Was Aleksey Ever Tzar?

[Forum Admin]

In hopes of keeping fictional speculation at bay, and legitimate history accurate, most especially about the claims that the Abdication of Nicholas was somehow "alleged" but not genuuine, allow me to post the exact translation of Nicholas II's own PERSONAL diary entry on the subject...


March 15, 1917, Thursday

In the morning Ruzski came and read his very long direct-wire talk with Rodzianko. According to this, the situation in Petrograd is such that a Ministry of the Duma would now be powerless to do anything, for it has to contend with the Social-Democratic Party, represented by the workers' committee. My abdication is required. Ruzski transmitted this talk to Headquarters, and Alexeev sent it on to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2 o'clock replies were received from them. The gist of them is that in order to save Russia and keep the army at the front quiet, such a step must be taken. I have agreed. From Headquarters has been sent a draft of a manifesto. In the evening Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I discussed the matter, and I handed them the signed and altered manifesto. At 1 o'clock in the morning [16th] I left Pskov, with a heavy heart because of the things gone through. All around me there is treachery, cowardice, and deceit.

I hope Nicholas' own words put an end to that nonsense.  The dates are New Style.

[Michael HR]

Firstly I agree with the argument that Nicholas II could not abdicate for this son as well and in effect Alexis was Tsar until his murder in Ekaterimnburg. Even if you agree that Michael became Tsar, and I see the argument well, when he died, and he died before Alexis, the Crown would have passed to Alexis anyway. Moreover, Michael did not abdicate he stated that he would await the outcome of the elections and the view of the Duma as to who and how the Crown wold rule if at all. Imperial power was in effect suspended and one might argue it still is from Michael's "abdication" document. Actually I feel that Michael would have made an excellent Tsar had he been given the chance. So either it is Alexis or Michael/Alexis or Crown suspended awaiting outcome of peoples wish on election and Duma   

[Forum Admin]

Does it really matter in the end? By August 1 1918 the whole question was rendered totally moot by every stretch of the imagination. Imperial authority had vanished never to return.  A rag tag bag of Romanov relations in Europe eked out an existence by dining out on their former titles, receiving little stipend from other Royal relations and pawing their Faberge trinkets.  Some pretended to a Throne that no longer existed, and a few with essentially no Romanov blood in their veins still try to keep up the pretense.  The ones that had the most legitimate claims rejected the notion and went on with their lives...

Bullets and bayonets put an end to the question as anything more than "how many angels can dance on a pin".

[Vanya Ivanova]

Dear Honest John,

Thanks for your post I think from a moral viewpoint your question was VERY pertinent. In your original post you stated that it was important to know, as if Alexei had actually been the last Tsar then the regime would have ended with someone innocent of the regimes' 'crimes'.

Obviously when discussing moral issues there is a large amount of subjectivity. However for what its worth I too have 'struggled' with this moral issue regarding the last Tsar and I'm quite certain in one way or another so has everyone else who regularly contributes to this forum.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that when assessing another's actions (or for that matter one's own) its vital to determine what their 'motivation' was. In regard to Nicholas II and his wife Empress Alexandra I have found this enormously helpful.

Nicholas we know never wanted to be Tsar and on his father's death stated in his diary words to that effect. After he abdicated by all accounts he was hugely relieved on a personal level. Therefore its true to state that unlike later Soviet leaders he did not seek out power but had it thrust upon him. Morally for me that is the first distinction.

His wife Alexandra was courted as a young woman by her cousin the Duke of Clarence who was heir to the British throne. At the time with its empire, Britain was the world's superpower. Alexandra turned down the chance to be Queen of England because she did not love that prince. Her grandmother Queen Victoria stated that this position was 'the greatest (in terms of status) position there is'. This for me demonstrates that Alexandra married Nicholas for love entirely and was also not interested in the status/power of the position of Tsarina as she had already turned down the chance of what was arguably a higher 'status' marriage. This too is a moral distinction, further backed up her initial refusal of Nicholas owing to the necessity of a convertion to the Orthodox faith.

Therefore neither Nicholas nor Alexandra sought power or desired it. Both were very devout people who were ruled more by their hearts than their heads. They 'felt' rather than 'thought' on the whole. Again there is for me a moral distinction here in that here we have two people for whom 'fate' has chosen a position and unfortunately one they are completely unequipped to deal with it.

The political system in Russia at that time as is so often the case twisted and warped spiritual teachings to suit political objectives. Therefore this devout couple never questioned the teachings of the Orthodox church in regard to the role of the Tsar. They wholeheartedly believed that the Tsar had been ordained as the absolute ruler by God himself. Therefore to Nicholas and Alexandra any questioning of this( by themselves as much as anyone else) was literally blasphemy.

Of course because neither of them were 'thinkers' and both were overwhelmed by the burdens of their position they clung to this dogma as a blind man clings to a walking stick. They were not helped by Nicholas's family whose senior members did nothing to help the young couple 'learn the ropes' but rather followed their own selfish objectives very much to Nicholas and Alexandra's detriment.

Again this is a moral distinction for me in that the reason they clung to the dogma of the autocracy's divinity was not to bolster their peronal ambitions but because they desperately searched for guidance to deal with a situation that completely overwhelmed them as individuals.

The great tragedy of course for both them and Russia being that this belief system was at complete odds with reality. Their lack of confidence in themselves and the isolation they suffered owing to their status, his family and later the Tsarevich's health meant they clung to religion, the dogma of the autocracy and each other not because they wanted to impose their personal will but because it offered the ONLY form of guidance and certainty available to them. The worse things got in the country and for them personally the more desperately they clung to these beliefs and that it was their divine duty to fulfil/uphold them.

For me only the most cold hearted, arrogant and blind individual could fail to have compassion for these two. They pushed with all their might in the wrong direction (ie against reform) because they truly believed that was the best thing for Russia and its people, NOT themselves. This is the distinction of motivation in a moral issue in action. Nicholas and Alexandra made mistake after mistake not because they wanted to hold onto power for themselves but because in lieu of any other guidance they believed it was their duty and the best thing for Russia and an extension of 'God's will'.

Their son's health compounded all this especially for Alexandra. To see someone you love suffer terribly and know they may not live and not be able to do anything about it is perhaps the greatest pain of all (this I know from personal experience). To then be blamed (however unfairly) for it must be the cruellest fate imaginable. This level of suffering would unbalance anyone. Alexandra's motivation in interfering in politics was to support Nicholas who she knew lacked confidence in himself to fulfil the awesome burden of being 'Tsar'. She felt the only thing she could offer was her faith and through Rasputin who in her mind God had sent to help save her son AND Russia make Nicholas stick to the 'divine' plan. It was not again to assert personal power or even dominance over her husband. Alexandra's influence undoubtedly made things worse for her husband and the country but her motivation was NEVER for personal gain. She was utterly traumatised and delusional but she was not power hungry or cruel. Exactly the same can be said of Nicholas.

Therefore to sum up, Nicholas and Alexandra were undoubtedly bad leaders/monarchs but that does not mean they were also bad people in my opinion. Unfortunately for them and Russia the 'road to hell was paved with good intentions'. They loved their family and Russia more than anything else but were simply not equipped to handle the burden of power and especially not at a time of such turmoil. Few in my opinion could have.

Their actions did cause untold hardship for millions of Russians, however unlike Stalin & Co they NEVER intended any harm and they paid for any 'debt' with their lives.

I hope this is in some small way a help to you with regards to the moral aspect of your question about Alexei being the last Tsar or not.

kind regards

Thea

[aleksandr pavlovich]

  It does appear that "Honest John", for whatever reason, has removed himself from the membership roll and is now simply listed as "Guest."   AP.

[Forum Admin]

He got his panties in a wad because he felt that I should do all his research for him rather than do it himself, and that he should be allowed to speculate on fiction (the "alleged" abdication) at will, and stomped off in a snit. 

[aleksandr pavlovich]

He got his panties in a wad because he felt that I should do all his research for him rather than do it himself, and that he should be allowed to speculate on fiction (the "alleged" abdication) at will, and stomped off in a snit. 

 Thanks for the clarification, Rob.  His rather piqued response #56 seemingly presaged the outcome.  As the saying goes, "The door swings in, the door swings out."   Regards, AP.

[Vanya Ivanova]

Thanks Alexsandr, for your post re Honest John, I do hope this incident hasn't put him off for good.  However, I have to say the tone of these last comments made about him by 'Forum Admin' do strike me as being a little unkind and inappropriate. Perhaps they could be removed as they seem rather unnecessary?

[aleksandr pavlovich]

Thanks Alexsandr, for your post re Honest John, I do hope this incident hasn't put him off for good.  However, I have to say the tone of these last comments made about him by 'Forum Admin' do strike me as being a little unkind and inappropriate. Perhaps they could be removed as they seem rather unnecessary?

  The relative acceptibility of the content/composition/opinion of the texts on the Forum is always governed by the Owner ("Bob") and the Forum Administrator ("Rob").
   It is their Forum, and they have the final decision.         Regards,   AP.

[Vanya Ivanova]

Thats as maybe Aleksandr but their own 'Rules and Guidelines' stipulate ''Please respect the thoughts and comments by other posters.'' The Rules and Guidlines also stress that as the forum is a resource for school children and students to be mindful of that in ones posts.

Rob meticulously and politely responded to all Honest John's posts. It was only the last 'off the cuff' remark and your response to it that could in my opinion be construed as a mild form of on line bullying. I'm absolutely certain it was not meant this way but if one were to put oneself in Honest John's shoes at it were and read those posts I'm sure you will concur that his thoughts and comments were not being entirely respected.

If younger users see this then they would get the impression thats its ok to demean others with perhaps a more emotive or less informed opinion. The fact that people can ask questions without the fear of being ridiculed and receive an informative and structured response that will not only help them but anyone else with the same question is what is wonderful and invaluable about this forum.

I appreciate I'm just a contributor but as an individual I have every right to make a stand when I believe someone else is being mistreated.

[Forum Admin]

You have no idea of the half dozen thousand plus word emails I got from him.  I demeaned nobody.  He got what he deserved.  He was rude, self centered and arrogant in his emails.  He wanted to come back in, NOT to participate, learn or god forbid apologize, but to carry on his now personal vendetta. 

[aleksandr pavlovich]

Thats as maybe Aleksandr but their own 'Rules and Guidelines' stipulate ''Please respect the thoughts and comments by other posters.'' The Rules and Guidlines also stress that as the forum is a resource for school children and students to be mindful of that in ones posts.

Rob meticulously and politely responded to all Honest John's posts. It was only the last 'off the cuff' remark and your response to it that could in my opinion be construed as a mild form of on line bullying. I'm absolutely certain it was not meant this way but if one were to put oneself in Honest John's shoes at it were and read those posts I'm sure you will concur that his thoughts and comments were not being entirely respected.

If younger users see this then they would get the impression thats its ok to demean others with perhaps a more emotive or less informed opinion. The fact that people can ask questions without the fear of being ridiculed and receive an informative and structured response that will not only help them but anyone else with the same question is what is wonderful and invaluable about this forum.

I appreciate I'm just a contributor but as an individual I have every right to make a stand when I believe someone else is being mistreated.

   Your gracious apology sent via pm to me (July 04, 2012) concerning your above remarks  has been received and accepted.     Regards,  AP.