Alexei's wife?

[Yelena Aleksandrovna]

Perhaps a strange question and could be not sure the answer, but...
If Alexei couldn't have children (I read below that hemophilia could cause that situation) who would be
the next tsar after his death?

[*Tina*]

Perhaps a strange question and could be not sure the answer, but...
If Alexei couldn't have children (I read below that hemophilia could cause that situation) who would be
the next tsar after his death?

Well, as far as I know, Michail was next in line... =/

[Ally Kumari]

But Mikhail was morganatically married... I believe Kyril was next in line.

[mcdnab]

Succession would have been Michael (and any legitimate issue by any subsequent wife of the appropriate rank) - Kyril - Vladimir - Boris - Andrei - Grand Duke Paul - Grand Duke Dimitri - then the Constantinovichi.
Of course that does assume that a future Emperor Michael didn't change the law to legalise his marriage after his succession (though its doubtful he and Natasha would have had more children and their son George was illegitimate)

On another issue - the decision of Nicholas II to abdicate in favour of Michael rather than Alexis.
It has by purists been argued that the move was illegal - because the succession was governed by the fundamental laws and that Nicholas II had himself been advised earlier when considering the issue of Grand Duke Kyril's unapproved marriage to Victoria Melita that he couldn't remove a member of the family from the succession. Although in those circumstances it was far more likely that rather than press the subject Nicholas allowed his domineering Uncle Vladimir his way.
IT is worth bearing in mind that as an Autocrat Nicholas could have had the power and any change he wished could have easily been absorbed into the fundamental rules (his predecessors had made changes to the Pauline rules for example that were then incorporated into the Fundamental rules).
The real point remains that Nicholas abdicated twice firstly in favour of Alexis and then on medical advice and under fear of losing a much loved son in favour of Michael (which was the abdication that was announced).
Understandable perhaps but a disaster for the dynasty - the provisional government with a young boy as a figurehead under the far more concessionary and practical Michael as regent might just have held off a Bolshevik coup and a consitutional monarchy might have emerged. It is debateable given that many in the provisional government like Kerensky were convinced republicans but it was a possiblity.

[Yelena Aleksandrovna]

Was Michael really considered tsar after Nicholas' abdication or really no?

[Ally Kumari]

He was proclaimed Tsar by the army and several towns, but other than that he never was considered a Tsar.

[Kalafrana]

The Provisional Government's hold on power was precarious, so it's far from impossible that the Bolshevik Revolution would have happened anyway.

[mcdnab]

Michael was certainly never crowned. But his manifesto issued after discussions with the provisional government in Petrograd is clear that he considers himself to have succeeded his brother.
Most people are divided partly due to the questions about the validity of Nicholas II's abdication and whether his abdication for both himself and Alexis was valid.
However my own view is that given that whether it was legal or not Nicholas clearly abdicated and clearly named his brother his heir - the legality is moot. Had Michael taken up the mantle and given that the autocracy was dead ithe water anyway it would have been up to any new Government to right new rules.
Numerous regiments were or had already taken an oath to the new Czar Michael Alexandrovitch and he was I believe briefly named in prayers for the imperial family in some churches before his manifesto came out and of course Kerensky would eventually declare Russia a republic.

[Yelena Aleksandrovna]

Well, thanks for the information.... Did he did something important in the government of Russia?
Or really anything so important?

[Belochka]

Michael was certainly never crowned. But his manifesto issued after discussions with the provisional government in Petrograd is clear that he considers himself to have succeeded his brother.
Most people are divided partly due to the questions about the validity of Nicholas II's abdication and whether his abdication for both himself and Alexis was valid.
However my own view is that given that whether it was legal or not Nicholas clearly abdicated and clearly named his brother his heir - the legality is moot. Had Michael taken up the mantle and given that the autocracy was dead ithe water anyway it would have been up to any new Government to right new rules.
Numerous regiments were or had already taken an oath to the new Czar Michael Alexandrovitch and he was I believe briefly named in prayers for the imperial family in some churches before his manifesto came out and of course Kerensky would eventually declare Russia a republic.

Once Nikolai II 'signed' the so called Manifesto, no one in the train carriage wanted to stop and question its legitimacy. Guchkov and Shulgin got what they came for and ran with it, telegraphing Rodzianko about their success.

You are correct to say that some military regiments began to pronounce their Oath of Allegience to their new Emperor. A few local churches did name and acknowledge Mikhail Alexandrovich as the new sovereign, one of which was attended by Mariya Pavlovna (the younger) in Pskov.

Margarita

[Belochka]

Well, thanks for the information.... Did he did something important in the government of Russia?
Or really anything so important?

If you are refering to Mikhail Alexandrovich, then the answer is a resounding yes.

By renouncing the throne he granted the Provisional Committee of the State Duma the right to form a new governing authority.

Margarita

[mcdnab]

If you are referring to Michael then yes - though its important to state that he did not renounce the throne. After very long discussions with the representives of the provisional committee he declined to accept the throne unless offered following a constituent assembly summoned to choose the future form of government for Russia offered it - rather an echo of how the Romanov's first came to the throne in the 17th century.
His manifesto was neither an abdication nor a renunciation. It also worth bearing in mind that those representatives and Michael were still in shock because none of them had expected Nicholas to remove his son from the succession - Michael himself was only expecting to be told he was regent. Michael was also when he asked given no guarantee as to his and his family's personal safety by those representives.

If you were referring to Kerensky then again yes - was a prominant Duma representive and opponent of the government - became Minister of Justice under Prince Lvov who became the 1st Prime Minister of the Provisional Government. He became Minister of War in May 1917 he was also vice chair of the Petrograd Soviet. When the government collapsed in July he succeeded Lvov as Prime Minsiter which he remained until the Bolskevik coup...he is also the man who proclaimed Russia a republic.

[LisaDavidson]

If you are referring to Michael then yes - though its important to state that he did not renounce the throne. After very long discussions with the representives of the provisional committee he declined to accept the throne unless offered following a constituent assembly summoned to choose the future form of government for Russia offered it - rather an echo of how the Romanov's first came to the throne in the 17th century.
His manifesto was neither an abdication nor a renunciation. It also worth bearing in mind that those representatives and Michael were still in shock because none of them had expected Nicholas to remove his son from the succession - Michael himself was only expecting to be told he was regent. Michael was also when he asked given no guarantee as to his and his family's personal safety by those representives.

If you were referring to Kerensky then again yes - was a prominant Duma representive and opponent of the government - became Minister of Justice under Prince Lvov who became the 1st Prime Minister of the Provisional Government. He became Minister of War in May 1917 he was also vice chair of the Petrograd Soviet. When the government collapsed in July he succeeded Lvov as Prime Minsiter which he remained until the Bolskevik coup...he is also the man who proclaimed Russia a republic.

Michael's family was of zero import to either the dynasty or to the Provisional Government, so Michael never asked after their safety. As I mentioned years ago, his personal courage was such that Kerensky, who wrote that falsehood, was the only person to question it.

[Alex Milleros]

Hello Lisa,

I share your point of view about Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich and found him one of the few members of the Imperial Family that really could have made a difference. However, I think Kerensky was not the only one to underestimate Michael's personality.
Princess Olga Paley wrote "We all knew him to be lacking in character and under the malign influence of his wife, Madame Brassova..." and "After a few minutes' hesitation this characterless prince gave in, to the great joy of those traitors to their country..."
Olga Alexandrovna's memoirs: "Misha was Nicky's only remaining brother. He could have given Nicky so much help. I tell you again that all of us were to blame".
Probably pro-monarchists saw Michael somewhat responsible for the downfall of the dynasty when maybe he never had the chance to be of much help, since due to his constant unapproved affairs or marriage prospects (Dina, Princess Beatrice and then Natalia) he was kept not very close to his brother.
I hope my message makes sense in English.

Regards,
Alex M.

[Janet Ashton]

I share your point of view about Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich and found him one of the few members of the Imperial Family that really could have made a difference. However, I think Kerensky was not the only one to underestimate Michael's personality.
Princess Olga Paley wrote "We all knew him to be lacking in character and under the malign influence of his wife, Madame Brassova..." and "After a few minutes' hesitation this characterless prince gave in, to the great joy of those traitors to their country..."
Olga Alexandrovna's memoirs: "Misha was Nicky's only remaining brother. He could have given Nicky so much help. I tell you again that all of us were to blame".

Nikolai Mikhailovich, who was apparently present at the time of Mikhail's renunciation, also had a scathing view of his young cousin. He wrote that the Grand Duke was "a carbon copy of Nicholas II, but without a glimmer of a personality, and without his brother's learning....and he's married to a Moscow whore who is clever but ambitious and evil and surrounded by social climbers." As you say, it may have been because they were disappointed in him....