Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life

[Robert_Hall]

Thank you, Michael, I shall be  on your shores soon! Then off to Istanbul for a week, where some Romanoffs actually  ended up!
 Of course we can disagree about Michael,  neither one of are unanimous in our opinions about this matter.  My contention is still that one cannot "abdicate" from something one does not possess. That is all.
  Yes, GD Michael was pretty cool, I do like him, probably one of the more decent of the Romanov males, a renegade in many ways. Very loving in a rather "outre" marriage. Another book you may like, THE GRAND DUKE'S WOMAN by Pauline Gray [his great-grand-daughter] gives another view, especially of Natasha.

[Forum Admin]

The most logical answers that I have seen, which come from those far more well read on Imperial Russian law than I, seem to be the following.

Whether Nicholas II "had the right" to abdicate in favor of Michael and also to abdicate for Alexei was a moot point as the abdication as such was accepted without any legal challenge.  It was thus a "fait accompli" and no power went to Alexei.

They also posit that because Imperial Power still "existed" but was not accepted by Michael, it ceased to exist at that moment Michael repudiated accepting it. Michael was never Emperor in the legal sense of the word.  The Imperial Power may have existed for the few hours between Nicholas' abdication and Michael's renunciation thereof, but it never actually vested legally with Michael, and therefore it is not proper to actually designate him as Emperor because he never actually HELD the Imperial Power.  Nicholas II was for all intents and purposes the Last Emperor of Russia.

[LisaDavidson]

The most logical answers that I have seen, which come from those far more well read on Imperial Russian law than I, seem to be the following.

Whether Nicholas II "had the right" to abdicate in favor of Michael and also to abdicate for Alexei was a moot point as the abdication as such was accepted without any legal challenge.  It was thus a "fait accompli" and no power went to Alexei.

They also posit that because Imperial Power still "existed" but was not accepted by Michael, it ceased to exist at that moment Michael repudiated accepting it. Michael was never Emperor in the legal sense of the word.  The Imperial Power may have existed for the few hours between Nicholas' abdication and Michael's renunciation thereof, but it never actually vested legally with Michael, and therefore it is not proper to actually designate him as Emperor because he never actually HELD the Imperial Power.  Nicholas II was for all intents and purposes the Last Emperor of Russia.

I agree with most of what you have written with the exception of Michael's "renunciation" - which is also sometimes called an "abdication".

In reality, he neither abdicated nor renounced the throne or his rights to it. We know for certain that he was in contact with the acknowledged legal expert on the Fundamental Law - Nabakov - after the abdication. We can only surmise what he was advised (or if he acted on the advice), but my best guess is that Nabakov would have told him that Nicholas' abdication on behalf of Alexei was illegal but that the situation was far too volitile to resolve at the moment. He thus in his manifesto steers clear of this and instead leaves the whole issue of the monarchy in the hands of the Constituent Assembly. The latter action is clearly decisive and entirely consistent with the beliefs of Michael instead.

Michael himself is clearly ambiguous as to whether by issuing the manifesto he is exercising the powers of a ruler. I believe he saw himself as a caretaker - on behalf of Alexei perhaps, but certainly of his dynasty, but not as a new Emperor. Therefore, I agree with Rob on his behalf - Nicholas was the last Emperor, Michael just sealed the deal.

[Forum Admin]

Lisa,

I think you mis-characterized what I meant by "renunciation".  Michael's "manifesto" or statement or whatever else we care to call it said in so many words "If the People want to choose me to be Emperor, then I will be Emperor".  What Michael did here was indeed to renounce the old laws of succession entirely (ie: either by birthright and the Pauline Laws or by Imperial Ukaze) and say "OK, I "renounce" the Emperor just handing me the Imperial Power.  I leave the decision to the People, and if they want me, then I'll be Emperor".  This was in effect, what caused the immediate end of Imperial Power.

[LisaDavidson]

Lisa,

I think you mis-characterized what I meant by "renunciation".  Michael's "manifesto" or statement or whatever else we care to call it said in so many words "If the People want to choose me to be Emperor, then I will be Emperor".  What Michael did here was indeed to renounce the old laws of succession entirely (ie: either by birthright and the Pauline Laws or by Imperial Ukaze) and say "OK, I "renounce" the Emperor just handing me the Imperial Power.  I leave the decision to the People, and if they want me, then I'll be Emperor".  This was in effect, what caused the immediate end of Imperial Power.

I agree with you and yes I did probably misunderstand what you'd written.

[AGRBear]

Take a look at Michael's  signature on the doc. he sent. 

How is it signed by Michael? 

This will tell you exactly what he felt his status was at that time.


AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

He signed it only "Michael"

[Michael HR]

He signed in the imperial manor as Michael and not Michael Alexandrovich. No emperor signed with their number such as Nicholas II. Therefore I feel Michael thought of himself as the container of imperial power when he signed the document and hence the style. I would welcome other views mind you

[Forum Admin]

He signed in the imperial manor as Michael and not Michael Alexandrovich. No emperor signed with their number such as Nicholas II. Therefore I feel Michael thought of himself as the container of imperial power when he signed the document and hence the style. I would welcome other views mind you

Actually, Michael HR, the signing of the single name "Michael" means pretty much nothing in this instance.  ALL of the Grand Dukes (ie sons of an Emperor) only EVER signed just their first name.   Throughout his life, Michael Alexandrovich only ever signed his first name "Michael" as his official signature.  We have seen one of the Imperial Court Annual Almanachs belonging to Michael, where he signed his name just "Michael".  Remember the family actually had no "family name" officially  (Dmitri Pavlovich had to choose a family name after the Revolution, choosing Ilinski after the estate Ilinskoe, remember?) and officially they never used their patrinomic either.  Nicholas II ALWAYS just signed "Nicholas" even before taking the throne.

I think you are reading into this what you want to see, and not what was really there.

[LisaDavidson]

He signed in the imperial manor as Michael and not Michael Alexandrovich. No emperor signed with their number such as Nicholas II. Therefore I feel Michael thought of himself as the container of imperial power when he signed the document and hence the style. I would welcome other views mind you

I really don't know what you mean by the term "the container of imperial power". We can really only speculate at this point about how Michael felt about all of this, unless someone finds a document Michael wrote that says "I was only a caretaker at that point", etc. What historians can reasonably do is to point out what characteristics he had as a person and figure out if the description pertaining to him fits or does not fit. I'll give you an example, although I believe there is more detail in my biography of Michael on the APTM.

Kerensky says in his memoirs that Michael decided to turn down the throne because "we could not guarantee his physical safety". This does not fit with what we know about him or the Romanov dynasty:

1. Because of the political assassinations, members of the dynasty were well aware that they could be targets, too. Would any of them even believe assurances of physical safety? Doubtful.
2. Michael was awarded medals for physical bravery, so it does not make sense that he would sacrifice the throne because he was scared.
3. Michael's diary that morning clearly shows his greatest worry at the time was for "justice and order", not that he could get away from Petrograd with his skin intact.

I've already said that Nabakov's presence was significant - in my opinion, bringing in the acknowledged expert on the Fundamental Law to the discussions with Michael clearly shows he was concerned about the legalities of his situation.

[Michael HR]

What I meant was that when Nicholas abdicated imperial power would transfer to the next in line rather like the English system of the king is dead god save the king. Therefore power, such as it was, transferred to Michael at the time of abdication and it was up to him if he accepted or not. As we know he did not but it seemed that he tried to transfer power to the Provisional Government in the hope that the country would stabilize.

I would agree with you that any suggestion that Michael would consider his personal safety above all else is rubbish as he was clearly a brave man. He fought on the front lines unlike most of the Romanov clan and actually earnt his medals and it would seem that personal safety was the last thing on his mind. In IMHO it was the stability of Russia that was foremost in his thoughts and deeds at this time.

It is perhaps a great shame that he did not assume Imperial power as who knows what sort of Emperor he would have made autocrat or otherwise. One feels we would have been a positive influence and I think also a constitutional monarch. At least it did not go to GD Kyril a man I personally dislike.

[AGRBear]

Emperial Russia was NEVER without an Emperor after Peter I's laws of succession.  After Paul I's laws on succession were set,  only males could inherit the throne.

For those who believe that Michael abdicated when he sent his letter to the Prov. Govt.  then, as Michael HR voiced, the male next in line was automatically placed into the position as Emperor.  That person was GD Kyril, who in time and after Michael's death, did take up the title of being the Russian Emperor "outside" of Russia.

I haven't had time to reread one of my books which has an excellent section on why Michael's letter to the Prov. Govt. was not anything more than a letter with hopes that the Prov. Govt. would appoint him as their leader.  If I remember correct, the argument was  something like:  The letter to the Prov. Govt. did not mean he had given up his position as the uncrown Emperor and Tsar of All the Russias.  He was still legally the Emperor with the power of the Emperor.  If someone had rescued him,  he could have ruled from inside or outside of Russia and if his troops had  regained support,  he could have and probably would have legally been able to rule Russia, not GD Kyril.

AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

IMPERIAL (not Emperial) Russia ceased to exist the moment Michael signed the document.  Paul's laws were of no matter anymore. Kyril was not Emperor of anything, much less Russia.  If Michael had been rescued from Russia, HE wouldn't have been Emperor of anything either, unless the White forces overthrew the Provisonal/Bolshevik governments to RE-establish Imperial Governmental power The governmental power of Russia which had vested in the Emperor ceased at the moment  of his manifesto to exist.  Governmental power in Russia then vested in the Provisional Government under Kerensky until seized by force by the Bolsheviks.  Michael wouldn't have been Emperor of anything unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands.

Any discussion of any person being "Emperor" after Michael's manifesto is a moot, rhetorical or at best theoretical one.

[AGRBear]

IMPERIAL (not Emperial) Russia ceased to exist the moment Michael signed the document.  Paul's laws were of no matter anymore. Kyril was not Emperor of anything, much less Russia.  If Michael had been rescued from Russia, HE wouldn't have been Emperor of anything either, unless the White forces overthrew the Provisonal/Bolshevik governments to RE-establish Imperial Governmental power The governmental power of Russia which had vested in the Emperor ceased at the moment  of his manifesto to exist.  Governmental power in Russia then vested in the Provisional Government under Kerensky until seized by force by the Bolsheviks.  Michael wouldn't have been Emperor of anything unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands.

Any discussion of any person being "Emperor" after Michael's manifesto is a moot, rhetorical or at best theoretical one.

You are very emotional on this subject so I hesitate to differ so I'll just copy the  "what if" scenario you mentioned:

>>... unless the Governmental Power in Russia was somehow gotten back into White hands<< Michael could have been returned to the position of Emperor of Russia.

We can and do agree that  the success of the Bolsheviks makes this a theoretical point.

It is entirely up to you, FA, if this subject is moot.

AGRBear

   

[Michael HR]

I agree Imperial power ended the minute Michael signed the document as he transferred that power to the provisional government where it was later hijacked by others in October.