|
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] (http://worldstatesmen.org/Russia.htm) and [2] (http://rulers.org/rulqr.html#russia), 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)
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)
|
