Talk:Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia

message: Should he really be listed as a Tsar?  He never reigned, and he never accepted the throne, and he is better known as Grand Duke Michael. john 08:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I will once again express my view that this page is clearly wrongly marked, that Grand Duke Michael never reigned as Emperor of All Russia, and is hardly known as "Emperor Michael II."  This page should be moved to "Grand Duke Michael of Russia" or "Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia". john 08:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous early discussion

message: The abdication was countersigned by the Minister for the Imperial Court, Count Freedericksz. Typically, Nicholas did not send any message to his brother who slept through that night not knowing he was now His Imperial Majesty, Michael II, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias. He did not find out until mid-morning 16 March while sheltering in an apartment near the Winter Palace.
Someone entered this, it's clearly not very encyclopedic. It looks frankly stupid, so I removed it. James5555 08:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird sentence

message: Why is this page under the name Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia?
His name was Mikhail, NOT Michael.....this page should be moved to the correct name. His parents did not name him Michael.
For example, my Grandfather's name was Riccardo....not Richard. Even though they are different language derivations of a name, they are still different names nonetheless.
--Mrlopez2681 08:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your grandfather was not royalty, was he? Charles 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're confused Mrlopez2681. On wikipedia we use the most commonly used name to refer to people in English. For example, to move the page about Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, to Nikolai II, would be totally inappropriate. How many people refer to him as Nikolai? And there is no set rule. The last kaiser of Germany, is more commonly referred to by his German name Wilhelm II rather than William II. On the other hand, we usually refer to Catherine the Great rather than Ekaterina. Get it? James5555 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mans name was Mikhail,  NOT '''Michael'''

message: For the unregistered user who keeps dropping references to that book Michael and Natasha as he/she did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duke_Michael_Alexandrovich_of_Russia&oldid=120790662, I wouldn't recommend it. It's not really of a historical standard, more coffee table reading. A book which states that Grand Duke Michael was Michael II, last tsar of Russia, is not really to be taken seriously in any case. James5555 05:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I thought we had decided some time ago NOT to put a succession box on the page stating that he was the last tsar of Russia.
As this is in flagrant abuse of the decision made, I have removed it.James5555 (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicholas I's status didn't change because Constantine refused the throne, and he then went on to become emperor.  And arguably we should not list him as emperor until after his brother renounced.  Michael was never the de facto emperor, which is what is important. john k (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Looking at the Nicholas I issue - Nicholas I, when he did take the throne, proclaimed that his reign began retroactively on December 1.  I'm not sure what credence we should give to such a claim - Nicholas was not acting as emperor between December 1 and December 25, and was not clearly recognized as de jure emperor at the time.  At any rate, though, the issue of listing Michael really has nothing to do with de jure claims, but with de facto realities - Nicholas became de facto emperor, Michael did not. john k (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Why don't you edit the article to include some of this material (with citations to appropriate secondary sources, of course)? john k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box

message: Who was this man, and why was someone with an apparently English-sounding name working as a secretary for the brother of the Russian Emperor?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicholas Johnson

message: OK, let's see.  The sequence of events starts at 11:45 pm on 12 June, when the four men gained entry to Michael's hotel. They had some discussions, then he got dressed, then they left the hotel, climbed into two carriages, and drove out of the town into the forest.  They all alighted from the carriages and Mikhail and Johnson were shot.  
Surely, surely, by this time it was past midnight, and into the 13th of June.  No?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Donald.  You and I seem to share the same mind on such matters.  However, google "nicholas II russia july 1918" and you'll find many hits for 17 July, many for 16/17 July, and some, admittedly, for 16 July.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

text: December 4 is the Gregorian date, November 22 is the Julian one. DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Death date

message: This is a well-written and well-sourced article! It should be submitted by one of its devoted editors for Good article status. Ruby2010 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: It should be pointed out, when Nicholas II abdicated, his son & heir-apparent's right to the throne were simultaneously renounced. Otherwise, the monarchists would've recognized Alexis II not Michael II. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Your wording was open to misinterpretation as it is not known that they were renounced. The constitutional legality of the succession is particularly complex, and is open to opinion. One opinion would be: Since Nicholas had already abdicated earlier in the day, he was no longer emperor and had no power to decide his son's fate, who was, according to the earlier document, already emperor with Michael as regent. As Regent, only Michael had the power to overturn the previous abdication notice, as by that time Nicholas was just a subject of his son. DrKiernan (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are valid questions about the legitimacy of Nicholas's abdication for his son on the grounds that Pauline Law forbade the monarch from abdicating in circumstances likely to make transition to the heir difficult. But Nicholas's earlier signature abdicating for himself alone had not been promulgated, as was required under the Fundamental laws of Russia, so that was not a legal impediment. FactStraight (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The superscript number [16] is the link to the reference: Crawford and Crawford, p. 25. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexis' rights to the throne 

message: I'm kinda confused by "Nicholai Johnson". This Daily Mail article talks about Brian Johnson, Michael's personal secretary since 1912, who was murdered along with Michael; Brian Johnson's father was a Nicholas Johnson. I don't have access to the cited source for any of what's in the article to see if I can clarify things, but there's some misinformation somewhere, it appears. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson 

message: How can he have been "officially rehabilitated" rehabilitated when he was neither charged nor convicted of any crime? He was actually a murder victim.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehabilitation 

message: Specifically this: "but Alexei inherited the blood-clotting disorder haemophilia and was not expected to live". While Alexei did have hemophilla (there's a whole section about it in Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia), he was not terminal. He didn't die because of his illness, but because he was executed along with the rest of his family. His health would have needed to be carefully monitored like it had always been, but it wouldn't have been impossible for him to rule. Clovermoss (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've edited the article to remove the information quoted, ending the sentance in regards to how Alexei's birth moved Michael to second-in-line for the throne. Clovermoss (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article doesn't say he was terminal. Cited content restored. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Alexei in the lead