Author Topic: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man  (Read 109071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #270 on: April 17, 2009, 07:10:06 AM »
I wasn't saying he was stupid just that following tradition was a mistake with continuing the autocracy, and not going towards constitutional monarchy. As for the sucession laws, I don't think he was wrong for maintening tradition there, because although it would saved some trouble had Alexei not been the heir, which led indirectly to Rasputin having political influence that was detrimental to the dynasty, there were far larger issues with regards to the goverment, even had Olga been the heir, such as whether to go towards constitutional monarchy or not.

RomanovsFan4Ever

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #271 on: April 17, 2009, 07:17:55 AM »
Now I understand clearly what you mean, sorry, and now I have to agree with you.  :)

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #272 on: April 17, 2009, 09:02:02 AM »
Nicholas believed in autocracy to the end, simply because it was tradition, no other reason. Nicholas felt that it was his sacred duty to pass the autocracy with all the power of the tsar to Alexei, and that if he did not he failed his coroation vows. I don't think he ever had any other motivation for not changing the laws. He stuck with tradition blindly.

He did not stick with tradition "blindly".  Remember the changes made to his autocracy in 1905 after Bloody Sunday?? Also, if you guys had used search on this topic, you will see that there "is" some historical evidence from two first hand sources, that after the Spala incident in 1913, Nicholas posed the legal question to Tcheglovotov (minister of Justice and foremost expert on Russian Imperial Law) about changing succession in favor of Olga should Alexei be unable to succeed, and the answer was "yes he could" and a secret ukaze was drawn up by Tcheglovotov changing Nicholas' heir to Olga Nicholaievna should Alexei not be able to take the throne.  Many historians doubt this occurred, however, Mossolov and Spiridovitch both say it did, and both were very close to Nicholas.  As a question, it will only be answered for certain if the secret Ukaze ever turns up in GARF somewhere.

Offline Grand Duchess Valeria

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #273 on: April 17, 2009, 10:02:30 AM »
Interesting, I did not hear anything about this Ukaz. So when this one really exist and - just for imagine - Alexei died before 1917, than Olga N. would be declared to be heir to the throne, not Nickys brother Michail? Practically, there could be an empress Olga of Russia? Wow... :)
And when he shall die, // Take him and cut him out in little starres, // And he will make the Face of heaven so fine, // That all the world will be in Love with night, // And pay no worship to the Garish Sun.

Offline Mexjames

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #274 on: April 17, 2009, 12:37:04 PM »
Nicholas believed in autocracy to the end, simply because it was tradition, no other reason. Nicholas felt that it was his sacred duty to pass the autocracy with all the power of the tsar to Alexei, and that if he did not he failed his coroation vows. I don't think he ever had any other motivation for not changing the laws. He stuck with tradition blindly.

He did not stick with tradition "blindly".  Remember the changes made to his autocracy in 1905 after Bloody Sunday?? Also, if you guys had used search on this topic, you will see that there "is" some historical evidence from two first hand sources, that after the Spala incident in 1913, Nicholas posed the legal question to Tcheglovotov (minister of Justice and foremost expert on Russian Imperial Law) about changing succession in favor of Olga should Alexei be unable to succeed, and the answer was "yes he could" and a secret ukaze was drawn up by Tcheglovotov changing Nicholas' heir to Olga Nicholaievna should Alexei not be able to take the throne.  Many historians doubt this occurred, however, Mossolov and Spiridovitch both say it did, and both were very close to Nicholas.  As a question, it will only be answered for certain if the secret Ukaze ever turns up in GARF somewhere.

Ain't I dumb! As a matter of fact I wrote what you say in my draft, then I realized my answer was getting too long and I deleted it.

My logic tells me that the Emperor, being an intelligent man and as concerned for Russia as his vision of the world would allow him to be, would have realize that the Heir might never make it to the Crown, and I have a gut feeling that the ukaze you mention exists or existed, in the very least form, as a draft ready to make the necessary amendments.  The male succession issue was all too important in Russia to leave it just hanging in there.

But I still insist that the revolution would have happened anyway.

Mariia, a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy because the sovereign isn't an elected government official.  In the case of Great Britain, citizens get to choose who will be the head of the government, that is, the Prime Minister, but the Head of State is the queen, whether they like it or not.

In a republic you know who rules. 

When Nicholas II abdicated in is and his son's behalf in favor of Michael, he "passed it on" to the Provisional Government.  Which opens a can of worms that has been discussed elsewhere.  Michael didn't abdicate and didn't refuse the crown, he wanted people to decide if the empire should continue or not.  It was a conditional abdication, the conditions of which were not met and consequently, a theoretical can of worms can be opened because I'm sure that a detailed legal analysis of the situation would prove that the communist (without a capital "C" on purpose) was a rogue regime... and this would also put the current regime in dire straights... as well as the pretenders of the throne.

Well, I don't intend to hijack the thread so I'll just leave for now.


I stand for what I said before: changing the law wouldn't have prevented the revolution from happening. 


Mariia

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #275 on: April 18, 2009, 02:19:32 AM »
Mariia, a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy because the sovereign isn't an elected government official.  In the case of Great Britain, citizens get to choose who will be the head of the government, that is, the Prime Minister, but the Head of State is the queen, whether they like it or not.

Yes, except the Queen doesn't actually do anything, does she?

Quote
In a republic you know who rules.

Isn't that a bit naive?  :)

Quote
When Nicholas II abdicated in is and his son's behalf in favor of Michael, he "passed it on" to the Provisional Government.

Where does it say so?

Quote
Michael didn't abdicate and didn't refuse the crown, he wanted people to decide if the empire should continue or not.

Nicholas didn't know Michael would do that.

Quote
I stand for what I said before: changing the law wouldn't have prevented the revolution from happening.

That I agree with completely.

RomanovsFan4Ever

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #276 on: April 18, 2009, 07:14:22 AM »
Mariia, a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy because the sovereign isn't an elected government official.  In the case of Great Britain, citizens get to choose who will be the head of the government, that is, the Prime Minister, but the Head of State is the queen, whether they like it or not.

Yes, except the Queen doesn't actually do anything, does she?

Maybe this is off topic, but if I'm not wrong, the Queen of the United Kingdom is also head of the Anglican church, commander in chief of the armed forces and head of the commonwealth, and this is a great responsibility.

Offline Tina Laroche

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • Give My Love To All Who Remember Me ~ Olga N.R.
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #277 on: April 18, 2009, 08:07:53 AM »
Mariia, a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy because the sovereign isn't an elected government official.  In the case of Great Britain, citizens get to choose who will be the head of the government, that is, the Prime Minister, but the Head of State is the queen, whether they like it or not.

Yes, except the Queen doesn't actually do anything, does she?

Maybe this is off topic, but if I'm not wrong, the Queen of the United Kingdom is also head of the Anglican church, commander in chief of the armed forces and head of the commonwealth, and this is a great responsibility.


Yes, the Queen certainly does something. : )

Mariia

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #278 on: April 18, 2009, 08:54:01 AM »
Mariia, a constitutional monarchy is still a monarchy because the sovereign isn't an elected government official.  In the case of Great Britain, citizens get to choose who will be the head of the government, that is, the Prime Minister, but the Head of State is the queen, whether they like it or not.

Yes, except the Queen doesn't actually do anything, does she?

Maybe this is off topic, but if I'm not wrong, the Queen of the United Kingdom is also head of the Anglican church, commander in chief of the armed forces and head of the commonwealth, and this is a great responsibility.


But of course she is. I'm sure she's also an honorary member of the Corgi Lovers Society, the Annual Christmas Message Readers Union and the Landowners United Against Terrorism and Moth.

Just kidding,  :D

RomanovsFan4Ever

  • Guest
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #279 on: April 18, 2009, 01:44:04 PM »
Oh, I have understand now.  :)

Offline PAVLOV

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: Nicholas II - Head of the Romanovs and Family Man
« Reply #280 on: May 19, 2009, 08:18:27 AM »
Yes Nicholas was a wonderful family man, but because he did not have a strong character, I think he was always appeasing various members of this family, including his wife, just to keep the peace. Perhaps that was one of the reasons for ignoring the Rasputin issue.He did not want to upset his wife, so he just lived with the situation.  I think many issues relating to the unacceptable marriages and the resultant banishment of various family members, were largely influenced by Alexandra. Her correspondence, not only in the last 2 years, was sometimes very scathing about family members and of society, and she bore grudges. i dont think anyone got a second chance with her. Once you were on the wrong side of her, you stayed there for ever. 
I sometimes wonder if Nicholas had any real friends, even within his own family circle. I cannot remember reading anywhere that the Emperor had any real friends, other than perhaps old Frederichs, who was more of a "father" figure.
Does anyone know if Nicholas had any friends ?