Author Topic: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life  (Read 285685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #195 on: October 29, 2008, 02:27:49 PM »
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



Not quite.

Nicholas II sent a note to Michael saying "Here,  Bro, I want YOU to be Emperor cuz I quit and I don't want my kid involved in this mess. You handle it."

Michael said "No way Jose! I'm not going to just up and be the Emperor. I'll only take the job if the people elect me to it."

This left the power to the Provisional Government since nobody else had it. Instability followed, and the rest is "history"...

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #196 on: October 29, 2008, 02:55:06 PM »
Pretty close, TB.  The precedent for this situation was set when Alexander I died in 1825. His brother, Constantine, was the legitimate heir  under the laws established by their father, Paul. However, Constantine had made it clear he  had no intention of taking the throne, but had never abdicated his rights, so some recognised him, including his brother Nicholas I, both telling their supporters to swear their oaths to the other. The ensuing confusing led to Russia having NO EMPEROR for 3 weeks, until Nicholas finally accepted the throne, which led to the Decemdrist  revolt. The time frame was remarkable, as Constantine was in Warsaw, Nicholas in either Moscow or St. P and Alexander had died in the far south.
 All of this is well documented in  several books; for example, The Romanovs, by Bruce Lincoln, Nicholas I also by Lincoln and Shadow of the Winter Palace by  Edward Crankshaw. All eminent historians, not prone to romantic idealism.
 Some purists even say that Constantine WAS emperor, although he never accepted nor abdicated. It would be the same as saying Alexei was Emperor Alexei II although he never did either.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #197 on: October 30, 2008, 11:48:04 AM »
Pretty close, TB.  The precedent for this situation was set when Alexander I died in 1825. His brother, Constantine, was the legitimate heir  under the laws established by their father, Paul. However, Constantine had made it clear he  had no intention of taking the throne, but had never abdicated his rights, so some recognised him, including his brother Nicholas I, both telling their supporters to swear their oaths to the other. The ensuing confusing led to Russia having NO EMPEROR for 3 weeks, until Nicholas finally accepted the throne, which led to the Decemdrist  revolt. The time frame was remarkable, as Constantine was in Warsaw, Nicholas in either Moscow or St. P and Alexander had died in the far south.
 All of this is well documented in  several books; for example, The Romanovs, by Bruce Lincoln, Nicholas I also by Lincoln and Shadow of the Winter Palace by  Edward Crankshaw. All eminent historians, not prone to romantic idealism.
 Some purists even say that Constantine WAS emperor, although he never accepted nor abdicated. It would be the same as saying Alexei was Emperor Alexei II although he never did either.

Technically ,  Constantine was Emp. because he never abdicated.  Nicholas took up the void and took the role as Emp..  Constantine asked the people to swear an oath to Nicholas who became Nicholas I in the eyes of historians.

If you ever get a chance, read some of the biographies of the people involved in the December Revolution.

Technically, the moment Nicholas II signed his first abdication which made Alexei his successor he could not undo this action. Without farther ado Alexei became Emp. Alexei  with Grand Duke Michael as his Regent.   It was not legally possible for Nicholas II to change his mind after the fact since he was no longer Emp., therefore,  the reins were handed over immediately.  In other words the ex-Emp. of Russia could not legally change his mind, tear up the document and redraw a new abdication.    Regent Michael  should have carried the power until Alexei came of age. Since the Regent Michael died before Alexei, then someone (not exactly sure if it would be the sucessor GD Kryil or not) would have been Regent until Alexei came of age.  The moment Emp. Alexei was executed,  GD Kryil, who was next in line, technically became Emp.of Russia, who by then was without a country and later declared himself  Emp. "outside" of Russia.  The Bolsheviks/communists remained in power and the Romanovs in exile remained "outside".

Because historians seem to forget this technically [proof of the FIRST abdication was never drawn into any Russian court and proven],  historians provide their readers with Nicholas II's SECOND abdication which gave his brother Michael the crown instead of Alexei.



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.
....

Quote
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 




The " rest" is abdication, accession, "ABNEGATION", rejection or whatever kind of spin a person wants to place.


I don't think baby blue bear and Bear are going to agree, so,  let us just agree to disagree.   

Back to the original subject of this thread. When or IF  Michael was Emp. then he would not have been either Michael II or Michael IV.

Didn't Peter I The Great placed himself differently in status?  I think he made himself Emperor of All the Russias and Tsar of _____, _____ [areas I don't exactly recall], therefore,  those who followed held a different status, therefore,  if GD Michael had become/or was  Emperor would he not be he'd be the first Emp. Michael [just Emp Michael] under Peter I's laws?

AGRBear
« Last Edit: October 30, 2008, 11:50:22 AM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #198 on: October 30, 2008, 04:17:06 PM »


Technically, the moment Nicholas II signed his first abdication which made Alexei his successor he could not undo this action. Without farther ado Alexei became Emp. Alexei  with Grand Duke Michael as his Regent.   It was not legally possible for Nicholas II to change his mind after the fact since he was no longer Emp., therefore,  the reins were handed over immediately.  In other words the ex-Emp. of Russia could not legally change his mind, tear up the document and redraw a new abdication.    Regent Michael  should have carried the power until Alexei came of age. Since the Regent Michael died before Alexei, then someone (not exactly sure if it would be the sucessor GD Kryil or not) would have been Regent until Alexei came of age.  The moment Emp. Alexei was executed,  GD Kryil, who was next in line, technically became Emp.of Russia, who by then was without a country and later declared himself  Emp. "outside" of Russia.  The Bolsheviks/communists remained in power and the Romanovs in exile remained "outside".

Because historians seem to forget this technically [proof of the FIRST abdication was never drawn into any Russian court and proven],  historians provide their readers with Nicholas II's SECOND abdication which gave his brother Michael the crown instead of Alexei.



AGRBear

Whoa, hang on a second there Bear.  Nicholas NEVER SIGNED the first draft of abdication in favor of Alexei.  He wired Alexseev to draft the Abdication manifesto first in favor of Alexei with Michael as Regent on March 1, but had the Manifesto changed the next morning to the one he signed in favor of Michael only.

Please do offer up your citation for Nicholas signing 2 manifestos, I've never seen any signed version of the first draft.....


Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #199 on: October 30, 2008, 04:54:02 PM »
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.

As I am the uncredited author of the above biography from the APTM, I must point out:

1. Contrary to what was said on a Reply on this thread, women are not excluded from the succession! Why does this continue to be mis-stated? (Sorry, a little frustrated here after repeating this dozens of times!). Women cannot succeed until the male line is extinct, but they do have succession rights.
2. The point that nearly everyone is missing is this: as a point of law, if anyone was Emperor after Nicholas, it was Alexei, not Michael. Since the FL did not allow anyone - not even an Emperor/parent - to remove a qualified dynast from the succession, then Alexei was de jure emperor from the abdication of his father until his death. Michael could not be emperor simply because Nicholas or someone else said he was. That (and I keep repeating this because it's important) is why Nabakov was consulted about Michael's Manifesto! Michael was the logical choice to be Regent, and as Regent, what he said in the Manifesto was entirely appropriate.
3. "Imperialism" did not end in Russia with the revolution.

I sincerely thank you for acknowledging Alexei's superior claim. At his death, Kiril became de jure Emperor, but no one knew at the time because no one knew that Nicholas, Alexei, and Michael were all dead.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #200 on: October 30, 2008, 05:02:28 PM »
Lisa, I am in total agreement with you. I have long  said that  women DO have the right of succession.  Also, that Nicholas, the same as Alexander I had no lawful power to change the succession.  Which caused all the confusion in both cases.
\ As for numbering- Michael, IF he were to succeed, would have been the second Romanov of that name on the throne. The title "Tsar" was relevent to Muscovy, the title "Emperor" was of Russia.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #201 on: October 30, 2008, 07:15:47 PM »
I'm surrounded by plasterer and construction workers today, so,  I'm not sure I have time to find my sources since I don't recalll where I read the information.  HOPEFULLY I will return with those sources.. 

Was Michael [I, Romanov]  Tsar of Moscovy  and when Peter I came along he took up the title of Emperor of All the Russias, therein lies the difference I thought I had this info on my forum but I can't find it.  When I do,  I'll post it.

FA,  I don't recall in which book I read the first abdication was more than just a draft which was signed then destroyed.  When I find it,  I'll post it.  Hopefully there will be a source that goes along with this claim.

All in all,  I agree with Lisa:
>>2. The point that nearly everyone is missing is this: as a point of law, if anyone was Emperor after Nicholas, it was Alexei, not Michael. Since the FL did not allow anyone - not even an Emperor/parent - to remove a qualified dynast from the succession, then Alexei was de jure emperor from the abdication of his father until his death. Michael could not be emperor simply because Nicholas or someone else said he was. That (and I keep repeating this because it's important) is why Nabakov was consulted about Michael's Manifesto! Michael was the logical choice to be Regent, and as Regent, what he said in the Manifesto was entirely appropriate. <<

I think it was in one of the books about Michael which tells us that when he returned to Russia he had signed documents that he would be Alexei's Regent and that his own children would not be in line to the throne.  Again, when I find it...

Gotta run.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

DanlScott

  • Guest
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #202 on: October 30, 2008, 11:42:28 PM »
I think it is important to keep in mind that the Revolution was an extraordinary time, and the rules were tossed up in the air.  As has been mentioned, Nicholas II legally couldn't abdicate for his son, but he did, and it was accepted (why wouldn't it be accepted; Nicholas was an autocrat, so could change the laws as he saw fit, provided he had the backbone to do so).  Was Michael tsar for an hour?  Yes...and no (IMHO).  Nicholas DID pass his powers on to his brother and "bless him on his accession to the throne..."  and later Nicholas sent a telegram addressed "To His Majesty Emperor Michael."  Upon arriving at Petrograd from Pskov, Shulgin proceeded to proclaim the accession of Tsar Michael II.  I've also read that elsewhere in Russia Michael's accession was also proclaimed, and Nicholas's portrait was replaced with Michael's.  Clearly, many people believed Michael to be tsar immediately upon Nicholas's accession.  Also, Nicholas and others referred to Michael's "proclomation" as his abdication.  Clearly, Nicholas believed his brother to be the next Tsar of Russia.  Furthermore, in his proclamation declaring himself empreor, Kyril stated "The Russian laws of Succession to the throne do not permit the Imperial Throne to remain vacantafter the death of the previous Emperor..."  I would think if anyone knew the laws of succession it would be Nicholas II and Kyril.

On the other hand, those were extraordinary times.  Clearly, the provisional government did not want to acknowledge him as the new tsar.  Yet, they wanted him to renounce it (if he wasn't tsar already, what was he renouncing?).  The result was his proclamation, which states "...by the will of my brother, who has transferred to me the Imperial Throne of all the Russias..."(emphasis mine) but then goes onto state that he will not assume supreme power uless it is the will of the people.  It seems to me, he is stating "the imperial power has already devolved on me, but I will not excercise it unless the will of the people."  This was almost universally hailed as his abdication.

BTW, according to at least two of my books, Nicholas DID sign two abdication manifestos.  The first one was prepared before his discussion with Federov concerning Alexis's illness:

Nicholas and Alexandra, Massie, Robert K.: A form of abdication, prepared at Alexeiev's direction and forwarded from Headquarters, was produced.  Nicholas signed it, and the document was dated 3 p.m., March 15.  The throne had passed from father to son, as prescribed by law.  His Imperial Majesty Tsar Aalexis II, aged twelve, was Autocrat of all the Russias.

The Fate of the Romanovs, King and Wilson:  The succession laws of 1970 ditated that the throne should go to Alexei.  In the early afternoon of March 2, 1917, this is exactly what Nicholas did, abdicating for his twelve-year-old son...Having signed the manifesto, the former emperor could do nothing but wait....changed his mind, abdicating a second time, for himself and for Alexei.  (sorry for condensing it, but did not feel like copying the entire paragraph plus, but that is the gist of it).

Offline TampaBay

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4213
  • Being TampaBay is a Full Time Job.
    • View Profile
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #203 on: October 31, 2008, 11:44:23 AM »


The Fate of the Romanovs, King and Wilson:  The succession laws of 1970 ditated that the throne should go to Alexei. 


Didn't you mean 1870 0r 1770?  LOL!  LOL!

TampaBay
"Fashion is so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we should stop going to the mall.

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #204 on: October 31, 2008, 03:33:36 PM »


The Fate of the Romanovs, King and Wilson:  The succession laws of 1970 dictated that the throne should go to Alexei. 


Didn't you mean 1870 0r 1770?  LOL!  LOL!

TampaBay

But, other dynasts were consulted about all changes to the Fundamental Law, and especially so in the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II. Alexei was the heir, he became de jure Emperor upon his father's abdication. Nicholas' abdication on behalf of Alexei was against the law and he was never consulted.

It was a practical consideration for Nicholas to not want to be separated from his son, I get it, I know why he did it, but he had to know it was illegal. Michael knew it was illegal, which is why he brought in Nabakov. Everything I've ever read about Michael convinces me he would never have pushed his nephew aside, regardless of the cost to himself. I've always believed he was simply trying to buy them some time, and sadly, they all had precious little of that.

Norbert

  • Guest
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #205 on: October 31, 2008, 04:22:18 PM »
the same confusion arose on the death of Alexander I. No lawyers were brought in were they? Once Nicholas I had received his brothers rennunciation he took the crown and it would have been the same for Michael II

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #206 on: October 31, 2008, 04:26:08 PM »
Why do I even bother to post sources? See post #39.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #207 on: October 31, 2008, 05:05:46 PM »
 On 22 October 1721, soon after peace was made with Sweden Tsar Peter was given the title  "the Great, Father of His Country, Emperor of All the Russias"  by Gavrila Golovkin, who was the State Chancellor, which was followed by the speech of the Archbishop of Pskov.


Although Tsar when translated means Emperor and was a form of Caesar, the Europeans did not approve of Peter using the term "Emperor".  Peter liked the title and kept it. It would seem to me that the declaration of  "Emperor of All Russias" out weighted his title of Tsar of Moscovy.  So technical,  when the Romanovs who followed were called Tsar or Tsarina, this was the minor title and Emperor of All the Russias was their major title and not the same, therefore, those who followed were of higher rank.  The first Michael [Romanov] was Tsar of Moscovy.   If GD Michael,  the brother of Nicholas II, was the uncorwn Emp. of Russia,  he was the first Michael so called under the title of "Emperor of All Russias". Added to this he would have been Tsar Michael II (?IV) of Moscovy.


Prince of Moscovy Michael 1304  (Wasn't a Tsar)  because it was Ivan III who was considered the first sovereign of Russia in 1462

Tsar Michael  (Romanov)  1613  (Michael I)

Regent Michael/and/or/ uncrown  Emp. Michael I of All the Russias, March 1917 and Tsar Michael II   of Moscovy etc. etc. (brother of Nicholas II)

AGRBear


"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

DanlScott

  • Guest
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #208 on: October 31, 2008, 07:45:55 PM »
D@mn!  I was nearly finished with a lengthy post when my finger grazed a key and it disappeared!  One more try....

I meant to type 1917, not 1970.

Lisa, we are in agreement that it was illegal for Nicholas II to abdicate for his son, but he did, and it wa accepted.  Given the events at the time, I doubt the niceties of the law were utmost in the people's minds.  Besides, he was an autocrat (even after the constitution of 1906 he was still autocrat), all laws were derived from him.  There was no one higher, so, if he had the backbone to impose his will, he could change the fundamental laws or any other law he desired.  The family might be consulted, but their permission wasn't necessary.  Did not Peter I and Paul I not change the laws of succession?  Did not Alexander III change the laws to define who was a GD and who was a prince?

As to the succession and the point at which the heir becomes tsar, I back-up my previous arguments from the following excerps from the aforementioned Statesman's Handbook (I've tried to find the complete succession laws, but to no avail):

It is permissible to abnegate 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.  This has to do with removing oneself from the succession, not actually succeeding to the throne or refusing it after ascending it.

The heir ascends the throne immediately after the death of his predecessor, but he begins to reign only on coming of age. The heir is held at be of age at 16 years, earlier than the subject (21), as is likewise the case for other European states.  This is very clear to me that accession is IMMEDIATE, and does not stipulate that the new Tsar declares himself first.

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.  This simply states that the new tsar will declare his ascention to the people.  The important point here is that the next in line is established.  Also note that this refers to the "new emperor" and not grand duke - if he is not sovereign before declaring him(her)self so, he wouldn't be addressed as the "new emperor."

Finally, upon the death of Alexander I, it wasn't that Russia was without a tsar, but rather that no one knew WHO was the tsar.  Constantine had renounced his rights to the throne after contracting a morganatic marriage while governor of Poland.  But the enigmatic Alexander I never shared this tidbit with anyone, not even their younger brothers.  Upon learning of Aalexander's death, Nicholas proceeded to have Constantine proclaimed emperor and the troops swear their loyalty to him (Constantine).  He didn't wait first for a declaration of accession from Constantine.  Once again this was one of those extraordinary times, with an autocrat who is above the law, and does not play by the rules that everyone else believes to be in force.



Offline Michael HR

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Imperial Corps Des Pages
    • View Profile
Re: Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life
« Reply #209 on: November 01, 2008, 03:19:23 AM »
Pity we cannot have a poll on this subject to see at a glance
Remembering the Imperial Corps Des Pages - The Spirit of Imperial Russia