Reply (Part 1 (because limit of 7500 caracters)
Maybe we can start with: "Never say Never" ?? I am not a specialist of constitutional law, but in this Forum I guess also normal people can have a place to express their "view". Let's look back at Russia's history: But "precisely"... The "legal" power of Nicholas II has been delegated by himself in march 1917 to his son. A few hours later he changed his mind and "in the name of his child" also delegated the power of his child to Mihael Alexandrovich Romanov who was Nicholas II younger surviving brother. Here we can note a first "irregularity" which may have led to complications in case the son of Nicholas II (Alexei) would have lived till his majority (I guess 21 years, than). It may have not, but it is very possible that Alexei could have claimed "back" his throne from Mihael later on. Especially if the wife of Mihael was continued to be considered as a morganatic spouse of Mihael. In this case Alexei would have "simply" inherited the throne from Mihael after his "reign" ending by natural death or abdication in favor of Alexei. Now everybody knows that Alexei is dead and this explanation is ow just usefull to explain in which way the "holy power" of a Tsar was handled by the Tsar himself and what could have been the consequences without speculating too far. So maybe Nicholas II wished by abdicating his son, which is a disputable action in the long term, to free this child from the pressure of official burdens, especially in 1917 when the country was not in the best shape. The Tsar Nicholas is quoted as having said "No they will not have him". This was in response to the "blackmail" (by the court staffers,military or government people or whoever able to pressurize the Tsar at that moment), which he did not consider when signing the first version of his own and sole abdication, that this Tsar Child will have to take "office" with a regency and live without his parents in the vincinity. Nicholas, allone, without his wife made this choice to have his son have a most happy life as a child. So the abdication had to be retyped, and as it seems, the second version had the date and time of the first abdication placed on it. This choice having been done as a measure to keep his child out of trouble is an easy ground to later dispute its durability in time. Alexei was murdered, so the qestion is now to analyze how much Nicholas as the last undisputed legal leader of the Russian people was considering the transmission of his Imperial power to his brother Mihael as a final solution: This may be important when monarchists consider also the will of the last will of the sovereign to be of importance, beside other rules. I suggest here that Nicholas (even with the option of a return of his son later on in mind) was considering that his brother Mihael was the most rightfull heir to the throne of Russia after him and his son Alexei. Considering that the abdication precisely mentions the name of Mihael Romanov and that the brother as the only legal power able to decide about this choice was Nicholas II, a monarchist can consider that Mihael was rightfull to consider himself the legally designated new Tsar in the moment he was informed about this new situation by the persons bringing him the news in official fashion. So what did Mihael Romanov with this legal decision of his brother Nicholas II? He did not immediately wished to accept the succession to his brothers position and made a written statement that the choice about the new Tsar must be left open till the Russian people will have the time to plebiscite on this question. I do not know precisely if in that document signed by Mihael Romanov it was just a matter to mount an election concerning his precise Person as future Tsar, or if the choice will be open to any other pretender or even if Tsardom can be “voted out” and the country be changed into a Republic for good. But I guess that this document signed by Mihael Romanov is in fact the last “legal” document to be of value for the Russian monarchists when considering a next, fully legal step towards a new Russian regime. I considered it a big chance for them, that Mihael left behind this option in writing and probably this document is still existing? According to Nicholas II abdication and the following decision of Mihael Romanov to let the Russian government run the state affairs till “the elections” the Kerensky administration of Imperial Russia is still to be considered a legal form of Russia through monarchist eyes.. I guess that the change of the Russian Empire into a “ Russian Republic”, as it was done by the Kerensky government later in 1917 cannot be considered as “legal” any more, considering that the Russian people had never time in 1917 to fairly get an occasion to vote on the matter. When Kernsky and his men had to flee from Russia from Lenin’s Bolcheviks, the legality of any further decision in the matter of statehood is interrupted for good. We may consider a total interruption of “legality “since late 1917 and the entire Bolchevik Era as a period to “ignore” when trying to look for a new start connected to the legal proceedings with Nicholas II and his brother Mihael. ---------- So when I started my comment with “Never say Never” I wished to attract attention to the “incredible-incroyable ” which happened before our eyes! The red bolchevik regime degenerated in front of us, and broke down. Who would have imagined that the Imperial Eagle of Russia will be raised again (not the Russian republic Eagle without Imperial crown of 1917!!), especially inside the Parliament of Russia today??? I mean.. with the Imperial crown , crests and all the rest? Will this be just a movie décor for the TV programs or is it a much deeper need which the Russian people wish to satisfy sooner or later? It may be worth to look more closely at the document signed by Mihael Romanov in 1917. Did he allow the Duma (Parliament) to have “anybody” be elected by them to be the next Tsar of Russia? Wasn’t the question of a constitutional monarchy not anyhow the only envisioned option? The disputes of present day Romanov Family members may not be too relevant in this case. The Russian Duma may be allowed to define who is the next Constitutional Monarch of Russia and with what kind of powers. The position of the Orthodox Chruch is most important, too. (First part of my reply.. to be continued with part 2)
