure how you found Natasha manipulative. Could you refresh my memory? I know that opinions can differ. I don't recall ever thinking of Natasha in that way.
Nadya, I may be incorrect but my reading of page 136 is: "not only banishing him but freezing all his assets remaining in Russia and most astonishingly making him personally subject to guardianship, a measure NORMALLY reserved for minors or madmen."
Nadja, no mea culpas necessary. You are a very close reader with an excellent memory. Your comments always make me a better thinker.
It wasn't like Michael didn't know what was expected of him. And eight months later, due the death of his brother George, Michael found himself heir presumptive. No small deal. When Michael became involved with Nathalie, he engaged in conduct unbecoming to an officer. He not only cuckolded one his fellow officers and caused his wife to leave him, he betrayed the entire corps and caused them huge embarrassment. I never got the sense that this lapse in an officer's code of conduct or the immorality of his choice bothered Michael one iota.
So, what does the 30-year-old Nathalie do? The MOST sensible thing. She gets pregnant. The IF has to get involved in her divorce, the birth certificate of George, and then after promising his family that he will not marry Nathalie, Michael sneaks away with her and does so with Matveev making all the arrangements in secret.
Now to Dimitry. Here is the only member of the IF to really interact with Nathalie and what does she do? She seduces him (romantically not sexually). This is a woman who uses any kind of "power" given to her unwisely. While Mme Paley was in a similar situation, she knew enough about the court and court politics "to take the medicine" dished out and, ultimately to make amends, esp with AF. Nathalie was obviously clueless about this sort of thing. Additionally, she made negative comments in public about the IF which were passed on. Stupid woman. Nathalie never understood that when she helped to undermine the IF, she helped speed the process toward Revolution.
Regardless of how many people think Michael would have made a good Tsar, I have to disagree. He was a pleasant, bright, lovely fellow but it is obvious from this and past actions with Dina, that he was easily led and did not put duty before his personal life. Case in point:
I agree with you about Michael's loneliness and also with the fact that he was not promiscuous. I didn't get into it in my post but I wondered whether Michael had had many intimate relationships with women.
I didn't make myself very clear in my last, hastily put-together paragraph. I don't blame Nathalie for the revolution. You are correct, she was but a bit player. What I was trying to convey was that she foolishly made negative comments about the IF to her little subset of friends. These remarks got back to the IF and to society at large. For what little glory and attention she received from them, regardless of the fact other people were making the same remarks, they were extremely damaging to her husband because they only further alienated him from his family. It was another blow to the gut of the Romanov dynasty. What I also poorly conveyed was Princess Paley's understanding of "united we stand, divided we fall."
Like you, I have read many negative comments about N & A, especially N being a very poor Tsar. I don't believe that any man, unless he was as ruthless as Lenin, could have survived the events of WW1 and the Revolution. There is a great Churchill quote:
".....He is about to be struck down. A dark hand, gloved at first in folly, now intervenes. Exit Tsar. Deliver him and all he loved to wounds and death. Belittle his efforts, asperse his conduct, insult his memory: but pause then to tell us who else was found capable."
"The World Crisis, 1916-1918."
That quote haunts me and encapsulates my entire outlook with regard to Nicholas. He inherited the perfect storm.
More later......
http://www.iconastas.com/stock.asp?code=453055349
The site mistakenly assumes that GD Nikolai Mikhailovich “Bimbo” was writing his brother Miche-Miche, but obviously, given the content of the letter, this was written to his cousin Misha. I think the letter (the original) may be for sale. Here is a transcription.
GD Nikolai “Bimbo” to Mikhail Alexandrovich, 26 June 1913
Dear Misha,
Thank you very much for your long letter, which I read with pleasure and sadness in my heart. You really should not look at the future as years of new severe trials and privations. You should try and settle everything before the end of your holidays, namely, permission for Natalia Sergeevna to come to Russia. I showed your letter to Ksenia and Sandro, you should first talk to them because they are going to England and they could together influence Mama in order that she could persuade His Majesty to allow Natalia Sergeevna to visit Russia. Ksenia and Sandro are looking for some place for their children somewhere in Normandy but have not decided where as yet. Until approximately the end of July I will be in Marienbad, Hotel Ott, then I will be between Petersburg and Grushovka, and then until the autumn in Borzhomi. I send my regards to Natalia Sergeevna and embrace you three times from the bottom of my heart. Next year about 19th June I am going to move to Marienbad, then I will have the greatest pleasure to go to the ever-beautiful Paris. May God protect you and help you to understand.
From your ever-loving old Bimbo
So Boris, Andrei and Dmitri, were not the only ones willing to visit. Bimbo was willing to visit them in Paris when he made it there in 1914.
Do anyone know where did George Brasov lived, what was his hobbies, interests...?Wasn't he engaged with someone?
George Brassov:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/MMPC/georgybrassov.jpg)
The most logical answers that I have seen, which come from those far more well read on Imperial Russian law than I, seem to be the following.
Whether Nicholas II "had the right" to abdicate in favor of Michael and also to abdicate for Alexei was a moot point as the abdication as such was accepted without any legal challenge. It was thus a "fait accompli" and no power went to Alexei.
They also posit that because Imperial Power still "existed" but was not accepted by Michael, it ceased to exist at that moment Michael repudiated accepting it. Michael was never Emperor in the legal sense of the word. The Imperial Power may have existed for the few hours between Nicholas' abdication and Michael's renunciation thereof, but it never actually vested legally with Michael, and therefore it is not proper to actually designate him as Emperor because he never actually HELD the Imperial Power. Nicholas II was for all intents and purposes the Last Emperor of Russia.
Lisa,
I think you mis-characterized what I meant by "renunciation". Michael's "manifesto" or statement or whatever else we care to call it said in so many words "If the People want to choose me to be Emperor, then I will be Emperor". What Michael did here was indeed to renounce the old laws of succession entirely (ie: either by birthright and the Pauline Laws or by Imperial Ukaze) and say "OK, I "renounce" the Emperor just handing me the Imperial Power. I leave the decision to the People, and if they want me, then I'll be Emperor". This was in effect, what caused the immediate end of Imperial Power.
He signed in the imperial manor as Michael and not Michael Alexandrovich. No emperor signed with their number such as Nicholas II. Therefore I feel Michael thought of himself as the container of imperial power when he signed the document and hence the style. I would welcome other views mind youActually, Michael HR, the signing of the single name "Michael" means pretty much nothing in this instance. ALL of the Grand Dukes (ie sons of an Emperor) only EVER signed just their first name. Throughout his life, Michael Alexandrovich only ever signed his first name "Michael" as his official signature. We have seen one of the Imperial Court Annual Almanachs belonging to Michael, where he signed his name just "Michael". Remember the family actually had no "family name" officially (Dmitri Pavlovich had to choose a family name after the Revolution, choosing Ilinski after the estate Ilinskoe, remember?) and officially they never used their patrinomic either. Nicholas II ALWAYS just signed "Nicholas" even before taking the throne.
He signed in the imperial manor as Michael and not Michael Alexandrovich. No emperor signed with their number such as Nicholas II. Therefore I feel Michael thought of himself as the container of imperial power when he signed the document and hence the style. I would welcome other views mind you
IMPERIAL (not Emperial) Russia ceased to exist the moment Michael signed the document. Paul's laws were of no matter anymore. Kyril was not Emperor of anything, much less Russia. If Michael had been rescued from Russia, HE wouldn't have been Emperor of anything either, unless the White forces overthrew the Provisonal/Bolshevik governments to RE-establish Imperial Governmental power The governmental power of Russia which had vested in the Emperor ceased at the moment of his manifesto to exist. Governmental power in Russia then vested in the Provisional Government under Kerensky until seized by force by the Bolsheviks. Michael wouldn't have been Emperor of anything unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands.
Any discussion of any person being "Emperor" after Michael's manifesto is a moot, rhetorical or at best theoretical one.
I agree Imperial power ended the minute Michael signed the document as he transferred that power to the provisional government where it was later hijacked by others in October.
IMPERIAL (not Emperial) Russia ceased to exist the moment Michael signed the document. Paul's laws were of no matter anymore. Kyril was not Emperor of anything, much less Russia. If Michael had been rescued from Russia, HE wouldn't have been Emperor of anything either, unless the White forces overthrew the Provisonal/Bolshevik governments to RE-establish Imperial Governmental power The governmental power of Russia which had vested in the Emperor ceased at the moment of his manifesto to exist. Governmental power in Russia then vested in the Provisional Government under Kerensky until seized by force by the Bolsheviks. Michael wouldn't have been Emperor of anything unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands.
Any discussion of any person being "Emperor" after Michael's manifesto is a moot, rhetorical or at best theoretical one.
You are very emotional on this subject so I hesitate to differ so I'll just copy the "what if" scenario you mentioned:
>>... unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands<< Michael could have been returned to the position of Emperor of Russia.
We can and do agree that the success of the Bolsheviks makes this a theoretical point.
It is entirely up to you, FA, if this subject is moot.
AGRBear
IMPERIAL (not Emperial) Russia ceased to exist the moment Michael signed the document. Paul's laws were of no matter anymore. Kyril was not Emperor of anything, much less Russia. If Michael had been rescued from Russia, HE wouldn't have been Emperor of anything either, unless the White forces overthrew the Provisonal/Bolshevik governments to RE-establish Imperial Governmental power The governmental power of Russia which had vested in the Emperor ceased at the moment of his manifesto to exist. Governmental power in Russia then vested in the Provisional Government under Kerensky until seized by force by the Bolsheviks. Michael wouldn't have been Emperor of anything unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands.
Any discussion of any person being "Emperor" after Michael's manifesto is a moot, rhetorical or at best theoretical one.
You are very emotional on this subject so I hesitate to differ so I'll just copy the "what if" scenario you mentioned:
>>... unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands<< Michael could have been returned to the position of Emperor of Russia.
We can and do agree that the success of the Bolsheviks makes this a theoretical point.
It is entirely up to you, FA, if this subject is moot.
AGRBear
I don't see one word of "emotion" here Bear. I was stating facts and truths. Since we both agree that it is a theoretical point at best, you should easily see that since the Bolsheviks defeated the White forces, there was no longer any possibility of a RESTORATION of Imperial Power to Michael, Kyril, or anyone else, the question is moot.
It's like discussing whether JFK would have won a second term in office or not. He died, so the question, while theoretical, is clearly moot. I see no difference.
Michael never was Emperor of Russia. While he had the opportunity to ACCEPT the Imperial Power granted to him by Nicholas II, he did not. That is critical. He chose otherwise and thus extinguished the Imperial Line.
From the Statesman's Handbook to Russia, published BY the Imperial Court Press (from main APTM site)
....as by the law his rights are immediately transferred to his Successor.
....
I have reread this thread from top to bottom twice because it is so interesting.
Here is my take for what it is worth and it is not worth much:
The provisional government walked up to Michael and said congratulations your Imperial Highness by default you have won the crown. You are the new heir and next in line to be emperor (just like the USA President Elect).
Michael then said "sorry dudes! I will only be emperor if the great people of Russia some how elect me me emperor!"
Time ran out and the great power vacuum Michael created by not assuming power sucked out what was left of all the remaining political stability.
TampaBay
Pretty close, TB. The precedent for this situation was set when Alexander I died in 1825. His brother, Constantine, was the legitimate heir under the laws established by their father, Paul. However, Constantine had made it clear he had no intention of taking the throne, but had never abdicated his rights, so some recognised him, including his brother Nicholas I, both telling their supporters to swear their oaths to the other. The ensuing confusing led to Russia having NO EMPEROR for 3 weeks, until Nicholas finally accepted the throne, which led to the Decemdrist revolt. The time frame was remarkable, as Constantine was in Warsaw, Nicholas in either Moscow or St. P and Alexander had died in the far south.
All of this is well documented in several books; for example, The Romanovs, by Bruce Lincoln, Nicholas I also by Lincoln and Shadow of the Winter Palace by Edward Crankshaw. All eminent historians, not prone to romantic idealism.
Some purists even say that Constantine WAS emperor, although he never accepted nor abdicated. It would be the same as saying Alexei was Emperor Alexei II although he never did either.
From the Statesman's Handbook to Russia, published BY the Imperial Court Press (from main APTM site)
....as by the law his rights are immediately transferred to his Successor.
....QuoteThe word "immediately" sounds definite to me.
15 March 1917 at 3:05 PM Michael "immediately" became Emp. of Russia
The rest comes later.
AGRBear
Technically, the moment Nicholas II signed his first abdication which made Alexei his successor he could not undo this action. Without farther ado Alexei became Emp. Alexei with Grand Duke Michael as his Regent. It was not legally possible for Nicholas II to change his mind after the fact since he was no longer Emp., therefore, the reins were handed over immediately. In other words the ex-Emp. of Russia could not legally change his mind, tear up the document and redraw a new abdication. Regent Michael should have carried the power until Alexei came of age. Since the Regent Michael died before Alexei, then someone (not exactly sure if it would be the sucessor GD Kryil or not) would have been Regent until Alexei came of age. The moment Emp. Alexei was executed, GD Kryil, who was next in line, technically became Emp.of Russia, who by then was without a country and later declared himself Emp. "outside" of Russia. The Bolsheviks/communists remained in power and the Romanovs in exile remained "outside".
Because historians seem to forget this technically [proof of the FIRST abdication was never drawn into any Russian court and proven], historians provide their readers with Nicholas II's SECOND abdication which gave his brother Michael the crown instead of Alexei.
AGRBear
The uncrown Emp. Michael accerted his right when he sent the following letter to the Prov. Govt. on 3/16 March 1917.
This information is found on Alexander Palace on the following URL
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Mikhail.html
>>Imperial Successor
Some historians consider Mikhail to be the last Tsar of Russia. What is beyond doubt is that he was named Nickolas' successor. Had things been different, he may have become Tsar. However, he inherited a situation that, by the hour, careened out of his or anyoneês control. Alexander Kerensky and other Duma leaders made it clear to him that his safety could not be guaranteed if he assumed power. He would be a tsar without a court, or a following.
Mikhail's manifesto of March 3, 1917, is noteworthy, in that it represents a fundamental change in the Romanov family's willingness to use violence to retain its power. His repudiation of force to claim, or regain, the crown, has remained to the present day, the Romanov policy regarding a restoration of the monarchy. Here is what he said:
"A heavy burden had been laid upon me by the will of my brother, who in a time of unexampled strife and popular tumult has transferred to me the imperial throne of Russia . Sharing with the people the thought that the good of the country should stand before everything else, I have firmly decided that I will accept power only if that is the will of our great people, who must by universal suffrage elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly, in order to determine the form of government and draw up new fundamental laws for Russia. Therefore, calling for the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has arisen and has been endowed with full authority on the initiative of the Imperial Duma, until such time as the Constituent Assembly, called at the earliest possible date and elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage, shall by its decision as to the form of government give expression to the will of the people."
In this document, Mikhail neither accepts nor rejects the crown. It is clearly not an abdication , as some have argued. Mikhail, instead strikes a new course, consistent with his call, before Nickolasê fall, for representative government. He would rule as a constitutional monarch, or not at all. Misha remained in contact with Alexander Kerensky until the later fled Russia, until the Bolshevik uprising in October 1917. Frequently forgotten is that the elections Mikhail calls for were held, only to have the Constituent Assembly disbanded by the armed force of the Bolsheviks . Thus, all Russian governments to this day lack the basic legitimacy urged by the Imperial successor, Mikhail Romanov.<<
I agree with the above that the uncrown Michael "neither accepts nor rejects the crown"... At anytime, he could have proclaimed he intended to take the crown since the govt. he had hoped to govern Russia had been forcefully removed by the Bolsheviks. This is why the Bolsheviks held him under arrest and later took him out into the country side and executed him.
The Fate of the Romanovs, King and Wilson: The succession laws of 1970 ditated that the throne should go to Alexei.
The Fate of the Romanovs, King and Wilson: The succession laws of 1970 dictated that the throne should go to Alexei.
Didn't you mean 1870 0r 1770? LOL! LOL!
TampaBay
If Alexei was the new tsar and Michael was his Regent, did Michael, as the Regent, have the right/power to give away Alexei rights/power to the Prov. Govt or GD Kyril or, maybe, to the popular Gen. GD Nicholas?
AGRBear
I am conducting some research on late Imperial Russia and have come up against some anomalies which I thought I'd lay before you. This is my first posting on this website. When viewing it I was impressed by the quality of some of the contributions, so I hope someone can help me with some answers.
My first question is can anyone please confirm for me the date of Grand-Duke Michael's marriage to Natalia.
As to the date and even the year books vary (websites are unsurprisingly even worse). So far I have seen 7, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, and 30 in July or October of 1911 or 1912. See what I mean?
Not even the transition from Julian to Gregorian explains the discrepancy although the fact that they were married in a Serbian Orthodox Church (using Julian) in Vienna (using Gregorian) might have something to do with it. I cannot even rely on the usually so reliable Crawfords’ book (16th Oct 1912) since (1) the Tsar had already exiled them for marrying without permission by Easter 1912 and (2) the Brasova Collection of photograph albums in the SSEES Library would seem to indicate a 1911 October date.
The usual reason for Michael & Natasha’s hasty marriage is so that Michael can avoid being forced into a dynastic marriage when Alexei was so dangerously ill which was in 1912, but that doesn’t fit with a 1911 date.
Debrett’s has 1911 but a strange date.
I’ve read everything on Michael and am none the wiser and I’D LIKE TO KNOW!. So, please don’t quote unreliable or unannotated books at me. Has anyone SEEN or HAS a copy of the marriage entry and KNOWS whether it is recorded as Julian (Serbian Orthodox) or Gregorian (Vienna). Short of going tom Vienna myself, you are my last hope.
If you can solve this, I’ll try you on another.
Many thanks for your reply. Forgive me for not responding immediately, I had hoped there might be one or two more postings.
You are of course quite right. Church records are not the only method of accurately reckoning the date of a marriage; family bibles and letters can also be used. But that’s precisely the nature of the problem – they are not necessarily accurate and all give different dates! That’s why I wanted to get an unequivocal record from the day itself in the church.
Deciding on the reason for the marriage in order to determine the parameters for the marriage date seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. You are again quite right about Michael’s motives for the marriage: they are explicitly laid out in his letters to his brother. But none of them give the actual marriage date. By your own reasoning Michael would have wanted to pre-empt the situation, not wait until Alexei was already ill. Is it not equally likely that it was his nephew's serious health crisis at Spała which precipitated THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the fact of his marriage rather than the marriage itself? This would fit in with a marriage prior to 1912 and with other known facts, namely :-
Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:
A coded telegramme to all Russian embassies in 1911:
The bearer of this, Major-General of Gendarmes A. V. Gerasimov, is commanded at His Highness’s behest to travel abroad with the assignment of taking all possible measures to avert the marriage abroad of Mrs. Wulfert and Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich.
A telegramme dated 3rd September 1911 from the Russian embassy in Paris:
According to information received, the sovereign emperor’s aide-de-camp appeared in Cannes to inform the grand duke in the name of his highness that he was prohibited to enter Russia…the grand duke is very depressed and does not go out anywhere.
An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.
According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son.
The School of East Slavonic Studies Library, University of London (http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/brs.htm) states:
In 1910 their son was born, Cheremtevskaia later obtained a divorce from Wulfurt and in 1911 she married the Grand Duke. As a result of their morganatic marriage the couple were banished from Russia by the Tsar and. spent two years in exile.
Its Library holds the Brasova Collection of photographs (http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/brs/brsitema.htm) dating from precisely this period. The album BRS/9 entitled ‘XII Travels Abroad Autumn year 1911’ commences August 1911 and contains photos of their travels in Western Europe including visits to Paris, Cannes and the south of France, stating:
It was probably during this holiday that the Grand Duke and Brasova were secretly married in Vienna.
The next two Albums BRS/10 & 11 entitled ‘XIV/XV Summer year 1912 Gatchina’ contain photographs taken at the Grand Duke and Brasova's home in the military garrison town of Gatchina near St Petersburg, stating:
Although the title of this album dates it to summer 1912, in fact the Grand Duke and Brasova were banished from Russia in early 1912 by the Tsar in disaproval of their marriage and these photographs could not have been taken after Easter 1912.
All of this is at odds with the Crawfords’ date of the marriage on 16/29th October 1912 which I cited in my posting [Gerasimov states it occurred 17/30th October 1911]. The Crawfords are not infallible; equally neither is Radzinsky or the SEES. There is a puzzle here and either could be right.
I still do not know the date of the marriage but to discover it one can only deal with the factual rather than the circumstantial – hence my original posting. The St. Sava website is under reconstruction and its e-mail address is no longer valid. Short of any definitive answer on this forum I’ll write to St. Sava to get the solution and post its answer here.
Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:
An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.
According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son.
One of the most important job of any historian is the evaluation of sources...
The Crawfords have clearly sourced their date in their footnotes. Footnotes are a mark of a scholarly versus a popular work of history. You will find no footnotes in Radzinsky, and so when he makes a mistake (and everyone makes them), we have no real means of cross checking. As you yourself have pointed out, the footnoted date in the Crawford's work means you can check the date yourself. Cool, huh?
For me, the Crawfords were not my only source. If you care to consult the Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress, which have been published, you will clearly see that the year at least (1912) is corroborated by these letters. Because the letters are a primary source, and the Crawfords a secondary source, we have two good sources that are in agreement as to the year. Also cool, in my opinion.
Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:
An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.
According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son.
One of the most important job of any historian is the evaluation of sources...
The Crawfords have clearly sourced their date in their footnotes. Footnotes are a mark of a scholarly versus a popular work of history. You will find no footnotes in Radzinsky, and so when he makes a mistake (and everyone makes them), we have no real means of cross checking. As you yourself have pointed out, the footnoted date in the Crawford's work means you can check the date yourself. Cool, huh?
For me, the Crawfords were not my only source. If you care to consult the Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress, which have been published, you will clearly see that the year at least (1912) is corroborated by these letters. Because the letters are a primary source, and the Crawfords a secondary source, we have two good sources that are in agreement as to the year. Also cool, in my opinion.
Sorry to jump in here, but I find this discussion of sources very interesting. I apologize as I have nothing to contribute, just trying to analyze this as a learning experience.
As far as primary sources, of course the actual church record should settle the question. A careful reading of "Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress" should surely give real time evidence, but does the book contain copies of the letters or simply translations? Are we relying on the accuracy of someone interpreting the handwriting and the language, if so that source is not a primary source.
Another question is what does the Crawford footnote refer to exactly? Just because something is footnoted doesn't mean every instance is an accurate interpretation, even amongst the best authors.
It would seem the 1912 date should be correct. But I'm bothered by the Gerasimov telegramme, the other citations from Radzinsky aren't as definitive, but how can that be explained? Did Radzinsky make an error in the date, or was someone off in translating the encoding?
Thanks Lisa and Julian for posting all this info. It makes for a great lesson in examining historic evidence. IMO, the world would be a lot better off if everyone had your concerns for evaluation of evidence and historic accuracy.
Regards,
T
Many thanks for both your postings. I’ve been an academic for many years holding posts in three (so far) universities so I’m well-acquainted with the intracies of the footnote and the vagaries of popular history. But consider this: what’s the difference between a Russian historian, Radzinsky, with, I admit, a predilection for the televisual, but none the less a bona fide historian with a body of publications to his name, who writes an unannotated book (with, it must be said, an excellent bibliography containing all his primary sources) and a couple of journalists, the Crawfords, passionate gifted amateur historians, who write almost the only work to their name, and supply it with footnotes? Not a lot in my opinion.
Also, sadly I know of plenty of real historians who have taken liberties with the lauded footnote and that’s why I’m always careful. Not so cool, eh? In fact, decidedly warm! Now I agree with you about the best bet being 1912 but I’m finding a number of ‘authorities’ – Burke’s Peerage, the renowned genealogist Jiri Louda, among others - who quote 1911, and I don’t know why.
I have no axe to grind about which author is right or wrong or which date is correct, but I’d like a definitive answer from an unequivocal source. So, I’ve now written to St. Sava, Vienna to find out. I hope to get an answer this side of Christmas (the one in England not Russia) (that’s 25th December) (New Style!) and I’ll immediately post the reply here to settle the matter.
I am conducting some research on late Imperial Russia and have come up against some anomalies which I thought I'd lay before you. This is my first posting on this website. When viewing it I was impressed by the quality of some of the contributions, so I hope someone can help me with some answers.
My first question is can anyone please confirm for me the date of Grand-Duke Michael's marriage to Natalia.
As to the date and even the year books vary (websites are unsurprisingly even worse). So far I have seen 7, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, and 30 in July or October of 1911 or 1912. See what I mean?
Not even the transition from Julian to Gregorian explains the discrepancy although the fact that they were married in a Serbian Orthodox Church (using Julian) in Vienna (using Gregorian) might have something to do with it. I cannot even rely on the usually so reliable Crawfords’ book (16th Oct 1912) since (1) the Tsar had already exiled them for marrying without permission by Easter 1912 and (2) the Brasova Collection of photograph albums in the SSEES Library would seem to indicate a 1911 October date.
The usual reason for Michael & Natasha’s hasty marriage is so that Michael can avoid being forced into a dynastic marriage when Alexei was so dangerously ill which was in 1912, but that doesn’t fit with a 1911 date.
Debrett’s has 1911 but a strange date.
I’ve read everything on Michael and am none the wiser and I’D LIKE TO KNOW!. So, please don’t quote unreliable or unannotated books at me. Has anyone SEEN or HAS a copy of the marriage entry and KNOWS whether it is recorded as Julian (Serbian Orthodox) or Gregorian (Vienna). Short of going tom Vienna myself, you are my last hope.
If you can solve this, I’ll try you on another.
Church records are not the only method of accurately reckoning the date of a marriage. For example, family bibles and letters can be used to determine these dates.
There is no question in my mind that Michael's marriage was precipitated by his nephew's serious health crisis at Spala, Poland, which we know for certain happened in October 1912. We can therefore confidently exclude all marriage dates for the couple prior to 1912. Privy to the secret about the Tsesarevich's health condition, Michael had good reason to fear Alexei's death and that he would subsequently become heir again as he was from 1899 - 1904. As such, he felt honor bound to marry Natalia, the mother of his only child, and to break his word to his brother to not marry her. Only marriage would, so he reasoned, protect his son and prevent his partner from further dishonor.
There is no question that these were his motives because they are explicitly laid out in his letters to his brother.
Nicholas' October 20, 1912 (OS)/November 2, 1912 (NS) letter written from Spala to his mother, the Dowager Empress describes Alexei's improving condition to her. We also know that Maria Feodorovna wrote him back at Tsarskoe Selo on November 4/17, 1912 to discuss Michael's marriage and her distress over it. We also know from Massie that Nicholas received a letter from Michael announcing his marriage while he was at Spala.
From these letters, we can deduce that the marriage took place in Vienna no earlier than 10/20/1912 and no later than 11/4/1912 - a period of 15 days. It had to take several days to travel from Spala back to the capital, and since the earlier letter does not describe the marriage, my best guess is that the October 30, 1912 date is the correct one. This allows for the timing that we are certain about in terms of other events.
You always have such good pics to post, Aglaya! thanks so much for sharing them with us
Scan from a bookj, i think Mikhail and natasha, not so sure.
Great pic of Natasha. She looks so sad. I wonder if the picture was taken after Mikhail disappeared?
Mikhail in Cossac uniform
I think this is one of the most tragic family stories of all. I have read the book a number of times, because it is that sort of book. I am always filled such pity for Natalia Brassova, one can hardly imagine the awful life she led after her son died. Living alone in a small room, no food or money, her clothes virtually in rags, and being treated like an outcast. Then dying of cancer all alone in a charity hospital.
It is just awful.
One thing that surprises me is that Empress Marie Feodorovna recieved her in London, when she was staying with her sister at Marlborough House.
This proves that the Empress did actually care, and was not that Imperious as one would imagine. But then she came from a very close knit family, and was a warmer, more caring person. Although she also had her moments !
I do not think Alexandra would have recieved Natalia, had she survived and lived in exile. She was too stuck up and prejudiced, and bore grudges against so many people. One of her characteristics I dislike the most, and probably one that contributed to her downfall.
I do not think Alexandra would have recieved Natalia, had she survived and lived in exile. She was too stuck up and prejudiced, and bore grudges against so many people. One of her characteristics I dislike the most, and probably one that contributed to her downfall.
I know that divorced women were anathema in most Royal Courts and were not recieved, as this would have been seen as condonement of divorce. Did the Russian Court have a different take on divorced women ?. If not, why was Princess Paley recieved by the Empress ?
Does anyone know why Grand Duches Olga denied ever having met Natalia Brassova before the Revolution ?
I find this very strange, as there are so many photographs of them together, on picnics etc.
I wonder what the reason for this was, could it perhaps be family related ?
Hi,
Had Michael accepted the throne in 1917, then would Natalia have been recognized as Empress? After all, she was a divorced woman, with husband(s) still alive - a sort of forerunner of Wallis Simpson!!!
And, the Romanov's seem to have ostracized her en mass.
How would she have fared? And, how would she have been addressed?
Larry
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for the answer.
That's exactly what I thought myself - that Michael would have insisted that Natalia be Empress, with full dignity. And, his mother and sisters and all the Romanovs would just have to 'bite the bullet'...
A Constitutional Monarchy would certainly have been "the solution"; and considering that their son died early on in his life, I guess we'd be still left with the Vladimirovichi as monarchs...
Aunt Meichen would have had her way in the end!!!
Larry
I have always liked that photo of Natasha ever since I saw it. She was pregnant with George, Count Brassov who was born 1910, died 1931, too young in a auto accident. This was Grand Duke Michael's only child. She had another child by a earlier marriage, a daughter. Natasha looks lovely here, although times were not happy for her then. Yes, there does seem to be something special about expectant mothers. But there are not that many photos from back then, which is sad. I have enjoyed seeing these pictures, although I cannot recall any myself that I could post.Can somebody tell me please, what is happened with Natasha first daughter?
Can somebody tell me please, what is happened with Natasha first daughter?
Thank you very much for your quik answer :)
Can somebody tell me please, what is happened with Natasha first daughter?
Tata Mamontova in 1921, being 18 year old, married (secretly from her mother ) Val Gielgud, then a poor student at Oxford,brotherof famous actor Sir John Gielgud. Natalia was so furouis of Tata's marriage that kicked her out of the house and Tata went to live to her former governess. The couple divorced in 1923 and Tata married secondly Cecil Gray, writer and musical critic, they had a daughter Pauline who in 1970s wrote the book "The Grand Duke Woman". Tata then married 3d time, gave birth to another daughter Alexandra and lived with that last husband all her life. She died in 1969 in England.
Mother and daughter saw each other rarely as Natalia didn't approve Tata's way of life.
QuoteI have a question about divorce in the Russian Orthodox Chrurch. In "War and Peace", Tolstoy satirizes the attempt by Ellen Bezukova to get a divorce by converting to Roman Catholicism and renouncing her marriage to Pierre. All the other charcters in the book are amazed at her ingenuity because they could never imagine a woman with a living husband marrying another man.I don't think Tolstoy took dramatic license. I am just speculating that the church changed its position. But considering the dogmatic nature of the Russian Orthodox Church that seems hard to believe. Another big no-no for the church was two brothers marrying two sisters. That was perhaps one big reason why the Montenegrin sisters were so despised and resented because they married two brothers. Even there I cannot understand how the church would allow it.
But one hundred years later, Natalie divorced her second husband to marry her third-Michael. Did the Church change its position or did Tolstoy employ dramatic license?
I know that divorced women were anathema in most Royal Courts and were not recieved, as this would have been seen as condonement of divorce. Did the Russian Court have a different take on divorced women ?. If not, why was Princess Paley recieved by the Empress ?
Becouse Princess Paley was a very wise and cunning woman who knew how to live in high-society and how to reach her ambitions - she wanted to white-wash her reputation (and so of her children in the future) and be received at the Imperial Court by hook or by crook , and after all she was received by the Empress. Princess Olga was not a liberal-minded Natalia and never worsen her relations with the Romanovs.
I know that divorced women were anathema in most Royal Courts and were not recieved, as this would have been seen as condonement of divorce. Did the Russian Court have a different take on divorced women ?. If not, why was Princess Paley recieved by the Empress ?
Becouse Princess Paley was a very wise and cunning woman who knew how to live in high-society and how to reach her ambitions - she wanted to white-wash her reputation (and so of her children in the future) and be received at the Imperial Court by hook or by crook , and after all she was received by the Empress. Princess Olga was not a liberal-minded Natalia and never worsen her relations with the Romanovs.
but the two ladies have different age so maybe it's hard to compare their way of dealing with the imperial family ...?
I d love to have that picture in bigger to colorize it *0*
I found an interesting documentary about the last days of Mikhail. Its in russian but the re enactment is awesome
Part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhFlhXA5VAU
Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cgZ_zEmYc
Part Three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclLHTcO14Q
Part Four (chek out the pictures of the martyrs in the end. There are a wonderful one of Ella!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HWuUuJ3TME
What do you think about the book of "The Grand Dukes Woman", by Gray?
Hmmm..i didnt know how to put this but well..i decided here. If someone wants to move it, go ahead..
Seems that everybody wants to be son of Mikhail and Natasha....
Here s a guy who says his grandmother was daughter of Mikhail and Natasha and she was born in 1918 and also states that Misha ran away from his captors
I introduce you...Pilar Romanov...(there s even a picture in hi res about her)
http://gw2.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=iraird&lang=en;p=pilar;n=romanov+holstein+gottorp
Check his whole family tree, says that Nicholas also survived the revolution and died circa 1930.
How look your face after reading this? >>>>> 0_o....likes this..huh? xDDD
Well...resuming the Clonard Sutton and Pilar story, at least give me a wee funny and warm feeling in my heart to know that Nicholas II lived till 1930....(Le sighs)
Well...resuming the Clonard Sutton and Pilar story, at least give me a wee funny and warm feeling in my heart to know that Nicholas II lived till 1930....(Le sighs)
That second child is Pilar Romanov and yes, that picture of Natalya posted here before is when she was pregnant with Georgiy.
By the way: I saw in a volume of Edwards Radzinsky's book " The Last Tsar" a photo of Nicholas and Misha on deck, doing gymnastics with a lady inbetween them.
And the captions says that lady is Natalie Brassova. Who can post this picture and can identify her?
here is it
(http://inlinethumb13.webshots.com/45388/2737616870101857556S600x600Q85.jpg)
Honestly, the woman doiesnt look lie Natasha to me and the man beside Nicholas doesnt look like Mikhail, even tho in the book says they re Misha and Natalia
Girls, you are both right. This officer could not be Michael for the one simple reason. Michail Alexandrovich, as I know of course, was a typical Cavalry man. He spend all of his entire life serving in different prestigious Cavalry Regiments and Corps. While on the photo you can see a Naval officer.
However, I also can imagine, that Michail in addition to his brother sometimes wore naval uniform, just for a beauty.
Nicola
True!
One WW2 naval officer once remarked to me that the Royal Navy certainly risked their officers falling into the sea when getting on board ships wearing shoes with slippery leather soles!
We are having a big freeze-up in Britain at the moment (not much snow in Plymouth, where I live, but low temperatures and slippery pavements), so, going slightly off-topic, I am wondering how Russian cavalry officers managed walking on snow wearing those splendid riding boots and spurs. Did they abandon their best boots for something a bit more practical?
Ann
Well...resuming the Clonard Sutton and Pilar story, at least give me a wee funny and warm feeling in my heart to know that Nicholas II lived till 1930....(Le sighs)
Будущая жена В. Кн. Михаила Александровича
(http://southwc.ru/1/8/thumbs/s_732152809-rgh_nemos19_6.jpg) (http://southwc.ru/s_732152809-rgh_nemos19_6.jpg.htm)
Какой год примерно фото? Фотограф Ганн.
I am replying to my own post. Just to say that the lady is DEFINITELY not Natasha. She was allowed to put her foot on any Royal Yacht or property, after marrying him.
So who is she ? A smiling Alexandra ? I think not ?
Yes you are right, she never smiled because she had bad teeth !
Yes you are right, she never smiled because she had bad teeth !
Never heard about that. It was Nicholas, who had bad teeth.
I hope not, why start another thread on her ? She has become so passe anyway.
She does not belong in this subject. For one scarey moment I actually thought she cracked a smile, thats all !!
Who actually cares if she smiled or not ?
It was probably a lady in waiting.
Alexandra did not have bad teeth..it was Nicholas who had poor teeth.I am replying to my own post. Just to say that the lady is DEFINITELY not Natasha. She was allowed to put her foot on any Royal Yacht or property, after marrying him.
So who is she ? A smiling Alexandra ? I think not ?
It can't be The Empress Alexandra. Because thats not possible, because The Empress Alexandra "NEVER" smiled on photographs. She is not like The Lady Diana, who is smiling always. And ofcourse The Empress Alexandra has bad teeth, so she can't be the lady in this picture.
I always wonder what would have happened if Michael had taken the Crown. History might have been very different and not so awful for russia as it was. Personally I think he would have been a wonderful Tsar although his wife would not have been Empress or his son an heir.
I always wonder what would have happened if Michael had taken the Crown. History might have been very different and not so awful for russia as it was. Personally I think he would have been a wonderful Tsar although his wife would not have been Empress or his son an heir.
Most likely the powerful Soviets and the Bolsheviks would have made his reign very short, just as they quickly dealt with the Provisional Government later that year.
OK, no bad teeth, no smile. Zip.
BUT DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO THE LADY WAS ?
She must have been someone important if she had the Tsar of Russia swinging above her head !!
Any guesses ?
Olga doesn't look too happy either.
lovely!!
Ps why he wrote in english and not in cyrillic?
George Mikhailovich spoke and wrote English due to the fact that his family wished for him to do so.
George Mikhailovich spoke and wrote English due to the fact that his family wished for him to do so.
But it does not change the fact that he spoke also Russian. As his sister Natalie wrote in her memories they both preferred to talk to each other rather in Russian.
*****
Katenka, thank you for another great picture, absolutely amazing!:-)
Its the question if you can ever get over somebody you really loved. He surely was not only handsome but also had a good character...:-)
Baby Bee was lucky that she found Ali eventually and had many happy years togather. Misha's wife had a more bumpy ride when the Revolution took place.Eric, she got it from both the red and white sides ...Felix Y was one of the few kind to her in later years
Thank you so much, katmaxoz! Where did you find them, if I may ask?
I always sum people up very quickly. ( Perhaps a bit judgmental) But if people love animals, that pretty well sums them up for me. Anyone who adores dogs the way Michael did, can only be a wonderful person. And he did and was.
Personally I think the photo is photo shopped, because GD Michael and GD Olga looked much younger in those days when the "flirt of GD Michael and Beatrice"started.
He looks like a full grown man in that one, i must say.
He never lost that boyish charm ;-D
Misha and some officers
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3506/037id.jpg) (http://img834.imageshack.us/i/037id.jpg/)
Hi!!
Its from "the sunset of the Romanov Dynasty" ;D
Yup, its a biography of Mikhail from a Brazilian member of this forum (The link of APF appears right there)
Where did you got this picture?
With his sisters:A splendid Photo !!! Not new but better resolution . Thank You
http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/v0yag3r/Mikhail%20Alexandrovitch/withhissisters.jpg
With his sisters:
(http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n600/v0yag3r/Mikhail%20Alexandrovitch/withhissisters.jpg)