WI Nicholas II abdicated in favor of Tsarevich Alexis?

[Blair152]

I was thinking about this for some time. In the February Revolution, (March
Revolution on the Georgian calendar), Tsar Nicholas II abdicated in favor of
his brother, Grand Duke Michael, who'd also refused the Russian crown. The
double refusal effectively ended the Romanov monarchy. What if Nicholas II
had abdicated in favor of his son, Tsarevich Alexis?

 

[alphaboi867]

Alexis was only 13 when his father abdicated so in any event a regent would be necessary. Who would that be? The former Nicholas II can't possibly serve as regent; that would defeat the purpose of abdicating. His wife's out of the question too. If Grand Duke Michael wasn't willing to become Tsar why would be be willing to become his nephew's regent? One of Nicholas's older daughters like Olga or Tatiana might have a small chance. Or just have the Provision Government serve as a collective regency council.


The problem is Nicholas's reason for skipping over his son. Alexis was a sickly hemophliac who wasn't expected to live long enough to sire an heir. He probally wouldn't have. So barring a change in Romanov house law the throne would still go to Michael in the end.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Grand Duke Michael, who'd also refused the Russian crown.

Actually, Michael didn't refuse the crown, he just said he'd only accept it if it was the peoples' will i.e. if a referendum were held on the matter.

That being said, a possible regent would be Grand Duke Nicholas. He's a universally respected war-hero, was one of Rasputin's fiercest opponents, and an all around good and intelligent fellow.

But, like alpha said, the main reason Aleksei was passed over was because he was a sickly hemophiliac who wasn't fit (mentally or physically) to be Tsar. I'd say just have Nicholas name Grand Duke Nicholas as his successor.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Sadly, he Fate of Tsar Alexei II will be the same as in OTL i'm afraid.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

If Michael takes over could this save the monarchy? I think he would have to make a deal to establish a constitutional monarchy. It would also help to get a separate peace with Germany.

 

[Mikestone8]

If Michael takes over could this save the monarchy? I think he would have to make a deal to establish a constitutional monarchy. It would also help to get a separate peace with Germany.

Trouble is, the Petrograd Soviet (even it's moderate members like Kerensky) were dead set against the monarchy continuing. If Michael tries to hold on, either as Tsar or Regent, you likely get civil war. The generals might support Michael , but judging from later events their men probably wouldn't.

 

[Blair152]

Alexis was only 13 when his father abdicated so in any event a regent would be necessary. Who would that be? The former Nicholas II can't possibly serve as regent; that would defeat the purpose of abdicating. His wife's out of the question too. If Grand Duke Michael wasn't willing to become Tsar why would be be willing to become his nephew's regent? One of Nicholas's older daughters like Olga or Tatiana might have a small chance. Or just have the Provision Government serve as a collective regency council.


The problem is Nicholas's reason for skipping over his son. Alexis was a sickly hemophliac who wasn't expected to live long enough to sire an heir. He probally wouldn't have. So barring a change in Romanov house law the throne would still go to Michael in the end.

True. However, I was thinking of Nicholas II abdicating in favor of the Tsarevich, and having a regent to run the government until he was of age.
HUGE butterflies here. Lenin wasn't in the best of health either. He'd suffered numerous strokes until the last one, number four, was it? finally
killed him.

 

[Blair152]

If Michael takes over could this save the monarchy? I think he would have to make a deal to establish a constitutional monarchy. It would also help to get a separate peace with Germany.

No doubt about that. Most people think that Russia, at the time of World War
I, was a constitutional monarchy. It was in name only. The Russian Constitution of 1905, like all the Soviet constitutions that followed it, was mere window dressing. But would the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, accept it? I
think not.

 

[Pitt the Even Younger]

I recall reading (although I can't remember the source) that Nicholas initially abdicated in favour of his son, but reconsidered and asked the Grand Duke instead. If this is true, Alexei becoming tsar wasn probably out of the question.

 

[mcdnab]

In fact the entire Duma expected that Nicholas II would abdicate in favour of the Heir - their plan was to have Grand Duke Michael as regent, and it was widely expected that the new Emperor would be transferred to the care of his grandmother the Dowager Empress. Michael was expecting the deputation to simply inform him of the regency and was shocked to learn that Nicholas II had abdicated for both himself and his son.

 

[The Kiat]

Not even the Tsardine could stem the tide of the Revolution!