What is the controversy about the last Czar of Russia?

Answer 1

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.