Talk:Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich 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.

	Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
More information about this article... A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Biography WikiProject.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

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 1 The order of succession 2 Move to Tsesarevitch Alexei? 3 Tsarevich Alexei of Russia 4 Birth date 5 Claimants 6 Murdered vs Executed

[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)

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 ^words_deeds 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)