0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who was the last Czar of Russia?
Nicholas II (executed by the communists in 1918)Though it is commonly believed that Nikolas II was the last czar of Russia, that information MAY be incorrect. Nikolas II abdicated his throne in 1917. Because he was not assassinated or overthrown the throne should have gone to his son Alexei, the rightful heir. But, Nikolas abdicated for his son, "although there is a question about whether he had the legal right to do this well."Grand Duke Michael Romanov had lost the right to become czar when he was married without the consent of Czar Nikolas II, but Nikolas abdicated in his favor. Michael realized the throne would never be safe unless the people wanted a monarchy. A few hours after Nikolas and Alexei's abdication, Michael signed a manifesto explaining that he would only become czar if through an election at the Constituent Assembly the people agreed to a monarchy. This election never occurred and so Michael refused to be czar. So since Nikolas II did indeed legally abdicate his throne, he certainly isn't the last czar. The question is whether Alexei really was the last czar or if Michael II truly was the last czar of Russia.Actual Fact:Even if Nicholas II had legally abdicated the throne, he remains the last Czar of Russia, because no one else was crowned or acted as Czar. Nicholas II was indeed the last Tsar for exactly the reasons stated above. The answer states that Mikhail refused to become Czar, so how could he be considered the last Czar?The Russian Law of Succession stated that the throne was not the Emperor's personal property to do with as he pleased. Title descended automatically to the eldest son. The Grand Duke Michael was not the eldest son and to complicate things more, he had disqualified himself from being Tsar by marrying a commoner. Since Mikhail refused to accept the appointment, was never crowned Czar (or Emperor) and never acted as Czar, he cannot be considered the last Czar. In fact, the abdication to Mikhail was illegal and of no effect. Similarly for Alexei, the abdication was not to him, but even if it had been to him, he was never crowned Czar and never acted as Czar.It is also arguable that Nicholas II's voluntary abdication of his position was in and of itself illegal and of no effect. Thus, it can be looked at as Nicholas II abdicating the right to rule the country but that he was still the Tsar until his death. The question of the legality of the abdication was serious enough to suggest that Nicholas II might be restored to the throne at some time in the future, had he lived and political conditions changed. One thing is fairly certain. Had the monarchist forces succeeded in overthrowing the new Bolshevik regime, they would certainly have put Nicholas II back on the throne, rather than Mikhail or Alexei.If Mikhail or Alexei were the true last Czars of Russia, one of them would have had to be restored to the throne, not Nicholas II.
Why was czar nicholas ll not a great czar?
Nicolas was a bad tsar because he wasn't in tune with the citizens of russia. He didn't know what they wanted and when he "discovered" they needed something, he would put it through the Duma which took a very long time. He also sent the Russian Army into a war with Japan which failed and resulted in the lost in alot of Russian army members.
Was Russia a democracy before Lenin?
Russia was a monarchy run by Czar Nicholas II until he abdicated the throne in March 1917. Then it was ruled by a government of ministers called the Provisional Government until the Communist takeover in October 1917.
Who overthrew Czar Nicholas II and took control on Russia?
Lenin-Apex
What were Tsar Nicholas II's mistakes?
He took control of the army, and therefore causing the defeats to be blamed on him.He put too much trust in Rasputin and his wife Alexei, who the people thought were German spies.
What czar and his family were put in prison then executed when the Russian workers revolted?
Czar Nicholas II and his wife and children
Who was the last Czar of Russia?
Nicholas II (executed by the communists in 1918)Though it is commonly believed that Nikolas II was the last czar of Russia, that information MAY be incorrect. Nikolas II abdicated his throne in 1917. Because he was not assassinated or overthrown the throne should have gone to his son Alexei, the rightful heir. But, Nikolas abdicated for his son, "although there is a question about whether he had the legal right to do this well."Grand Duke Michael Romanov had lost the right to become czar when he was married without the consent of Czar Nikolas II, but Nikolas abdicated in his favor. Michael realized the throne would never be safe unless the people wanted a monarchy. A few hours after Nikolas and Alexei's abdication, Michael signed a manifesto explaining that he would only become czar if through an election at the Constituent Assembly the people agreed to a monarchy. This election never occurred and so Michael refused to be czar. So since Nikolas II did indeed legally abdicate his throne, he certainly isn't the last czar. The question is whether Alexei really was the last czar or if Michael II truly was the last czar of Russia.Actual Fact:Even if Nicholas II had legally abdicated the throne, he remains the last Czar of Russia, because no one else was crowned or acted as Czar. Nicholas II was indeed the last Tsar for exactly the reasons stated above. The answer states that Mikhail refused to become Czar, so how could he be considered the last Czar?The Russian Law of Succession stated that the throne was not the Emperor's personal property to do with as he pleased. Title descended automatically to the eldest son. The Grand Duke Michael was not the eldest son and to complicate things more, he had disqualified himself from being Tsar by marrying a commoner. Since Mikhail refused to accept the appointment, was never crowned Czar (or Emperor) and never acted as Czar, he cannot be considered the last Czar. In fact, the abdication to Mikhail was illegal and of no effect. Similarly for Alexei, the abdication was not to him, but even if it had been to him, he was never crowned Czar and never acted as Czar.It is also arguable that Nicholas II's voluntary abdication of his position was in and of itself illegal and of no effect. Thus, it can be looked at as Nicholas II abdicating the right to rule the country but that he was still the Tsar until his death. The question of the legality of the abdication was serious enough to suggest that Nicholas II might be restored to the throne at some time in the future, had he lived and political conditions changed. One thing is fairly certain. Had the monarchist forces succeeded in overthrowing the new Bolshevik regime, they would certainly have put Nicholas II back on the throne, rather than Mikhail or Alexei.If Mikhail or Alexei were the true last Czars of Russia, one of them would have had to be restored to the throne, not Nicholas II.
Why was czar nicholas ll not a great czar?
Nicolas was a bad tsar because he wasn't in tune with the citizens of russia. He didn't know what they wanted and when he "discovered" they needed something, he would put it through the Duma which took a very long time. He also sent the Russian Army into a war with Japan which failed and resulted in the lost in alot of Russian army members.
How long did Lenin rule Russia?
The Czar rule in Russia lasted nearly 300 years. The first Czar was put into power in 1613 and the last Russian Czar ended his reign in 1917.
Who was the ruler before Nicholas II in Russia?
The first Russian Czar was Ivan IV but people called him Ivan the Terrible because he was a cruel man who put Russia in war during his 37 years of ruling. The second Russian Czar was Peter the Great and he was known for his passion and determination because he was intellegent and he built the city St. Petersburg which is now a big city in Russia. The third Russian Czar was Catherine the Great and she was also a kind ruler. She took control of Russia in 1762 and ruled until her death in 1796. The fourth Russian Czar was Alexander II and in 1861, he decided to end serfdom in Russia. (serfs were poor people with no land or money of their own) Finally, Nicholas II was the fifth ruler of Russia.
What czar of Russia who gave up the throne in march 1917 and was executed by the revolutionaries in July 1918?
Czar Nicholas II abdicated his throne in the March Revolution of 1917. Several unfortunate decisions had made him a very unpopular monarch who had no support from any faction in Russia. A liberal democratic provisional government was put in place upon his abdication. Exiled Bolsheviks returned to Russia, successfully ousting the liberal democratic provisional government. Following their success, the Czar and his entire family were executed.
Was Russia a democracy before Lenin?
Russia was a monarchy run by Czar Nicholas II until he abdicated the throne in March 1917. Then it was ruled by a government of ministers called the Provisional Government until the Communist takeover in October 1917.
What did st nicholas put in his daughters stockings?
Saint Nicholas put one bag of gold coins into each of the sister's stockings
What is the controversy about the last Czar of Russia?
Though it is commonly believed that Nikolas II was the last czar of Russia, that information MAY be incorrect.Nikolas II abdicated his throne in 1917. Because he was not assassinated or overthrown the throne should have gone to his son Alexei, the rightful heir. But, Nikolas abdicated for his son, "although there is a question about whether he had the legal right to do this well."Grand Duke Michael Romanov had lost the right to become czar when he was married without the consent of Czar Nikolas II, but Nikolas abdicated in his favor. Michael realized the throne would never be safe unless the people wanted a monarchy. A few hours after Nikolas and Alexei's abdication, Michael signed a manifesto explaining that he would only become czar if through an election at the Constituent Assembly the people agreed to a monarchy. This election never occurred and so Michael refused to be czar.So since Nikolas II did indeed legally abdicate his throne, he certainly isn't the last czar. The question is whether Alexei really was the last czar or if Michael II truly was the last czar of Russia.Actual Fact:Even if Nicholas II had legally abdicated the throne, he remains the last Czar of Russia, because no one else was crowned or acted as Czar.Nicholas II was indeed the last Tsar for exactly the reasons stated above. The answer states that Mikhail refused to become Czar, so how could he be considered the last Czar?The Russian Law of Succession stated that the throne was not the Emperor's personal property to do with as he pleased. Title descended automatically to the eldest son. The Grand Duke Michael was not the eldest son and to complicate things more, he had disqualified himself from being Tsar by marrying a commoner. Since Mikhail refused to accept the appointment, was never crowned Czar (or Emperor) and never acted as Czar, he cannot be considered the last Czar. In fact, the abdication to Mikhail was illegal and of no effect.Similarly for Alexei, the abdication was not to him, but even if it had been to him, he was never crowned Czar and never acted as Czar.It is also arguable that Nicholas II's voluntary abdication of his position was in and of itself illegal and of no effect. Thus, it can be looked at as Nicholas II abdicating the right to rule the country but that he was still the Tsar until his death.The question of the legality of the abdication was serious enough to suggest that Nicholas II might be restored to the throne at some time in the future, had he lived and political conditions changed. One thing is fairly certain. Had the monarchist forces succeeded in overthrowing the new Bolshevik regime, they would certainly have put Nicholas II back on the throne, rather than Mikhail or Alexei.If Mikhail or Alexei were the true last Czars of Russia, one of them would have had to be restored to the throne, not Nicholas II.
Who put down the Decembrist Revolt?
Nicholas I
What scientist was put on house arrest?
Nicholas Copernicus.
Who did Charlemagne put in charge of education?
Alcuin was put in charge of education.
