Tsar Nicholas has a healthy son.
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
They are actually following the line of succession.Nicholas abdicated both his and his son's rights to the throne to his younger brother Michael.
but this son would be a minor, so the Whites would nominate Michael as regent.
I also somehow doubt he would just leave his son behind considering things are getting batshit crazy.If he did leave his son behind,this son would likely be killed by the Bolsheviks.
At the end of the day,I don't think he's gonna leave his son alone.He was a terrible ruler,but one of his redeeming points was that he truly loved his family.
The son is born in 1899. So, by 1916 it is NOT decrepit boy who is unlikely to live to have married and produce heirs and NOT somebody you would want to build a constitutional monarchy around. A young man can be a perfect thing to build a constitutional monarchy around. So it depends a lot on a ton of factors not existing OTL (and no Rasputin is one of them).
Right,misread things.I thought this kid's meant to be a non-identical twin of Alexei.In this case,unless,this guy still needs to make it out of Russia alive.
Emmm... That's some horribly deterministic thought going on here. A PoD in 1899 with a healthy Tsesarevich means some very different course of February revolution, having more in common with Decembrist movement that what happened OTL. And galloping from there to October revolution to Stalin is just... lazy.
I don't know that a healthy male heir is going to make an enormous difference to events.
I doubt it will rule out the Russo Japanese war and Nicholas's determination to retain autocratic rule might even increase with a healthy male heir.
His character isn't going to change and neither is his wife's so I do think revolution remains highly likely assuming war still happens on schedule and the birth of a male heir to Nicholas in 1899 isn't going to shift things enough.
Nicholas and Alexandra's characters lent themselves to living a quiet family life and one that was quite isolating that isn't really going to change much. She also had a streak of prudishness that made it difficult for her to overlook the foibles and scandals of many of the individuals who traditionally were the strongest supporters of the autocracy and that included a large number of her husband's family. Now she might with a healthy son not alienate her in laws as quickly as she did in otl (and there were faults on all sides) but even her German and English relations found her shall we say "difficult" at times.
Alexandra's health was not good by the First World War - how much that was caused by anxiety and her mental state following Alexei's birth is of course an issue. A healthy son might have gained her more respect which in turn might have meant a more active Imperial couple. A healthy male heir would also of course have significantly strengthened her position and the dynasty but it also gives Nicholas even more of a reason to cling on to his powers.
Her conversion to orthodoxy was hard for her but she embraced it and was already interested and intrigued by mystics and obscure preachers before her son's birth - so it might have well been that Rasputin would have found himself still in her circle as a number of others had been.
The reality is that a combination of events led to revolution and Alexandra's failure to produce a healthy male heir was a very small part of it. Nicholas' character and his attempt to continue to govern as an absolute monarch, his dilution of the 1906 constitution at will, his failure to appoint a competent administration during the war and his foolish decision to take direct control of the military (meaning he personally would take the blame for failure) had far more to do with it than the fact his son was sick and I can't see any of that changing.
It might change the nature of his abdication though which might see the monarchy clinging on for a bit (though if the provisional government is the same people it is highly unlikely that Bolshevism won't gather strength and result in a second revolution as in otl).
Nicholas II actually abdicated twice - the first in favour of his son and when it was then made clear that he and his wife would not be allowed to retain custody of his son and that it might well shorten his life - he abdicated in favour of his brother (hence the dispute over whether Michael was ever legally Emperor - given the dubious legality of Nicholas' second abdication).
To those who wanted to retain the monarchy (whether as an absolute or constitutional one) this was a death blow. Nicholas with an 17/18 year old son is probably not going to do that - so the boy succeeds (in Romanov terms he also won't need a regent and will be regarded as being of age) - depends on his character of course, how close he was to his parents (which might damage him in the eyes of the people) etc.
Ironically the facts are that it would have been easier for those keen to retain the monarchy to have had a child (otl Alexei) succeed - far easier to rally around a child Emperor (even one with poor health) in the custody of his popular grandmother with a regent who was married to a commoner and had been commended for his bravery at the front, whose wife had cultivated many members of the Duma and was known to be "sympathetic" and was loathed by Alexandra - than an adult or almost adult monarch who was devoted to his deposed father and German mother.
There was really no reason to think that Alexei couldn't have produced children even if his lifespan was going to be short - his great uncle the Duke of Albany had produced two children for example.
In wider terms the failure of the court and the wider Romanov family to deal with the issues and to install competent government had in effect ended support for the dynasty amongst those who still supported the idea of a monarchy - it was a spent force either way.
I doubt it will rule out the Russo Japanese war and Nicholas's determination to retain autocratic rule might even increase with a healthy male heir.
His character isn't going to change and neither is his wife's so I do think revolution remains highly likely assuming war still happens on schedule and the birth of a male heir to Nicholas in 1899 isn't going to shift things enough.
Nicholas and Alexandra's characters lent themselves to living a quiet family life and one that was quite isolating that isn't really going to change much. She also had a streak of prudishness that made it difficult for her to overlook the foibles and scandals of many of the individuals who traditionally were the strongest supporters of the autocracy and that included a large number of her husband's family. Now she might with a healthy son not alienate her in laws as quickly as she did in otl (and there were faults on all sides) but even her German and English relations found her shall we say "difficult" at times.
Alexandra's health was not good by the First World War - how much that was caused by anxiety and her mental state following Alexei's birth is of course an issue. A healthy son might have gained her more respect which in turn might have meant a more active Imperial couple. A healthy male heir would also of course have significantly strengthened her position and the dynasty but it also gives Nicholas even more of a reason to cling on to his powers.
Her conversion to orthodoxy was hard for her but she embraced it and was already interested and intrigued by mystics and obscure preachers before her son's birth - so it might have well been that Rasputin would have found himself still in her circle as a number of others had been.
The reality is that a combination of events led to revolution and Alexandra's failure to produce a healthy male heir was a very small part of it. Nicholas' character and his attempt to continue to govern as an absolute monarch, his dilution of the 1906 constitution at will, his failure to appoint a competent administration during the war and his foolish decision to take direct control of the military (meaning he personally would take the blame for failure) had far more to do with it than the fact his son was sick and I can't see any of that changing.
It might change the nature of his abdication though which might see the monarchy clinging on for a bit (though if the provisional government is the same people it is highly unlikely that Bolshevism won't gather strength and result in a second revolution as in otl).
Nicholas II actually abdicated twice - the first in favour of his son and when it was then made clear that he and his wife would not be allowed to retain custody of his son and that it might well shorten his life - he abdicated in favour of his brother (hence the dispute over whether Michael was ever legally Emperor - given the dubious legality of Nicholas' second abdication).
To those who wanted to retain the monarchy (whether as an absolute or constitutional one) this was a death blow. Nicholas with an 17/18 year old son is probably not going to do that - so the boy succeeds (in Romanov terms he also won't need a regent and will be regarded as being of age) - depends on his character of course, how close he was to his parents (which might damage him in the eyes of the people) etc.
Ironically the facts are that it would have been easier for those keen to retain the monarchy to have had a child (otl Alexei) succeed - far easier to rally around a child Emperor (even one with poor health) in the custody of his popular grandmother with a regent who was married to a commoner and had been commended for his bravery at the front, whose wife had cultivated many members of the Duma and was known to be "sympathetic" and was loathed by Alexandra - than an adult or almost adult monarch who was devoted to his deposed father and German mother.
There was really no reason to think that Alexei couldn't have produced children even if his lifespan was going to be short - his great uncle the Duke of Albany had produced two children for example.
In wider terms the failure of the court and the wider Romanov family to deal with the issues and to install competent government had in effect ended support for the dynasty amongst those who still supported the idea of a monarchy - it was a spent force either way.
Blaming the wrong person. Lloyd George was the one who decided against sanctuary. It was typical of him to hide his role.