Author Topic: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?  (Read 41842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2004, 11:53:39 AM »
The 1917 diary of Nicholas II:
3 March, Friday
..."Alexeiev comes bringing me the latest news from Rodzianko. Mischa, it appears, has abdicated.  His manifesto ended with bowings and scrapings with respect to the Assembly such that elections are to take place in six months. God only knows who suggested the idea to him to sign such a vile thing.  In Petersburg, the disorders have stopped - provided they continue thus!"

I believe the specific word Michael used was "I renounce the Throne" I can't find my source material off hand.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2004, 12:12:38 PM »
'Appears' is not 'abdicate.'  

'That car appears to be a Porsche Speedster, but upon closer inspection, it is actually a fiberglass copy.'  

WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2004, 12:13:49 PM »
With extreme respect to the other posters and the FA, Michael never abdicated. There's a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with Kerensky's ridiculous contention about Michael's physical safety not being "guaranteed". (As if any Romanov would be expecting this!).

The reason is, Michael consulted the best available expert on the Fundamental Law, Nabakov, in crafting his Manifesto (and it was a manifesto, not an abdication). It is very likely that Nabakov told him that Nicholas' abdication on behalf of Alexis was illegal. Thus, he was correct to neither accept nor reject the throne.

I will also concede to Belochka that there was likely a very short period of anarchy where political authority was uncertain.

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2004, 12:36:51 PM »
As neither the term, nor any semantic analogue of the word or act 'to abdicate' appears in the body of the text, it would be appropriate for the Website to remove the grossly inaccurate reference to 'Michael's Abdication' from the title.  

To abdicate is to renounce one's God-given rights.  Michael didn't do so.  If the people of Russia wished him to do so, he would have ruled.   That is not abdication.

It should be pointed out that this was the first time in Russia's history that common ordinary people were given the opportunity to choose the form of government they wanted to have, and not have it imposed upon them.  

The people of Russia were denied this opportunity by Kerensky, and the subsequent Soviet governments.

It is therefore, a disservice to Michael's wishes to label his proclamation as 'abdication' when clearly it was no such thing.
WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2004, 01:48:29 PM »
"By my brother's will, a heavy burden was placed upon me when I was assigned the All-Russian Imperial Throne during a time of unprecedented war and popular unrest.

Inspired, together with all the people, by the single thought that the good of our motherland is above all else, I have firmly resolved to assume supreme power only if that should be the will of our great people who will be required by popular vote, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, to create a form of government and new fundemental laws for the Russian State.

Therefore, in appealing for God's blessing, I ask all citizens of the Russian Empire to obey the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma and was vested with full power, until such time as the Constituent Assembly expresses the will of the people concerning their preferred form of government after being convened in the shortest time possible and by holding a general, direct, equal, and secret vote.
Michael
3 March 1917, Petrograd "

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2004, 02:30:56 PM »
Right.  No 'Abdicate,' 'Bequeath Our Rightful Inheritance' et cetera to be found anywhere in the body of the text.  

Again, it would be most reasonable to remove the misleading reference to abdication from the title of that particular section of the website.  
WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2004, 07:54:05 PM »
I'm not sure where the label being referred to is, but I agree with what Rodger is saying about Michael's manifesto. I cover it in my biography of Michael posted on this website.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2004, 01:25:14 AM »
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.

:)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2004, 01:34:17 AM »
Sorry I cannot get rid of the Smilies -

at para 4 refers to Pipes @ p 318,

at para 6 refers to Crawford @ 308.


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2004, 01:56:12 AM »
We can argue forever about the constitutional legalities of what passed in the modern context.

Is it not the fundamental consideration here ... that Nicholas himself believed that he renounced the Crown in favor of Michael?

:)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Anya

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • God bless NAOTMAA
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2004, 02:33:40 PM »
I was studying the Russian Revolution and my History teacher said that Prince Lvov ruled with Kerensky before the Bolsheviks took the power...

What is this Lvov relation with the family???
(Is he Nicholas' cousin or something like this??)

Thanks,
Anya
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 09:03:10 AM by Alixz »

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2004, 11:38:57 PM »
Prince L'vov was a well-regarded member of the Imperial Duma and a Red Cross official prior to becoming the first Prime Minister of the Provisional Government. It's a bit of a stretch to say L'vov "ruled". The Provisional Government was in power less than a year and this first PM in power much less than this. Kerensky was a minister - I believe of Justice - during the time when L'vov was PM. After his fall, Kerensky became Prime Minister.

I know of no familial relationship between Prince L'vov and Nicholas II and no personal relationship either.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2004, 01:43:20 AM »
Prince Georgi Yevgenyevich L'vov (b. Tula, 1861 d. 1925 Paris) was of noble aristocratic birth, but not a member of the Imperial family.

As Lisa highlighted there was no direct familial association with the Romanovs. The fact that he bore the title of Prince Knyaz' does not imply he was related to the Romanov family. The English term Prince has a different connotation.

His family traced their roots to The Grand Prince Velikii Knyaz' Rurik who was the founder of Rus' at Ladoga.

Prior to becoming the Prime Minister of the Provisional Govenment L'vov was the Chairman of the Zemstvo (an Assembly of rural landed gentry).

Following the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty he was selected by the Temporary Committee, rather than elected to become the leader of a new republic - the Provisional Government. He had the duel role of also being the Minister of the Interior.

He was forced to relinquish his role after a few months to his Minister of War and the Admiralty (previously held the position as Minister of Justice), Alexander Kerensky in July, who then became the second and final Prime Minister of the Provisional Government.

As you can imagine the title of Prince did not augur well with the new philosophies of the Provisional Government which quickly started to erase all vestiges of its Imperial past.

Both these men exiled to Paris.

;)

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2004, 03:37:08 PM »
Once again, gentle readers, the same spammer from Denver Colorado from a few weeks ago keeps trying to disrupt the forum...Many different email addresses, all either fake or suspended, and the IP's are all from Denver again, just like before. Sorry this keeps happening, am trying to stay on top of it though.
FA

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2004, 12:55:23 AM »
Rodger, Rodger, Rodger, where is your source for this? The Empress was arrested before there ever was a Provisional Government. The Emperor was arrested before Kerensky became Prime Minister. Kerensky did interogate the former sovereigns, but he was not responsible for their arrests.

Kerensky was hardly a "radical" in 1917 Russia. He was more of a moderate, if there indeed was such a thing. The radicals were the SR's or Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Bolsheviks, who need no introduction. AFAIK. Kerensky was a Trudovic, which was a moderate Socialist. In the US, we consider Socialists radicals, but in 1917 Russia, they were not.

Prince L'vov made alot of money and collected lots of free meals by telling half truths and outright lies about the Imperial Family. I studied under a Professor who knew AFK very well for many years, and as I stated in another post, Kerensky sincerely felt bad for theultimate fate of the family and felt they would be safer in Tobolsk than in Petrograd.