Talk:Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Should he really be listed as a Tsar? He never reigned, and he never accepted the throne, and he is better known as Grand Duke Michael. john 08:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

AFAIK he did accept the throne initially then declined and abdicated without naming an heir. It happened within a couple of hours but it did make him, even though only theoretically, the Tsar, in which case wikipedia's 'highest title' rule comes into place. FearÉIREANN 20:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he can be considered to have accepted. My understanding is that he expressed willingness to accept, then chatted it out with Rodzianko, et al, and decided not to. [1] and [2], which are generally my go-to sources as far as listing world leaders go, do not list him as having reigned. He is far better known as Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich...I dunno. Perhaps some Russian contributors would like to express their thoughts...

I will once again express my view that this page is clearly wrongly marked, that Grand Duke Michael never reigned as Emperor of All Russia, and is hardly known as "Emperor Michael II." This page should be moved to "Grand Duke Michael of Russia" or "Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia". john 08:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just to note, most of the google results for "Michael II of Russia" are wikipedia and mirror sites. john 09:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again again again. He never reigned. He never even accepted the throne, officially (he may have privately expressed his acceptance to the Duma commissioners, very briefly, but he never publicly accepted). Michael was never Emperor of Russia. This article should be at Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia. john k 18:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is a perfectly logical viewpoint but Wikipedia policy is to use the highest title associated with a personage. He was the person who theoretically inherited the throne when Tsar Nicholas II in his own and his son's name abdicated. AFAIK he indicated an acceptance, then indicated a withdrawal of acceptance. In the area of monarchy, technically an acceptance means automatic status; you can't actually say 'well, no. I don't think I will after all.' It is too late. Saying Nicholas II was the last tsar suggests in effect that he abdicated and ended the crown. In fact he understood he was abdicating the throne to another Romanov. He might not have done so if he thought there was not going to be another tsar. So historically, it is important to point out three facts -

  • Nicholas abdicated in favour of his brother, expecting that there would be another tsar.
  • Michael said yes, or implied it, then said or implied no.
  • Michael then having left a throne he had in a theoretical sense accepted then rejected, effectively abdicated but unlike Nicolas II, did not abdicate in favour of a named successor, so leaving the throne vacant.
  • Michael's death some months later indicated clearly that the lifes of members of the Imperial Family were in danger. If the man to whom Tsar Nicholas II had abdicated the crown could be murdered, then it was only a matter of time before Nicholas's family or even he himself would face the same fate.

The constitutional vacancy caused by Michael's decision not to stay as tsar is when one can say, in a strict sense, that the monarchy ended. You are right that most sources do not see him as a tsar, but wikipedia really should aim for factual accuracy, not "common knowledge". The last effective Egyptian monarch was King Farouk but the last theoretical king was Faud II. Most people when asked who the last Egyptian king was would say Farouk, but to say that doesn't capture the subtle nuances of what happened and the fact that the monarchy was not actually abolished when Farouk abdicated. Michael II was only a footnote in history, but understanding his albeit miniscule role in the succession and his facilitation of Tsar Nicholas II's abdication by being the man to whom Nicholas theoretically passed the throne is crucial. In that situation he wasn't just another grand duke or the Tsar's controversial brother, he was Nicholas II's last role of the family dice, the man who was supposed to step into Nicholas's shoes and did, then didn't and so ended the dynasty in a whimper. Referring to him by the theoretical title he nominally held for an instant contextualises his role, or non-role and sets Nicholas II's abdication in the relevant context. Nicholas II was the last real tsar, but he didn't expect to be, any more that Farouk expected to be the last Egyptian monarch, etc. FearÉIREANN 19:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, nice to get into a good argument/discussion. Some of your points are correct, I think. Certainly, Nicholas's abdication did not end the monarchy, per se. But neither, exactly, did Michael's refusal to accept the throne. To take the easiest point first, I don't think the Fuad II/Michael comparison works. Fuad II reigned but did not rule. But he did reign, and for several months. Michael never reigned. A better analogy would be to 1830 in France. Charles X abdicated in favor of his son the Dauphin on 2 August 1830. A few minutes later the dauphin, now theoretically Louis XIX, abdicated in favor of his nephew, the Duc de Bordeaux, who thus became, again in theory, Henri V. It wasn't until several days later that the Duc d'Orleans, who had been appointed by the revolutionaries Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, declared himself King of the French. As such, by the standards applied to this article, Louis XIX of France and Henry V of France ought to be the locations of their articles, and they ought to be listed on the monarchs of France page. But I don't think this is right. People who reigned but did not effectively rule, like Fuad, should clearly be recognized as Kings. But those who didn't even really reign, except in some very theoretical sense, should not be. Michael is, I think, in the latter category. Yes his brother abdicated in his favor. But, among other things, many legal authorities considered this to be illegal - Nicholas had no right to renounce the rights of his son. Michael may have privately then expressed a willingness to take on the responsibilities. But he immediately changed his mind, and then publicly stated as his response to his brother's abdication that he would not accept the throne, and would wait to see what the Constituent Assembly said. So, under the old rules, it is unclear if Michael did legally become Emperor upon his brother's abdication (even more unclear than the issue of Charles X's abdication - in that case, it was clear, at least, that the Dauphin should succeed him, and the Duc de Bordeaux should succeed the Dauphin, even if abdication itself might not be valid (that is to say, the heir-male of Hugh Capet is King of France until he dies - this was certainly a widely held opinion among hard core monarchists, including the Comte de Chambord himself, who did not proclaim himself king until his uncle died in 1844). In Nicholas's case, not only might abdication as such be invalid, but even if it is valid, there remains the question of his right to abdicate on behalf of his son. And under the "rules on the ground" it's clear that Michael was never actually head of state. Obviously, the exact details of all this should be discussed on the page. But to actually call him "Michael II of Russia" is to endorse a quite dubious constitutional theory, I think, and is POV unless this is what he is commonly called, which it is not (certainly the comte de Chambord is more commonly called "Henri V"). john k 20:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] where is the neutral point of view?

This article is clearly not neutral. It assurts all kinds of things without a single source. The Grand Duke death clearly concided with the start of the Russian civil war and the efforts of generals and admirals to restor the tsars to power! As to the reaction of the British government, the British were helping the Whites in their fight against the soviets. --130.161.31.26 20:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some sources would be nice. In 1918, the British were hardly helping the Whites, though, and there was hardly any organized monarchist white movement in 1918 either - the Siberian resistance to the Bolsheviks consisted of the Czech Legion and a bunch of SRs, and the Volunteer Army was at this point tiny and restricted to the lower Don area. john k 23:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


If the British weren't helping the Whites in 1918 (and I think you are right about this point) it's because the British were still fighting the Germans in France and the Whites as a Force weren't yet organized enough to be helped. I think serious organized White forces came in August of 1918 (e.g. Officers Battalion that helped take over Kazan).
The Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Germans in the spring of 1918, if the British had any kind of “retribution” they would have used it to stop the Bolsheviks from signing the peace and freeing 40 German divisions that were immediately transported to the west in a last effort to break the stalemate before the Americans came in numbers, see Ludendorff offensives.
Perm fell to Kolchak in 1918, having a rallying point like the Grand Duke would have helped the Whites tremendously. As they were, every General and Admiral wanted to become the next Franco of Russia. If the Bolsheviks wanted to shoot the nobility from spite they would have done this back in November of 1917. The conduct of the Bolsheviks towards the ruling class of Russia proves beyond doubt that they were only interested in the safety of the Revolution (whether you agree with the revolution or not is not the issue here).
The whole article should be re-written as a biographical article and not as a thinly veiled political polemic; surely there is more to tell about the man than only being shot by the Bolsheviks. --130.161.31.26 19:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I (130.161.31.26) have decided to be bold in editing and change the article myself. I have also added some more information, replaced the table with a succesion box. We only need a picture now, thers is one [3] that is perfect for the article, but I can't upload it because I don't have an account! --145.94.41.95 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael II???????

He was NEVER known as Michael II, nor was he emperor. I got rid of the reference at the top of the article that he is "often reffered to as Michael II". I never heard of it anywhere but here. He never took up the throne, meaning there can have been no abdication or even being titled as tsar/emperor.

In any case, if he had a royal title, he would better be known as Michael IV, not Michael II. Read N. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia.

-James

It's Michael II.

-G

Nicholas abdicated in his favour. He agreed to take it, then change his mind. It is in plenty of history books. Legally in Russian law having accepted the throne he was from that moment Tsar, even if a couple of minutes later he turned around and said "actually I won't, if you don't mind." It doesn't matter whether one is a pope, a tsar or any other sort of monarch. If one is the heir, or person to whom the throne is abdicated, and you say you accept, you are from that moment the monarch. I've reinserting the edit, which is factually correct. He was officially designated BTW as Michael II. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Russian law is that legally Nicholas had absolutely no right to abdicate on behalf of his son. Can you provide sources for the assertion the he was ever "officially designated" Michael II? He never acted as Tsar, and never formally accepted the throne, only informally. john k 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas's behaviour in abdicating directly in favour of his son was questionable. My understanding is that the second abdication was not being done by him as Tsar but effectively as guardian and regent for his son. But it is a legal mess and happening so fast that, as sometimes does happen, people play hard and loose with the law. As to the designation with an ordinal, that never happens immediately. It usually requires some form of constitutional process (in the UK an Accession Council). But in its absence one still is monarch. All documents I have ever seen say that his regnal name was Michael II. And yes he did act as Tsar. He issued a conditional renounciation on the advice of the Government. He signed that by his regnal name, Michael, minus an ordinal.

Wrong!! By the 1906 constitution, Alexei was heir to the throne, so why didn't Alexei automatically become Alexei II? Yes his father had abdicated for him but technically illegal. Michael had no claim, no authority, and no right to be emperor. Sorry, but the idea of him as Michael II is just a myth, and yet another reason for questionable validity of wikipedia.

The key facts that indicate his status were

  • The renounciation was partial. You can't be half a monarch. If he didn't renounce it unconditionally then he accepted it conditionally, meaning that he was monarch but reserving the right to abdicate if certain conditions were not met subsequently.
  • A grand duke isn't advised by the Government much less bound by advice. He formally took advice and did what that advice said. That indicates that both they and he believed that he had the status requiring formal constitutional processes, namely that he was a monarch.
  • The language of the renounciation is unambiguously that of a monarch to his people, not a grand duke. Royalty follow strict codes in terms of language. Monarchs structures messages to the people in a way which is not replicated by other royalty. Michael's message was unambiguously monarchical in language and tone.
  • His signed the renounciation not as a grand duke but in standard monarchical form. All that was missing was an ordinal, and that would be formally used (though it would exist) until the formal accession body was assembled to be told the new monarch's regnal name and ordinal. (It was widely expected, for example, that the current British queen was going to be called Mary III. They were very surprised when she chose Elizabeth II.)

It is all a minor point given that whatever about reigning he never ruled. But looking at documents I have no doubt but that legally he believed he was a monarch, the Prime Minister believed he was a monarch, the Attorney-General believed he was a monarch, and the ex-Tsar believed Michael was a monarch. Even if it was for only about 14 hours Michael technically on the basis of the evidence was a monarch. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with the current text, but I'd still like to see some sources which say what you are saying. Beyond that, I don't think that the case is really all that different from that of the ostensible Louis XIX and Henry V, as I mentioned when we discussed this topic before. It is quite evident that the Dauphin believed himself to be King for the half hour between his father's abdication and his own, and that, presumably, whatever ministers and so forth were present believed the same. The same can be said of the Duke of Bordeaux after his uncle's abdication. The previously existing governmental authorities recognized them both as proper sovereigns. The question of whether Henry V was king was not conclusively settled, in fact, for several days, until the Duke of Orleans proclaimed himself king. We need to be careful about asserting questionable legal theories unless we can find secondary sources to support them. john k 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how there is much questionable about it. Nicholas abdicated in favour of Michael. Michael issued a partial renounciation on the advice of the Government (the fact that it was partial not full, and that it was on the advice of the government, unambiguously indicates his status at the time). Events overtake him and the monarchy is swept away. I deliberately haven't added in my own analysis on whether, for example, Nicholas was acting as Tsar or regent in abdicating in his son's name (though the fact that he gives the excuse that he wasn't to keep his son near him suggests the former, as does the fact that the new abdication was declared to be at the same timing as the earlier one; i.e., one replaced the other. But other things suggest the latter. It is a hard one to call). I have also not mentioned issues to do with accession councils, ordinal usage, monarchical language, etc because that would be straying into OR (or rather, noticing points that some books, while reaching the same conclusions, missed. It is so frustrating reading a book where the author goes into convoluted theories and you want to scream at him "hold on a friggin' moment. You don't have to go there. Just look at x. It is staring you in the face!"). Unfortunately, like most footnotes, Michael doesn't get the sort of coverage needed and where he is mentioned at all, it is usually because of his love life, so constitutional analysis is missing.
The difference between Henri V and this guy is that Henri was replaced by another monarch who formed a government. This guy is different. He inherited a throne that effectively turned to sand in his hands and it, not just he as with Henri V, was swept away. So whereas the issue for Henri V was merely the continuation of a branch of the Royal Family on the throne, rather than their replacement by another branch, in Michael's case it is perhaps more fundamental: an entire system, and not just a branch of the Royal Family, was being swept away. He was Nicholas's last roll of the dice. Did Michael mishandle it? If he had done differently how differently would history have turned out? Did Kerensky make the right judgment call? etc etc.
Revolutions are rather hard to categorise in terms of procedure. All we can say here is that Nicholas abdicated the throne to Michael. Michael the next day issued a conditional renunciation, on government advice (something that would only be done by a monarch), history overtook them. The end. (Literally) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Duke of Orleans did not become "King of France and Navarre" - that title, and the old French monarchy, were swept away. The Duke of Orleans got a new title, "King of the French" and ruled over a monarchy based on entirely different principles. There was a new flag, and so forth. The old monarchy was swept away, and permanently. At any rate, the description of Michael's role that you provide in this post seems perfectly fine. But the position that he actually was Emperor seems questionable. And the idea that because he took "government advice" (which was, as I understand it, mostly actually the advice of various Duma members, particularly Rodzianko, and not advice of the previously existing government) does not necessarily imply anything, especially given the unclear situation. Michael talked to a bunch of Duma members and decided to conditionally renounce the throne. Whether the advice they gave him was formal advice, in the way that Mr. Blair provides advice for Her Majesty today, seems open to question, especially since, well, they weren't formally the government at all, just a bunch of Duma members. Anyway, as I said, the article itself is mostly okay. john k 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrand_Duke_Michael_Alexandrovich_of_Russia_eb9d.html"