When Tsar Nicholas II abdicated the Russian throne following the February Revolution, most people were expecting him to abdicate in favor of his son, Alexis, being named tsar, with his brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as Regent. Instead, Nicholas not only abdicated for himself, but for Alexis as well, and the throne, for a very brief time, went entirely to Grand Duke Michael.
Nicholas's personal motives of fatherly affection may be understandable, but it also had political consequences. It's been said that it actually might've been better (depending on who you ask), if Alexis had been named the successor as planned. When the actual succession plans were announced, it weakened the hand of monarchists in the Duma, who were advocating Russia's evolution into a constitutional monarchy, whereas at the time, the Petrograd Soviet was calling for a democracy without a monarchy.
Alexis succeeding, it was said, would've presented a greater image of imperial stability, given that he was legitimately next in line to succeed. To say nothing of the fact that an innocent young boy is a lot more sympathetic of a figure to rally around, and a lot harder to decry as a representative of Romanov tyranny. Instead, the throne passed to Michael, who, while a decent human being individually, was a political non-entity, was already a controversial figure given the scandal of his runaway marriage, and didn't have as many sympathetic advantages. The rest is history.
So if Nicholas does not abdicate in Alexis's name, how much does it change? Is the Duma's hand strengthened enough politically to steer the Russian Revolution towards a more moderate/conservative direction to a constitutional monarchy?
Nicholas's personal motives of fatherly affection may be understandable, but it also had political consequences. It's been said that it actually might've been better (depending on who you ask), if Alexis had been named the successor as planned. When the actual succession plans were announced, it weakened the hand of monarchists in the Duma, who were advocating Russia's evolution into a constitutional monarchy, whereas at the time, the Petrograd Soviet was calling for a democracy without a monarchy.
Alexis succeeding, it was said, would've presented a greater image of imperial stability, given that he was legitimately next in line to succeed. To say nothing of the fact that an innocent young boy is a lot more sympathetic of a figure to rally around, and a lot harder to decry as a representative of Romanov tyranny. Instead, the throne passed to Michael, who, while a decent human being individually, was a political non-entity, was already a controversial figure given the scandal of his runaway marriage, and didn't have as many sympathetic advantages. The rest is history.
So if Nicholas does not abdicate in Alexis's name, how much does it change? Is the Duma's hand strengthened enough politically to steer the Russian Revolution towards a more moderate/conservative direction to a constitutional monarchy?