Okay
So we'd have Tsarveich Yuri, hmm, this is going to be a very interesting time for him and the royal families of the world.
Tsar Nicholas has a healthy son.
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
Okay
So we'd have Tsarveich Yuri, hmm, this is going to be a very interesting time for him and the royal families of the world.
Yes and no. There are many who in Russia might see the Anglican church as too Catholic. Of course, Mary might have an easier time converting to Orthodoxy than say, Hélène d'Orléans. But then there exists the problem of cousin-marriage which even though it was becoming more common in the imperial family, was still a taboo in the Orthodox church, and requiring a "dispensation" from the tsar as head of the church. An illustration of this was that Nikolai II forbade the marriage both of GD Mikhail Alexandrovich (to Baby Bee of Coburg) and GD Kiril Vladimirovich (to Victoria Melita of Coburg (Bee's sister). One went through in spite of Nikolai's opposition, the other didn't.
He is. But he might also still be under a regency of sorts. Plus, there's probably going to be separate parties - say pro-English vs pro-German, perhaps even a pro-Russian/Slavic element that wants a marriage to one of the domesticated foreign families within Russia (the Oldenburgskis, the Beauharnais, etc.), or even a non-royal noblewoman - pulling him this way and that. Not to mention, he's a teenager (and if he's in rebellion against his parents because of them favoring Alexei over him) and probably horny, so he's not necessarily going to be thinking rationally, and someone else (Marie/Mikhail/prime minister) might be arranging his marriage for him where the most gain lies for Russia.
Alright very true. Hmm, he'd be around 18, when the Russian involvement in the War ends no? Do you think he'd be the one issuing orders for his father and mother's evacuation or would the ministers take control of that? Where could they go?
Hmm a marriage toss up between Britain as well as between the local families would be very interesting to see.
Hmm a marriage toss up between Britain as well as between the local families would be very interesting to see.
Nicholas would have someone in favor of which to abdicate: but if Russia stays in the war, the Bolsheviks still take over. It's a very different Civil war, with the whites being led by a Tsar. (There's no question of marriage while the war continues, or a civil war is being fought.) The big question, can an 18 year old from that family summon the desiciveness (and ruthlessness) to keep or win back the throne?
With the issue of the abdication etc, would Yuri really keep Russia in the war?
Aha I see.
Hmm, do you think it is more likely that Nicholas's son pulls the Russians out of the ar or keeps them in?
I can't imagine our boy Tsar abandoning the allies. Which alas leaves an opening for the Bolsheviks. It's possible that a less influential Rasputin buys the kid a bit of time (the parade of ministers before the Revolution was due to Rasputin/Alexandra, and it's hard to imagine if fewer changes in 1916 would have changed all that much). Withdrawing from the war, while it would have been a good move, would sort of feed the "our Nemsty Tsarina was working with the Germans". It's hard to see a way forward that wouldn't involve putting Alexandra in a convent: a pretty harsh test for a boy Tsar.
And while marriage isn't in the picture for years, the Romanovs were governed by the Pauline laws regarding the succession. That would have to change before any "unequal" marriage could occur.
And while marriage isn't in the picture for years, the Romanovs were governed by the Pauline laws regarding the succession. That would have to change before any "unequal" marriage could occur.
Okay very true. Hmm What happens if Lenin is killed before he can get things started for the Bolsheviks? Say around late 1916
I don't see Lenin being killed prior to arriving in Russia 1917, so keeping our boy as ruling Tsar has a pretty rigid time limit Feb to Oct 1917. (working on the failure of the Provisional government). Realistically, there'd still be the same government, it would only be "His Majesty's". No matter what, the war is going disastrously for Russia, and there isn't a lot of time to turn that around. To an extent, the military was sort of lost to the Tsar by this time.
Alright interesting. If the Tsar is kicking around and leading the provisional government, do you think it is any more or less likely to fail?
I have a hard time putting too much faith in this boy Tsar. Presumably he's be a bit better educated than Nicholas was, but at a young 18, it's hard to imagine him reorganizing a wartime government in any meaningful way. If he backs out of the war, he loses the "whites", if he stays in the October revolution still seems likely.
A much earlier abdication, say 1905, might have saved the Romanovs. Assuming Nicholas, Alexandra and at least Alexei live very privately. A boy Tsar, with Nicholas Nicholaevich as regent committed to a Constitutional monarchy might have averted the Revolution. I'm not sure that was where any Romanov was at in 1905, but a six year old boy Tsar could have allowed room to manoever.
With a later abdication, say as really happened means that if the Romanovs leave the country they lose it.
With a later abdication, say as really happened means that if the Romanovs leave the country they lose it.
There was no hope of Autocracy surviving: in a strict sense it died in 1905 with the first Duma. This wouldn't be an "English" style monarchy overnight (probably not ever) but rather some kind of work in progress. A decade of calm reform (longer, if someone who understoood military matters was in charge and didn't widen/escalate the "Sarajevo incedent") could have gone a long way to butterfly the Revolution. Keeping Nicholas II (and worse Alexandra) around only means the war still occurs, and with it the worst erosion of the monarchy's standing. As for the peasants, it was long overdue for a Tsar to truly govern for them and care about them: the nobility were Tsarisms worst enemy throughout Nicholas's reign.