Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life

[AGRBear]

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.

Imperialism did cease to exist in Russia after a Russian Revolution, which was "hijacked" by the Bolsheviks (Red October "Counter Revolution"), which was followed by a Civil War.

Oh, yes, that pesky Russian Civil War fought by Russians who didn't want Lenin or Stalin.  Some wanted Michael as a figure head similar to what Queen Elis. is  in Great Britian, now.  Others had their own ideas as to whom they wanted as head of state.

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.

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

   

I don't see one word of "emotion" here Bear.  I was stating facts and truths.  Since we both agree that it is a theoretical point at best, you should easily see that since the Bolsheviks defeated the White forces, there was no longer any possibility of a RESTORATION of Imperial Power to Michael, Kyril, or anyone else, the question is moot.

It's like discussing whether JFK would have won a second term in office or not.  He died, so the question, while theoretical, is clearly moot.  I see no difference.

[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

   

I don't see one word of "emotion" here Bear.  I was stating facts and truths.  Since we both agree that it is a theoretical point at best, you should easily see that since the Bolsheviks defeated the White forces, there was no longer any possibility of a RESTORATION of Imperial Power to Michael, Kyril, or anyone else, the question is moot.

It's like discussing whether JFK would have won a second term in office or not.  He died, so the question, while theoretical, is clearly moot.  I see no difference.

We can agree that the Bolsheviks defeated the White forces. 

What we do not seem to agree is on the date when the uncrown Emp. Michael ceased to be Emp. of Russia.

This is simply a matter of SEMANTICs. 

History will not be changed if we never do agree. 

History is what it is. 

Russia became the victim of two uncrown Czars, Lenin and Stalin.


AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

Michael never was Emperor of Russia.  While he had the opportunity to ACCEPT the Imperial Power granted to him by Nicholas II,  he did not. That is critical.  He chose otherwise and thus extinguished the Imperial Line.

This is important: Not ONE single person swore the oath of allegiance to Michael after Nicholas' "abdication" in his favor. Not one...He was not accepted by a single person AS EMPEROR prior to his Manifesto.

Think about LBJ when JFK was killed. WAS he President the second JFK died? No, he was not President until sworn to office.

[Alixz]

FA, I have been looking for a source for your post that LBJ was not immediately president and that he was not official until he was sworn in.

I can't find anything except this:

The first vacancy in the presidency had occurred more than half a century after the ratification of the Constitution.15 The document had provided for the Vice President to accede to the presidency: "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."16 The only other related legislation, the Succession Act of 1792, addressed the issue only if a double vacancy in the presidency and vice presidency occurred.17

Many members of Harrison's cabinet and others questioned whether Tyler was a temporary substitute until an election could be held or a permanent replacement until the term of office ended.18 With no surviving delegates of the Constitution Convention to offer firsthand accounts and both the official and unofficial records of the convention still unpublished, the Tyler debate would not subside.19

Secretary of State Webster raised the concerns with William Carroll, clerk of the Supreme Court, who conveyed the issue to Chief Justice Roger Taney. The justice, upon being invited to "confer," declined, wishing to avoid "the suspicion of desiring to intrude into the affairs which belong to another branch of government."20

Tyler believed "his oath of office as Vice President covered the new situation both legally and constitutionally" despite the difference in wording and the fact that no formal vice presidential oath existed in the Constitution.21 At the Indian Queen Hotel, in the presence of the cabinet and "to forestall any doubts as to whether or not Tyler was legally the chief executive," he took the constitutional oath administered by Chief Justice William Crunch of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. Crunch "appended" "a statement to the copy of the oath along with Tyler's objection," noting "that although the Vice President considered himself qualified to perform the duties and exercise the powers of the office of the President without more than his prior vice presidential oath, he nonetheless took the presidential oath of office 'for greater caution' and to allay any doubts that might arise."22

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/abrupt-transition-1.html

[Robert_Hall]

Didn't Nixon have the same  dilemma when Agnew resigned?  I do not remember much about it, but that administration as almost as unpopular as the current one.
 As for Russia, the Provisional Government was just that, provisional until a legal form & order could be determined.  As neither Alesis  nor Michael had accepted  the throne, it fell to the PG to determine what to do next pending elections and a Constitution. Obviouslt, Kerensky failed at that. Kyril was the next legitimate inheritor, but was never really accepted by  anyone. Still, some consider his line the legimate one.  I do not think Lenin ever considered himself  "tsar" but Stalin sure did, and rule like the best and worst of them.

[AGRBear]

Michael never was Emperor of Russia.  While he had the opportunity to ACCEPT the Imperial Power granted to him by Nicholas II,  he did not. That is critical.  He chose otherwise and thus extinguished the Imperial Line.

Of course Michael was immediately Emp. of Russia the moment the ex-Emp. Nicholas II lifted his pen off the document that was his abdication.  Russia wasn't following any US presidential laws.  Russia was following laws of Peter I's.  And,  Russia was NEVER without a Emp. for one second.  This means that Michael was immediately  Emp. of Russia. Being Emp. wasn't a popular vote kind of thing.  It was through the inheritance laws of the crown.  I forget the date but when Nicholas II allowed Michael to return to Russia and take up the position as second in line to the succession behind Tsarvich Alexei,  all kinds of official papers were signed, including the ones that eliminated any of Michael's children as being heirs to the throne.  This is when GD Kyril legally became successor after Michael.  If Alexei should survive then his children would have been his successors. 

There are legal questions if Nicholas II could set aside his son and make Michael his successor.  As far as I know, this was never taken into any court for any kind of legal, because of the change of politics under the Duma, then the Prov. Govt. and then the Bolshevik Regime. 

Since no one of importance disputed the successor to be that of Michael,  then he for all sakes and purposes was the uncrown Emp. under the Imperial Laws.

Legally, Nicholas II had already dealt with the Duma on 11 March 1917.  He had officially demanded that they were to close their doors.  They were the first Revolutionary Movement.  They did not close their doors and were the ones with the help of the generals around Nicholas II to isolate him and give him no choice but to abdicate.

The Prov. Govt. was  part of the Second Revolutionary Movement and due to this definition,  was, also, outside the Imperial Law on 12 March 1917.  It was headed by Prince Lvov.  The Consitutional Democract was Paul Miliukov.  Minister of Foreign Affairs was Aleander Guchkov.  The minister of Justice was the Socialist Kerensky.

Nicholas II was still in power and still the Emp. of Russia.

Nicholas II abdicated on 15 March 1917 in favor of his brother Michael.

>>In the days of the great struggle against the foreign enemies, who for nearly three years have tried to enslave our fatherland, the Lord God has been pleased to send down on Russia a new heavy trial. Internal popular disturbances threaten to have a disastrous effect on the future conduct of this persistent war. The destiny of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the welfare of the people and the whole future of our dear fatherland demand that the war should be brought to a victorious conclusion whatever the cost. The cruel enemy is making his last efforts, and already the hour approaches when our glorious army together with our gallant allies will crush him. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, We thought it Our duty of conscience to facilitate for Our people the closest union possible and a consolidation of all national forces for the speedy attainment of victory. In agreement with the Imperial Duma We have thought it well to renounce the Throne of the Russian Empire and to lay down the supreme power. As We do not wish to part from Our beloved son, We transmit the succession to Our brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, and give Him Our blessing to mount the Throne of the Russian Empire. We direct Our brother to conduct the affairs of state in full and inviolable union with the representatives of the people in the legislative bodies on those principles which will be established by them, and on which He will take an inviolable oath.

In the name of Our dearly beloved homeland, We call on Our faithful sons of the fatherland to fulfill their sacred duty to the fatherland, to obey the tsar in the heavy moment of national trials, and to help Him, together with the representatives of the people, to guide the Russian Empire on the road to victory, welfare, and glory. May the Lord God help Russia!<<

Michael became Emp. Michael of Russia  on 15 March 1917, 3:05 P.M. in every way with or without the crown on his head.

AGRBear 

[Forum Admin]

From the Statesman's Handbook to Russia, published BY the Imperial Court Press  (from main APTM site)

In its substance the Sovereign power is perpetual ie: its functions do not terminate with the death of the Monarch, as by the law his rights are immediately transferred to his Successor.

It is permissible to abnegate  (to refuse or deny oneself (some rights, conveniences, etc.); reject; renounce.) the rights to the throne, provided only no complications in the succession to the throne arise. Whereupon, when the abnegation is proclaimed and made law it may not be withdrawn.

The new Emperor publicly proclaims his accession to the throne by means of a special manifesto. In the manifesto the lawful heir, if he already exists, is announced.

[AGRBear]

The abdication of Nicholas II  was countersigned by the Minister for the Imperial Court, Count Freedericksz.

Under the   Russia's Fundamental Laws, Michael became Emperor on the day the abdication of his predecessor was lawfully promulgated.

Therefore,  Grand Duke Michael was  proclaimed as "Emperor Michael II" to the Russians and the world.

Abdication or accession could follow and be accepted by using the Russia Fundamental Laws.  Meanwhile,  Michael was Emp. of Russia.

AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

Show me one document proclaiming Michael as Emperor??  You can't. not one says so....

Read the language Bear: "its functions do not terminate with the death of the Monarch, as by the law his rights are immediately transferred to his Successor."
The Imperial FUNCTIONS continued after Nicholas abdicated. The RIGHT to the throne passed to Michael lawfully, HOWEVER Michael NEVER proclaimed HIMSELF Emperor, as required. While the Imperial RIGHTS transferred to Michael, Michael abnegated his rights WITHOUT accepting the throne.  This is the critical distinction.

[AGRBear]

From the Statesman's Handbook to Russia, published BY the Imperial Court Press  (from main APTM site)

....as by the law his rights are immediately transferred to his Successor.
....

The word "immediately" sounds definite to me. 

15 March 1917 at 3:05 PM  Michael  "immediately" became Emp. of Russia

The rest comes later.

AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

No Bear.  Re read it again, carefully and slowly (It must be the Cal education thing again....)

15 March 1917 at 3:05 PM  Michael  "immediately" acquired the RIGHT to be Emperor of Russia.  A right he never acted upon, never asserted, never accepted,  and if fact abnegated in writing shortly thereafter.  To legally possess the RIGHT to something but not acting upon it does not necessarily make it so.  For example, many Americans have the legal RIGHT to vote, they carry that RIGHT all the time as citizens, however, one can not be called a "voter" unless you act upon that right, by registering and casting your ballot.

Michael very importantly never took action to assert his RIGHT to be Emperor.

[AGRBear]

The uncrown Emp. Michael accerted his right when he sent the following letter to the Prov. Govt.  on 3/16 March 1917.

This information is found on Alexander Palace on the following URL

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Mikhail.html

>>Imperial Successor
Some historians consider Mikhail to be the last Tsar of Russia. What is beyond doubt is that he was named Nickolas' successor. Had things been different, he may have become Tsar. However, he inherited a situation that, by the hour, careened out of his or anyoneês control. Alexander Kerensky and other Duma leaders made it clear to him that his safety could not be guaranteed if he assumed power. He would be a tsar without a court, or a following.

Mikhail's manifesto of March 3, 1917, is noteworthy, in that it represents a fundamental change in the Romanov family's willingness to use violence to retain its power. His repudiation of force to claim, or regain, the crown, has remained to the present day, the Romanov policy regarding a restoration of the monarchy. Here is what he said:

"A heavy burden had been laid upon me by the will of my brother, who in a time of unexampled strife and popular tumult has transferred to me the imperial throne of Russia . Sharing with the people the thought that the good of the country should stand before everything else, I have firmly decided that I will accept power only if that is the will of our great people, who must by universal suffrage elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly, in order to determine the form of government and draw up new fundamental laws for Russia. Therefore, calling for the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has arisen and has been endowed with full authority on the initiative of the Imperial Duma, until such time as the Constituent Assembly, called at the earliest possible date and elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage, shall by its decision as to the form of government give expression to the will of the people."

In this document, Mikhail neither accepts nor rejects the crown. It is clearly not an abdication , as some have argued. Mikhail, instead strikes a new course, consistent with his call, before Nickolasê fall, for representative government. He would rule as a constitutional monarch, or not at all. Misha remained in contact with Alexander Kerensky until the later fled Russia, until the Bolshevik uprising in October 1917. Frequently forgotten is that the elections Mikhail calls for were held, only to have the Constituent Assembly disbanded by the armed force of the Bolsheviks . Thus, all Russian governments to this day lack the basic legitimacy urged by the Imperial successor, Mikhail Romanov.<<

I agree with the above that  the uncrown Michael "neither accepts nor rejects the crown"...   At anytime,  he could have proclaimed he intended to take the crown since the govt. he had hoped to govern Russia had been forcefully removed by the Bolsheviks.  This is why the Bolsheviks  held him under arrest and later took him out into the country side and executed him.

[Forum Admin]

Bear, you miss one critical point here. Michael indeed REJECTED the Imperial Throne.  He agreed to become Emperor "if" the "people" so "elected" him.  It was NOT "adbication"  it was ABNEGATION.  "Abdication" is renunciation of existing rights. "Abnegation" is refusal to accept what was passed to him.

The Throne Nicholas II passed to his brother did NOT require a "popular election" under Paul's laws.  That Imperial power already existed.  Michael REJECTED the existing rights he had acquired from Nicholas, saying that he would only be Emperor if so elected by the "people".  This was new, and did not yet exist.  Thus, he had rejected the "rights" Nicholas lawfully passed to him and asked for NEW rights from the "people"

Read what you yourself quoted :
I will accept power only if that is the will of our great people, who must by universal suffrage elect their representatives to the Constituent Assembly, in order to determine the form of government and draw up new fundamental laws for Russia. Therefore, calling for the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has arisen and has been endowed with full authority on the initiative of the Imperial Duma, until such time as the Constituent Assembly, called at the earliest possible date and elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage, shall by its decision as to the form of government give expression to the will of the people."

I "WILL" accept power only if that is the will of our great people"  This says "I have NOT accepted the power Nicholas gave me, and will NOT unless the people vote it to me. 
I ask all citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has arisen and has been endowed with full authority on the initiative of the Imperial Duma, until such time as the Constituent Assembly, called at the earliest possible date and elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage, shall by its decision as to the form of government give expression to the will of the people."
The Provisional Government WHICH HAS ARISEN AND BEEN ENDOWED WITH FULL AUTHORITY..."  Michael HAD "full authority" from Nicholas, yet REFUSED to accept said "full authority"...yet acceded to the "authority" of the Duma and REFUSED to accept the lawful authority and rights from the Emperor which were handed to him....

[TampaBay]

I have reread this thread from top to bottom twice because it is so interesting.

Here is my take for what it is worth and it is not worth much:

The provisional government walked up to Michael and said congratulations your Imperial Highness by default you have won the crown. You are the new heir and next in line to be emperor (just like the USA President Elect).

Michael then said "sorry dudes!  I will only be emperor if the great people of Russia some how elect me me emperor!"

Time ran out and the great power vacuum Michael created by not assuming power sucked out what was left of all the remaining political stability.

TampaBay