Rodger I completely agree with you that the final document which we are now discussing is
very important. Bearing Micheal's signature it sealed the fate of the Romanov Dynasty.
Pipes @ p 319 (
The Russian Revolution) noted that it was both Vladimir Nabokov and Boris Nolde ..."
were sent for to draft Michael's manifesto renouncing the crown."
Crawford @ p 309 provides that Nicholas' Manifesto was thought by both these legal minds to contain constitutional legal flaws, because for the sake of political expediency Constitutional errors were made. The reason for this legal consideration was that there was no justification in the
Laws of Succession for "...
Nicholas to abdicate on behalf of his son". What resulted was a simultaneous duel abdication.
Similarily with all else happening in Petrograd, could it not be suggested that a similar state of affairs prevailed with the document which Michael signed. Michael was advised by the Committee that he must renounce the Crown in order to prevent violence and a Civil war (
Pipes p 318). The simple question he asked about his
safety was just the final pretext to commit himself to what he was about to sign. Safety was indeed an issue because there was no guarantee that he would not be murdered by his enemies. The circumstances on the streets predicated this response.
I agree that this document never contained the word
Abdicate. But it may be be suggested that this was because both Nabokov and Nolde held doubts about the legality of Nicholas's Manifesto as it stood. Erring on the side of legalistic caution, they worded Michael's document to reflect their understanding of the constitutional problem presented to them.
I agree that Michael understood this problem perfectly, but this was not the sole factor for him to renounce his right to the Crown. To complicate his decision it must be remembered that Nicholas believed he was no longer emperor. Nicholas sent Michael a telegram (Crawford, p 308) addressed to
His Majesty the Emporer Michael...
Time was pressing, they had no precedent to follow, so they penned words as best they could in the time available. Importantly, there would not be a Constitutional Court which would scrutinize nor argue the legalaity of any of the words written in either document.
Within the document Michael claimed ... "I have taken the firm decision to assume (
accept is used by Pipes @ p 319) the Supreme Power only if such (
will) be the will (
desire) of our great people (
nation),[
Pipes differs here considerably] whose right it is to establish (
determine) the form of government and the new basic laws (
in the new Constitution) of the Russian state..."
Michael knew that he did not have the support of "
our great people(nation)" he also turned the tables around completely by endorsing the words ... "
whose right it is to establish the form of government...".
The new successor to the Crown whether we like to argue otherwise was indeed Michael. It was he to whom Nicholas'
declaration for succession was passed (whether legal or not is a moot point).
By using the same words from Michael's document "
thrust upon me by the will of my brother..." we must conclude that the constitutional issue here is that Michael became Emperor immediately after Nicholas signed his Manifesto. These words cannot be disputed for surely the words speak for themselves here?
Nabokov and Nolde had to undo what had been done, for the
Laws of Succession do not allow the Imperial Crown to become vacant. Therefore by this analogy it must be realized that only two things could happen. Michael could reign or he could abdicate.
It can be further postulated: How could
these great people (or nation) in reality later choose the form of government to be autocratic at a later date when the chain of succession was to be severed, and thereby compromising the very essence of the
Fundamental Laws?
Numerous persons who were there on the day including Kerensky and also including a number of Romanovs (G.D. Marie and G.D. Nikolai Mikhailovich) all recognized Michael's succession.
Pipes @ p 320 states that ... "two abdication manifestos ... were published on the same broadsheet on March 4.
Michael's signature provided the required signal to the Provisional Government that power was theirs to take. Everything else snowballed from that day.
To my mind to Abdicate implies that a person formally renounces the Crown which belongs to them.
