Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?

[Ortino]

Misha was the last tsar.

[RissiaSunbeam1918]

I think Misha was the last Tsar because he abdicated for Alexei before that, but they were both not Tsar for long, so I guess thats why Nicholas is known as the "last tsar"

[RissiaSunbeam1918]

Oh sorry Orintio, you already awnsered. I feel dumb now.  :-/

[lostfan]

Technically, Misha was the last tsar. If you want to get into the particulars, because he was never coronated, he wasn't officially tsar, but because Nicholas abdicated in his favor, he was technically tsar until his own abdication.

Did Nicholas actually sign the paper saying Alexei was the new tsar? It would be interesting to see this if a draft exists, but I don't think it does.

[etonexile]

Czar Nicholas abdicates...next in line is the czar...that would be Alexei...who never renounced his claim to the throne to my knowlege...but then he was involved in rather serious,immediate concerns...like staying alive....

[Anastasia_R]

I never knew that!All I heard was that Nicholas abdicated in favor of Alexei.

[etonexile]

Yes...the poor,befudled Czar abdicated for himslf and his son Alexei....which was not legal....Czar Alexei ruled until his squalid little death in a small cellar in the Ural mountains.

[RissiaSunbeam1918]

He was in a French lesson and was Tsar for two hours before Misha became sar. It's probable the boy was not even aware of his being Tsar.

[etonexile]

Erm...he was sitting in a cellar in Ekaterinburg...waiting for lorries/trucks to carry the family to some new,horrid,painful prison....Alexei Nicholaievich was THE CZAR up to the....split second....that he died....do-you-see?...His father had NO RIGHT to abdicate for his son....do-you-see?...Alexei Nicholaivich DIED as Czar....!!!

[RissiaSunbeam1918]

True, he shouldn't have, but he did, and Micheal was Tsar...and people didn't start a riot about Alexei being Tsar or not being Tsa. Yes-I-see...I do know about the cellar, and yes-I-see...Micheal  soon abdicated, but WAS Tsar AFTER Alyoshenka. Micheal was literally the last.

[GD Alexandra]

I agree with RissiaSunbeam1918, if Michael became Tsar after Alexei then he was the Tsar (Michael)

I'm not sure how the Law worked by that time, but today a person who hasn't got the majority of age, is under his or her parents legal authority, which means that in any legal or political desicion that must be taken in benefit of the child, it must be done by the parents, so if we apply this to fact the Tsar abdicated for him and his son, then that would had been legally right.

[Baby_Tsarevich]

Ok etonexile, Alexei was not Tsar when he died, he was only Tsar for 2 hours and at that time he was taking a french leasson! When the throne was passed on to Micheal and when he abdicated there was no throne, so Alexei could not have been Tsar when he died!

~Anastacia~

[etonexile]

Perhaps we need someone with strict,legal understanding of Russian Orthadoxy....but it is my understanding that the "split-second" that a Czar dies or abdicates....in "THAT SPLIT SECOND"...the heir...in this case the minor Alexei Nicholaiovich Romanov...became Czar...whether he wished it or not....It was not a matter for the ci-devant ruler to decide for his heir...however the familiar connection....
Minors would have had a legal,ruling council to guide decisions until the majority of the Sovereign,usually at 18....

[Baby_Tsarevich]

I'm not too sure how those rules work (worked) but I'm pretty sure that he wasen't Tsar when he died!

[RissiaSunbeam1918]

He wasn't...He was Tsar for a maximum of a couple hours. Misha became Tsar, then abdicated. Because he abdicated before the Romanovs died, there wasnt a Tsar at all at Alexei's death.