Alexei possibly being infertile, and its implications if he had lived

[Romanov_fan]

Well, it is hard to say if Alexei would have had children or not. He might have, but if he hadn't, I don't think some of the unusual methods described here would have been used. Of course, that would have depended on his wife, and what she wanted to do or not, or was willing to do. He would have been married off dynastically, and from there, would have hoped to have heirs, but history never saw this stage. Yes, the next grand duke in line would have been Grand Duke Kyril, whom nobody liked, because Michael's descendants were morgantic. I don't think that Nicholas would have changed the law, as he was very traditional, and Imperial succession laws are more complicated than they seem.

[Sarushka]

I don't get why Nicholas didn't just change the law either, if he was that desperate to see one of his own children on the throne.

I don't really think the law of succession is something you can "just change" even if you're an autocrat. Remember, we're talking about an emperor who couldn't even change the teatime menu in his own home....

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

I just don't understand why it would be, though.  Paul made his own law, so why not Nicholas? He may have been strongly opposed, but the buck stopped at him, and he could, theoretically, do exactly what he wanted.  Especially in an age when feminism was coming to the fore, someone surely must have realised that preventing women from taking the throne was a highly outmoded law to have? But *slaps hand* I am talking about the only country to hang onto an autocracy into the 20th century...why would I think feminism would have hit off if democracy hadn't??? 

Rachel
xx

[Romanov_fan]

Nicholas II was very traditional, and he wasn't the type like Paul who would have changed the succession law, because of personal reasons as Paul did. In addition, I think that in Paul's time there was less precedent and tradition for the succession laws to be a certain way, and there was more of an open field for change. Nicholas was very traditional confronted with something that was very traditional, and I am sure that things weren't going to change.

[Romanov_Fan19]

You Make a very Good Point Imperial Angel, Nicholas was Definately a Traditionalist.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, he was like that in every aspect of his life, but he would have been that way very much in dealing with the succession laws. They were quite complicated, and I can see why he would not have wanted to change them, even if that seemed like a good policy to some. But, the thing is, I don't think anyone thought that they should be changed, as everyone assumed, that Alexei would have heirs,and if not, the Vladmirvitchi certainly had plans..

[Romanov_Fan19]

Ive Heard many rumors and was wondering would the Vladmirvitchi have  been that bad as rulers?

[Romanov_fan]

Well, I am not sure. Until they got on the throne, nothing could have been known, certainly. They had a bad reputation, and they might not have been totally that way, but it was said they were. I think they were haughty, and gave the impression of being above others. They never have a good reputation, but I think they might have been good, as they were astute anyway, but that is getting off topic-maybe Alexei would have had heirs.

[Romanov_Fan19]

Your right, He might have been able  one never knows.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, and this is the whole topic of this thread. No one knows that he was infertile, although his having that condition was certainly a factor, etc. I think he would have been under great pressure to have heirs, but I am not sure this would have happened. The whole issue of Alexei having heirs is certainly that would most likely have caused Alexandra as much stress as when she was trying to have a male heir herself.

[grandduchessella]

It might not have had any implications if he had died of hemophilia before adulthood or before marrying and attempting to father children. I think the only royal hemophiliac who had children was Prince Leopold. I think the point about Nicholas and Alexandra wanting their son to be the heir is a correct one--not that there's anything wrong with that. It might've been different had they been able to entrust that GD George would be the heir but his health was such that his title as heir was almost meaningless. Misha wasn't looked upon as Tsar material and they detested the Vladimirovichi.

I think that Nicholas was too traditional to change the law though it possibly would've been a simpler thing for history, and a happier situation for the family, if he had. Alexander III wasn't afraid to limit the ranks of Grand Duke/Duchess to the children & grandchildren of the Tsar, despite the family's wrath--I wonder if he had lived a normal life span and had seen the issues that would've arisen, whether he would've taken steps? He certainly wasn't intimidated by his brothers.

As for Maud, it was  rumor put forth in a recent Norwegian biography. The Norwegian royals didn't contest it but didn't sanction it either. It was rumored that she might've been artifically inseminated and that Haakon was either the donor or the doctor, Sir Francis Laking. Laking has a bit of a resemblance to the late King Olav which fanned some of the flames of the rumor. I think that issue was supposed to have arisen with the pregnancy of the late Queen Mother and King George VI--that artificial insemination was needed, not the question of paternity though.

[Annie]

It wasn't the doctor himself who was allegedly the donor but his young handsome son. Of course he still had his father's genes and that would explain the resemblance of the child, if it is true.

[grandduchessella]

No, according to Tor Bomann-Larsen's book "Folket" he speculates that Olav was either the son of royal physician Sir Francis Laking, or, perhaps, though less likely, his son Guy as a possible donor. Bomann-Larsen thinks that if AI was used, that Sir Laking was more likely the donor.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, it is true that if Alexei had died before the time he could marry, and even try to have heirs, that it would have had no implications, this issue. It might actually have been better if that had happened, although more tragic. It would have been tragic with him dying, but it would have avoided this issue which would have caused pain to Alexandra. But,  it might have caused her equal pain not to know if he could have heirs or not, so who knows?  Perhaps both would have caused equal pain to Alexandra, him dying before the time he could possibly have had heirs, or him dying without heirs, proving he most likely could not have any? But the succession laws would never have been changed, so most likely the Vladimirvitchi would have been the next heirs.

[Lemur]

I know we will never know, but I find it hard to accept that Nicholas would have allowed the detested Vladimiriovichi to become his heirs. Surely he'd have done something. Wasn't there something in the works, or rumored to be at one time, where Dmitri would marry Olga and they'd rule as a team? That may have been a good thing for Russia if it had happened.

I also agree with Ra Ra Rasputin, that with the womens' rights and suffrage movement about to explode in the late nineteen teens to twenties, there would have been no way the old law would have been accepted or held up to the test of time. As someone mentioned, Alexander III made the call to demote certain members of the family from Grand Dukes to 'princes' so this would have been even less of a change.

Now, some royal houses have even given the throne to the first born, period, male or female. I believe in Sweden, they have a daughter who is older than the son, and she is in line for the throne. I don't think Russia would have done that, but allowing for a daughter if there is no son would have worked. She was, after all, his direct genetic heir, much closer than a second cousin!