I have always agreed with those who say that if Paul I could make the law,then anyone after him could break it.
How weak all the following Tsars look as they were unable to change what Paul I put into law. Even Alexander I who was said to be wise and strong left his successor in a bad way but not letting the public know that Constantine was giving up his right of secession in favor of Nicholas I.
Bring of the Decemberists.
Alixz you pose something interesting to me at the moment, so I'll comment on this and then follow up on your next post.
I find it idiotic that the Pauline Law, put in force by one Emperor couldn't be changed by another Emperor. Sounds like a real lack of imagination/stuck in tradition on the part of the Russian Imperial house.
While we have to place ourselves in another time and mindset I simply don't get that it you are the ruler of IMPERIAL RUSSIA you can't change the tea ritual. These people seem crippled by their environment and upbringing.
To your next post...I think the one that was making a change that could have really made a difference was Alexander II. His death at the hands of terrorists, was the last chance for reform in Russia IMO. His son's rejection of the reforms he had just signed, the way Alexander III and Maria then raised Nicholas II, the poor guy had no chance.
All speculation, but nobody gave N II any decent education, other than retroactive. IMO You can blame Alex III and then the widow Maria, as much as the son they neglected to educate.
Actually the terrorists who murdered Alexander II killed a reformer. But maybe they wanted that mild reform to fail and the evil that erupted in 1917 to erupt and the terror and murder to follow.
Just thoughts,
T