|
(Continued from page 34)
XXII. Resurrected Monarchy?
History has recorded that Tsar Nicholas II made the decision to abdicate on behalf of his son Alexei and hand the throne to his brother Michael several hours AFTER he had signed his own abdication. As I mentioned during the earlier discussion about which was Lenin's most valuable hostage, careful scrutiny of the Tsar's final act as monarch raises a couple of interesting questions about the legal status of Russia's throne.
Was the former monarch, in fact, in a legal position to make a decision about his son's claim to the throne? If, by abdicating, Nicholas had already surrendered that right then was the action taken on his son's behalf legally sound? Alexei was well aware of this technicality so his father must have been aware of it too! In the second abdication document bearing his signature Nicholas did not actually say that he was abdicating on his son's behalf. Remember that what he did say was, "Not wishing to part with our dear son, we transfer our legacy to our brother". Could this wording have placed Alexei in a position to renew his claim to the throne at a later date?
Taking these two questions into account, what is the current legal status of the Russian throne and the Romanov family's claim to it now that it appears Alexei survived and has living heirs of his own? Did knowledge of these legal technicalities influence the Tsar's actions on that day in March of 1917?
Now that it appears that the Romanov double eagle may be about to rise again like the phoenix from the ashes and the Soviet government that replaced the Russian crown has failed, is it beyond the realm of possibility for the troubled Kremlin government to consider a British style constitutional monarchy? After killing off a king to form a new revolutionary government that failed, royalty was returned to England when Oliver Cromwell passed into history. If it worked for England... might it also work for Russia?
|
|
