Talk:Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale
Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 19, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is quite an exercise in speculative history. RodC 23:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of the valuable research I have done into the Imperial house of Romanov, it seems fitting that I should add a possible hitch in the history of the Imperial family. As I'm sure you are all aware, the Tsar renounced his throne for himself in one document and for his son in another. However, as the Tsar had already abdicated in the first document, prior to the second document, it brings me to the conclusion that the Tsar's right to relinquish his son's claim was totally and utterly illegal. Having abdicated formally himself, it meant that the Tsar was now the former Tsar and that his son was now the Tsar. Bringing the situation closer to home I will use the example of the Queen. If the Queen abdicates tomorrow, her son Prince Charles will succeeded automatically and should the Queen wish to relinquish his right in the near future, she would not be able to and any attempt to do it will be ignored as she would then have nothing to do with the affairs of state. The same is indeed true in the case of Alexei. Unofficially, Alexei was the Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russia's and more arguably the Tsarevich was Tsar until his death in 1918. Therefore, Michael II was never legally Tsar in the slightest sense of the word. Huw 23:06, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

According to one of Russia's laws of succession, I don't think Nicholas had the right to abdicate in favor of Alexei in the first place. Nicholas could not abdicate on behalf of his son at rate, regardless of whether there are two documents. However, on one hand, it was probably better for Nicholas to have abdicated for Alexei, there's no telling what might have happened to the boy, as his parents would have been forced to leave him behind if/when they went into exile. Morhange 01:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The order of succession

The following passage seems very strange:

The significance of Alexei is threefold. Firstly, Alexei was the heir to the throne despite being the fifth and last child of Nicholas II and Alexandra. Women had been barred from the succession by Paul I (1754-1801, ruled 1796-1801), in revenge upon his mother, Catherine II ('the Great').

What was the problem for an heir of being the last child but the only male? No Royal house of that time had a succession law according to which an elder sister could ever succeed before her younger brother. The first law of this kind was AFAIK promulgated in Sweden in the 1980s. Even the houses where the daughters of an elder brother were eligible before the sons of a younger brother -- as in Great Britain -- always preferred, between the children of the same person, the male to the female.

And "Women had been barred from the succession" is also a wrong statement. Russia had a normal Semi-Salic law that perfectly enabled female to succeed if all the direct male lines are extinct. The same law was used at this time, for example, in Austria. Paul I introduced it certainly because his mother had usurped the crown from him. But the fact was not only she was female, but a consort empress who was not a descendant of any Russian monarch. Paul was to bar any possibility of such an usurpation, and certainly not an eventual father-to-daughter transition of the Crown; on the contrary, the conditions of such a transition and the status of a possible prince consort, etc., are thoroughly described in Russian Imperial Laws.

Mitrius 24 Jul 2005


Catherine was a descendant of a bunch of earlier Russian monarchs, those who ruled in Kievan Rus. She certainly had Slavonic, and Russian, blood in her ancestry. Arrigo 00:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Tsesarevitch Alexei?

I'm not sure--the title Tsarevitch had gone out of use in the 1700s, and Alexei would have been known as Naslednik Tsesarevitch Alexei, or, The Heir Tsesarevitch, but not Tsarevitch. Google defines Tsesarevich as: "literally, "son of the tsesar") is the term for a male heir apparent, the full title was Heir Tsesarevich ("Naslednik Tsesarevich"), informally abbreviated in Russia to The Heir, 'Naslednik'"

So should this be moved, or stay here? Morhange 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Article shouldn't be moved, but the title of Alexey must be corrected. Tsesarevich (not tsarevich!) was his official title after all. (ouital77 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
Tsarevich is the most widely used title in English and is the correct spelling for this article. Just as his sisters' articles refer to them as "grand duchesses" instead of the more accurate translation "grand princess," Alexei's title must remain "Tsarevich" in his article. I have reverted your changes. --Bookworm857158367 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is just a wrong title. He was never styled like this in his lifetime (officially). Do whatever you want, but for the sake to precision and accuracy, you should indicate the basic difference between the two titles - "tsarevich" is an unofficial title for any male offspring of an emperor/tsar, while the "tsesarevich" is an official title for the Heir Apparent. So, if N. II would have had any other male children, every one of them would have been called (popularly, not officially) "tsarevich", while only Alexey, as the first-born son, could have been styled as "Tsesarevich". A few letters, but a world of difference. (ouital77 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
This is an English-language article; the only usage I've ever seen in English-language articles is "Tsarevich" or "Czarevich." If the longer, more precise Russian title is included, it should be in the body of the article, not the title, with most references continuing to be to "Tsarevich." It must remain as it is. --Bookworm857158367 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Tsesarevich is all too complex word, and unfamiliar, should be avoided. If other alternatives fail, Alexei should then be Alexei of Russia or Alexei Nicolaievich of Russia. Arrigo 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Stay here. Tsesarevich is not widely used, too complex and utterly unfamiliar, as Arrigo points out also. It is not a feasible option. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

can somone please add a explaination of why he was not canonized Zapacna 10:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

He was canonized. He, his parents and his sisters were all canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church as Passion-Bearers. Ikons of the family show the entire family as saints. I'm going to remove that sentence. Morhange 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsarevich Alexei of Russia

What happened to this disambig page? It was supposed to link to both this Alexei, and the Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich. Although this one is much more well-known, it was helpful to people who might have been looking for the other Alexei. Morhange 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm bad with the linky stuff, but the disambig page's history is here. -IvanP/(болтай) 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth date

Is the August 12 date correct? Russia is using the Julian Calendar, so this date might be wrong. Sandy June 05:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Russia is NOT using Juian Calendar. -- tasc wordsdeeds 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Russia was using the Julian calendar when Alexei was born (the changeover to Gregorian occurred when 31 January 1918 was followed by 14 February 1918, though parts of the country lagged behind. So the August 12 date was not correct; Alexei was born 30 July 1904 (OS) = 12 August 1904 (NS). - Nunh-huh 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

[edit] Claimants

I read in a British newspaper some years ago about a man in the Soviet Union who claimed he was Prince Alexai. Allegedly he had been writing letters to his Uncle George in England in perfect English that had been intercepted by the KGB and that he knew his way around the royal palace. His photos of him he had some resemblance to his father. When the royal family's bodies were exhumed and he was missing I wondered if this man might have been him. Does anyone know anymore to add to this webpage? I would be most interested!

[edit] Murdered vs Executed

A murder is an unflawful killing. When the order is signed by the government it is an execution. Executions can be unjust and inhumane also. You can of course claim that this execution was unlawful, but this is a POV.--Konstable 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Albeit with considerable reluctance, I must agree with the above. Kevin Nelson 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There is some question over whether the Ural Soviet was following the orders of Lenin or decided to kill the family on its own, which would put the legality of the killings in question. There's also the question of whether the government itself was a legal entity. At the time Russia was in a state of civil war, between various White Army forces and the Red Army. I have seen it referred to as execution, assassination, and murder. I am extremely reluctant to label the killing of a thirteen year old boy a legal execution when I don't think it was. A politically-motivated murder, yes. --Bookworm857158367 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status

The article has passed sections 3), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on sections 1), 2) and 4).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD

The assessment is as follows :

1) Written Quality - Well written but the quotes need more prominence as they run into the text.

2) Factually Accurate - Sergey Egornov, Alexei Poutziato, Joseph Veres and Vassili Filatov are all non-existent links. The imposters need to be separated from the "Death" section and put into their own separate section. Add a sentence pointing out the the futility of the imposters trying to impersonate Tsarevich Alexis, the monarchy was so discredited that even if the Royal family had survived, there was no support for the the restoration of a Tsar Alexis, see here for the reference

[1].

3) Coverage - the article is broad in coverage and stays focused on the topic.

4) Neutrality - Some of the language used to describe Alexis as a "naughty boy" , the half paragraph starting "At age seven,,,,,," betrays a gushing sentimentality. It needs to be re-written and the language toned down, don't use a direct quote, just indirectly describe his naughty behaviour. Tsarevich Alexis was not just a boy, he was the heir to the Autocratic Romanovs. The language needs to be more neutral.

5) Stability - Article is relatively stable though I see you have had acts of vandalism by unregistered ISP users. No major edit conflicts.

6) Photos - Good use of photos. Free public domain photos are used. No fair use photos.

Corrections, as specified above, must be carried out within seven days. Contact me when they have been carried out and I will re-assess.

Tovojolo 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows seven days for corrections to be carried out, I have been lenient, I have allowed eight days but I am dismayed to note that not one correction was done. Therefore, I have no alternative but to announce that the article has now been assessed as a Fail.

Tovojolo (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the suggestions above: while it would be perfectly reasonable to separate out the pretenders, it's silly to state that their impostures were "futile" because there was no movement to restore the monarchy: that assessment makes the mistake of overlooking the other motivations for their impersonations of Alexei. - Nunh-huh 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)