Regarding the abdication of the Throne of the reigning Emperor, it is customary to express doubts about its very possibility - in view of the fact that it is not provided for by law. But before the abdication of Constantine, the law did not say anything about the renunciation of the rights to the Throne in general. The point here, apparently, is in the traditional private law view on the issue of renunciation. The fact that the ownership of the inheritance can be abandoned - it seemed too natural to stipulate it specifically.
The concepts relating to the relationship to the Throne, being passed through the private legal atmosphere of the Middle Ages, were so saturated with its spirit that even in the context of developed state law they often remained some kind of untouched oasis, a reserve of private legal relics, and this was habitually perceived as the norm. This is reflected even in the terminology. The attitude to the Throne is defined precisely as a right, and right and duty are diametrically opposed concepts.
But if we look at the correlation of rights and duties from the state point of view and recall the “monarchical setting of rights based on duties”, which L.A. Tikhomirov wrote about, then we will see that the right to the Throne directly follows from the obligation to occupy it.
The concept of “renunciation” itself has a private legal content. This term defines a unilateral act of renunciation of owned possession. In order to give it legal force in public law, it is "turned into law", i.e. by an additional act they give it a public legal status.
A typical manifestation of private law consciousness was the reaction of Tsesarevich Konstantin to the oath taken to him. They say, before taking the oath, it was necessary to ask my consent. And it is very difficult to object to this from the point of view of public law. It is indeed impossible to force someone to reign without consent to it.
Public law is compelled to recognize the unwillingness to reign as a sufficient reason for exemption from such a duty and to give it legal force by its own means. So the concepts formed by the strong influence of private law views are mastered in the context of public law. An interesting example This is precisely what Art. 37 and 38 of our laws. We do not know if this issue was addressed in the laws of other monarchies, but it is obvious that most of them leave it in its original untouched form.
In the fact that the possibility of renunciation was not initially provided for by law, in addition to the remnants of private legal consciousness, one can also find its own public legal logic. The law establishes an obligation, but not a means of avoiding it. He seems to be waiting for an appropriate incident in order to react to it, but he himself does not model such a “negative” situation in advance.
Similarly, the abdication of the Emperor from the Throne, if it had taken place under normal conditions, might then have been reflected in the law. But, most likely, it would be considered that those articles that already exist are sufficient. Although they are talking about the renunciation not of the Throne, but of the rights to it, but they occupy the Throne also on the basis of the existing right. Thus, the concept of renunciation of the rights to the Throne includes the renunciation of himself, and the second can be considered as special case first.
The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II can indeed not be recognized as valid. And the reason for this is that it was not made into law. Registration and publication of it by the "reformed Senate" are related only to the "Russian Republic", but not the slightest to the laws of the Russian Empire. In the light of the latter, the abdication of the Emperor could be turned into law only by the supreme power, namely, by the person next in line of succession, who would occupy the vacant Throne - in direct analogy with the abdication of Tsarevich Konstantin.
The analogy here is, of course, not complete. In one case, the reigning monarch abdicates, in the other - the person who directly received the right to inherit, but in no case "Emperor Constantine I". But both renunciations can be turned into law only in one, completely identical way - by a manifesto on the accession to the Throne of the person next in line of succession.
The question may arise: why the Sovereign, as the possessor of supreme power, could not himself turn his will into law? Yes, because here his will would come into conflict with his duty. To release oneself from one's own duty, and at the same time by means of the powers that follow from this same duty, would be the height of legal absurdity.
The reigning Emperor, as the owner of a direct right to the Throne, if he wants to renounce it, has to act on common, so to speak, grounds with potential holders of this right, according to the prescriptions of Art. 37 and 38, leaving the conversion of his will into law to his successor. This ensures one of the most important properties of the supreme power - its continuity. Abdication of the Sovereign from the Throne becomes possible only if there is a successor.
In addition, this is how the condition-restriction of Art. 37 ( “when there is no difficulty in further succession to the Throne”), which in other cases might seem like a legal fiction. Thus, in the absence of a successor, the abdication of the Emperor from the Throne cannot legally take place. That is, if the Sovereign refuses to reign, then it is, of course, impossible to force him to do so. But by virtue of the principle of public law, his reign will continue dejure until his legitimate successor assumes the Throne and turns the abdication of his predecessor into law.
As you know, Emperor Nicholas II handed over the Throne to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. On this occasion, it is quite rightly noted that he had no right to bypass his son in the succession line. Mikhail could take power only as a ruler under the minor Emperor Alexei Nikolaevich. But for the convenience of reasoning, let us assume that Michael would be the next in line of succession after the Sovereign. Let us admit such a legal fiction, especially since all the participants in those events unanimously admitted it.
So, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich did not accept the Throne, but he did not renounce it either. He agreed to accept the crown only on one condition: “if such is the will of our people, who should by popular vote, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, establish the form of government and the new Basic Laws of the Russian State”. It follows from this that he did not agree to accept the Throne in other ways. Including according to the laws of the Russian Empire - "by the very law of heritage".
Here it is appropriate to recall that the Constituent Assembly is nothing but an organ of democracy, i.e. supreme power of the people. His idea is that all power belongs to the people, who, in the person of their representatives, establish government bodies and makes laws. Under an autocratic monarchy, all this is done by the possessor of supreme power himself - the monarch, and under the autocracy of the people, democracy, the people elect special representatives for this purpose.
The idea that the Constituent Assembly could establish an autocratic monarchy is prenaive. This is, perhaps, the only thing that it could not establish, because. itself is an accessory of a fundamentally different state system, and can only act within its framework. In addition, there was no need to establish an autocratic monarchy. It was already established a long time ago. The only thing the Dynasty could count on under the “new system” was the establishment of the so-called. constitutional monarchy, i.e. preservation of the institution of the monarchy (the position of the monarch) within the framework of parliamentary democracy.
The compilers of the text signed by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich (V.D. Nabokov and Baron B.E. Nolde) also mentioned the “new basic laws” that the proposed assembly was to establish as something taken for granted. Of course, the "old" laws, based on the autocratic power of the monarch, were completely unsuitable for the "new Russia". All this has to do with the laws of the Russian Empire in only one point: according to these laws, Michael refused to accept the Throne.
The Swedish republican and expert on the Russian monarchy, St. Scott, wrote on this occasion that if Mikhail had abdicated unconditionally, then he would have ceded the right to the throne to the next in line of succession - Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich. But with his conditional refusal-consent, Mikhail allegedly “knocked the crown out from under the feet” of Cyril. Leaving aside the question of the whereabouts of the crown in the view of the Republicans, we note only that by his refusal to accept the Throne by law, Michael, in the light of the same law, presented the crown to Cyril on a velvet pillow with gold tassels. It only remained to give it a legal status.
This, as you know, was not done. Kirill Vladimirovich, along with other adult Members of the Imperial House, signed a statement (composed by Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich), which contained the following words: “Regarding our rights, and in particular mine, to the throne, I, ardently loving my Motherland, fully subscribe to those thoughts that are expressed in the act of renunciation of Vel. Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich".
Of course, the statement of adherence to thoughts deserves the same legal qualification as the thoughts themselves, but this was not turned into law, and there was no one to do it.
At a superficial glance, the motives for the actions of the Members of the Imperial House can be explained by the desire to preserve the monarchy and the Dynasty in the new "legal field", in the scope of the "new fundamental laws" - especially since Mikhail's statement says this in plain text. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but this problem is already beyond the scope of our “old” Fundamental Laws, and goes beyond the scope of the topic under consideration.
If we turn to the legal norms of the Russian Empire, then first of all we will see a number of renunciations, but all of them will be legally void. The next thing that cannot be overlooked is the deep loyalty of the Members of the Dynasty to the rights of their predecessors in the line of succession. None of them considered themselves entitled to deprive the elders in line, incl. Emperor Nicholas II himself, the opportunity to take back his renunciations in circumstances that could change for the better.
To Republicans who believe that members of the reigning families are only engaged in knocking the crown out from under each other's feet, such an approach may seem unrealistic. But in the history of our monarchy, there is a case when two brothers - Konstantin and Nikolai Pavlovichi - ceded the Throne to each other for 20 days.
Be that as it may, not one of the 1917 abdications was made into law; all of them remained legally null and void, and the reign of Emperor Nicholas II continued dejure until his death.
The Supreme Act, which put an end to revolutionary turmoil, if not in all of Russia, then at least in the legal consciousness of the remnant of the faithful (in the scope of the Fundamental Laws on the succession to the Throne), was the manifesto of 1924, in which Sovereign Kirill Vladimirovich announced the assumption of rights belonging to him by law and the title of Emperor of All Russia. Not a single word was mentioned in this document about the abdication of Nicholas II. And this is understandable: legally, renunciation did not exist, and there was no point in converting it into law posthumously.
The only motive for issuing the Manifesto is the final conviction that Nicholas II and those following him in line of succession to the Throne, Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, are no longer alive. It follows from this that the reign of Kirill Vladimirovich began, according to the law, “from the day of the death of his predecessor” (Article 53).
This article, introduced by Emperor Nicholas I, is even more substantiated by his personal experience than even the articles about renunciation. Concessions to each other of the crown between him and Tsarevich Konstantin lasted a little less than a month, but in the manifesto of December 12, 1825, Nicholas I names November 19 as the day of accession to the Throne - the day of the death of his predecessor, Alexander I.
During the Great Troubles of the 20th century, the “hitch” with the succession to the throne lasted a little longer. The apparent reason for this, named in the manifesto of 1924, has already been mentioned. But in order to properly understand the relationship between their rights and obligations, it also took time.
Emperor Cyril realized his rights completely in the spirit of the laws of the Empire. Not only as a right, but also as a duty. He himself said it best of all: “I will only say that, according to the law, I am the All-Russian Emperor and that I am aware of my duty. I know that the time will come when Russia will need a legitimate Tsar. I demand from everyone that they fulfill their duty in relation to the Motherland, and therefore I am the first to do this.
The circle of persons entitled to inherit the Russian Throne is not limited to Russian subjects. The dynasties of Europe are full of descendants of the female faces of the House of Romanov, who have their place in the line of succession. But they could hardly be of any use in the course of the events described. But even with the male members of the Dynasty, things are not so simple. In addition to Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, there were several other minors among them. They could not renounce their rights because of their legal incapacity, and their parents and guardians not only could not dispose of their rights, but were also obliged to protect them.
“The Conversation of the Sovereign Emperor with an English Correspondent” is placed in the collection “Russian Foreign Congress. 1926 Paris. Documents and materials”, M. “Russian way”, 2006, pp. 265-271.
The book is an issue number 6 of the series "Research in Recent Russian History" edited by A. Solzhenitsyn. The preface to the document states that “a prominent representative of the major press organs, Mr. Steinthal” spoke with the Sovereign, the conversation “is published in many newspapers in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and America.”
- abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II. Over the 100-year period that has passed since February 1917, many memoirs and studies on this topic have been published.
Unfortunately, often a deep analysis was replaced by very categorical assessments based on the emotional perception of those ancient events. In particular, it is widely believed that the act of renunciation itself did not comply with the laws of the Russian Empire in force at the time of its signing and was generally made under serious pressure. Obviously, it is necessary to consider the question of the legality or illegality of the abdication of Nicholas II.
It cannot be categorically stated that the act of renunciation is a consequence of violence, deceit and other forms of coercion against Nicholas II.
“The act of renunciation, as is clear from the circumstances of the signing… was not a free expression of His will, and therefore is null and void”,
Many monarchists have argued. But this thesis is refuted not only by eyewitness accounts (there can be many of them), but also by the emperor's own diary entries (for example, an entry dated March 2, 1917).
“In the morning Ruzsky came and read a very long conversation on the phone with Rodzianka. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma seems to be powerless to do anything, since the Social-Democrats are fighting against it. party represented by the working committee. I need my renunciation. Ruzsky conveyed this conversation to Headquarters, and Alekseev to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2.5 o'clock the answers came from everyone. The bottom line is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front in peace, you need to decide on this step. I agreed…"
(Diaries of Emperor Nicholas II. M., 1991. S. 625).
“There is no sacrifice that I would not make in the name of the real good and for the salvation of Russia,”
These words from the diary entries of the sovereign and his telegrams dated March 2, 1917, best of all explained his attitude to the decision.
The fact of the conscious and voluntary refusal of the emperor from the throne did not raise doubts among his contemporaries. For example, on May 18, 1917, the Kiev branch of the monarchist “Right Center” noted that “the act of renunciation, written in the highest degree of charitable and patriotic words, publicly establishes a complete and voluntary renunciation ... To declare that this renunciation was personally uprooted by violence was would be highly insulting, first of all, to the person of the monarch, moreover, it is completely untrue, for the sovereign abdicated under the pressure of circumstances, but nevertheless completely voluntarily.
But the most striking document, perhaps, is the parting word to the army, written Nicholas II March 8, 1917 and then issued in the form of order No. 371. In it, in full awareness of what had happened, it spoke of the transfer of power from the monarch to Provisional Government.
"AT last time I appeal to you, my beloved troops, - wrote Emperor Nicholas II. - After I abdicated for myself and for my son from the throne of Russia, power was transferred to the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma. May God help him lead Russia along the path of glory and prosperity ... Whoever thinks about peace now, who desires it, is a traitor to the Fatherland, his traitor ... Fulfill your duty, valiantly defend our great Motherland, obey the Provisional Government, obey your superiors, remember that any weakening of the order of service is only in the hands of the enemy ... "
(Korevo N. N. Inheritance to the throne according to the Basic State Laws. Information on some issues related to the succession to the throne. Paris, 1922. P. 127-128).
Noteworthy is the assessment of the well-known telegrams from the front commanders, which influenced the decision of the sovereign, in the memoirs of the quartermaster general of the headquarters of the Supreme Commander Yu. N. Danilova, eyewitness of events:
“And the Provisional Committee of the members of the State Duma, the Headquarters and the commanders-in-chief of the fronts, the issue of renunciation ... was interpreted in the name of preserving Russia and bringing the war to the end not as a violent act or any revolutionary “action”, but from the point of view of completely loyal advice or petition , the final decision on which was to come from the emperor himself. Thus, it is impossible to reproach these persons, as some party leaders do, for any kind of treason or betrayal. They only honestly and frankly expressed their opinion that the act of voluntary abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne could, in their opinion, ensure the achievement of military success and the further development of Russian statehood. If they made a mistake, then it is hardly their fault ... "
Of course, following the conspiracy theory against Nicholas II, it can be assumed that coercion could be applied to the sovereign if he did not accept the abdication. But the monarch's voluntary decision to abdicate ruled out the possibility of anyone forcing him to do so.
It is appropriate in this connection to cite the entry of the Empress Dowager Maria Feodorovna, Mother of Nicholas II, from her "memo book":
“... March 4/17, 1917 At 12 o’clock we arrived at Headquarters, in Mogilev, in a terrible cold and hurricane. Dear Nicky met me at the station, we went together to his house, where dinner was served with everyone. There were also Frederiks, Sergei Mikhailovich, Sandro, who came with me, Grabbe, Kira, Dolgorukov, Voeikov, N. Leuchtenbergsky and Dr. Fedorov. After dinner, poor Nicky told about all the tragic events that had happened in two days. He opened his bleeding heart to me, we both cried. First came a telegram from Rodzianko saying that he must take the Duma situation into his own hands in order to maintain order and stop the revolution; then - in order to save the country - he proposed to form a new government and ... abdicate in favor of his son (unbelievable!). But Nicky, of course, could not part with his son and handed over the throne to Misha! All the generals telegraphed him and advised him the same, and he finally gave in and signed the manifesto. Nicky was incredibly calm and majestic in this terribly humiliating position. It's like I've been hit on the head, I can't understand anything! Returned at 4 o'clock, talked. It would be nice to go to the Crimea. Real meanness only for the sake of seizing power. We said goodbye. He is a true knight."
(GA RF. F. 642. Op. 1. D. 42. L. 32).
Supporters of the version of the illegality of the renunciation claim that there is no corresponding provision in the system of Russian state legislation. However abdication Article 37 of the Basic Laws of 1906 provided for:
“Under the operation of the rules ... on the order of succession to the throne, a person who has the right to it is given the freedom to renounce this right in such circumstances when there will be no difficulty in further succession to the throne.”
Article 38 affirmed:
“Such a renunciation, when it is made public and converted into law, is then recognized as irrevocable.”
The interpretation of these two articles in pre-revolutionary Russia, in contrast to the interpretation of the Russian diaspora and some of our contemporaries, was not in doubt. In the course of state law of the famous Russian jurist professor N. M. Korkunova noted:
“Can one who has already ascended the throne renounce it? Since the reigning sovereign undoubtedly has the right to the throne, and the law gives everyone who has the right to the throne the right to abdicate, then we must answer this in the affirmative ... "
A similar assessment was contained in the course of state law, written by a no less famous Russian jurist, professor at Kazan University V. V. Ivanovsky:
“According to the spirit of our legislation ... a person who once occupied the throne may renounce it, if only because of this there would be no difficulties in further succession to the throne.”
But in exile in 1924, the former Privatdozent of the Law Faculty of Moscow University M. V. Zyzykin, giving a special, sacred meaning to the articles on succession to the throne, he separated the “renunciation of the right to the throne”, which, according to his interpretation, is possible only for representatives of the ruling house before the beginning of the reign, from the right to "abdication", which the already reigning allegedly do not possess. But such a statement is conditional. The reigning emperor was not excluded from the reigning house, he ascended the throne, having all the legal rights that he retained for himself throughout his reign.
Now about the abdication for the heir - Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich. The sequence of events is important here. Recall that the original text of the act corresponded to the version prescribed by the Fundamental Laws, that is, the heir was to ascend the throne under the regency of the emperor's brother - Mikhail Romanov.
Russian history did not yet know the facts of the abdication of some members of the royal house for others. However, this could be considered unlawful if it were carried out for an adult capable member of the imperial family.
But, firstly, Nicholas II abdicated for his son Alexei, who reached only 12.5 years in February 1917, and came of age at 16. The minor heir himself, of course, could not take any political and legal acts. According to the deputy of the IV State Duma, a member of the Octobrist faction N. V. Savich,
“Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolaevich was still a child, he could not make any decisions that had legal force. Therefore, there could be no attempt to force him to abdicate or refuse to take the throne.
Secondly, the sovereign made this decision after consultations with the life physician professor S. P. Fedorov who announced incurable disease heir (hemophilia). In this regard, the possible death of the only son before he reaches the age of majority would become the very “difficulty in the further succession to the throne”, which Article 37 of the Fundamental Laws warned about.
After the abdication for the crown prince, the act of March 2, 1917 did not create insoluble "difficulties in the further succession to the throne". Now great Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich would head the house of the Romanovs, and his heirs would continue the dynasty. According to a modern historian A. N. Kamensky,
“The manifesto and the telegram became, in essence, legal documents of those years and a written decree on changing the law on succession to the throne. These documents automatically recognized the marriage of Mikhail II with Countess Brasova. Thus, Count Georgy Brasov (the son of Mikhail Alexandrovich - Georgy Mikhailovich. - V. Ts.) automatically became the Grand Duke and heir to the throne of the Russian state.
Of course, it should be remembered that at the time of drawing up and signing the act of renunciation, the sovereign could not know about the intention of his younger brother (who was in Petrograd in those days) not to take the throne until the decision of the Constituent Assembly ...
And the last argument in favor of the illegality of renunciation. Could the emperor make this decision in accordance with his status as head of state, because the Russian Empire after 1905 was already a Duma monarchy, and the tsar shared legislative power with legislative institutions - the State Council and the State Duma?
The answer is provided by Article 10 of the Fundamental Laws, which established the priority of the sovereign in the executive branch:
“The power of administration in its entirety belongs to the Sovereign Emperor within the entire Russian state. In the management of the supreme power, it acts directly (that is, it does not require coordination with any structures. - V. Ts.); in the affairs of the administration of a subordinate, a certain degree of power is entrusted from him, according to the law, to the subject places and persons, acting in his name and according to his orders.
Of particular importance was also the 11th article, which allows one to issue normative acts alone:
“The Sovereign Emperor, in the manner of supreme administration, issues decrees in accordance with the laws for the organization and activation of various parts of the state administration, as well as orders necessary for the implementation of laws.”
Of course, these individually adopted acts could not change the essence of the Fundamental Laws.
N. M. Korkunov noted that the decrees and orders issued “in the manner of the supreme administration” were of a legislative nature and did not violate the norms of state law. The act of renunciation did not change the system of power approved by the Fundamental Laws, while maintaining the monarchical system.
An interesting psychological assessment of this act was given by the famous Russian monarchist V. I. Gurko:
“... The Russian autocratic tsar has no right to limit his power in any way ... Nicholas II considered himself entitled to abdicate the throne, but not entitled to reduce the limits of his royal powers ...”
In the act of renunciation, the formal side was not violated either. It was sealed with the signature of the "subject minister", since by status the minister of the imperial court, Adjutant General Count W. B. Frederiks sealed all the acts relating to the "institution of the imperial family" and related to the succession to the throne. Neither the sovereign's pencil signature (subsequently varnished on one of the copies) nor the color of the ink or graphite changed the essence of the document.
As for the formal procedure for the final legalization - the approval of the act by the Governing Senate - there were no difficulties from this side. On March 5, 1917, the new Minister of Justice A.F. Kerensky handed over to the chief prosecutor P. B. Vrassky the act of abdication of Nicholas II and the act of "rejection of the throne" by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. As participants in this meeting recalled,
“Having considered the issue proposed for its discussion, the Governing Senate decided to publish both acts in the “Collection of Laws and Orders of the Government” and inform all officials and government places subordinate to the Senate by decrees. Both acts have been adopted by the Senate to be kept forever.”
With the ongoing war the most important thing was victory over the enemy. For the sake of the good of the Motherland, in essence, for the sake of this victory, the sovereign abdicated. For her sake, he called on his subjects, soldiers and officers, to take a new oath.
The formal legal interpretation of the legitimacy or illegality of the renunciation in no way detracted from the moral feat of the sovereign. After all, the participants in those distant events are not soulless subjects of law, not “hostages of the monarchist idea”, but living people. What was more important: keeping the vows given at the wedding to the kingdom, or maintaining stability, order, preserving the integrity of the entrusted state, so necessary for victory at the front, as members of the State Duma and front commanders convinced him of? What is more important: the bloody suppression of the "rebellion" or the prevention, albeit for a short time, of the impending "tragedy of fratricide"?
For the sovereign-martyr, the impossibility of "crossing over the blood" during the war became obvious. He did not want to hold the throne by violence, regardless of the number of victims ...
“In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his family, we see people who sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the royal family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4/17, 1918, the victorious light of the Christian faith was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the 20th century,
This is how the moral feat of Emperor Nicholas II was assessed in the definition of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia of the 20th century (August 13-16, 2000).
Vasily Tsvetkov,
Doctor of Historical Sciences
02.03.2017
Acts of renunciation
Vladimir RUDAKOV, Nikita BRUSILOVSKY, Elena VILSHANSKAYA
What are the documents on the abdication of Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, is there any reason to question their authenticity and how legitimate were the acts drawn up then? To answer these questions, the magazine "Istorik" went to the State Archives of the Russian Federation
Both acts of renunciation - of the emperor and his younger brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich - are kept in the personal fund of Nicholas II. In the State Archive of the Russian Federation, which under the Soviet regime was called the Central State Archive of the October Revolution (TsGAOR), this fund is listed under number 601.
SIGNATURE WITH PENCIL
Chief Specialist of the State Administration of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences Zinaida Peregudova I have worked in the archives all my life. She brings us the usual cardboard folders with case numbers on title page: one of them contains documents that put an end to the history of the Russian Empire.
According to Peregudova, the renunciation documents were transferred to the TsSAOR in 1973 from the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, where they had been kept since 1929. They also got there from the Department of Manuscripts of the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN), where they lay in one of the boxes desk from autumn 1917. But this is a separate story, and about it a little later.
In the meantime, we are holding sheets with autographs of the last reigning Romanovs in our hands. Nikolai's abdication is typed on a typewriter on an A3 sheet folded in half. Below are the date, the place of signing - "Mr. Pskov”, there is a pencil signature “Nikolai”, as well as a visa inscribed with a pen - “Minister of the Imperial Court, Adjutant General Count Frederiks”. Michael's denial was written by him in ink on an A4 sheet with his own hand. Both documents have traces of folds: it is clear that they were folded several times ...
The emperor signed a document, which spoke of the addition of his supreme power, in Pskov on the night of March 2 (15) to March 3 (16), 1917, in the time interval between 23 hours. 32 min. and 0 hour. 28 min. However, the document itself says something else: “March 2, 15:00.” This is the time when Nikolai personally wrote telegrams to the Chairman of the State Duma Mikhail Rodzianko and Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander Mikhail Alekseev about his readiness to abdicate in favor of his son. The emperor, putting this hour on the abdication document, sought to show that he made the decision not under pressure, but on his own - in the name of preserving Russia.
On the same night, the Chief of Staff of the Northern Front, General Yuri Danilov, transmitting the contents of the document by telegraph from Pskov to Mogilev, where the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander was located, called the document itself "an act of abdication." This is the earliest mention of it as an act of renunciation. Nicholas II. However, historians have been arguing for a hundred years: can this paper be called an act of renunciation?
The first thing that catches your eye is the emperor, in contrast to the minister of the court Vladimir Frederiks, who endorsed the document, signed not with a pen, but with an ordinary pencil. Zinaida Peregudova, who has repeatedly held documents that came out of the royal office, does not see anything extraordinary in this: “Nikolai, like his father Alexander III, often signed with a pencil, usually blue, but sometimes red or simple. In addition, she reminds us, we have the testimony of the emperor's adjutant wing Anatoly Mordvinov, who in his memoirs “From the Experienced” noted: “His Majesty signed them [two copies of the renunciation. - "Historian"] in the dining car at about one in the morning silently, standing, with a pencil, accidentally found at the adjutant wing of Duke N. Leuchtenberg, and in the presence of only us, his closest retinue ... "
SOMEONE "NICHOLAS"
However, Zinaida Peregudova admits, most skeptics are confused not so much by the pencil signature as by the overall design of the document. So, one of the skeptics is a St. Petersburg historian, candidate of historical sciences Mikhail Safonov not so long ago he gave well-founded arguments in favor of the dubiousness of the "act".
“It is easy to see that nowhere is the person on whose behalf this document is written called either an autocrat or an emperor. It's just someone "Nikolai"; not named by name and surname and the addressee is General Mikhail Alekseev", the researcher emphasizes. According to him, it turns out that a certain Nikolai reports his decision to an unnamed chief of staff. Strictly speaking, from the point of view of the historian, this “manifesto” is not an act of renunciation and, in general, a legally binding document.
For the highest manifestos, a stable design formula was developed. It was reproduced in a typographical way on printed forms of the Ministry of the Imperial Court: “By the Grace of God, We, Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Tsar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, and so on, and so on, and so on.” Then a phrase was usually placed indicating to whom the manifesto was addressed: "We declare to all Our faithful subjects." After the text, the final formula was necessarily followed: "Dan", that is, the place where the manifesto was signed was indicated, for example, "in Pskov", and the date was affixed, for example, "on the third day of March, in the summer of the Nativity of Christ, one thousand nine hundred and seventeenth, while Our reign at twenty-three." The document was completed by the autocrat's signature. The hour and minute of the signature, as in the "act" submitted to the Headquarters, was never indicated.
In addition, there was a strictly established procedure for the design of manifestos. Despite the fact that at the end of the 19th century typewriters appeared in Russia and they began to be used to draft documents, the text of the manifesto, on copies of which the emperor's signature was put, was necessarily copied by hand. Only a document executed in this way received legal force. Special scribes served in the office of the Ministry of the Imperial Court, who had a particularly beautiful handwriting. It was called "rondo", and the persons who owned it, respectively, "rondist". Only they were attracted to the correspondence of important papers: rescripts, letters and manifestos.
Renunciation of the throne by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich on March 3 (16), 1917. Script. GA RF
Of course, no blots and erasures were allowed in such documents: any correction no more or less deprived the document of legal force, Safonov emphasizes. The "act" signed by Nikolai contains a very noticeable erasure: according to one version, the elderly Count Fredericks did not manage to fit the sweeping signature at the bottom of the page on the first attempt, so he had to clean it up and put it again.
The same Mordvinov wrote that when they came in the compartment to Frederiks to have him certify the documents, it was not easy for the 78-year-old minister to endorse such an act. “With what inexpressible excitement the poor old man, coping with difficulty with a trembling hand, signed them for a very long time,” the adjutant wing recalled.
It is noteworthy that when it came to the publication in the armies of the Northern Front of the act of abdication of Nicholas, General Danilov, who at night from 2 (15) to 3 (16) March transmitted the contents of the document to Mogilev, turned to the Headquarters with a request to telegraph the corresponding text to Pskov "entirely, not excluding the title." From the Stavka they answered: the act is “the text of the manifesto on the abdication of the throne, which was received by telegraph from you. Does it need to be repeated? There are no changes." Danilov was perplexed: is a title needed and what kind? He could not believe that the text he had transmitted was the act of renunciation.
The editorial offices of some newspapers found themselves in exactly the same position. So, for example, “Morning of Russia” published the text of Nikolai’s abdication telegram with a cap required for any manifesto, that is, “We, by the Grace of God, Nicholas II…”, since it seemed incredible that the manifesto did not have a title. Leaflets with the text of the renunciation came out with such a hat.
Fedor Gaida
Of course, the abdication of the emperor was not provided for by law. At first glance, it seems incredible: how is it that an autocratic monarch does not have the right to abdicate? But the fact of the matter is that, from a legal point of view, Nicholas II was obliged to first issue a law on the procedure for abdication, and only then abdicate according to this law. And of course, he could only renounce for himself, but not for his son. In addition, in the act of renunciation in favor of his brother, it was stated that Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich should take an "inviolable oath" that he would rule in unity with the "representatives of the people." However, taking an oath by the monarch is also a way out of the then existing legislation.
Thus, from the point of view of the law that existed at that time, the signing of act by Nicholas II on March 2 (15), 1917 was accompanied by a number of very serious violations. In this sense, it does not matter at all how it was compiled, whether the emperor signed it with a pencil or did not sign it, whether the original is in our hands or not the original. These are minor, purely technical things. From a legal point of view, there are things much more significant.
And what was the act of March 3 (16), that is, the act of renunciation of power by Mikhail Alexandrovich? Strictly speaking, this act is not a renunciation at all. In fact, this document has no legal status at all. Mikhail did not assume power and, as you know, asked the citizens of Russia to support the Provisional Government and the Constituent Assembly. It was a kind of political declaration, which stated the fact of the victory of the revolution. An interesting touch: both of these acts were published together, on the same day. Thus, they affirmed the termination of the former legal order. From that moment, from the moment of the publication of two renunciations, a new, revolutionary legitimacy came into force, within which the old legal norms were perceived only as conventions.
Fedor Gaida
SIGNED TO DISPUT
Mikhail Safonov has his own version: he believes that the emperor deliberately signed the text, which, in which case, could be challenged.
“Why did the autocrat put his signature under this abracadabra? asks the historian. “He was trying to save his family.” Safonov recalls that by this time, from the Headquarters in Pskov, the emperor "had been given false information that his wife and sick children, left unguarded in Tsarskoye Selo, could become hostages." Nikolai was really blackmailed, I'm sure the associate professor of Moscow State University, candidate of historical sciences Fedor Gayda."The generals knew that royal family is not in the hands of the rebels,” he notes, “but they tried to force the abdication at any cost.”
This, according to Safonov, predetermined Nikolai's further tactics: "The Tsar announced his readiness to abdicate, however, he was not at all going to part with power, but was only looking for a way to save it and save his family."
Empress Alexandra Feodorovna understood better than anyone what situation Nikolai found himself in. In a letter to her husband (which he, however, did not receive), she advised him to sign everything that they were forced to sign. “It is clear that they want to prevent you from seeing me before you sign some paper, constitution, or some other horror of that kind. And you alone, without an army behind you, caught like a mouse in a trap, what can you do? I can not advise anything, just be, dear, yourself. If you have to submit to circumstances, then God will help you get rid of them, ”she believed.
The entry in the diary of Nicholas II for March 2 (15), 1917 ends with the famous phrase: "All around is treason, and cowardice, and deceit!" Script. GA RF
According to her, legally, everything signed by Nikolai subsequently should not have been valid, because he put his signature not out of good will, but under duress. “Therefore, the tsar signed the document, which, under favorable circumstances, could easily be challenged as legally untenable,” Mikhail Safonov believes.
The main argument in favor of the version of the legal failure of the abdication is the fact that the emperor abdicated not only for himself, but also for his son. Indeed, initially Nicholas II was going to transfer the supreme power to his son. The draft renunciation, sent from Headquarters to Pskov, said: “In accordance with the procedure established by the Fundamental Laws, we transfer our heritage to our dear son ... Alexei Nikolaevich and bless him for accession to the throne of the Russian State. We assign to the brother of our Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich the duties of the ruler of the empire for a time until our son comes of age. We command our son, as well as during his minority to the ruler of the empire, to manage state affairs in full and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them.
However, a fundamentally different scheme for the transfer of power was cited in the final act: “Not wanting to part with our beloved son, we transfer our heritage to our brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless him for accession to the throne of the Russian State. We command our brother to govern the affairs of state in full and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to that.
The act of recognizing the authenticity of the texts on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. October 26, 1929. Script. GA RF
As we can see from the act of renunciation, in comparison with the original version, first of all, the mention of the Fundamental Laws was removed: the compilers perfectly understood that their formula did not correspond to them at all. The throne was transferred not to Alexei, but to Mikhail, which blatantly contradicted the order of succession to the throne, established back in 1797 Paul I.
Later Pavel Milyukov, who in March 1917 became Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government, was annoyed: “Without having at hand the text of the manifesto of Emperor Paul on the succession to the throne, we did not realize then that the very act of the tsar was illegal. He could abdicate for himself, but he had no right to abdicate for his son.” Later, after leaving the political scene, Milyukov expressed suspicions that Nicholas II had deliberately violated the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire in order to be able to regain the throne in the future by canceling his legally insignificant abdication manifesto. In his memoirs, the former leader of the Cadets wrote that a few days after the coup, Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich told him that "all the Grand Dukes immediately understood the illegality of the emperor's act."
Chief Specialist of the State Administration of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences Zinaida Peregudova
Mikhail Safonov develops Milyukov’s suspicions: “Undoubtedly, there was a certain intent of Nikolai in all this: he drew up documents that, under favorable circumstances (for example, when the Provisional Government and the Soviet “bite off each other’s heads”) could be declared invalid.”
WAS THERE A RETRACTION?
Is it possible, based on these circumstances, to consider the document signed by Nicholas as an abdication? Despite everything, most modern historians answer this question in the affirmative.
“During revolutionary events, legitimacy is always on the side of those who have power in their hands,” notes Fyodor Gaida, “and power at that moment was on the side of Nikolai’s opponents. Therefore, they were not embarrassed by either the form or the meaning of the act. And Nikolai himself subsequently never questioned his departure from power anywhere.
In his diary, he wrote about his renunciation: “I agreed. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and handed them the signed and revised manifesto. Alexandra Feodorovna, in a letter to her husband dated March 4 (17), 1917, indirectly confirmed the legitimacy of what had happened: “Only this morning we found out that everything was handed over to M[isha], and Baby [heir to the throne Alexei Nikolaevich. - "Historian"] is now safe - what a relief!
Receipt of acceptance for storage of acts of renunciation of Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. July 31 (August 13), 1917. Script. GA RF
Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, also wrote about the abdication as a fait accompli in her diary: “March 4 (17). At 12 o'clock we arrived at Headquarters, in Mogilev, in a terrible cold and a hurricane. Dear Nicky met me at the station, we went together to his house, where dinner was served with everyone. After dinner, poor Nicky told about all the tragic events that had happened in two days. He opened his bleeding heart to me, we both cried. First came a telegram from Rodzianko saying that he must take the Duma situation into his own hands in order to maintain order and stop the revolution; then - in order to save the country - he proposed to form a new government and ... abdicate in favor of his son (unbelievable!). But Nicky, of course, could not part with his son and handed over the throne to Misha! All the generals telegraphed him and advised him the same, and he finally gave in and signed the manifesto. Nicky was incredibly calm and majestic in this terribly humiliating position. It’s like I’ve been hit on the head, I can’t understand anything!”
The envelope in which the acts of abdication of Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich were kept from 1917 to 1929. Script. GA RF
The legitimacy of Nikolai's abdication was also not in doubt by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who admitted that "my brother renounced for himself," and "I, it turns out, renounce for everyone."
THE CASE OF ACADEMIANS
However, it was not only Milyukov, who ended up in exile, who suspected that Nikolai had deceived everyone, which means that, if he wished, he could, appealing to the illegality of the act of renunciation, challenge the legitimacy of the overthrow of the monarchy. Apparently, the monarchists who remained in the USSR had high hopes for the document signed by the emperor on the night of March 2 (15) to March 3 (16), 1917. It was they who were able to save the original act of renunciation ...
Zinaida Peregudova says that, apparently, during civil war, and then in the era of the NEP, none of the powers that be were interested in the fate of the most important documents on the history of the revolution. But in October 1929 the situation changed. There was a change of leadership in the Library of the Academy of Sciences. Acting Assistant Director of the BAN and Senior Curator of the Manuscript Department Fedor Pokrovsky was removed from the post of Deputy, and appointed to this position Innokenty Yakovkin. The new authorities demanded information about the most valuable documents stored in the Department of Manuscripts. On a day off, when the chief scientific custodian of the department Vsevolod Sreznevsky was not at the workplace, Pokrovsky took Yakovkin to the Manuscript Department and “acquainted” him with the documents that the custodian secretly kept from other employees in his desk drawer under a sheet of paper. It was an envelope with the inscription “G.E. Staritsky. No. 607". Inside the envelope was a receipt from the Chief Prosecutor of the First Department of the Governing Senate George Staritsky, dated July 31 (August 13), 1917: “The act of renunciation of Nicholas II of March 2, 1917 and Mikhail of March 3, 1917 from the acting chief prosecutor of the First Department of the Governing Senate Fyodor Ivanovich Khrushchev accepted for storage.” And it turned out that all this time there were acts on the abdication of Nicholas II and Mikhail Alexandrovich here.
A special commission of the People's Commissariat of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate of the USSR was created to inspect the apparatus of the Academy of Sciences, which was headed by a member of the Presidium of the Central Control Commission of the CPSU (b) Yuri Figatner. The materials found in the Department of Manuscripts of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences were subjected to a thorough examination, and an appropriate act was drawn up. Experts came to the conclusion that the signatures on the papers are original, and the documents themselves are originals.
According to Sreznevsky, which, however, is not documented in any way, a package with acts of abdication of Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail was handed over to him by the actual head of the BAN Mikhail Dyakonov September 3 (16), 1917 with a request to keep them secret, which was carried out for 12 years. In turn, Academician-Secretary of the Department of Humanities of the Academy of Sciences Sergey Platonov, despite the proposals made to him by Sreznevsky, he did not report these documents to state bodies and transfer them to another place. During interrogation, the academician himself stated that he did not consider the documents valuable, and claimed that they existed in several copies.
The case of the secret storage of archival documents was only the first part of a large so-called "Academic case" - about the "monarchist counter-revolutionary organization" in Leningrad. In prison, in addition to the main defendant Sergei Platonov, there were historians Evgeny Tarle, Nikolai Likhachev, Sergey Bakhrushin, Yuri Gauthier, Matvey Lyubavsky and many others. All of them were sentenced to various terms of exile. 72-year-old Academician Platonov died in 1933 in exile in Samara.
Why did academicians pretend that they did not understand the significance of the acts signed by Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail? Why didn't they register them, illegally kept the most important state documents? For obvious reasons, the academics themselves did not give answers to these questions. This was done for them by the investigating authorities. To accuse the employees of the Academy of Sciences of striving to overthrow the Soviet regime and restore the constitutional-monarchical regime, it was quite enough that the Manuscript Department of the BAN secretly kept a document that could give grounds for disavowing the abdication of the last Russian autocrat and declaring the abolition of the monarchy invalid.
The magazine "Historian" expresses gratitude to the director of the Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation Larisa Alexandrovna Rogova for help in preparing the material.
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: THE LESSONS OF HISTORY*
move away from the state
Alexander Samarin ,
Doctor of Historical Sciences
The history of Russia has known a number of cases of refusal of rulers from power. Most often these were forced decisions, and only in isolated cases - voluntary ...
It is naive to believe that Nicholas II in the history of Russia there have never been crowned renunciations. They, of course, took place, but each of them was significantly different from the previous one. Yes, and the monarchs themselves in such unusual, let's say, circumstances behaved differently ..
DARK AND TERRIBLE
The complex twists and turns of the feudal war of the second quarter of the 15th century, when power passed from hand to hand of grandchildren Dmitry Donskoy, gave rise to a situation of formal renunciation of the throne. In February 1446, the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily II was captured and blinded on the orders of his cousin Dmitry Shemyaka who occupied the grand ducal throne. Vasily, who received the nickname Dark after being blinded, was exiled to Uglich. There, a few months later, a reconciliation ceremony was held between the brothers. Vasily kissed the cross, confessing "to his elder brother" (that is, Shemyaka) and to all "Christianity" of iniquities and crimes.
Vasily II the Dark
Thus, Vasily formally renounced his claims to supreme power, thanks to which he was released to Vologda, allocated to him as an inheritance. However, soon the struggle broke out with renewed vigor. The hegumen of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, Tryphon, freed the prince from the sin of violating the kissing of the cross: “You kissed him involuntarily.” Later, Vasily the Dark managed to defeat Shemyaka and regained the Moscow great reign.
Already in the 16th century, a master of the political game Ivan the Terrible twice announced his resignation from the throne. For the first time, having left Moscow at the end of 1564, he sent letters to the capital addressed to the metropolitan, the Boyar Duma and the townspeople. They were published on January 3 (hereinafter, the dates are given according to the old style), 1565. The king reported that "out of great pity of the heart ... he left his state and went where to settle, where he, the sovereign, God will guide." The calculation turned out to be correct. The people demanded the return of the king, and he introduced the division of the country into oprichnina and zemstvo, having received carte blanche to purge inside the ruling elite.
The abdication of Edward allegedly the eighth, but judging by the personal signature, then FIRST:
Look at the signature: "Eduard R 1".
The fact that he is the "eighth" could have been corrected later. But they were afraid to forge his signature.
 |
 |
Then Baba Lisa's uncle was Edward (VII) I, and her father was not George VI, but George (V) I.
That is, Edward I and George I.
They are not on the screens at all! This whole ancient royal dynasty of the Windsors begins with Baba Lisa herself.
And one more "hello" from the Cossacks of Connaught:
 |
 |
At the time of his birth, the prince was ninth in line to the British throne.
Alastair died unexpectedly in next year in Ottawa at the age of 28 for unknown reasons. AT diaries Sir Alan Lascelles, Private Secretary to King George VI, published in 2006 , it is said that “Count Athlone and the officers of the regiment in which Alastair served considered him an incompetent and incapable military man; he fell out of the window when I was drunk and died of hypothermia at night » . At the time of his death, Alastair was twelfth in succession to the throne. He was not married and had no children.
Date of death of Alastair Windsor (of Connaught) 1943.
In 1942, he inherited the titles from his grandfather Duke of Connaught and Straharne, Earl of Sussex.
That is, there was another dynasty of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Windsors who lived in Windsor Castle in the 19th century, while Victoria took her photos for the gossip column exclusively on the street and under the fence.
This Windsor dynasty of the Cossacks of Connaught, the Elstonian old guard, was interrupted only in 1943. It looks like he was murdered and killed as heir.
You see, there is a failure there between 1918 and 1945. There are NO modern Windsors as the rulers of Small Britain. Missing !
By the way, here they found another "blunder" in the abdication of Edward (V) I:
For comparison: the abdication of Nicholas (rootless) because there is no surname (family). Surname (family, clan) not specified.
And Nikolai Neizvestny writes, as befits a colonel of the Red (German) army, the German occupant-commandant of the St. Petersburg fortress, in the name of the Chief of Staff. Like any subordinate and any military man serving in the state army. True, he writes not according to the Charter, but after all, there was an army not according to the Charter, not the State Army in our understanding, but the Cossack Party of Social Democrats, an army-style organized criminal group. What an army, such a language, such a Charter. The colonels with the Church Slavonic language are exactly the same there, which Dal himself understood only with his dictionary.
Nikolai's date is in numbers, not in words.
For comparison: a sample of writing a document in English. The dates are in numbers.
The topic presented in the title of the article may seem highly specialized, but it affects almost the very foundations of the monarchist worldview, because. regarding one of the highlights in the history of our Monarchy and Dynasty - the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II and the events that followed. Their legal understanding in the mass consciousness still bears indelible traces of revolutionary turmoil, which leads to all sorts of distortions of the monarchist legal consciousness, up to the notorious "Zemsky Sobor".
The overwhelming majority of monarchists recognize the abdication of the Sovereign as invalid, but the reasons for this are called the most diverse and always not the ones that are needed. Here is anointing, and some kind of mythical oath given at the coronation, and the unforeseen renunciation of the reigning Emperor in the laws, and incorrect information about the situation in the capital. A particularly “weighty” reason is the “forcedness” of renunciation, as if not the absolute majority of our actions are forced by one circumstance or another.
Many people with monarchist sympathies, but who do not want to burden themselves with unnecessary problems, believe that Nicholas II continues to reign to this day, recognize themselves as his “subjects” and feel quite comfortable at the same time - such a “reign” will not only never end but it can't cause anyone the slightest worry.
But far from everyone calms down on such a peculiar necromonarchism. After all, it is known that the Sovereign transferred power to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who agreed to accept it only if there was the will of the people, expressed by the constituent assembly. Among the most thoughtful analysts, it is customary to quietly rejoice that this meeting supposedly "did not have time" to resolve the question of the form state structure. True, this joy is slightly clouded by sadness when it becomes known that the notorious "constituent assembly", despite the short duration of its existence, perfectly "managed" to proclaim a republic. What conclusions follow from this for monarchists and whether they should become republicans - these questions remain unclear.
It happens even worse - the Grand Duke appears in the role of "Emperor Michael II". And his one and a half day "reign" is marked by one glorious deed - he transfers power to the people, from whom the Romanovs supposedly accepted it in 1613 - for temporary, presumably, use. This "emperor", unconditionally recognized by the Republicans, is himself a product of a deeply and hopelessly democratic worldview.
Sometimes a third "emperor" appears - Alexei Nikolaevich, who, interestingly, is perfectly combined with the two previous ones, not excluding either the first or the second.
However, you can not continue. What has been said is quite enough to make it clear that the most important, turning point in the fate of the Russian monarchy, which, like no other, needs to be properly understood, is in this respect the true Augean stables, the clearing of which is high time at least to begin. Let's try to do it. But for our, so to speak, Archimedean lever, we need to find a firm foothold. The most reliable such point will be the Laws of the Russian Empire. Let's see what they say on the topic of interest to us.
Two articles of the Fundamental Laws, placed in the chapter "On the order of succession to the Throne", are devoted to the issue of renunciation of the rights to the Throne. These articles are:
37. Under the rules set forth above concerning the order of succession to the Throne, a person who has a right to it is given the freedom to renounce this right in such circumstances when there will be no difficulty in further succession to the Throne.
38. Such a renunciation, when it is made public and converted into law, is then recognized as irrevocable.”
The first thing that is clear from these articles is that the issues of renunciation of the rights to the Throne are governed by the rules of public law. This brings to mind the distinction between public and private law, which was already known in Ancient Rome. The classical Roman jurist Ulpian put it this way: "Public law is that which relates to the position of the Roman state, private - which relates to the benefit of individuals."
If everything is clear with the “benefit of individuals”, then only their duties can relate to the “position of the state” on the part of its subjects. The division of law into these two areas is based on the division of interests. Public law, unlike private law, protects the interests of the state. Its norms differ from those of private law in their nature - they are always imperative, i.e. imperative. The most important branch of public law, along with financial, criminal, judicial, etc., is state law.
In the field of private law, when a person inherits any property, it would be very strange to establish a special law that gives a person the right not to take what belongs to him by law. In the system of public law, the replacement of the Throne by a certain person in the prescribed manner is an obligation to the state. Its nature is exactly the same as the civic obligations of subjects, such as military service. Only the highest power can free from it.
Such an approach to issues related to the succession to the throne is very characteristic of Russian law, where the state point of view has never been clouded by any remnants and foreign impurities. In Western Europe, things were somewhat different. The system of relations that was formed there in the Middle Ages, called feudal, was distinguished by its comprehensive private law character. The land grants of the monarchs to their vassals were accompanied by certain powers of authority, which also acquired the properties of private ownership.
This, in turn, had a reverse effect on the state relations themselves, which were very strongly “privatized”. The medieval definition of the monarch as "first among equals" is widely known - in relation to his own vassals. Even liquidating the feudal system, restoring state relations, the monarchs often acted by the same feudal methods, acting simply as the strongest rulers. In the matter of transforming feudal relations into state relations, the ideological heritage of Roman public law played an important role, which led to the formation of the so-called. absolutism.
In Germany, things were much worse. There, the feudal estates themselves were transformed into sovereign states. The confusion of private law principles with public ones has become a real curse of German public law. These mixtures could be the most bizarre. For example, "wills were not allowed, but agreements were allowed", although both are typical features of private law. The "family statutes" of the ruling houses were included with all their "civilisms" in the basic state laws, etc.
In Russia, the formation of state relations took place in a slightly different way. Family ownership of the Russian land, the corresponding family relations between members of the ruling princely family - such an archaism historically preceded even the very division of law into private and public. The manifestations of private law principles, which were the product of the decomposition of this system, were immediately used (testament of princely possessions, Ivan Kalita's "purchase", etc.) to transform tribal relations into state relations.
The last echoes of private-legal, and even generic concepts, still noticeable in the legal consciousness of the last Moscow Ruriks, were finally “cleansed” with the suppression of this dynasty. When Boris Godunov was called to the kingdom, the replacement of the throne was already considered as a state affair, common to all "ranks", in which the Rurik clan was not even taken into account as a bearer of any rights.
From the point of view of public law, the refusal to accept the Throne is just an unwillingness to fulfill one's duty. But the attitude to the rights to the Throne has one component, which at first glance, can be mistaken for private law, especially since in medieval legal consciousness it was just that. The fact is that it is just as impossible to force one to reign as it is to force one to own any property.
According to the theory of Roman private law, two components are necessary for possession: "body" - actual possession, and "soul" - desire, intention to have a thing as one's own. It is this "soul" that is absolutely necessary for the acceptance of supreme power. But one should not see any deep private-legal essence here. This is the same desire, consent, which is necessary for the performance of any state, and even public office.
It is possible, of course, to force this by force - in ancient democracies, people were appointed to positions by lot - but due to historical practice, this was simply recognized as inexpedient. The performance of a position is inextricably linked with the manifestation of the will; for its effective performance, an indispensable condition is the willingness, consent of the person to fulfill it.
This consent, of course, can be motivated by duty, but both desire and ability play a decisive role here. Thus, for the exercise of supreme power, as the execution of a public office, consent is necessary, i.e. to accept the Throne, you need consent to reign.
This agreement in the world of medieval traditions, where the Throne was looked upon as a private possession, was self-evident. But in the system of public law, accession to the Throne is not only the acceptance of a public office, but also a duty. It turns out that consent is necessary for the fulfillment of the obligation. In addition, this position consists in nothing other than the performance of the function of supreme power - it is impossible to force this in any way - there can be no higher power than the supreme.
The law considers this conflict in the system of public legal relations and resolves it by the action of its inherent state legal mechanisms. The law recognizes unwillingness to reign as a sufficient reason for abdication. But the very expression of this unwillingness does not yet create a renunciation in the legal sense. It is only the appeal to the law that makes it so.
Considering Art. 38 Fundamental Laws out of the general context, one might think that applying to the law is just one of two (along with promulgation) conditions for the irrevocable renunciation. But its significance is by no means limited to this. Moreover, in the system of public law, it alone makes the renunciation a legal fact. This is clearest from Art. 37.
First of all, Art. 37 grants the right to renounce. From this it is clear that initially no one has such a right as something natural. In addition, this right is limited by condition. It doesn't even matter what exactly this condition is; the point is that renunciation may or may not be permitted.
Of course, the reigning Emperor may not approve the renunciation of the Heir, but it is difficult to imagine how it will be possible to force him to reign later. It is even more difficult to imagine how one could not allow a person who was already in the line of succession to abdicate. This is very similar to the favorite device of Roman law - legal fiction - the assumption of what is not in reality, but which helps the legal act to achieve its destination more accurately. Art. 37 achieves this in full measure - it clearly and in relief-convexly demonstrates the public law nature of the attitude to the right to the Throne in Russian laws.
Articles on renunciation were introduced by Emperor Nicholas I. Prior to this, this issue was not addressed in any legal provisions. It is easy to see that the circumstances connected with the abdication of Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich were the motive for its legislative design.
In the history of this renunciation, two possible situations in this case were "lost". The first is the abdication of the Heir, approved by the reigning Emperor. Alexander I turned it into law with a special manifesto, in which the next in line of succession, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, was proclaimed the heir. But this document would not be made public, and this gave Nicholas a reason to consider the abdication invalid, in view of which he took the oath to Constantine as Emperor.
Thus, he created a second situation in which Constantine had to abdicate for the second time - already as a person to whom the right of succession had directly passed. Nicholas I turned this abdication into law with his manifesto on accession to the Throne, as the next in line for succession after the abdicator.
There is an opinion that Nicholas I sought from Constantine, if he decided to abdicate, so that he would first accept the Throne, and then abdicate as Emperor. If so, then there is an attempt to apply a well-known method of Roman law - the creation of a new legal status by committing an "imaginary" legal act, which in this case would be the acceptance of the Throne by Constantine.
But by his refusal he created a new precedent - the renunciation of the person to whom the right to inherit directly came. In the role of the supreme power, turning this renunciation into law, is the next in line of succession to its owner. Here it is interesting to observe the "empirical" way in which the renunciation of the rights of inheritance, which, under the dominance of private law relations, was carried out in unilaterally, adapted and formalized in the system of public law.
Regarding the abdication of the Throne of the reigning Emperor, it is customary to express doubts about its very possibility - in view of the fact that it is not provided for by law. But before the abdication of Constantine, the law did not say anything about the renunciation of the rights to the Throne in general. The point here, apparently, is in the traditional private law view on the issue of renunciation. The fact that the ownership of the inheritance can be abandoned - it seemed too natural to stipulate it specifically.
The concepts relating to the relationship to the Throne, being passed through the private legal atmosphere of the Middle Ages, were so saturated with its spirit that even in the context of developed state law they often remained some kind of untouched oasis, a reserve of private legal relics, and this was habitually perceived as the norm. This is reflected even in the terminology. The attitude to the Throne is defined precisely as a right, and right and duty are diametrically opposed concepts.
But if we look at the correlation of rights and duties from the state point of view and recall the “monarchical setting of rights based on duties”, which L.A. Tikhomirov wrote about, then we will see that the right to the Throne directly follows from the obligation to occupy it.
The concept of “renunciation” itself has a private legal content. This term defines a unilateral act of renunciation of owned possession. In order to give it legal force in public law, it is "turned into law", i.e. by an additional act they give it a public legal status.
A typical manifestation of private law consciousness was the reaction of Tsesarevich Konstantin to the oath taken to him. They say, before taking the oath, it was necessary to ask my consent. And it is very difficult to object to this from the point of view of public law. It is indeed impossible to force someone to reign without consent to it.
Public law is compelled to recognize the unwillingness to reign as a sufficient reason for exemption from such a duty and to give it legal force by its own means. So the concepts formed by the strong influence of private law views are mastered in the context of public law. An interesting example of this is just Art. 37 and 38 of our laws. We do not know if this issue was addressed in the laws of other monarchies, but it is obvious that most of them leave it in its original untouched form.
In the fact that the possibility of renunciation was not initially provided for by law, in addition to the remnants of private legal consciousness, one can also find its own public legal logic. The law establishes an obligation, but not a means of avoiding it. He seems to be waiting for the appropriate incident in order to react to it, but he himself does not model such a “negative” situation in advance.
Similarly, the abdication of the Emperor from the Throne, if it had taken place under normal conditions, might then have been reflected in the law. But, most likely, it would be considered that those articles that already exist are sufficient. Although they are talking about the renunciation not of the Throne, but of the rights to it, but they occupy the Throne also on the basis of the existing right. Thus, the concept of renunciation of the rights to the Throne includes the renunciation of himself, and the second can be considered as a special case of the first.
The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II cannot really be recognized as valid. And the reason for this is that it was not made into law. Registration and publication of it by the "reformed Senate" have nothing to do with the "Russian Republic", but not the slightest thing with the laws of the Russian Empire. In the light of the latter, the abdication of the Emperor could be turned into law only by the supreme power, namely, by the person next in line of succession, who would occupy the vacant Throne - in direct analogy with the abdication of Tsarevich Konstantin.
The analogy here is, of course, not complete. In one case, the reigning monarch abdicates, in the other - the person who directly received the right to inherit, but in no case "Emperor Constantine I". But both renunciations can be turned into law only in one, completely identical way - by a manifesto on the accession to the Throne of the person next in line of succession.
The question may arise: why the Sovereign, as the possessor of supreme power, could not himself turn his will into law? Yes, because here his will would come into conflict with his duty. To release oneself from one's own duty, and at the same time by means of the powers that follow from this same duty, would be the height of legal absurdity.
The reigning Emperor, as the owner of a direct right to the Throne, if he wants to renounce it, has to act on common, so to speak, grounds with potential holders of this right, according to the prescriptions of Art. 37 and 38, leaving the conversion of his will into law to his successor. This ensures one of the most important properties of the supreme power - its continuity. Abdication of the Sovereign from the Throne becomes possible only if there is a successor.
In addition, this is how the condition-restriction of Art. 37 ( “when there is no difficulty in further succession to the Throne” ), which in other cases might seem like a legal fiction. Thus, in the absence of a successor, the abdication of the Emperor from the Throne cannot legally take place. That is, if the Sovereign refuses to reign, then it is, of course, impossible to force him to do so. But by virtue of the principle of public law, his reign will continue dejure until his legitimate successor assumes the Throne and turns the abdication of his predecessor into law.
As you know, Emperor Nicholas II handed over the Throne to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. On this occasion, it is quite rightly noted that he had no right to bypass his son in the succession line. Mikhail could take power only as a ruler under the minor Emperor Alexei Nikolaevich. But for the convenience of reasoning, let us assume that Michael would be the next in line of succession after the Sovereign. Let us admit such a legal fiction, especially since all the participants in those events unanimously admitted it.
So, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich did not accept the Throne, but he did not renounce it either. He agreed to accept the crown only on one condition: “if such is the will of our people, who should by popular vote, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, establish the form of government and the new Basic Laws of the Russian State” . It follows from this that he did not agree to accept the Throne in other ways. Including according to the laws of the Russian Empire - "by the very law of heritage".
Here it is appropriate to recall that the Constituent Assembly is nothing but an organ of democracy, i.e. supreme power of the people. His idea is that all power belongs to the people, who, in the person of their representatives, establish state bodies and establish laws. Under an autocratic monarchy, all this is done by the possessor of supreme power himself - the monarch, and under the autocracy of the people, democracy, the people elect special representatives for this purpose.
The idea that the Constituent Assembly could establish an autocratic monarchy is prenaive. This is, perhaps, the only thing that it could not establish, because. itself is an accessory of a fundamentally different state system, and can only act within its framework. In addition, there was no need to establish an autocratic monarchy. It was already "established" a long time ago. The only thing the Dynasty could count on under the “new system” was the establishment of the so-called. constitutional monarchy, i.e. preservation of the institution of the monarchy (the position of the monarch) within the framework of parliamentary democracy.
The compilers of the text signed by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich (V.D. Nabokov and Baron B.E. Nolde) also mentioned the “new basic laws” that the proposed assembly was to establish as something taken for granted. Of course, the "old" laws, based on the autocratic power of the monarch, were completely unsuitable for the "new Russia". All this has to do with the laws of the Russian Empire in only one point: according to these laws, Michael refused to accept the Throne.
The Swedish republican and expert on the Russian monarchy S. Scott wrote on this occasion that if Michael had abdicated unconditionally, then he would have ceded the right to the throne to the next in line of succession - Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich. But with his conditional refusal-consent, Mikhail allegedly “knocked the crown out from under the feet” of Cyril. Leaving aside the question of the whereabouts of the crown in the view of the Republicans, we note only that by his refusal to accept the Throne by law, Michael, in the light of the same law, presented the crown to Cyril on a velvet pillow with gold tassels. It only remained to give it a legal status.
This, as you know, was not done. Kirill Vladimirovich, along with other adult Members of the Imperial House, signed a statement (composed by Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich), which contained the following words: “Regarding our rights, and in particular mine, to the throne, I, ardently loving my Motherland, fully subscribe to those thoughts that are expressed in the act of renunciation of Vel. Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich" .
Of course, the statement of adherence to thoughts deserves the same legal qualification as the thoughts themselves, but this was not turned into law, and there was no one to do it.
At a superficial glance, the motives for the actions of the Members of the Imperial House can be explained by the desire to preserve the monarchy and the Dynasty in the new "legal field", in the sphere of action of the "new fundamental laws" - especially since Mikhail's statement says this in plain text. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but this problem is already beyond the scope of our "old" Fundamental Laws, and goes beyond the scope of the topic under consideration.
If we consider all this in the light of the legal norms of the Russian Empire, then first of all we will see a number of renunciations, but all of them will be legally void. The next thing that cannot be overlooked is the deep loyalty of the Members of the Dynasty to the rights of their predecessors in the line of succession. None of them considered themselves entitled to deprive the elders in line, incl. Emperor Nicholas II himself, the opportunity to take back his renunciations in circumstances that could change for the better.
To Republicans who believe that members of the reigning families are only engaged in knocking the crown out from under each other's feet, such a motive may seem unrealistic. But in the history of our monarchy, there is a case when two brothers - Konstantin and Nikolai Pavlovichi - ceded the Throne to each other for 20 days.
Be that as it may, not one of the 1917 abdications was made into law; all of them remained legally null and void, and the reign of Emperor Nicholas II continued dejure until his death.
The Supreme Act, which put an end to revolutionary turmoil, if not in all of Russia, then at least in the legal consciousness of the remnant of the faithful (in the scope of the Fundamental Laws on the succession to the Throne), was the manifesto of 1924, in which Sovereign Kirill Vladimirovich announced the assumption of rights belonging to him by law and the title of Emperor of All Russia. Not a single word was mentioned in this document about the abdication of Nicholas II. And this is understandable: legally, renunciation did not exist, and there was no point in converting it into law posthumously.
The only motive for issuing the Manifesto is the final conviction that Nicholas II and those following him in line of succession to the Throne, Tsarevich Alexei and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, are no longer alive. From this it follows that the reign of Kirill Vladimirovich began, according to the law, “from the day of the death of his predecessor” (Article 53).
This article, introduced by Emperor Nicholas I, is even more substantiated by his personal experience than even the articles about renunciation. Concessions to each other of the crown between him and Tsarevich Konstantin lasted a little less than a month, but in the manifesto of December 12, 1825, Nicholas I names November 19 as the day of accession to the Throne - the day of the death of his predecessor, Alexander I.
During the Great Troubles of the 20th century, the “hitch” with the succession to the throne lasted a little longer. The apparent reason for this, named in the manifesto of 1924, has already been mentioned. But in order to properly understand the relationship between their rights and obligations, it also took time.
Emperor Cyril realized his rights completely in the spirit of the laws of the Empire. Not only as a right, but also as a duty. He himself said it best of all: “I will only say that, according to the law, I am the All-Russian Emperor and that I am aware of my duty. I know that the time will come when Russia will need a legitimate Tsar. I demand from everyone that they fulfill their duty in relation to the Motherland, and therefore I am the first to do this.
Notes:
The same duty is royal service from a religious, Christian point of view, but we do not touch on this aspect here, limiting ourselves exclusively to the legal side of the issue.
With regard to feudal relations, one can speak specifically of private ownership, but in no case of private property. Here it is appropriate to recall the well-known aphorism of Roman law: "There is nothing in common between property and possession." You can own something, but not be the legal owner; You can own, but not own. Of course, there is still something in common between these two types of relations. The coincidence of ownership and ownership is the optimal norm.
Feudal “conditional ownership” of land is a kind of chronic ownership right, with no alternative to the right of ownership in the system of normative feudal relations, but with a strong tendency to degenerate into such in the course of the decomposition of the latter.
In turn, the feudal lords turned to Roman private law to justify their interests, which allowed them to look at their possessions, including the people living on them, as private property.
The theory of Roman absolutism in the history of the European monarchy played a far from unambiguous role. Being a powerful ideological weapon of royal power in the fight against competitors, she did her a disservice in the future. Roman doctrine, which grew out of republican-democratic soil, looked at imperial power as the sum of republican powers, and at the emperor as the bearer of the supreme power of the people.
This power, like the power of the power of the majority, was not limited by anyone or anything, not even by any divine law, but in the end the question might arise: is it not time to return it to its rightful owner - the people, which happened later. The own ideological content of the European monarchy, which grew out of the social system and the Christian faith, did not develop and, suppressed by the Roman doctrine, withered away.
Quote from M. Zyzykin's book "Royal Power and the Law on Succession to the Throne in Russia". Published in 1924, it still remains the most significant example of anti-Legitimist literature. The sobors did not create anything more serious.
One of the main ideas of this essay is as follows. Russian laws relating to the Succession to the Throne and the Imperial Family are wholly and completely "received" from German law, and in order to correctly understand Russian laws, one must refer to the German "original sources".
Without bothering to prove this postulate, M. Zyzykin proposes to consider our laws from the point of view of German law with all its feudal-medieval private-legal remnants and atavisms. In other words, Russian laws, initially free from all this, should be brought in with all that historical legal rubbish, from which German law itself did not know where to go.
In the light of this theory, our Law on the Succession to the Throne and the Institution of the Imperial Family are supposedly a kind of “family statutes” of the German sovereign houses, in which all power, “if the house ceases to reign”, belongs to the “agnates of the house”, i.e. . the totality of all adult members of the male surname.
This ideological provocation by M. Zyzykin, with the temptation to turn the Imperial House into a "dynastic republic", failed. The members of the Royal Family were at that time on top and the absolute majority (with the exception of a well-known odious personality [meaning the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich the Younger, who “knelt begged” Nicholas II to abdicate - ed.], with his brother and nephew) recognized Emperor Cyril.
Subsequently, it became simply indecent to “gather” and M. Zyzykin himself signed his allegiance to Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich. But then, in the course of the gradual extinction and decomposition of the Russian emigration, these theories were "reborn" and were brought to post-Soviet Russia, where they are considered by some to be part of the "golden fund" of the heritage of the Russian Diaspora. So M. Zyzykin's opus is still waiting for a detailed critical analysis.
The circle of persons entitled to inherit the Russian Throne is not limited to Russian subjects. The dynasties of Europe are full of descendants of the female faces of the House of Romanov, who have their place in the line of succession. But they could hardly be of any use in the course of the events described. But even with the male members of the Dynasty, things are not so simple. In addition to Tsesarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, there were several other minors among them. They could not renounce their rights because of their legal incapacity, and their parents and guardians not only could not dispose of their rights, but were also obliged to protect them.
“The Conversation of the Sovereign Emperor with an English Correspondent” is placed in the collection “Russian Foreign Congress. 1926 Paris. Documents and materials”, M. “Russian way”, 2006, pp. 265-271.
The book is an issue number 6 of the series "Research in Recent Russian History" edited by A. Solzhenitsyn. The preface to the document says that the Sovereign had a conversation with "a prominent representative of the major press organs, Mr. Steinthal,"
