Tsarina Olga!?!?

[Maria Sisi]

Great find Dru, thanks!!!

edubs31: I'm guessing that quote means exactly what it says and is meant to reflect negatively on the Romanovs. After all the article was written in 1908 after the 1905 Revolution and all the troubles that followed. The Romanovs were seen as suppressive tyrants and didn't exactly have the best of reputations internationally so the quote is not surprising really.

[edubs31]

Maria) But unless the author of this article is saying it with a heavy dose of sarcasm the suggestion is that Nicholas doesn't want his less reform minded brother to sit at the throne in the event he should die suddenly. Obviously we're only catching a snippet of the article, but I feel like the author here is implying that Nicholas is some sort of reformer, changing policies for the benefit of his subjects...a character not unlike his own grandfather. We of course know that nothing could be further from the truth. In reality Michael was, if anything, probably slightly more progressive minded than Nicholas. Though not by much.

Another minor correction. In the article it says, "Grand Duchess is Olga, who is now 14 years old...". But if the date up top is correct - LA Times, 11-24-1908 - than Olga had only just turned thirteen.

[Rodney_G.]

Maria) But unless the author of this article is saying it with a heavy dose of sarcasm the suggestion is that Nicholas doesn't want his less reform minded brother to sit at the throne in the event he should die suddenly. Obviously we're only catching a snippet of the article, but I feel like the author here is implying that Nicholas is some sort of reformer, changing policies for the benefit of his subjects...a character not unlike his own grandfather. We of course know that nothing could be further from the truth. In reality Michael was, if anything, probably slightly more progressive minded than Nicholas. Though not by much.

Another minor correction. In the article it says, "Grand Duchess is Olga, who is now 14 years old...". But if the date up top is correct - LA Times, 11-24-1908 - than Olga had only just turned thirteen.

Well, edubs, with your last noting of the inaccuracy of Olga's age given the article date, not to mention the speculative,  erroneous content of the whole piece, you have confirmation of your observation from yesterday, namely that early 20th century journalism , especially that form  of "journalism" practiced at half a world's distance removed from its subject, is, er, questionable.

[Maria Sisi]

Your right, I didn't think of my response clearly though, I posted it very quickly before bed.

Like you said Nicholas being a reformer is nothing but far from the truth but perhaps they thought Nicholas turned a corner and was slowly starting to become a reformer for the people. The government did become less reactionary and censorship was eased. Also between 1906 and 2011 Stolypin was making numerous reforms that needed to be made and people were cautiously optimistic about the course Russia was taking so who knows. I'm probably completely wrong though.

Your right about Michael being slightly more progressive then Nicholas and considering how likable and free spirited he appeared I'm surprised they would paint him as the anti-reformer. If anyone that close to the throne was really going to make Russia a constitutional monarchy it was Michael not Nicholas. I wouldn't trust the Vladimirs to do it either.  

I'm guessing they also didn't think much of baby Alexei (his hemophilia wasn't that known yet) and that a regent government with him would be a disaster unless that's in the other snippet of the article. Either way the article appears to be ridiculous.

[edubs31]

Maria, I agree with you on all points!

I just love when a so-called "journalist" makes half-hearted attempt to dodge responsibility by using a phrase like "The Czar is said to have". Who said exactly? Far as I can tell this writer created the suggestion out of thin air or is just being lazy and repeating dubious sources that they're passing off as fact. "Is said to have" is a journalists manufactured 'get out of jail free' card. Muddying up the language just enough that they can always defend themselves with a feeble, "well I never said who, or suggested it was fact", while readers are led astray.

Honestly I'd love to read the full length article. My guess is that we've only just begun to uncover the inconsistencies and blatant lies put forth here.

History, while completely unpredictable in 1908, proved that Nicholas did indeed prefer his brother Michael as the most suitable option for replacement. Skipping over his own son, who was very much alive in March of 1917. I don't get the sense that Olga or any female member of the Romanov line was ever under consideration. Personally I wish she was, Pauline Laws notwithstanding. Not only was she gifted, charming and capable (at least in what would likely be a reduced role), but placing the crown upon the head of Olga would have at the very least kept it out of the hands of the Vladimirovich.

[Maria Sisi]

Was amending the line of succession ever seriously considered?

I know Alexandra was obsessed with Alexei succeeding to the throne and Nicholas was determined to leave everything just as his father had left it to him but they must have realized just how unrealistic it was becoming as time went on (especially after Spala).

Did they really think when Nicholas died Alexei could truly be successful as Tsar with his condition? Nicholas clearly didn't when he illegally abdicated for Alexei in 1917 so why didn't he act earlier when there was still a throne to protect? I'm surprised he still wanted Michael to take the throne after he broke the house rules and married Natalia in 1912. It would have been a perfect moment to amend the succession and put his daughters ahead. I really don't understand because like edubs31 said better Olga then the Valdimiovich.

Let's pretend Nicholas did amend the succession and allowed his daughters to follow Alexei. Despite wanting to keep the whole family together by 1917 Olga was legally of age, so he wouldn't be able to abdicate for her. Would Nicholas still have abdicated for Alexei and leave the whole mess to his daughter? Would there actually have been a Tsar Alexei with a regent Olga? How would Alexandra react to being separated from any of them? Also I believe Olga suffered a breakdown during the war so that leaves the question of her mental strength unless ascending to the throne suddenly made her better. At the time of abdication Olga was ill at Tsarskoe Selo, would she still accept it or would the desire to keep the family together make her refuse it too? One wonders what would have happened if she suddenly at that moment became Tsarina.

It's a series of major what ifs

[edubs31]

Was amending the line of succession ever seriously considered?

There's been some talk about it on here, but it doesn't seem like it was ever a real consideration.

I know Alexandra was obsessed with Alexei succeeding to the throne and Nicholas was determined to leave everything just as his father had left it to him but they must have realized just how unrealistic it was becoming as time went on (especially after Spala).

Yes they certainly diluted themselves. Of course being as spiritual as they were there was always that belief that a cure for the disease might be just around the corner, or that their son would persevere regardless of his condition because "God wills it".

Did they really think when Nicholas died Alexei could truly be successful as Tsar with his condition? Nicholas clearly didn't when he illegally abdicated for Alexei in 1917 so why didn't he act earlier when there was still a throne to protect?

Alexei was only four years old at the time this article was published (1908). And not that I'm compelled to believe a word of this story but if Nicholas was, by some chance, seriously considering a change to the Pauline Laws, he might have felt compelled to wait and see whether age and development might have made his son's condition more manageable. In other words, to see whether a cure/remedy might be discovered or Alexei would begin to grow out of it...regardless of how foolish that might sound to us now.

I'm surprised he still wanted Michael to take the throne after he broke the house rules and married Natalia in 1912. It would have been a perfect moment to amend the succession and put his daughters ahead.

That's a good thought. He had the excuse he needed. Of course that also would mean that he would have to reveal Alexei's tragic condition to the world. Something the imperial couple did not seem willing to do...although they probably should have.

Let's pretend Nicholas did amend the succession and allowed his daughters to follow Alexei. Despite wanting to keep the whole family together by 1917 Olga was legally of age, so he wouldn't be able to abdicate for her. Would Nicholas still have abdicated for Alexei and leave the whole mess to his daughter? Would there actually have been a Tsar Alexei with a regent Olga? How would Alexandra react to being separated from any of them? Also I believe Olga suffered a breakdown during the war so that leaves the question of her mental strength unless ascending to the throne suddenly made her better. At the time of abdication Olga was ill at Tsarskoe Selo, would she still accept it or would the desire to keep the family together make her refuse it too? One wonders what would have happened if she suddenly at that moment became Tsarina.

A lot to consider there.

[Marlene]

Thanks.   I don't publish old articles.  I use them as the basis for what happened on a certain day, quoting from them, yes, also adding information, sometimes correcting information.  Just remember, women did have the right to succeed in Russia and in Austria, after all the men.  In the case of Russia, it is certainly made clear in the Fundamental Laws. Canadian historian Carolyn Harris wrote an excellent scholarly article
"The Succession Prospects of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna (1895-1918) published in the June 2012
Canadian Slavonic Papers.   It is online but not for free.   You can pay by paypal for it from the publisher or if you have ILL you can order it and get it free from your library.

 I was reading through Marlene Eilers Koenig's blog Royal Musings (fantastic blog!!!!) and she published an old article from the New York Journal in 1896 that stated rumors of Franz Joseph telegramming Emperor Wilhelm about changing the line of succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne and name his daughter Archduchess Marie Valerie as his heir instead of Franz Ferdinand and that an announcement was "soon".  

Now of course as we all know it didn't happen and was probably just crazy gossip but I was wondering if any newspaper ever wrote such a thing with Olga? Was there ever publication of rumor that Nicholas considered changing the line of succession that could make Olga Tsarina?
[/quote]

[Marlene]

Many times, reports were based on what was being said in St Petersburg or reported in local press. 

Maria, I agree with you on all points!

I just love when a so-called "journalist" makes half-hearted attempt to dodge responsibility by using a phrase like "The Czar is said to have". Who said exactly? Far as I can tell this writer created the suggestion out of thin air or is just being lazy and repeating dubious sources that they're passing off as fact. "Is said to have" is a journalists manufactured 'get out of jail free' card. Muddying up the language just enough that they can always defend themselves with a feeble, "well I never said who, or suggested it was fact", while readers are led astray.

Honestly I'd love to read the full length article. My guess is that we've only just begun to uncover the inconsistencies and blatant lies put forth here.

History, while completely unpredictable in 1908, proved that Nicholas did indeed prefer his brother Michael as the most suitable option for replacement. Skipping over his own son, who was very much alive in March of 1917. I don't get the sense that Olga or any female member of the Romanov line was ever under consideration. Personally I wish she was, Pauline Laws notwithstanding. Not only was she gifted, charming and capable (at least in what would likely be a reduced role), but placing the crown upon the head of Olga would have at the very least kept it out of the hands of the Vladimirovich.

[Marlene]

A piece on Royal Musings from 2008 http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2008/07/if-only.html

[Maria Sisi]

All those marriage rumors and not a single one followed though  

To think if she had married she would have certainly lived....so tragic

I always got the feeling deep inside that if OTMA ever did marry it would be a marriage similar to their aunt Olga. Not the gay part, but a prince who while not important or grand enough for the daughter of a Tsar was rich and came from a respected name family in the empire. The best they would come to marrying a foreigner is if their husband moved to Russia like the husband of Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna (daughter of Nicholas I) did. That's just my opinion of course but for some reason I find it hard to imagine any of them really leaving home and moving away.    

[Marlene]

Olga and her sisters were very immature.  She and Carol could not even make conversation during their dinner in Constantza.  He was worldly. She was sheltered. 

[Beautiful_Anastasia]

Olga and her sisters were very immature.  She and Carol could not even make conversation during their dinner in Constantza.  He was worldly. She was sheltered. 

I wouldn't say that they were immature. I think that that opinion mainly comes as a result of their upbringing.

Also, as this is a what if, what does anyone think about how TMA would have shaped up as Empresses? Personally I think that Tatiana would have been very similar to Alexandra, Maria in my opinion would have been second best for the job after Olga, because of her great compassion, and the fact that I believe she knew her own mind, and I think she would especially have benefitted if she had had a husband consort to help her. I don't think that Anastasia would have made a very good Tsarina, though. I think that she was too child-like  and fun-loving to have conformed to the seriousness and formalities involved with ruling an empire.
Emily

[Sarushka]

Immature, naive, sheltered — however you label it and whatever the cause, it seems to be more than an opinion. People who observed the imperial children firsthand were often struck by how childlike they acted, particularly outside of formal situations. Of course in some circumstances they were wise beyond their years, but overall I believe it's safe to say they were underdeveloped socially.

[TimM]

Alas, we'll never know what kind of job Olga would have done.  We can only speculate (and write alternate world fiction, of course).