Romanov Succession

Thus, if Michael became tsar it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he would alter the laws of succession to give his son a chance, morganatic marriage or not, child born before the marriage or not.
It kind of is. Don't forget that to insert someone in the line of succession is to demote all those after him. They would have been most unlikely to accept it, and to put forward an illegitimate son when there were legitimate heirs would have been accepted by few even of those not thereby displaced, whatever the theoretical absolute power of an Emperor.

To chornedsnorkack, as already explained the fact that when Grand Duke Kyril was born his mother was still Lutheran made no difference to his succession rights. There was no obligation at all for those not in direct line to marry Orthodox spouses, still less be born of Orthodox mothers. As for his own wife being a divorcée, divorce is recognised in Orthodoxy, and the marriage was recognised by the Emperor, so that also made no difference in law to the succession rights of either Grand Duke Kyril or his son. It is also advanced against Grand Duke Kyril that his wife was his first cousin, forbidden in Orthodoxy. So it is unless a dispensation is given, which it was, end of debate. Or should be.
 
To Bee, not only would it have been a radical alteration in the law for the succession to be switched from Alexei to one of his sisters, the adult males in line would never have accepted it.

But you've accepted Grand Duchess Maria's claim.
It would be up to Alexei if he wanted to remain czar or not. If not, one of his sisters would be next in line under the rules of most western monarchies, but not under czar Paul's rule.

I don't know if it's possible to say who would be czar under the pre-Paul rules, such as they were. Every succession by an empress (there were four of them) in the 18th century was irregular.
 
I accept Grand Duchess Maria's claim because she is the proper successor under the law. None of Alexei's sisters would have been. The succession method before Paul was nomination, established as law by Peter the Great. However as often as not the succession proceeded by coup instead, an undesirable situation which Paul wished to prevent in future by making the succession much more rigid. He failed as far as himself was concerned, but at least the successful coup against him put his son and lawful successor on the throne. Progress of a kind.
 
As a small afterthought before the thread dies completely, it is not true that Alexei's sisters would have been heirs after him in "most" Western monarchies. I don't blame Bee for thinking that, as lots of people seem to, but in fact in 1914 when most countries in Europe were monarchies Salic or semi-Salic systems operated in all the German monarchies, including the main one of Prussia, in Russia as discussed, in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and in Italy, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. The only countries operating male-preference primogeniture were Britain, the Netherlands and Spain. Luxembourg although it had a female sovereign at the time did not, but rather a system which though not semi-Salic was near enough. Equal primogeniture, which is the rule in most surviving monarchies now, hadn't even been dreamed of. My point being that Emperor Paul I wasn't being weirdly eccentic in establishing Russia's system as semi-Salic; he was following the crowd. And that at the time people would have seen no particular injustice in the exclusion of Alexei's sisters. They themselves probably did not, it was just how things were.
 
Hi, everybody! I'm a newbie here, so pardon in advance for my ignorance in the 'game rules'. To my understanding, the subject of any alternate history is somehow similar to finding a kind of 'bifurcation point' or, a 'fork'. However a plane where this point is sought is a set of casually interrelated, actual historic events. Thus, only a single backward hypotesis should be allowed in this 'game' — the one, that at a certain point the chain of events forks in an alternate direction. Let us call this a rule of a single fork.

From this standpoint, it appears that this rule is broken already in the formulation of the problem. At least two separate 'forks', two hypothetical assumptions appear, causing the whole 'plane of events' to lose its properties of continuity. The topic-starter insists that
assuming the bolsheviks dont come to power or are defeated, how do you all think the romanov succession would turn out? if alexei died, who would nicholas' heir be, and what would be alexei's chances of living…

The opponents also follow the proposed pattern and speak about the 'royal family':
I must have missed the prior posts where people were excusing atrocities and only condemning the murder of the royal family.

Here I must remind that in this formulation the most important part is cut out of Russian history:

Romanows were not a 'royal family' when they were executed in July 1918. By July 1918 there were no heirs, no successors among Romanows, for:
  • In March 1917 Nicholas II abdicated for himself and his son Alexei
  • Next day Michael also abdicated, leaving a choice for the people to define the future form of government on a basis of 'universal, direct and secret ballot'.

I must also remind that there were no bolsheviks among those who forced Nicholas II to abdicate. They took power only in November 1917. In history these events are called the "February Revolution" and the "October Revolution" (a month-back shift reflects the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars). To get an idea how it happened, I may recommend you a book of Alexander Rabinowitch "The Bolsheviks come to power: the Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd".

Even staying apart from the facts that:
  • both the monarchical form of government in general, and Nicholas II and Romanows personally have discredited theirselves in Russia by this time;
  • the republican Provisional government of Russia was immediately greeted with cheers and approval from the Western democracies; while Britain refused to send its cruisers (which was near Pterograd, in the Baltics) to rescue Nicholas II and his family
  • this Provisional government was also acknowledged by the Army (all five supreme commanders of the fronts of the Russian army) and by the church (all mentioning of tzar in the missals was replaced with 'Provisional government')
so even besides these 'obstacles', we must not discuss the members of the Romanov family apart from the other representatives of Russian nobility in a context of hypothetical elections of a new dynasty.

Thus the sequence of events could be as follows:
- if the majority of electorate votes for a monarchy as a principle,
- then they must decide which specific body (like Zemskiy Sobor) shall be empowered to conduct such elections.

I have deep doubts that any of Romanovs would have the advantage at the sessions of that Zemskiy Sobor. Shame of Rasputin's frauds was too deep, so such families like Yusupovs who helped Russia to get rid of Raspution would have much more chances to be chosen th start a new dynasty rather than Romanovs, of which nobody even moved to pick up a fallen crown in Spring and Autumn of 1917.
 
The Romanovs were lying low and acknowledging the authority of Provisional Government, except for those who were put under house arrest by Provisional Government.

Provisional Government was not republican before September 1917. Officially, the matter of future form of government was initially deferred to Constituent Assembly until September 1917, when Provisional Government declared Russia a Republic without waiting for decision of Constituent Assembly.

The Whites, 1918-19, like Denikin of Southern Russia, had some Romanovs available for them (Boriss, Andrei, Nikolai Nikolayevich). There were a few voices to advance Romanovs as figureheads of White movement, but most, including Denikin, refused them. So, the Whites fought for Republic of Russia, not Romanovs.

If Bolsheviks come to power but are defeated by Whites, what would the position of Romanovs be?

What could prevent Bolsheviks coming to power? What about successful Kornilov coup, September 1917?
 
If Bolsheviks come to power but are defeated by Whites, what would the position of Romanovs be?

What could prevent Bolsheviks coming to power? What about successful Kornilov coup, September 1917?
In this formulation, the question sounds a lot more realistic. All our discussions upon a possible course of events shall be abstract and fantastic until we define a rigorous framework of a situational analysis used in the academic case studies - say, in teaching young diplomats.

I say students: well, imagine yourself a British ambassador in Petrograd in a middle of July, 1917. The Bolsheviks went underground again. Edition of their newspapers is closed, leaflets seized, violators are arrested and imprisoned. Lenin emigrated again; pretending to be a grass mower, he sits in a hut of hay and writes another great theoretical work. It is Trotsky who manages all the levers of real power in the Bolsheviks party: he commands the armed Red Guards, he has a steady money supply from American bankers…

What could prevent Bolsheviks coming to power? What about successful Kornilov coup, September 1917?

So this is a very good question in these circumstances. What were the options for the Western diplomats (including ones of Entente allies) in Petrograd? When you have a wide spectrum of local political forces and none of them is predominant, the first thing you must consider is a political future of this country. And you must measure the optional consequences against the national geopolitical intererets of your own country.

Were the European powers interested in preserving the Russian Empire within the borders of 1914? Or were they interested in its split into several independent states warring among themselves? The Germany was steadily coming to its defeat, so there was no necessity for Europeans to keep Russia in 1917 as a strong nation, as a potential geopolitical threat.

As for Lavr Georgievich Kornilov, he obviously lacked a political weight in Russia. The only power he posessed was a rude, bloody power of his troops - a so-called 'Wild Division', staffed with Chechens and other non-christian nationalities. They had much less constraining moral factors in the cases they received orders to shed blood of civilians (mostly Christians and Jews). The 'Wild Division' was a mere repressive force, nothing more.

Also, not only Bolsheviks (and in a broader context, social-democrats) were to be afraid of Kornilov. Many representatives of 'educated middle class' (Russian 'intelligentsiya') were set up democratically and against the monarchy. At least, against tyranny, for the atrocities of Stolypin (as well as Jewish 'pogroms') were still alive in their memory, and they did not want to repeat it again.

Its widely known that one cannot sit on a bayonnet for a long time. Kornilov could be used to help somebody to restore 'the civil obey' — but for whom? The history sometimes repeats itself; Kornilov has certain parallels to the General Lebed’ in USSR of 1990s — both of them failed to settle in politics being in a saddle of a horse or on a tank turret. Such personalities need somebody else besides them — albeit weaker 'physically', but stronger politically.

If Bolsheviks come to power but are defeated by Whites, what would the position of Romanovs be?
I think the same, as in September 1917. Nice and pleasant to talk to upon cultural subjects, an advanced amateur photographer, a chain-smoker colonel Romanov and his family. Nothing more. No noble titles: I must remind that after WWI they were abolished in Austro-Hungary and Germany. Of course, afterwards the tzar's daughters may have married brilliant and resplendent representatives of ex Russian nobility — but that would be 'jouer avec eux-mêmes', playing with themselves a game, each year and decade seeming more and more strange to the non-European civilization.
 
Last edited:
Top