Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life

[Lesley]

Nadya, brava on the quotations! I had underlined the exact same ones in my copy of M&N late last night.  I'm still working on a response for Tsaritsa.
 
I'm going to toss out something that might seem counterintuitive with regard to Nicholas and Michael.  History is replete with treacherous brothers and sons.  How many reigns do we know of that brothers and sons were kept at arm's length?  How many reigns do we know of that brothers and/or sons toppled their brother and/or father?  While we pass over these examples as fascinating factoids in history, imagine how you might view them were you a prince?  All rulers are born paranoics and there is ample historical justification for their paranoia.  Quite simply, autocrats are educated to think far differently about family relationships than you and I.  (This was just a stray thought floating around in my brain.  I'm not committed to it - I'm simply musing).

Nadya, I may be incorrect but my reading of page 136 is:  "not only banishing him but freezing all his assets remaining in Russia and most astonishingly making him personally subject to guardianship, a measure NORMALLY reserved for minors or madmen."

I didn't see it as a declaration of minority, per se, or madness.  I saw it as the legal means by which, in this unique case, the Tsar took control of Romanov family assets and Romanov dynastic perrogatives.  In my opinion, Nicholas did not want to see Romanov property possibly end up in a bitter court battle with an "illegal wife" and a "bastard child."   This special case of guardianship (which was normally reserved for minors or madmen) was created as a broadening of the law and had entirely to do with the legal protection of property (both real and personal) and the legal means by which to divest him of his Regency.

I can see this as a possible explanation using American legal thinking, however, I know nothing of Russian law.
 
 
 
 

[Nadya_Arapov]

Nadya, I may be incorrect but my reading of page 136 is:  "not only banishing him but freezing all his assets remaining in Russia and most astonishingly making him personally subject to guardianship, a measure NORMALLY reserved for minors or madmen."

No, you are right. Mia culpa, I misread it. He wasn't deemed a lunatic - he was merely treated in the same way as a lunatic might have been (according to the authors). Thank you for the correction. So much for my ability to quote from memory LOL. Here is another quote on this subject from the same book page 164 "The 1912 manifesto by which Michael's assets had been placed in administration remained in force; he was still legally in the same position as a 'minor or a lunatic' and technically without rights to the management of his estates or monies." Having reread that I absolutely agree with your assessment regarding the legal reasoning behind the move to declare Michael unfit to govern his own finances.

[Lesley]

Nadja, no mea culpas necessary.  You are a very close reader with an excellent memory.  Your comments always make me a better thinker.

Here is an additional quote from Michael in M&N:  "The combination of trusteeship over my estate with the guardianship over my person, without doing anything to protect my fortune, has put me in the position of an imbecile or a madman and made my situation totally unbearable.  As things are, even a short visit to Russia is impossible for me, for I shall be seen as a man who has been subjected to a humiliating punishment..."  Letter from Michael to Nicholas, 1914, page 153.

I will deal with this letter as well as an explanation about my criticism of Nathalie which I had promised to Tsarista.

I've reread M&N two times this week and spent alot of time thinking about the two of them.  The IF certainly had issues with Nathalie.  Nicholas even refers to her in a letter to his mother as a "cunning, wicked beast."  In the same letter, Nicholas says, "Poor Misha is evidently not responsible for his own actions at the moment, he thinks and reasons as she tells him and its utterly useless to argue with him."  The IF cannot and will not hold Michael responsible for his own actions which, in and of itself, speaks volumes.  Regardless of how many people think Michael would have made a good Tsar, I have to disagree.  He was a pleasant, bright, lovely fellow but it is obvious from this and past actions with Dina, that he was easily led and did not put duty before his personal life.  Case in point:
     
    "Michael's twentieth birthday, in November 1898, was an important day: it marked the point when he legally came of age and achieved financial independence, albeit with a trustee appointed to guide and advise him on his affairs for the next five years.  The change from minor to manhood was the occasion for considerable official ceremony with a Te Deum at an elaborate church service attended by the imperial family, ministers, court and state dignitaries.
     In accordance with tradition, the ceremony ended with Michael being beckoned forward by the Tsar to take two solemn oaths: the first to uphold the fundamental laws of succession to the throne and the institutions of the imperial family; and a second to pledge his allegiance as a Russian officer.....He was now, in law, not only a man but a man sworn to give his unquestioning loyalty to his Emperor." p. 25 M&N

It wasn't like Michael didn't know what was expected of him.  And eight months later, due the death of his brother George, Michael found himself heir presumptive.  No small deal.  When Michael became involved with Nathalie, he engaged in conduct unbecoming to an officer.  He not only cuckolded one his fellow officers and caused his wife to leave him, he betrayed the entire corps and caused them huge embarrassment.  I never got the sense that this lapse in an officer's code of conduct or the immorality of his choice bothered Michael one iota.

In addition to this mess, he has to do something about Wulfert who has challenged him to a duel  The IF is forced to relocate Wulfert to Moscow because he is threatening blackmail.  And here we get to Nathalie.  "In turn-of-the-century Russia, a wife had no right to live independently from her husband if he chose to prevent her doing do.  He had the power to compel her return to him and if she refused the police could arrest her and take her back to him." p. 82  Michael implores the IF (through Frederiks) to get a separate residence permit for Nathalie so she can live apart from her husband.  She is granted a permit to live in Moscow.  But this isn't good enough for Mrs. Wulfert: "To her the residence order was an outrage, it gave her not a right but only a provisional licence, valid solely in Mosow.  Her brother-in-law Matveev was equally indignant, describing the order as 'maltreatment and an abuse of power.'"  Here we begin to see the constant legal machinations of Nathalie and her brother-in-law, Matveev.  Throughout the rest of this tale, the invisible hand of Matveev is constantly behind the scenes. (Nadya: I don't think Michael would have ever known about the insane/lunatic application within the guardianship laws had it not been for Matveev).

So, what does the 30-year-old Nathalie do?  The MOST sensible thing.  She gets pregnant.  The IF has to get involved in her divorce, the birth certificate of George, and then after promising his family that he will not marry Nathalie, Michael sneaks away with her and does so with Matveev making all the arrangements in secret.  He writes to Nicolas and says, "I know that punishment awaits me for this act and I am ready to bear it." (It might be noted, that in 1902, Nicholas writes to his mother about Uncle Pavel, "The closer the relative who refuses to submit to our family rules, the more severe his punishment should be.")  Yeah right.  He spends the next few years whining and making demands.  Here, is a telling point, Nicholas writes:  "The guardianship, particularly over the estates, should be established as soon as possible...for she, as I foresee will try or is trying already to turn everything upside down...There have recently been so many categoric orders coming from him - through her and over my head - conducive to nothing but total disorganization...."  As you can see, the IF is very aware of Matveev and Nathalie are pushing Michael at every turn.

Now to Dimitry.  Here is the only member of the IF to really interact with Nathalie and what does she do?  She seduces him (romantically not sexually).  This is a woman who uses any kind of "power" given to her unwisely.  While Mme Paley was in a similar situation, she knew enough about the court and court politics "to take the medicine" dished out and, ultimately to make amends, esp with AF.  Nathalie was obviously clueless about this sort of thing.  Additionally, she made negative comments in public about the IF which were passed on.  Stupid woman.  Nathalie never understood that when she helped to undermine the IF, she helped speed the process toward Revolution.  Compare and contrast: when Princess Paley learned of the Tsar's abdication, she wrote, "We realized at once that all was finished."  There was a woman who was not stupid.

I shall take no more of your time, Tsaritsa.  There are scores of other examples I could cite which have formed my opinion of Michael and Nathalie.  If I have offended anyone by my strong opinions, I apologize.

[Nadya_Arapov]

Nadja, no mea culpas necessary.  You are a very close reader with an excellent memory.  Your comments always make me a better thinker.

Thank you. :-) I have also really enjoyed your posts. They've made me reconsider my opinion of Nicholas' actions. I still believe he treated Michael unfairly to some extent and was too unforgiving. However, given Nicholas' upbringing and his nature it is probably unfair to expect him to have behaved differently.

It wasn't like Michael didn't know what was expected of him.  And eight months later, due the death of his brother George, Michael found himself heir presumptive.  No small deal.  When Michael became involved with Nathalie, he engaged in conduct unbecoming to an officer.  He not only cuckolded one his fellow officers and caused his wife to leave him, he betrayed the entire corps and caused them huge embarrassment.  I never got the sense that this lapse in an officer's code of conduct or the immorality of his choice bothered Michael one iota.

I think Michael did expect to be disowned, and I would agree that he didn't entirely care, but I don't think he understood that he would be so thoroughly cut off. If I'm not mistaken even Miche-Miche was allowed to keep his wealth and control of his own estate. I believe he also expected some measure of sympathy from certain members of the family with similar problems. As for making demands, it was a very real threat first of all that Wulfert could claim George as his son since he was married to Natasha when George was born. That was why he was desperate to have him legitimated. As for the money, he was willing to live on very little, Natasha wasn't, and they did have George to support. I think for his part he would have been willing to live on a pittance and accept his punishment if it had just been him involved, but it wasn't.

He also strikes me as lonely figure to a certain extent during the period between 1901 and 1907. I think he was almost desperately in search of someone - anyone - to share his life with. Just imagine being born into a large, relatively close family. Then the elder sister marries, one brother become ill and moves away, your father (his favorite parent) dies, his brother marries and becomes Tsar, his younger sister finally marries, and his mother is kept busy with social functions and her duties. Yes, there were family gatherings, I realize he wasn’t an isolated hermit, but that’s not quite the same thing as being part of an actual family day-in and day-out. I truly believed his missed that. He also clearly had a romantic streak, that’s evident from his letters, and enjoyed having a romantic interest. Add to that his fondness for children and it shouldn't have surprised anyone in his family that he wouldn't want to remain a bachelor.

He wasn't really promiscuous like some of the GDs. Once he was involved with someone he remained faithful to that one person. I’ve always wondered why Nicholas and Maria F didn’t make more of an effort to find him a suitable (by their standards) bride. He wasn’t opposed to marrying a fellow royal, after all. He did try to make a dynastic match.

As for Natasha, I believe he loved her, but their relationship almost certainly began as a rebound romance for him. He met her in December of 1907. He had only been convinced to give up entirely on Dina either in the spring or summer of 1907. His devastation over the affair with Dina was genuine. I don’t think after losing her and Beatrice that he was willing to give up a third woman for his family. Maybe if they had found someone else for him, early on, before they had a son and he became forever tied to her, Michael might have given Natasha up. It didn’t help that for many years Michael never realized that he was still so close to the throne. When he met Natasha, Michael was still in the dark about Alexei's illness. He might have been more conscientious if he had understood the truth right from the start.

So, what does the 30-year-old Nathalie do?  The MOST sensible thing.  She gets pregnant.  The IF has to get involved in her divorce, the birth certificate of George, and then after promising his family that he will not marry Nathalie, Michael sneaks away with her and does so with Matveev making all the arrangements in secret.

Now to Dimitry.  Here is the only member of the IF to really interact with Nathalie and what does she do?  She seduces him (romantically not sexually).  This is a woman who uses any kind of "power" given to her unwisely.  While Mme Paley was in a similar situation, she knew enough about the court and court politics "to take the medicine" dished out and, ultimately to make amends, esp with AF.  Nathalie was obviously clueless about this sort of thing.  Additionally, she made negative comments in public about the IF which were passed on.  Stupid woman.  Nathalie never understood that when she helped to undermine the IF, she helped speed the process toward Revolution.

I don't think Natasha can be blamed for the Revolution since she didn't have any real power and was actually a rather marginal figure in Russian society. Also, much of what she said about the IF wasn't too far off the mark, and others in society were already saying it...people with much more power than she possessed. That aside, you are dead to rights about her. She wasn’t just stupid, though, she was ambitious.

There was nothing at all offensive about your post.

[Nadya_Arapov]

Regardless of how many people think Michael would have made a good Tsar, I have to disagree.  He was a pleasant, bright, lovely fellow but it is obvious from this and past actions with Dina, that he was easily led and did not put duty before his personal life.  Case in point:

In hindsight, I agree that he would not have made a good Tsar given the political climate. He was not enamored with autocratic rule and had no desire to wield it. He would have preferred a constitutional monarchy, but it would have taken a man of far greater political capabilities than Michael possessed to successfully take Russia from autocracy to a real parliamentary system of government. By 1918, I don’t think any member of the Romanov family could have managed that feat.

His naiveté aside, Michael was a far more intelligent and perceptive person than he is often given credit for being. Qualities that Sergei Witte noticed, and that are reflected in some of his letters. I was impressed by his ability to perceive early on (as early as Jan. 1915) what an utter disaster WWI was for Russia. He refused to concede defeat, but he realized it was going dreadfully wrong. He also displays an awareness of the suffering of the average Russians in the war, and the injustice of it all, that many of the Romanovs and aristocrats lacked. The idea, for example, that they, the average people, should have a say in whether or not to go to war in the first place…I just can’t imagine AF or the Tsar ever expressing a similar opinion.

Michael to Natasha – 22 January 1915
The war and all the great horror it involves cannot help inspiring sadness in every sensible person; for example, I feel greatly embittered towards people in general and most of all towards those who are at the top, who hold power and allow all that horror to happen. If the question of war were decided by the people at large, I would not be so passionately averse to that great calamity’ but…nobody ever asks the nation, the country at large, what course of action they would choose.

I even sometimes feel ashamed to face the people, i.e. the soldiers and officers, particularly when visiting field hospitals, where so much suffering is to be seen, for they might think that one is responsible, for one is placed so high and yet has failed to prevent all that from happening and to protect one’s country from this disaster…
[Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford’s “Michael & Natasha,” pp 172]]

If he ever had any doubt about it in the past, he was also very clear about where his duty lay during the war, as evidenced by his valor on the field, and his responses to Natasha when she complained about wanting him to return home (“All your ‘saintly’ deeds have done nothing but cause you pain”).

Michael to Natasha – 14 June 1915
I did not come to the funeral of Konstantin K. because I had only returned from a long leave a short while before that and did not think I had a right to leave here again: there is a war on, not children’s games with soldiers…while I am in command of a division, it is impossible for me to leave it so often; and if any of my relations do just that, they are wrong and they are not an example for me to follow. I am not having fun here, I am quite miserable and you know perfectly well that if only I manage to return home I will be the happiest of men.
[Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford’s “Michael & Natasha,” pp 189]

Michael to Natasha – 20 June 1915
As for my conscience it is torn in two parts: I feel that at such a difficult time I must serve Russia and serve here at the front, no matter how hard it might be for me...the present time is so hard for Russia that my conscience could not allow me not to join the frontline service…
[Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford’s “Michael & Natasha,” pp 190-191]

Michael to Natasha – 20 Mar 1916
It was a matter of my conscience, too. I would be ashamed to be somewhere on the home front, when the Russian people are shedding their blood for their country and for future peace.
[Ref: Rosemary & Donald Crawford’s “Michael & Natasha,” pp 225]

Also, some (others, not you Lesley) have considered his final act, refusing to be Tsar unless the people wanted him, an act of cowardice. Princess Paley’s condemnation of him, in particular, has always struck me as unjust. What else could he have done? I think it admirable that he at least cared enough to refuse to force himself on the people, realizing this might only cause more turmoil, not less. He had no way of knowing how dreadful the future government would be, and honestly, even had he known Michael had no way of preventing them from gaining power. Rodzyanko himself wrote “It was quite clear to us that the Grand Duke would have reigned only a few hours, and that this would have led to colossal bloodshed in the precincts of the capital…the Grand Duke would have been killed immediately…”  Or as Nikitin wrote “…a government which was inclined against him would never give him the chance to work.” Michael could not save Russia from the mess his brother, father, sister-in-law, and their ministers had created. It impressed me that while others complained about lost status, Michael (like Nicholas, actually) appeared to care less for his own interests, wealth, and power, than for the wellbeing of his country. At least that is how I have always interpreted this remark:

Michael’s Diary – 2 September 1917
We woke up this morning to hear Russia proclaimed a democratic republic. What does it matter what form of government will be, provided there is order and justice in the land.
[Ref: Andrei Maylunas & Sergei Mironenko, “A Lifelong Passion,” pp 584]

How was he to know that there would be neither order nor justice?

[Lesley]

Dear Nadya, thank you for reading my post and your kind comments. 
 
I agree with you about Michael's loneliness and also with the fact that he was not promiscuous.  I didn't get into it in my post but I wondered whether Michael had had many intimate relationships with women.  I'm too lazy to find the quote but there was a letter to Nathalie from Michael which indicates his concern whether she'd found him to be a good lover (sometime after their first encounter).  That insecurity does not reflect a sexually confident man thus, I do think this beautiful woman mesmerized a sexually inexperienced man.  Heaven knows, that is a tale older than time.
 
You are so right, he was a true romantic, longing for love.
 
I didn't make myself very clear in my last, hastily put-together paragraph.  I don't blame Nathalie for the revolution.  You are correct, she was but a bit player.  What I was trying to convey was that she foolishly made negative comments about the IF to her little subset of friends.  These remarks got back to the IF and to society at large.  For what little glory and attention she received from them, regardless of the fact other people were making the same remarks, they were extremely damaging to her husband because they only further alienated him from his family.  It was another blow to the gut of the Romanov dynasty.  What I also poorly conveyed was Princess Paley's understanding of "united we stand, divided we fall."

I know you believe Nicholas was too hard on Michael.  Perhaps he was.  Like you, I have read many negative comments about N & A, especially N being a very poor Tsar.  I don't believe that any man, unless he was as ruthless as Lenin, could have survived the events of WW1 and the Revolution.  There is a great Churchill quote:

".....He is about to be struck down.  A dark hand, gloved at first in folly, now intervenes.  Exit Tsar.  Deliver him and all he loved to wounds and death.  Belittle his efforts, asperse his conduct, insult his memory: but pause then to tell us who else was found capable." 

"The World Crisis, 1916-1918."

That quote haunts me and encapsulates my entire outlook with regard to Nicholas.  He inherited the perfect storm.

More later......

[Nadya_Arapov]

I agree with you about Michael's loneliness and also with the fact that he was not promiscuous.  I didn't get into it in my post but I wondered whether Michael had had many intimate relationships with women. 

I don't think he was involved with anyone besides Dina and Natasha. Maybe there was some brief fling when he was very young or something, but I doubt there were too many other initimate relationships.

I didn't make myself very clear in my last, hastily put-together paragraph.  I don't blame Nathalie for the revolution.  You are correct, she was but a bit player.  What I was trying to convey was that she foolishly made negative comments about the IF to her little subset of friends.  These remarks got back to the IF and to society at large.  For what little glory and attention she received from them, regardless of the fact other people were making the same remarks, they were extremely damaging to her husband because they only further alienated him from his family.  It was another blow to the gut of the Romanov dynasty.  What I also poorly conveyed was Princess Paley's understanding of "united we stand, divided we fall."

That I completely agree with. She did nothing to help the strained relationship between Nicholas and Michael - and especially the problems he had with Alix. After reading M&N I must admit had a higher opinion of Michael than Natasha.

Like you, I have read many negative comments about N & A, especially N being a very poor Tsar.  I don't believe that any man, unless he was as ruthless as Lenin, could have survived the events of WW1 and the Revolution.  There is a great Churchill quote:

".....He is about to be struck down.  A dark hand, gloved at first in folly, now intervenes.  Exit Tsar.  Deliver him and all he loved to wounds and death.  Belittle his efforts, asperse his conduct, insult his memory: but pause then to tell us who else was found capable." 

"The World Crisis, 1916-1918."

That quote haunts me and encapsulates my entire outlook with regard to Nicholas.  He inherited the perfect storm.

More later......

Nicholas was a poor Tsar IMO. I will agree that he inherited a horrible mess, but I'm not convinced, given his actions while he was Tsar, that Nicholas would have been an effective ruler under any circumstances. He did not have the sort of intellect and vigor one needs to rule a nation (let alone a nation like Russia) effectively. He just wasn't well-suited for the position. That doesn't make him a terrible person. I think on a personal level Nicholas was a decent, well-meaning, family man. He simply wasn't politically astute and did things that helped bring about his own (and his country's) downfall. He made so many unwise decisions. The Russo-Japanese War, for instance, stands out as one dreadful error in judgment on his part. So many people warned him time and again of what was to come during WWI. They begged him to make changes. He wouldn't listen, he wouldn't change, and he wouldn't compromise. He had an opportunity to create a system of government that would have allowed him to share power with others. He chose not to. Instead allowing for a toy Duma that he could disband at will. I don't mean to insult his memory (to quote Churchill), but I would disagree with Churchill, others have every right to judge a leader by their conduct. It may well be true that no one could have done better in his place. We will never know. I leave it there since this thread is about Michael ;-)

[Amanda_Misha]

Another photo of Michael, unknown year ( or perhaps 1916?)




A sincere excuse if somebody already brought this photography

Greetings to all

[Alexandre64]

Michael and Natalie:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-188412.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-188547.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-188653.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-189105.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-189244.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-189433.png

[Nadya_Arapov]

http://www.iconastas.com/stock.asp?code=453055349

The site mistakenly assumes that GD Nikolai Mikhailovich “Bimbo” was writing his brother Miche-Miche, but obviously, given the content of the letter, this was written to his cousin Misha. I think the letter (the original) may be for sale. Here is a transcription.

GD Nikolai “Bimbo” to Mikhail Alexandrovich, 26 June 1913
Dear Misha,
Thank you very much for your long letter, which I read with pleasure and sadness in my heart. You really should not look at the future as years of new severe trials and privations. You should try and settle everything before the end of your holidays, namely, permission for Natalia Sergeevna to come to Russia. I showed your letter to Ksenia and Sandro, you should first talk to them because they are going to England and they could together influence Mama in order that she could persuade His Majesty to allow Natalia Sergeevna to visit Russia. Ksenia and Sandro are looking for some place for their children somewhere in Normandy but have not decided where as yet. Until approximately the end of July I will be in Marienbad, Hotel Ott, then I will be between Petersburg and Grushovka, and then until the autumn in Borzhomi. I send my regards to Natalia Sergeevna and embrace you three times from the bottom of my heart. Next year about 19th June I am going to move to Marienbad, then I will have the greatest pleasure to go to the ever-beautiful Paris. May God protect you and help you to understand.
From your ever-loving old Bimbo

So Boris, Andrei and Dmitri, were not the only ones willing to visit. Bimbo was willing to visit them in Paris when he made it there in 1914.

[Alexandre64]

Natalie:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-190992.png

Michael and Natalie:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-190485.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-189792.png
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-188985.png

Michael:
http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/Alexandre64_2007/Michel%20A/vlcsnap-190071.png

[LisaDavidson]

http://www.iconastas.com/stock.asp?code=453055349

The site mistakenly assumes that GD Nikolai Mikhailovich “Bimbo” was writing his brother Miche-Miche, but obviously, given the content of the letter, this was written to his cousin Misha. I think the letter (the original) may be for sale. Here is a transcription.

GD Nikolai “Bimbo” to Mikhail Alexandrovich, 26 June 1913
Dear Misha,
Thank you very much for your long letter, which I read with pleasure and sadness in my heart. You really should not look at the future as years of new severe trials and privations. You should try and settle everything before the end of your holidays, namely, permission for Natalia Sergeevna to come to Russia. I showed your letter to Ksenia and Sandro, you should first talk to them because they are going to England and they could together influence Mama in order that she could persuade His Majesty to allow Natalia Sergeevna to visit Russia. Ksenia and Sandro are looking for some place for their children somewhere in Normandy but have not decided where as yet. Until approximately the end of July I will be in Marienbad, Hotel Ott, then I will be between Petersburg and Grushovka, and then until the autumn in Borzhomi. I send my regards to Natalia Sergeevna and embrace you three times from the bottom of my heart. Next year about 19th June I am going to move to Marienbad, then I will have the greatest pleasure to go to the ever-beautiful Paris. May God protect you and help you to understand.
From your ever-loving old Bimbo

So Boris, Andrei and Dmitri, were not the only ones willing to visit. Bimbo was willing to visit them in Paris when he made it there in 1914.

You are correct that the addressee is Michael Alexandrovich, who was always known as "Misha" in the family. Michael Michaelovich was always known in the family as "Miche-Miche" and not as "Misha". Similarly, "Miitia" within the Imperial house refered to Dmitri Constantinovich, and not to Dmitri Pavlovich. I noticed this when ready Alexandra's diary - the translator was unsure when she refers to Mitia's birthday (or name day, I don't recall which) which Dmitri she was talking about, and it was obviously DC.

[Nadya_Arapov]

Actually,to be fair to the translator,  in one letter (I’ll post it if I can find it) either Alexander Mikhailovich or Nikolai Mikhailovich did refer to their brother as “Misha,” but in general he was almost always "Miche-Miche." Besides, the reference to “Natalia Sergeevna” is a dead give away that Bimbo was actually writing to Michael Alexandrovich.

[Nadya_Arapov]

Okay, here is a diary entry by KR referring to Miche-Miche as Misha. I know it must be Miche-Miche, because MA had not yet met Natalia in 1902, and Miche-Miche did marry in 1891.

KR’s diary – 19 Oct. 1902
Pavel has married O.V. Pistolkors, after she managed to obtain a divorce. The marriage took place in Livorno. The affair is made more complicated by the fact that, as I have heard from two different sides, Pavel gave his word, through Vladimir, to the Emperor that he would not marry Olga Pistolkors. The Emperor’s position in very difficult: to be consistent and strictly fair, he should take the same line with Pavel as was taken in 1891 with Misha, when he married without royal permission.

He refers to him as Misha in another entry, too.

KR’s diary – 20 Jan. 1897
Misha came to see us. He was sent for because of his father’s illness as it is impossible to know what the outcome will be. Misha has not been in Russia for six years, since 1891, when he got married without the consent or the knowledge of the Emperor, and went into voluntary exile…He is older but no wiser. I have never felt well disposes towards him because of his stupidity and touchiness.

Nicholas also referred to him as Misha in a letter to his mother.

Nicholas to MF – 20 Oct. 1902.
…From this it is quite clear that Uncle Pavel had decided in advance to put his wishes into action…To everyone’s distress nothing helped. Bearing in mind the example of how unforgettable Papa dealt with Misha, it wasn’t difficult to decide what to do with Uncle Pavel.

[rgt9w]

I have never seen Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich who was executed in 1918 referred to as a martyr or seen anyone advocating sainthood for him. The Russian Orthodox Church has recognized the Imperial Family executed in Ekaterinburg as Passion-Bearers and Grand Duchess Elizabeth as a saint. Is Michael ineligible due to some sort of behavior such as his morganatic marriage? It is a question that I've never seen addressed anywhere.