Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovitch, his family and life

[AGRBear]

If Alexei was the new tsar and Michael was his Regent,  did  Michael, as the Regent, have the  right/power to give away Alexei rights/power  to the Prov. Govt or GD Kyril or, maybe, to the popular  Gen. GD Nicholas?

AGRBear

[LisaDavidson]

If Alexei was the new tsar and Michael was his Regent,  did  Michael, as the Regent, have the  right/power to give away Alexei rights/power  to the Prov. Govt or GD Kyril or, maybe, to the popular Gen. GD Nicholas?

AGRBear

No, he did not. No one had the right to strip Alexei of his succession rights. This was part of the Fundamental Law, something Nicholas II swore to uphold! Something that Michael swore to support!

Michael's job was to hold the throne for his nephew. He was unable to do this because of the internal turmoil in Russia and the lawlessness of the Soviets. He might have been an excellent regent of a constititional monarchy had Russia had the chance to become one.

It was never about a popularity contest. I think he did what he could by leaving matters in the hands of the Provisional Government in the short term and then for the Constituent Assembly to make a final decision.

[julian1952]

I am conducting some research on late Imperial Russia and have come up against some anomalies which I thought I’d lay before you.  This is my first posting on this website.  When viewing it I was impressed by the quality of some of the contributions, so I hope someone can help me with some answers.
My first question is can anyone please confirm for me the date of Grand-Duke Michael's marriage to Natalia. 
As to the date and even the year books vary (websites are unsurprisingly even worse).  So far I have seen 7, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, and 30 in July or October of 1911 or 1912.  See what I mean?
Not even the transition from Julian to Gregorian explains the discrepancy although the fact that they were married in a Serbian Orthodox Church (using Julian) in Vienna (using Gregorian) might have something to do with it.  I cannot even rely on the usually so reliable Crawfords’ book (16th Oct 1912) since (1) the Tsar had already exiled them for marrying without permission by Easter 1912 and (2) the Brasova Collection of photograph albums in the SSEES Library would seem to indicate a 1911 October date. 
The usual reason for Michael & Natasha’s hasty marriage is so that Michael can avoid being forced into a dynastic marriage when Alexei was so dangerously ill which was in 1912, but that doesn’t fit with a 1911 date.
Debrett’s has 1911 but a strange date.
I’ve read everything on Michael and am none the wiser and I’D LIKE TO KNOW!.  So, please don’t quote unreliable or unannotated books at me.  Has anyone SEEN or HAS a copy of the marriage entry and KNOWS whether it is recorded as Julian (Serbian Orthodox) or Gregorian (Vienna).  Short of going tom Vienna myself, you are my last hope.
If you can solve this, I’ll try you on another.

[LisaDavidson]

I am conducting some research on late Imperial Russia and have come up against some anomalies which I thought I'd lay before you.  This is my first posting on this website.  When viewing it I was impressed by the quality of some of the contributions, so I hope someone can help me with some answers.
My first question is can anyone please confirm for me the date of Grand-Duke Michael's marriage to Natalia. 
As to the date and even the year books vary (websites are unsurprisingly even worse).  So far I have seen 7, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, and 30 in July or October of 1911 or 1912.  See what I mean?
Not even the transition from Julian to Gregorian explains the discrepancy although the fact that they were married in a Serbian Orthodox Church (using Julian) in Vienna (using Gregorian) might have something to do with it.  I cannot even rely on the usually so reliable Crawfords’ book (16th Oct 1912) since (1) the Tsar had already exiled them for marrying without permission by Easter 1912 and (2) the Brasova Collection of photograph albums in the SSEES Library would seem to indicate a 1911 October date. 
The usual reason for Michael & Natasha’s hasty marriage is so that Michael can avoid being forced into a dynastic marriage when Alexei was so dangerously ill which was in 1912, but that doesn’t fit with a 1911 date.
Debrett’s has 1911 but a strange date.
I’ve read everything on Michael and am none the wiser and I’D LIKE TO KNOW!.  So, please don’t quote unreliable or unannotated books at me.  Has anyone SEEN or HAS a copy of the marriage entry and KNOWS whether it is recorded as Julian (Serbian Orthodox) or Gregorian (Vienna).  Short of going tom Vienna myself, you are my last hope.
If you can solve this, I’ll try you on another.

Church records are not the only method of accurately reckoning the date of a marriage. For example, family bibles and letters can be used to determine these dates.

There is no question in my mind that Michael's marriage was precipitated by his nephew's serious health crisis at Spala, Poland, which we know for certain happened in October 1912. We can therefore confidently exclude all marriage dates for the couple prior to 1912. Privy to the secret about the Tsesarevich's health condition, Michael had good reason to fear Alexei's death and that he would subsequently become heir again as he was from 1899 - 1904. As such, he felt honor bound to marry Natalia, the mother of his only child, and to break his word to his brother to not marry her. Only marriage would, so he reasoned, protect his son and prevent his partner from further dishonor.

There is no question that these were his motives because they are explicitly laid out in his letters to his brother.

Nicholas' October 20, 1912 (OS)/November 2, 1912 (NS) letter written from Spala to his mother, the Dowager Empress describes Alexei's improving condition to her. We also know that Maria Feodorovna wrote him back at Tsarskoe Selo on November 4/17, 1912 to discuss Michael's marriage and her distress over it. We also know from Massie that Nicholas received a letter from Michael announcing his marriage while he was at Spala.

From these letters, we can deduce that the marriage took place in Vienna no earlier than 10/20/1912 and no later than 11/4/1912 - a period of 15 days. It had to take several days to travel from Spala back to the capital, and since the earlier letter does not describe the marriage, my best guess is that the October 30, 1912 date is the correct one. This allows for the timing that we are certain about in terms of other events.

[LisaDavidson]

I did not have my copy of Michael and Natsha available when I wrote my previous post.

The Crawfords cite the church register at St. Savva on October16/29, 1912 as the date of marriage. I was off by one day in my estimation of the wedding date.

I know of no document exiling Natalia and the actions against Michael as a result of his marriage were:

12 December 1912 - Ukase by Nicholas putting Michael's financial affairs into a conservatorship
30 December 1912 - Manifesto removing Michael as Regent in the event of Nicholas' death if during Alexei's minority
3 January 1913 - Both documents above published
1 January 1913 - Michael granted 11 months leave and relieved of his military command

Kindly cite the documents and dates of the "exile by Easter 1912".

[julian1952]

Many thanks for your reply.  Forgive me for not responding immediately, I had hoped there might be one or two more postings.

You are of course quite right.  Church records are not the only method of accurately reckoning the date of a marriage; family bibles and letters can also be used.  But that’s precisely the nature of the problem – they are not necessarily accurate and all give different dates!  That’s why I wanted to get an unequivocal record from the day itself in the church.

Deciding on the reason for the marriage in order to determine the parameters for the marriage date seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.  You are again quite right about Michael’s motives for the marriage: they are explicitly laid out in his letters to his brother.  But none of them give the actual marriage date.  By your own reasoning Michael would have wanted to pre-empt the situation, not wait until Alexei was already ill.  Is it not equally likely that it was his nephew's serious health crisis at Spała which precipitated THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the fact of his marriage rather than the marriage itself?  This would fit in with a marriage prior to 1912 and with other known facts, namely :-

Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:

A coded telegramme to all Russian embassies in 1911:
The bearer of this, Major-General of Gendarmes A. V. Gerasimov, is commanded at His Highness’s behest to travel abroad with the assignment of taking all possible measures to avert the marriage abroad of Mrs. Wulfert and Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich.

A telegramme dated 3rd September 1911 from the Russian embassy in Paris:
According to information received, the sovereign emperor’s aide-de-camp appeared in Cannes to inform the grand duke in the name of his highness that he was prohibited to enter Russia…the grand duke is very depressed and does not go out anywhere.

An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.

According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son. 

The School of East Slavonic Studies Library, University of London (http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/brs.htm) states:
In 1910 their son was born, Cheremtevskaia later obtained a divorce from Wulfurt and in 1911 she married the Grand Duke. As a result of their morganatic marriage the couple were banished from Russia by the Tsar and. spent two years in exile.

Its Library holds the Brasova Collection of photographs (http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/brs/brsitema.htm) dating from precisely this period.  The album BRS/9 entitled ‘XII Travels Abroad Autumn year 1911’ commences August 1911 and contains photos of their travels in Western Europe including visits to Paris, Cannes and the south of France, stating:
It was probably during this holiday that the Grand Duke and Brasova were secretly married in Vienna.

The next two Albums  BRS/10 & 11 entitled ‘XIV/XV Summer year 1912 Gatchina’ contain photographs taken at the Grand Duke and Brasova's home in the military garrison town of Gatchina near St Petersburg, stating:
Although the title of this album dates it to summer 1912, in fact the Grand Duke and Brasova were banished from Russia in early 1912 by the Tsar in disaproval of their marriage and these photographs could not have been taken after Easter 1912.

All of this is at odds with the Crawfords’ date of the marriage on 16/29th October 1912 which I cited in my posting [Gerasimov states it occurred 17/30th October 1911].  The Crawfords are not infallible; equally neither is Radzinsky or the SEES.  There is a puzzle here and either could be right.

I still do not know the date of the marriage but to discover it one can only deal with the factual rather than the circumstantial – hence my original posting.  The St. Sava website is under reconstruction and its e-mail address is no longer valid.  Short of any definitive answer on this forum I’ll write to St. Sava to get the solution and post its answer here.

[LisaDavidson]

Many thanks for your reply.  Forgive me for not responding immediately, I had hoped there might be one or two more postings.

You are of course quite right.  Church records are not the only method of accurately reckoning the date of a marriage; family bibles and letters can also be used.  But that’s precisely the nature of the problem – they are not necessarily accurate and all give different dates!  That’s why I wanted to get an unequivocal record from the day itself in the church.

Deciding on the reason for the marriage in order to determine the parameters for the marriage date seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse.  You are again quite right about Michael’s motives for the marriage: they are explicitly laid out in his letters to his brother.  But none of them give the actual marriage date.  By your own reasoning Michael would have wanted to pre-empt the situation, not wait until Alexei was already ill.  Is it not equally likely that it was his nephew's serious health crisis at Spała which precipitated THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the fact of his marriage rather than the marriage itself?  This would fit in with a marriage prior to 1912 and with other known facts, namely :-

Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:

A coded telegramme to all Russian embassies in 1911:
The bearer of this, Major-General of Gendarmes A. V. Gerasimov, is commanded at His Highness’s behest to travel abroad with the assignment of taking all possible measures to avert the marriage abroad of Mrs. Wulfert and Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich.

A telegramme dated 3rd September 1911 from the Russian embassy in Paris:
According to information received, the sovereign emperor’s aide-de-camp appeared in Cannes to inform the grand duke in the name of his highness that he was prohibited to enter Russia…the grand duke is very depressed and does not go out anywhere.

An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.

According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son. 

The School of East Slavonic Studies Library, University of London (http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/brs.htm) states:
In 1910 their son was born, Cheremtevskaia later obtained a divorce from Wulfurt and in 1911 she married the Grand Duke. As a result of their morganatic marriage the couple were banished from Russia by the Tsar and. spent two years in exile.

Its Library holds the Brasova Collection of photographs (http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/brs/brsitema.htm) dating from precisely this period.  The album BRS/9 entitled ‘XII Travels Abroad Autumn year 1911’ commences August 1911 and contains photos of their travels in Western Europe including visits to Paris, Cannes and the south of France, stating:
It was probably during this holiday that the Grand Duke and Brasova were secretly married in Vienna.

The next two Albums  BRS/10 & 11 entitled ‘XIV/XV Summer year 1912 Gatchina’ contain photographs taken at the Grand Duke and Brasova's home in the military garrison town of Gatchina near St Petersburg, stating:
Although the title of this album dates it to summer 1912, in fact the Grand Duke and Brasova were banished from Russia in early 1912 by the Tsar in disaproval of their marriage and these photographs could not have been taken after Easter 1912.

All of this is at odds with the Crawfords’ date of the marriage on 16/29th October 1912 which I cited in my posting [Gerasimov states it occurred 17/30th October 1911].  The Crawfords are not infallible; equally neither is Radzinsky or the SEES.  There is a puzzle here and either could be right.

I still do not know the date of the marriage but to discover it one can only deal with the factual rather than the circumstantial – hence my original posting.  The St. Sava website is under reconstruction and its e-mail address is no longer valid.  Short of any definitive answer on this forum I’ll write to St. Sava to get the solution and post its answer here.

One of the most important job of any historian is the evaluation of sources. You are of course free to evaluate the sources and come up with the conclusions that are reasonable to you. Clearly, we do not agree on the issue of the year of the Michael and Natasha wedding. I thought I might explain my process to you in the interests of discussion.

The Crawfords have clearly sourced their date in their footnotes. Footnotes are a mark of a scholarly versus a popular work of history. You will find no footnotes in Radzinsky, and so when he makes a mistake (and everyone makes them), we have no real means of cross checking. As you yourself have pointed out, the footnoted date in the Crawford's work means you can check the date yourself. Cool, huh?

For me, the Crawfords were not my only source. If you care to consult the Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress, which have been published, you will clearly see that the year at least (1912) is corroborated by these letters. Because the letters are a primary source, and the Crawfords a secondary source, we have two good sources that are in agreement as to the year. Also cool, in my opinion.

I do not doubt that Michael an Natasha were on the road in 1911, I'm just reasonably sure they did not marry in Vienna that year. I also need to correct a mischaracterization of Michael's motives I made in an earlier post. Alexei's illness may have been a factor for him, but clearly his wedding required a degree of advance planning that the Spala crisis would preclude. In other words, unless he was psychic, he had no way of knowing his nephew would have a crisis during the same month he planned to marry. The error in this is entirely my own.

[Terence]

Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:

An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.

According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son. 

One of the most important job of any historian is the evaluation of sources...

The Crawfords have clearly sourced their date in their footnotes. Footnotes are a mark of a scholarly versus a popular work of history. You will find no footnotes in Radzinsky, and so when he makes a mistake (and everyone makes them), we have no real means of cross checking. As you yourself have pointed out, the footnoted date in the Crawford's work means you can check the date yourself. Cool, huh?

For me, the Crawfords were not my only source. If you care to consult the Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress, which have been published, you will clearly see that the year at least (1912) is corroborated by these letters. Because the letters are a primary source, and the Crawfords a secondary source, we have two good sources that are in agreement as to the year. Also cool, in my opinion.

Sorry to jump in here, but I find this discussion of sources very interesting.  I apologize as I have nothing to contribute, just trying to analyze this as a learning experience.

As far as primary sources, of course the actual church record should settle the question.  A careful reading of "Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress" should surely give real time evidence, but does the book contain copies of the letters or simply translations?  Are we relying on the accuracy of someone interpreting the handwriting and the language, if so that source is not a primary source.

Another question is what does the Crawford footnote refer to exactly?  Just because something is footnoted doesn't mean every instance is an accurate interpretation, even amongst the best authors.

It would seem the 1912 date should be correct.  But I'm bothered by the Gerasimov telegramme, the other citations from Radzinsky aren't as definitive, but how can that be explained?  Did Radzinsky make an error in the date, or was someone off in translating the encoding?

Thanks Lisa and Julian for posting all this info.  It makes for a great lesson in examining historic evidence.  IMO, the world would be a lot better off if everyone had your concerns for evaluation of evidence and historic accuracy.

Regards,
T

[LisaDavidson]

Appearing in Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, p. 111 et seq., are the following:

An encoded telegramme from Gerasimov in 1911:
In conducting my investigation, I have the honour to report the circumstances of and specific time at which the ceremony in which his ImperialHighness entered into marriage took place…On 29th October he told his companions that he was going out with Mrs. Wulfert in his automobile through Switzerland and Italy to Cannes, and the individuals and servants accompanying them would travel by train through Paris to Cannes…That day, 29th October, they rode in the automobile only as far as Wuerzburg, where they boarded a train continuing on to Vienna, where His Imperial Highness arrived on the morning of 30th October…That same day in four hours and by midday the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert drove to the Serbian church of St. Sava, where they performed the marriage ceremony…For those individuals surrounding the grand duke and Mrs. Wulfert, their trip remained utterly secret…During the grand duke’s sojourn, foreign secret service agents accompanied him everywhere in a special car.

According to Radzinsky the news was received by the Tsar during a bout of illness by his son. 

One of the most important job of any historian is the evaluation of sources...

The Crawfords have clearly sourced their date in their footnotes. Footnotes are a mark of a scholarly versus a popular work of history. You will find no footnotes in Radzinsky, and so when he makes a mistake (and everyone makes them), we have no real means of cross checking. As you yourself have pointed out, the footnoted date in the Crawford's work means you can check the date yourself. Cool, huh?

For me, the Crawfords were not my only source. If you care to consult the Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress, which have been published, you will clearly see that the year at least (1912) is corroborated by these letters. Because the letters are a primary source, and the Crawfords a secondary source, we have two good sources that are in agreement as to the year. Also cool, in my opinion.

Sorry to jump in here, but I find this discussion of sources very interesting.  I apologize as I have nothing to contribute, just trying to analyze this as a learning experience.

As far as primary sources, of course the actual church record should settle the question.  A careful reading of "Letters of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress" should surely give real time evidence, but does the book contain copies of the letters or simply translations?  Are we relying on the accuracy of someone interpreting the handwriting and the language, if so that source is not a primary source.

Another question is what does the Crawford footnote refer to exactly?  Just because something is footnoted doesn't mean every instance is an accurate interpretation, even amongst the best authors.

It would seem the 1912 date should be correct.  But I'm bothered by the Gerasimov telegramme, the other citations from Radzinsky aren't as definitive, but how can that be explained?  Did Radzinsky make an error in the date, or was someone off in translating the encoding?

Thanks Lisa and Julian for posting all this info.  It makes for a great lesson in examining historic evidence.  IMO, the world would be a lot better off if everyone had your concerns for evaluation of evidence and historic accuracy.

Regards,
T

The translations of letters that are then published (as with those of the Tsar to the Dowager Empress) are still primary sources, by definition they could not be secondary sources. That does not mean that primary sources are infallible or error free, because clearly they are not.

But, I'm not hanging my conclusion on one piece of evidence, it's probably more like 4:

1. Crawford book footnote with marriage date per the church register at St. Sava, Vienna
2. Nicholas' letters to his mother (independently published)
3. Michael and Nicholas' letters (cited by the Crawfords, but references to Spala crisis)
4. Known time of Spala crisis - Autumn, 1912

In other words, for 1912 to be the wrong year, all the historians who discuss Spala would have to have made errors, and by inference so would Nicholas, Michael, and Maria Feodorovna in talking about Spala and the marriage as events that happened close to one another. And, the Crawfords would have had to make a mistake in researching church records.

I submit to all that it is very unlikely that all 4 sources are in error, it is far more likely Mr. Radzinsky made an error, as he is writing popular history for which standards are much less stringent.

[julian1952]

Many thanks for both your postings.  I’ve been an academic for many years holding posts in three (so far) universities so I’m well-acquainted with the intracies of the footnote and the vagaries of popular history.  But consider this: what’s the difference between a Russian historian, Radzinsky, with, I admit, a predilection for the televisual, but none the less a bona fide historian with a body of publications to his name, who writes an unannotated book (with, it must be said, an excellent bibliography containing all his primary sources) and a couple of journalists, the Crawfords, passionate gifted amateur historians, who write almost the only work to their name, and supply it with footnotes?  Not a lot in my opinion. 
Also, sadly I know of plenty of real historians who have taken liberties with the lauded footnote and that’s why I’m always careful.  Not so cool, eh?  In fact, decidedly warm!  Now I agree with you about the best bet being 1912 but I’m finding a number of ‘authorities’ – Burke’s Peerage, the renowned genealogist Jiri Louda, among others - who quote 1911, and I don’t know why.
I have no axe to grind about which author is right or wrong or which date is correct, but I’d like a definitive answer from an unequivocal source.  So, I’ve now written to St. Sava, Vienna to find out.  I hope to get an answer this side of Christmas (the one in England not Russia) (that’s 25th December) (New Style!) and I’ll immediately post the reply here to settle the matter.

[LisaDavidson]

Many thanks for both your postings.  I’ve been an academic for many years holding posts in three (so far) universities so I’m well-acquainted with the intracies of the footnote and the vagaries of popular history.  But consider this: what’s the difference between a Russian historian, Radzinsky, with, I admit, a predilection for the televisual, but none the less a bona fide historian with a body of publications to his name, who writes an unannotated book (with, it must be said, an excellent bibliography containing all his primary sources) and a couple of journalists, the Crawfords, passionate gifted amateur historians, who write almost the only work to their name, and supply it with footnotes?  Not a lot in my opinion. 
Also, sadly I know of plenty of real historians who have taken liberties with the lauded footnote and that’s why I’m always careful.  Not so cool, eh?  In fact, decidedly warm!  Now I agree with you about the best bet being 1912 but I’m finding a number of ‘authorities’ – Burke’s Peerage, the renowned genealogist Jiri Louda, among others - who quote 1911, and I don’t know why.
I have no axe to grind about which author is right or wrong or which date is correct, but I’d like a definitive answer from an unequivocal source.  So, I’ve now written to St. Sava, Vienna to find out.  I hope to get an answer this side of Christmas (the one in England not Russia) (that’s 25th December) (New Style!) and I’ll immediately post the reply here to settle the matter.

I'm sure we look forward to your post, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion of these sources.

I'm afraid I'm not much of a snob when it comes to "amateur historians". While I have some academic exposure when it comes to history, I don't think that one needs to have published many books or be a professor of history to write a scholarly work. The thing is, if the Crawfords did make a mistake, you'll be able to pinpoint it because of their footnotes, something one cannot do with Radzinsky, so I think it's rather unfair to lump them together, again, just my opinion.

What you haven't answered is how primary sources, including Nicholas' letters clearly tie Michael's marriage as taking place around the same time as Alexei's health crisis at Spala, known to have taken place in the fall of 1912. This well known event should carry more weight, in my opinion.

[julian1952]

I've received an acknowledgement from St Sava with a promise to try to come back with an answer before Xmas..."but it may take some time".  Fingers crossed!
Lisa, as I said, I have no 'opinions' as to which date is correct.  This is not a contest.  I am merely confronted with variations and want to find out the truth. 
I thought I had already given a possible explanation for the 1912 correspondence in my 22 Nov posting - perhaps, I didn't explain myself clearly enough.  I entertained the possibility that the marriage might have been conducted clandestinely in 1911 and kept secret until such time as a public announcement became unavoidably necessary.  That time occurred in 1912 with the Spala crisis and the necessity of forestalling any attempt to foist a royal marriage/the inheritance on to Michael in the event of Alexei's death.  That's the only logical reason I can come up with for the 'freshness of' and 'surprise at' the content of the various royals' correspondence...but I'm merely surmising, I don't KNOW, and 1912 could be the actual date of the marriage.  If so, how on earth did the 1911 dates come into being?  A mystery! 
As soon as I hear from St. Sava, I'll post its reply.

[julian1952]

I have received an answer from St Sava Church Vienna!!  How interesting!  The Crawfords got the right year but the wrong date; Radzinsky got the wrong year but the right date.
The Crawfords worked all the time in the Julian Calendar and transposed Western pre-1918 dates into Julian and they do say in their book that the Okhrana deliberately altered the dating by a few days to show themselves in a better light - even so St Sava in Vienna used the Gregorian calendar to record its dates and the Crawfords miscalculated when putting the date in their book.  Radzinsky worked the date out correctly but somehow managed to note down the wrong year.  Here's the text of the message from St. Sava as received:
"Dear Mr.Whybra,
As I promised to write you back as soon as I found the information you need
I `m glad to be able to  reply your request .The   Tsar`s brother, Grand
Duke Michael Aleksandrovich married Natalia Sergejewna ,born
Scheremetjewskaja (1880-1952), first married Mamontowa,and in the second
marriage ,Wulfert. They were married  on 30th  October,1912 at  St.Sava ` s
Serbian Orthodox Church in Vienna .The  date is sure and in the Gregorian
calender .
I hope that I helped you with this information.
Yours sincerely,
Miodrag Mecanovic
St Sava, Vienna"
Thus 30th October (N.S.) / 17th October (O.S.) 1912 was the correct date of the marriage.  Problem solved at last!

[LisaDavidson]

I am conducting some research on late Imperial Russia and have come up against some anomalies which I thought I'd lay before you.  This is my first posting on this website.  When viewing it I was impressed by the quality of some of the contributions, so I hope someone can help me with some answers.
My first question is can anyone please confirm for me the date of Grand-Duke Michael's marriage to Natalia. 
As to the date and even the year books vary (websites are unsurprisingly even worse).  So far I have seen 7, 15, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, and 30 in July or October of 1911 or 1912.  See what I mean?
Not even the transition from Julian to Gregorian explains the discrepancy although the fact that they were married in a Serbian Orthodox Church (using Julian) in Vienna (using Gregorian) might have something to do with it.  I cannot even rely on the usually so reliable Crawfords’ book (16th Oct 1912) since (1) the Tsar had already exiled them for marrying without permission by Easter 1912 and (2) the Brasova Collection of photograph albums in the SSEES Library would seem to indicate a 1911 October date. 
The usual reason for Michael & Natasha’s hasty marriage is so that Michael can avoid being forced into a dynastic marriage when Alexei was so dangerously ill which was in 1912, but that doesn’t fit with a 1911 date.
Debrett’s has 1911 but a strange date.
I’ve read everything on Michael and am none the wiser and I’D LIKE TO KNOW!.  So, please don’t quote unreliable or unannotated books at me.  Has anyone SEEN or HAS a copy of the marriage entry and KNOWS whether it is recorded as Julian (Serbian Orthodox) or Gregorian (Vienna).  Short of going tom Vienna myself, you are my last hope.
If you can solve this, I’ll try you on another.

Church records are not the only method of accurately reckoning the date of a marriage. For example, family bibles and letters can be used to determine these dates.

There is no question in my mind that Michael's marriage was precipitated by his nephew's serious health crisis at Spala, Poland, which we know for certain happened in October 1912. We can therefore confidently exclude all marriage dates for the couple prior to 1912. Privy to the secret about the Tsesarevich's health condition, Michael had good reason to fear Alexei's death and that he would subsequently become heir again as he was from 1899 - 1904. As such, he felt honor bound to marry Natalia, the mother of his only child, and to break his word to his brother to not marry her. Only marriage would, so he reasoned, protect his son and prevent his partner from further dishonor.

There is no question that these were his motives because they are explicitly laid out in his letters to his brother.

Nicholas' October 20, 1912 (OS)/November 2, 1912 (NS) letter written from Spala to his mother, the Dowager Empress describes Alexei's improving condition to her. We also know that Maria Feodorovna wrote him back at Tsarskoe Selo on November 4/17, 1912 to discuss Michael's marriage and her distress over it. We also know from Massie that Nicholas received a letter from Michael announcing his marriage while he was at Spala.

From these letters, we can deduce that the marriage took place in Vienna no earlier than 10/20/1912 and no later than 11/4/1912 - a period of 15 days. It had to take several days to travel from Spala back to the capital, and since the earlier letter does not describe the marriage, my best guess is that the October 30, 1912 date is the correct one. This allows for the timing that we are certain about in terms of other events.

Well, this has happened to me before, so I should not be surprised. I said 11/15/08 post said "my best guess is that the October 30, 1912 date us the correct one". Good guess! Thanks for writing to the Church. And, of course, I also make mistakes, but I can't help but be tickled that my guess was correct.

[Alexandre64]

Michel and Natalie:


Michel: