Author Topic: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?  (Read 33575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #45 on: May 29, 2005, 12:18:42 PM »
There is a section on succession to the Russian throne:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=succession

Under this topic are a long line of subjects connected with sucession. ¬ Take time out when you can and read some of them. ¬ Some people have excellent knowledge of various laws which dealt with this subject.

I always enjoyed this particular quote:

Quote
Once in Petersburg I was invited to a small gala dinner with members of the Russian Nobility Association.  It was a Mad Hatter's tea party - on one side I had an aged, decrepit Countess with a wild mop of disheveled gray hair dressed in a wild assortment of mismatching clothes; while on the otherside was a Prince who insisted his family's claim to the throne was equally valid to the Romanovs.  He requested my assistance - indeed, he asked anyone he could grab - to petition the World Court to recognise his rights.  In the lobby of the hotel were waiting the children of the false Siberian Aleksey - who wanted to plead for DNA testing to prove they were real Romanovs and the true heirs.

Bob


AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

RissiaSunbeam1918

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2005, 12:25:17 PM »
Thanks Bear!  ;D and thanks for sharing the quote too, i agree, it was very well said.  :)
-Dana

Tsarina_Liz

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2005, 01:59:03 PM »
Quote
Well, technically speaking, Nicholas could not legally abdicate for Alexei (so far as I know), so legally, at the time of his death, Alexei would have been the Tsar-pretender.


Okay, I feel stupid.  What exactly is a 'tsar pretender?"  I keep hearing this phrase thrown about, especially when it comes to the Vladimirichi and their current claim to the Russian throne and I have no idea what it means!


Eternal_Princess

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2005, 02:59:44 PM »
I have to admit I've been hitting a brick wall with this question of Alexei being the last Tsar!

My honest opinion? I believe that amist all the chaos surounding N II abdication, the rules of inheritance would have been firmly in place when it came to the influence of the Russian Church. Alexei, at the exact moment his father abdicated, was the Emperor Alexei II, Tsar of Imperial Russia.

On a technicality that was fixed up later, Misha became his regent untill Alexei was of age. But Nicholas, more with the concern of a father for his sick child, abdicated in Alexei's place.

Because Alexei was not of age in the Russian tradition, Nicholas might have been able to do this in any other country but Russia. I'm almost convinced the Church would not alow it. (And the church held sway over the position of the Tsar.)

However, Lenin was determined to have a democratic government and it would have had Alexei, if he was kept alive, in a position that was an empty title. Even more so then what Elizabeth the II holds today in England compared to 150 years ago in the English monarchy.

granduchessmariska

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2005, 10:21:16 PM »
If what I've looked up is correct, Alexei was Tsar for possibly a day or two, with Michael as his regent since he was too young to rule on his own.
And then you all know what happened after.

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2005, 01:36:13 AM »
Quote
If what I've looked up is correct, Alexei was Tsar for possibly a day or two, with Michael as his regent since he was too young to rule on his own.
And then you all know what happened after.


Tzar for a day or two?....One is either the Tzar or one is not....

granduchessmariska

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2005, 04:22:45 PM »
Quote

Tzar for a day or two?....One is either the Tzar or one is not....

;D


Well, etonexile, reread my post. I said he WAS Tzar for POSSIBLY A DAY OR TWO. Thus, as this obviously needs clarification, he WAS Tsar, though it was only for a short time! Clear?

Mander

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2006, 11:25:43 PM »
My understanding would be (and I'm far from an expert) is that Nicholas abdicated. At that time (the first time) he abdicated only on his own behalf. (theoretically) At that instant Alexei became Czar. That of course bars official proceedings, coronation etc. When Nicholas realized his error by not abdicating in his son's favor as well, it was (technically) too late for him to abdicate for Alexei as he was no longer Czar. (technically) I think at that point Alexei was the only one who could abdicate in favor of Misha...or at least his regent. So when he died, Alexei was Czar.

Again, I keep saying technically because they were in the midst of a revolution. All bets were off and they could spin it anyway they wanted. The Romanov's were pretty much going to be whatever they wanted them to at that point.

Just my line of thinking. It would be interesting to hear what a Russian Law expert would have to say.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2006, 08:37:46 AM »
Whatever the technicalities,  and there are many of these, it seems it was a tempestous time, and people seemed to have other concerns. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this though, and perhaps it was illegal for Nicholas to abdicate in favour of Alexei,  which it seems he did. I think Alexei was not Czar on his death, but between the two abdications was Czar. Nicholas wanted to protect his son from the positon although whether he had a legal right to do so, is up in the air.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by romanov_fan »

Honest John

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #54 on: June 25, 2012, 03:01:04 AM »
I’ve read this old thread with interest. The debate's good while no constitutional lawyers nor anyone claiming to be an expert of this subject took part. Also, I suspect that if eminent historians, lawyers and the ROC had taken part, people’s views would still differ and no decisive conclusion would have been reached.

I’m no expert either and, while I’m always open to argument, and not immovably entrenched in a dogmatic stance, let me say right now; I entertain not the slightest doubt that Alexei died as the last Tsar of Russia.

For me, the question is not if, but when did Alexei become Tsar? And the answer surely lay with the alleged abdication of Nicholas II.

“Alleged abdication”? I know of Russians who believe that the abdication documents themselves are actually faked and that the Tsar’s signature on one or both of those documents is a forgery. You can peek at this detailed debate at: http://warandpeace.ru/ru/analysis/view/37814/ but be aware, it is in Russian. However, using Google Chrome with the ‘translate to English’ facility enabled, you might get the gist of the arguments there, the images of the “abdication documents” and showing the comparisons of Nicholas’s signatures. My understanding of the rough Google translation is quite limited, but I do find the arguments there quite compelling, nonetheless.

From that comes the first doubt. Did Nicholas actually abdicate on 15 March 1917 or was he merely presented with an elaborate fait accompli where, even if he did not sign, he was forced by circumstances to go along with it anyway?

As previously mentioned by AGRBear on this thread, my understanding is that there were two “abdications”, the first coming at 3pm on 15 March, and the second allegedly signed by Nicholas at 11.40pm, but then marked to be timed at 3pm like the first document.

In the first document, the alleged 3pm abdication, Nicholas reportedly named Alexei as his successor. He surely needn’t have bothered because the laws of succession where quite clearly supportive of Alexei’s automatic accession to the throne without any need for Nicholas to name Alexei as the new Tsar. But, of course, due to Alexei’s young age a regent did need to be appointed and Nicholas chose his brother, GD Michael for that role.

If that first alleged abdication document was legally made and signed by Nicholas, then the business was all done… Nicholas was no longer Tsar and Alexei was. It would make anything subsequently written by Nicholas null-and-void, for he simply wasn’t the Tsar any more.

But we can’t ignore the alleged “second abdication document” supposedly signed by Nicholas at 11.40pm on 15 March, but then timed to 3pm so that it could replace the first “abdication”. There, Nicholas names his brother, Grand Duke Michael, as his successor… as the new Tsar. If the first alleged 3pm abdication legally took place, then this second “11.40pm abdication” document cannot be legal by any stretch of imagination. But if the first alleged abdication didn’t happen, some argue that this second alleged abdication can be considered as therefore legal.

Personally, I doubt that. I do accept that a Tsar or King has a right to abdicate of his own free will. But then it’s really just as though he died. Thereafter, the laws of succession were quite clear; “The King is dead. Long live the King.” (just apply it to Tsars in this case), and the rightful successor was Alexei, whether he was ill or not. My opinion is that Nicholas simply could not appoint his successor. Sure, Tsars had a lot of power. But we are talking “Absolute Monarchy” here, and if you believe in Absolute Monarchy absolutely (which I don’t, but they did then) Tsars are appointed (and anointed, I guess) by God, and God alone. And God gave Russia her Tsars through birth, and birth alone. You could say that an Absolute Monarch is always put there by God as his representative on earth. Nicholas never claimed to be God, only God’s servant. Nicholas could not overrule God’s will (shown through Alexei’s birth) when it came to his (Nicholas’s) successor.

I fully accept that if the second alleged abdication took place (and the first alleged abdication didn’t happen), then Nicholas naming Grand Duke Michael as his successor, bypassing Alexei, was an act of love and consideration for Alexei’s wellbeing. But that does not make it legal.

Here I am, talking about an alleged two “abdications” of Nicholas, made on the same day, only hours apart. However, we should also look at the circumstances Nicholas found himself in at that moment.

A “confession” to any crime made and signed under duress would not be considered legal. That duress needn’t come from torture. Duress can be a threat to oneself or ones family (or the mere suggestion of such a threat). Duress can also be imposed by restricting a person’s freedom of movement, making them stay where they are until the confession is signed… if you like, a kind of false imprisonment without a prison.

That’s a confession, but I suggest it is exactly the same with an abdication. Here was Tsar Nicholas, anxiously making his way home to his beloved family who were being held as prisoners by revolutionaries. Surely he had to fear for their safety? I don’t suppose we shall ever know precisely what pressures or duress (if any) were placed upon Nicholas when his train was forcibly brought to a halt. All I can say is that the circumstances for the revolutionaries were ideal for them to make threats as to the wellbeing of the Tsar and his family, and even disallowing him to continue his journey until he signed documents which they presented to him would be unacceptable duress. An abdication freely made would be legal. I’m of the opinion that the conditions in this case are not conducive to any freely made decision from Tsar Nicholas. It follows, if that is the case, that anything said or signed there by the Tsar would not be legally binding.

If the first alleged abdication document of 15 March 1917 were legal, Alexei would then be Tsar (with Grand Duke Michael as Regent for a time) until Alexei either died or abdicated himself.

If that first alleged abdication document never existed, but the second one did, I am of the opinion that Nicholas could only abdicate for himself and not legally abdicate on behalf of Alexei.

Here, in either case, Alexei became Tsar until he died.

If any alleged abdication documents, or the signatures upon them are forgeries, no abdication took place.

If such documentation were genuine but was written and signed under unacceptable duress, no abdication took place.

Here, in either case Tsar Nicholas remained the Tsar until he was murdered at Ipatiev, whereupon Tsar Alexei II became Tsar for a few seconds or minutes until he too was murdered.

Unless I’m missing something fundamental here, whatever way you look at this, Alexei was Tsar when he died. All there really is to debate is for how long Alexei was the Tsar. He was the Tsar when he died. He was Russia’s true last Tsar.

It is somehow important to me personally that Alexei II was the last Tsar. Almost each and every previous Tsar of the dynasty had, (rightly or wrongly), been tainted by allegations of wrongdoing. This Tsar, Alexei II was, everyone agrees, a total innocent, not corrupted in any way, and with no blood on his hands whatsoever. This thought kind of appeals to every spiritual molecule of my psyche.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 03:26:00 AM by Honest John »

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #55 on: June 25, 2012, 08:35:27 AM »
John,

The Emperor had the absolute authority to remove Alexei from succession at ANY TIME!  The Abdication was quite real.  Nicholas spoke to Alexandra on the telephone and informed her and she told her retinue.  The sad reality is this: The Imperial Authority ceased to exist when Nicholas abdicated because, frankly, nobody believed in it anymore aside from a few absolute loyalists.  Under the Laws of Succession, Michael was the Emperor (Tsar was not the correct title) and when he refused, the last vestige of Imperial Authority vanished. 

The Vladimir line was not in legal succession as Maria Pavlovna younger was NOT Orthodox when her sons were born.


Honest John

  • Guest
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #56 on: June 25, 2012, 01:11:28 PM »
I feel somewhat like I've just been coshed by an anonymous member of the Alexander Palace "Thought Police". I'll reply to you at my convenience, later.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2012, 01:33:44 PM »
Not "thought police" at all...this is a subject that has been discussed for many years and researched...


Offline Vecchiolarry

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #58 on: June 25, 2012, 05:53:10 PM »
Hi,

The Forum Administrator is definitely not "the thought police" but he does know of which he speaks.

But I think you meant to write Maria Pavlovna 'the elder' not 'the younger', didn't you?

Larry

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?
« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2012, 10:12:04 PM »
Sorry, Yes, I miss spoke.  Elder not younger. My bad. Apologies