Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
DixieDivision1418
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Aug 2019 17:13
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by DixieDivision1418 » 29 Jul 2020 21:59

In discussion, I've found out a Regency Council is more likely than Grand Duke Michael becoming sole regent. Michael was quite unpopular with the nobility, and a Council makes sure everyone has a stake in the government. Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich is a likely choice for chairman, and Alexander Mikhailovich, Michael Alexandrovich, Tsarina Alexandra, and the Metropolitan of Petrograd are also likely. Politicians along the lines of Prime Minister Boris Stürmer, Mikhail Rodzianko, and Aleksei Bobrinsky seem likely as well.

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 00:08
Location: Texas

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by James A Pratt III » 31 Jul 2020 22:00

Sorry Dixie my article "Air defense for the Tsar" in OTF will be out in a year or so. I will post the issue number here when ever I find out about it. lets just say the Austrian and Russian accounts differ somewhat.

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 00:08
Location: Texas

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by James A Pratt III » 31 Jul 2020 22:16

I have some comments on regents ect:

Alexandra is out she is just too unpopular. She would probably sent off to a convent or some other remote spot by the others.
Rasputin will probably be hung or jailed or exiled Note neither Alexandra or Rasputin really had that much power over Nicholas who routinely ignored their advise.

as for the daughters they are just too young to play a political role ect here they are and years of birth:
Olga 1895 intelligent but not much of a leader
Tatania 1897 a gifted young woman, the leader of the sisters but I don't see her as a regent at this time
Maria 1899 pretty and friendly too young and not too smart
Anastasia 1901 the wild child way too young

see the book "The Romanov Sisters" by Helen Rappenport which is a audio book on youtube. There is also on youtube the documentery "Russia's Lost Princesses".
Helen Azar has a number of books on them
and the OTMA videos

User avatar
DixieDivision1418
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Aug 2019 17:13
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by DixieDivision1418 » 01 Aug 2020 21:40

James A Pratt III wrote:
31 Jul 2020 22:16
I have some comments on regents ect:

Alexandra is out she is just too unpopular. She would probably sent off to a convent or some other remote spot by the others.
Rasputin will probably be hung or jailed or exiled Note neither Alexandra or Rasputin really had that much power over Nicholas who routinely ignored their advise.

as for the daughters they are just too young to play a political role ect here they are and years of birth:
Olga 1895 intelligent but not much of a leader
Tatania 1897 a gifted young woman, the leader of the sisters but I don't see her as a regent at this time
Maria 1899 pretty and friendly too young and not too smart
Anastasia 1901 the wild child way too young

see the book "The Romanov Sisters" by Helen Rappenport which is a audio book on youtube. There is also on youtube the documentery "Russia's Lost Princesses".
Helen Azar has a number of books on them
and the OTMA videos
This is most of the reason I think a Regency Council is more likely, with someone like Nikolai Nikolaevich or Alexander Mikhailovich as first among equals. A council with several members allows you to make sure as many of the factions of the nobility and Duma to have a stake in the government.

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 01:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by The Ibis » 02 Aug 2020 02:15

Russia had a Constitution. There is no reason to suspect it would have been disregarded with the possible exception of what the Tsarina's role might have been, and even then, as I said, it would have been a mess if she wasn't given her designated role. Look up the Constitution of 1906 (might be easier to find it under Fundamental Laws of 1906) and read Article 3. Its all in there - regent, regency council, guardian, etc.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

User avatar
DixieDivision1418
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Aug 2019 17:13
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by DixieDivision1418 » 02 Aug 2020 09:04

The Ibis wrote:
02 Aug 2020 02:15
Russia had a Constitution. There is no reason to suspect it would have been disregarded with the possible exception of what the Tsarina's role might have been, and even then, as I said, it would have been a mess if she wasn't given her designated role. Look up the Constitution of 1906 (might be easier to find it under Fundamental Laws of 1906) and read Article 3. Its all in there - regent, regency council, guardian, etc.
I can't believe I'd completely forgotten that the Constitution would cover Regency issues, thank you for reminding me!

Could you please explain the meaning of Section 48 in Article 3: "The Council consists of six persons of the first two classes selected by the Regent, who will also appoint others as changes arise." Who are the classes referenced here?

Does anyone know of Nicholas having specified who would serve as Regent or Guardian in the event of his death? I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned, oddly.

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 01:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by The Ibis » 02 Aug 2020 16:46

DixieDivision1418 wrote:
02 Aug 2020 09:04
The Ibis wrote:
02 Aug 2020 02:15
Russia had a Constitution. There is no reason to suspect it would have been disregarded with the possible exception of what the Tsarina's role might have been, and even then, as I said, it would have been a mess if she wasn't given her designated role. Look up the Constitution of 1906 (might be easier to find it under Fundamental Laws of 1906) and read Article 3. Its all in there - regent, regency council, guardian, etc.
I can't believe I'd completely forgotten that the Constitution would cover Regency issues, thank you for reminding me!

Could you please explain the meaning of Section 48 in Article 3: "The Council consists of six persons of the first two classes selected by the Regent, who will also appoint others as changes arise." Who are the classes referenced here?

Does anyone know of Nicholas having specified who would serve as Regent or Guardian in the event of his death? I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned, oddly.
If I recall right, there were four estates established in an earlier version of the fundamental laws and I would assume the reference to the first two classes refers to nobility and clergy. But that's a guess.

I'm not sure Nicholas had designated anyone after he removed Michael from the regency before the war. He may have, but I just don't remember.
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 23:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by Jon Clarke » 02 Aug 2020 22:05

The Ibis wrote:I'm not sure Nicholas had designated anyone after he removed Michael from the regency before the war. He may have, but I just don't remember.
When Nicholas wrote the relevant manifesto in 1904 following the birth of Alexis, he actually laid down that that Alexandra & Michael would be co-Regents in the event of his dying before Alexis reached his 16th birthday in 1920 (when he could rule in his own right under Russian law). As the British ambassador pointed out to Sir Edward Grey in January 1913, the removal of Michael from the co-Regency without nominating anyone to replace him meant that "the Regency would, as I am informed, devolve by law on the Empress".

This appears to have remained the case until Nicholas's abdication(s) in 1917 & had Nicholas died in April 1916 as suggested, I am sure that Alexandra would have insisted on assuming the role as laid down under Russian law. Whilst Alexandra was undoubtedly unpopular, I am not convinced that the opposition was strong enough at that time to prevent this happening although I wouldn't like to speculate just how long her Regency would last in those circumstances.

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 01:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by The Ibis » 03 Aug 2020 01:27

Jon Clarke wrote:
02 Aug 2020 22:05
The Ibis wrote:I'm not sure Nicholas had designated anyone after he removed Michael from the regency before the war. He may have, but I just don't remember.
When Nicholas wrote the relevant manifesto in 1904 following the birth of Alexis, he actually laid down that that Alexandra & Michael would be co-Regents in the event of his dying before Alexis reached his 16th birthday in 1920 (when he could rule in his own right under Russian law). As the British ambassador pointed out to Sir Edward Grey in January 1913, the removal of Michael from the co-Regency without nominating anyone to replace him meant that "the Regency would, as I am informed, devolve by law on the Empress".

This appears to have remained the case until Nicholas's abdication(s) in 1917 & had Nicholas died in April 1916 as suggested, I am sure that Alexandra would have insisted on assuming the role as laid down under Russian law. Whilst Alexandra was undoubtedly unpopular, I am not convinced that the opposition was strong enough at that time to prevent this happening although I wouldn't like to speculate just how long her Regency would last in those circumstances.
Hi Jon. Great to see you post.

When Michael was removed, the condition laid down in 1904 was probably rendered invalid, and that was so, the Constitutional provision for appointing a regent would again apply. But I'm no expert in Russian constitutional law!
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

Jon Clarke
Member
Posts: 254
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 23:35
Location: Devon, UK

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by Jon Clarke » 03 Aug 2020 21:53

The Ibis wrote:When Michael was removed, the condition laid down in 1904 was probably rendered invalid, and that was so, the Constitutional provision for appointing a regent would again apply. But I'm no expert in Russian constitutional law!
Hi Jeff

As far as I am aware, the manifesto Nicholas issued on 30 December 1912 did not rescind the earlier manifesto but simply removed Michael from the regency. In any case, even if the earlier manifesto had been set aside, Alexandra's position as Regent would then have been in accordance with the Fundamental Laws of 1906 which stated that:

44. If no such appointment was made during the lifetime of the Emperor, upon His demise, the Regency of the State and the Guardianship of the Emperor who is under age, belong to the father and mother; but the step-father and step-mother are excluded.

The Fundamental Laws regarding a regency can be found at the following link:

http://www.imperialhouse.ru/en/dynastyh ... 1/443.html

Jon

The Ibis
Member
Posts: 377
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 01:06
Location: The interwebs

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by The Ibis » 04 Aug 2020 01:45

Jon Clarke wrote:
03 Aug 2020 21:53
The Ibis wrote:When Michael was removed, the condition laid down in 1904 was probably rendered invalid, and that was so, the Constitutional provision for appointing a regent would again apply. But I'm no expert in Russian constitutional law!
Hi Jeff

As far as I am aware, the manifesto Nicholas issued on 30 December 1912 did not rescind the earlier manifesto but simply removed Michael from the regency. In any case, even if the earlier manifesto had been set aside, Alexandra's position as Regent would then have been in accordance with the Fundamental Laws of 1906 which stated that:

44. If no such appointment was made during the lifetime of the Emperor, upon His demise, the Regency of the State and the Guardianship of the Emperor who is under age, belong to the father and mother; but the step-father and step-mother are excluded.

The Fundamental Laws regarding a regency can be found at the following link:

http://www.imperialhouse.ru/en/dynastyh ... 1/443.html

Jon
Hi Jon,
I assumed that the constitutional provision would be the default since the condition laid down in the manifesto was impossible. If 1916 Alternate History Russia was anything like 2020 United States (or 2000 United States Bush v Gore), the lawsuits would have come fast and furious. But I suspect litigation wouldn't have been the answer in the ATL!

Jeff
"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." - Casey Stengel

User avatar
DixieDivision1418
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Aug 2019 17:13
Location: Georgia, USA

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by DixieDivision1418 » 04 Aug 2020 01:50

While I think Alix would become Regent to begin with, it's worth noting she was widely distrusted and unpopular with the Duma and the general populace. I half-expect her to put Rasputin on the Council. She may be in power a few months, but the politicians will likely find some way to remove her from her position. It's drastic, but I could honestly see the Duma declaring her temporarily insane just to get her removed. I'm not sure if they'll just ignore Mikhail's removal from the Regency, or try Kirill.

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 00:08
Location: Texas

Re: Tsar Nicholas II and Brusilov killed in April 1916?

Post by James A Pratt III » 25 Sep 2020 22:35

Second thoughts department who ever becomes regent of Russia if Nicholas is killed in April 1916 is going to have one extremely difficult job. The Empire is in meltdown mode and I don't think any of the Romanovs as regent can save the country. As for the Duma leaders who ruled Russia after the Feb/Mar 1917 Revolution they did a really awful job in fact they let the country fall into chaos. I also don't think any Romanov could reach a deal with the Duma who by 1915 are so radicalized that any sort of compromise may be impossible.

The ministers in power in Russia at this time include a number of good ones:
\Navy IK Grigorvich reguarded as good even though the fleet had a problem even before 1917 with mutiny and unrest. He was held over and worked for the Provisional government for awhile.
Education: PN Igaliev is reguarded as one of the best Russian education ministers
Transport: AF Trepov reguarded as good was later made Prime Minister (Note he built the Murmansk railway WW Is death railway)
Justice: AA Khvostov has been called "smart" and "honest" (problem he was uncle to AN Khvostov recently fired as interior minister who was anything but smart and honest.)
Foreign SD Sazonov reguarded as competent

Out of power the forme Agriculural minister AV Krivoshein who is sometimes reguarded as a very good minster and was the behind the scenes Prime Minister 1914-15
AA Polivanov the recently fired war minster may not have been as great as some sources say

Return to “What if”