Talk:Nicholas II

Dubious sources

Regarding the note added to the statement "Nicholas felt so unprepared for the duties of the crown that he tearfully asked his cousin, 'What is going to happen to me and all of Russia?'". The offered source is Feinstein, Elaine (2006). http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400033782&view=excerpt Excerpt from Anna of All the Russias]. Vintage. ISBN 978-1-4000-3378-2. This is VERY poor documentation. What is the author's source? Is it reliable? --Peshkov 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New entry posted 16th January 2008 Years back,I read somewhere that the two girls who were sharing a room managed to escape. Does anyone know that version of events and if so,which 2 girls was it referring to, where they Maria and Anastasia? Was there also a theory that Rotislav married Anastasia, and Yusupoff married Olga after running away from Rasputin's family,and that R&A's eldest son married the daughter of Y&O? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.83.18 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hemophilia line picture

the hemophilia line picture is big, and it stretches the page out. i am not good with pictures, so if there is some way to make it a smaller size/proportion, please do so. Lord GaleVII 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Genealogy

It's inappropriate to mislead people by suggesting that the ancestry as given is something other than a possibility. Therefore some indication of the fact that it is disputed must be included if it is included. All that remains is to decide what that indication will be. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A footnote, with sources, would be most appropriate. Peshkov 11:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich the last Tsar?

Was Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich the last Tsar since Nicholas II abdicated in favor of him? User:Andrew16 18 April, 2007.

No, because Michael did not accept it.Lord GaleVII 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Nicholas abdicated on behalf of both himself and his son Alexei. Since his female children had no right of succession, Michael Alexandrovich was next in line after Alexei, and Nicholas therefore wrote to Michael addressing him as "His Majesty the Emperor Michael". But Michael refused to accept the throne unless it was bestowed on him by a Constutuent Assembly which had duly decided on the continuance of the monarchy. Events overtook all this and no such Assembly was ever convened. Tom129.93.17.174 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

could someone redo the names on the caption of the photo of the royal family

There's a nice photo of the whole royal family, where they are named going clockwise. The concept of clockwise is tricky when they aren't quite in a circle. It would be easier if it could be done strictly left to right. I would do this myself, but I'm confused by who they are as it stands (hence the request). Could someone please adjust the order of the names? The Mad Echidna 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Photograph by the Levitsky Company of the last Russian Royal Family. Clockwise from top: the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, the Grand Duchess Anastasia, the Tsarevich Alexei, the Grand Duchess Tatiana, Tsar Nicholas II, the Grand Duchess Olga, and the Grand Duchess Maria. Livadia, 1913"

translates to:

"Photograph by the Levitsky Company of the last Russian Royal Family. From Left to Right: The Grand Duchess Olga, the Grand Duchess Maria, Tsar Nicholas II, the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, the Grand Duchess Anastasia, the Tsarevich Alexei, the Grand Duchess Tatiana. Livadia, 1913" - Nunh-huh 04:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

could someone stop mispelling words like czar?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.0.79 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

Anna Anderson

It says near the end of the article that Anna Anderson was proven not to be Grand Duchess Anastasia. although the tests on her tissue was confirmed to be that of the factory worker, the results are still inconclusive at this point. there are conspiracy theories that claim that someone replaced the tissue samples. and there was a test done, comparing photos of anna and anastasia, which said the her facial structure was identical to that of anastasia. i am not saying it is concrete, just that perhaps it should be slightly reworded. Onopearls 19:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The test absolutely proved she was not the Grand Duchess Anastasia. That some people choose not to believe it doesn't affect that fact - there are always those whose perception of reality cannot be shaped by facts. The test is not sufficient to prove she was Schwankowska, thoush she almost certainly was, but it is sufficient to prove she wasn't Anastasia. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's to blame?

Copied from WP:RD/H for incorporation into the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is still not been proved conclusively just how the decision to kill the family was arrived at; if it was central, or if it was local; and, if central, who exactly was involved. However, I can offer you a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence that points quite firmly at Moscow.

For the Ural Soviet the presence of the royal family at Ekaterinburg was a growing concernn, especially as the Czech Legion and other White forces approaching the town from the east. Rather than risk moving them they decided on execution, though they were unwilling to act without the approval the Council of Commissars in Moscow. Ivan Goloschekin, a member of the Ural Soviet who also happened to be a friend of Yakov Sverdlov, a close political associate of Lenin, was sent to Moscow to take soundings on the matter. He was told by Sverdlov that the government was still considering puting Nicholas on trial, an idea favoured by Trotsky. However, the steady advance of the Whites towards Ekaterinburg changed this, and Goloschekin was able to return with the news that Moscow had delegated the whole business to the Ural Soviet.

With Lenin's permission Sverdlov formally announced the death of Nicholas at a meeting of the Executive Council on 18 July 1918. Nothing was said of the fate of the Empress Alexandra and the five children, though an official statement was issued that they had all been moved. However, both Lenin and Sverdlov knew that they were all dead. They had been so advised by telegram from Ekaterinburg. The statement was a lie.

A year passed before the government admitted that they had all been shot, though the Social Revolutionaries were blamed. However, the real link between Moscow and the Urals was later made clear in a conversation between Sverdlov and Trotsky. Trotsky reports this in his memoirs thus;

"My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Ekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov, I asked in passing: 'Oh, yes, and where is the Tsar?

'It's all over,' he answered. 'He has been shot.'

'And where is the family?'

'And the family along with him.'

'All of them?', I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise.

'All of them,' replied Sverdlov. 'What about it?' He was waiting to see my reaction, I made no reply.

'And who made the decision?', I asked.

'We decided it here. Ilych [Lenin] believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally round, especially under the present difficult circumstances.'

I did not ask any further questions and considered the matter closed. Actually, the decision was not only expedient but necessary. The severity of the summary justice showed the world that we would continue to fight mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar's family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify, and dishearten the enemy, but also in order to shake up our own ranks to show that there was no turning back, that ahead lay only complete victory or complete ruin...This Lenin sensed well."

Sverdlov was certainly implicated in the murder of the entire family. It is difficult to accept that he would not have cleared this with Lenin, who, in my estimation, is guilty by association. He certainly deserves part of the 'credit' for this atrocity. Clio the Muse 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Section about execution

The section is very messy. It goes into unnecessary detail which is as relevant to the article about Nicholas II as to that about his wife or children. Some of the details are repeated in Romanov Dynasty and Ipatiev House and... you name it. I suggest spinning off the main article along the lines of Execution of the Russian royal family. Thoughts? --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

His mistress Mathilde Kschessinska?

why is there no mention of his mistress in this article?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.86.191 (talk) 05:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas or bolshevism?

I don't see from the article why the second of these two sentences is included: "The abdication of Nicholas II and the subsequent bolshevik revolution brought three centuries of the Romanov dynasty's rule to an end. It also paved the way for massive destruction of Russian culture with the closure and demolition of many churches and monasteries, the theft of valuables and estates from the former aristocracy and monied classes and the suppression of religious and folk art forms." The second sentence belongs in a piece on Bolshevism, Russian Communism, the Russian Revolution, perhaps in a piece on Lenin since it's part of his legacy, but not in a piece on Nicholas. I suggest it be replaced with a neutral point of view statement about the radical transformation of Russian life and culture following the revolution, with internal links to Bolshevism, the Russian Revolution and Lenin. The alternative, balancing it with a sentence detailing the cultural and political innovations the revolution brought, would be just as out of place. Robcuny 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The executioners were Jewish

Yankel Sverdlov (né Solomon) sent the order to Yurovsky to kill the Royal Family. Jacob Yurovsky the head executioneer was Jewish, and the execution was carried out by Jewish NKVD guards Professor Boris (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are not exactly unbiased, Professor Boris. In fact, the library.flawlesslogic.com states: "Although officially Jews have never made up more than five percent of the country's total population, they played a highly disproportionate and probably decisive role in the infant Bolshevik regime, effectively dominating the Soviet government during its early years." Since neither of the two early leaders of the USSR, Lenin and then Stalin, were Jewish, your cited website seems to be an anti-semitic site without reliable citations. Trotsky, who was Jewish, ended up being assassinated in Mexico on the orders of Stalin. While the lead executioner of the Czar was Jewish, it does not follow that Jews controlled the USSR, as your cited website claims. RockStarSheister (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RockStarSheister. The source you cite to back up your claim that the firing squad was made up of Jews does not itself provide any reliable historical backup for that claim, nor does it do more than hint darkly that there were a lot of Jews in the NKVD. Add to that the absurd attempt to smear the German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine with guilt for the death of the Romanovs (Heine was a secular humanist who died 12 years before the Tsar was born) and it's clear that the website in question is mere anti-semitic propaganda. Lexo (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas II

I observe that someone had been adding galleries unrelated to the article. Images of Alexander II, Nicholas' tutor, Kerensky, Rasputin, Prince Yussupov, Lenin, Tsarevich Alexis and Boris Yeltsin do not deserve to be here. As a result, the page has grown to over 80 KB. This is not a textbook with a detailed description of Nicholas II's life. I advice the person who has added them to study WP:REL and stop reverting while the matter is under discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicholas_II_of_Russia&diff=176755234&oldid=176754704 --

Rustam

01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the above displays a very gross lack of understanding of the content required for the page. Wikipedia prides itself on being a service to provide knowledge and not deny it. It is not meant to be mediocre. I wonder since when has the above person been an authority on the topic? Perhaps they might like the lay out their academic credentials in the field. I wonder what this particular editor believes is classified as unrelated to a topic? All the people mentioned by the above editor were important personages connected with the person in question. Let's deal with them :

• a. Alexander II - grandfather of Nicholas II and the member of his family he first saw mutilated as an act of terrorism - this had a major effect on psychological development.
• b. The main tutor of Nicholas II - instilled into him his basic view on Russian governance and religion
• c. Kerensky - the man who did a huge amount to overthrow him, placed him and his family under house arrest and interrogated both Nicholas and Alexandra personally and then sent Nicholas II and his family to Tobolsk which placed them in a position where they could be moved with not much difficulty to Ekaterinburg, a hotbed of extreme hate against the Romanovs
• d. Yussopov - married to his only niece and from a extremely important aristocratic family very closely connected to the imperial family for generations and one of the murderers of Rasputin - a major figure in the life of Nicholas II and his family
• e. Lenin - the man who decided whether Nicholas II and his family would continue to live or die apart from being one who lost his eldest brother in a foiled terroist plot to assassinate Nicholas II's father and did his utmost to undermine the regime of Nicholas II throughout the entire reign
• f. Tsarevich Alexis - the heir to the Russian Empire - his birth and subsequent incurable illness lead to Rasputin and so many problems
• g. Yeltsin - the one who ordered the demolition of the Ipatiev House where Nicholas II and his family were executed. Yeltsin also gave legal consent for the reburial and investigation of the Romanov bones and attended the funeral as an act of national repentance

I guess the above editor needs to do some basic research and reading on the subject to work all of this out. Removing valuable information that expands and clarifies an article usually is considered to be vandalism. It is not photographs that have expanded the size of the page. It is mainly text and correct referencing - verification and correct and adequate referencing were basically missing and mediocre in the extreme. I suggest the above editor reads the article and learns something from it rather than removing this right from so many others who want to access information from wikipedia and not be denied it. Finneganw 14:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this: Wikipedia:Article size. If you want to write a book on Nicholas II then the images of these people would be of use. But then there is Wikibooks for that purpose. Wikipedia is not the place to gather extensive research material and store them. I also advice you to have a look at WP:CIVIL.If you have any doubts regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Thanks --

Rustam

16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Gavrilo Princip and Archduke Franz Ferdinand are in no way related to Tsar Nicholas II. The photos of these concerned individuals would be appropriate for an article on First World War. However, they are out of place here. --

Rustam

16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The first gallery has photographs of Nicholas' father, mother, paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother. This is absolutely ridiculous and not appropriate for an article --

Rustam

16:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: Hey. I saw this page listed on 3O, but it seems that the issues have been worked out. The galleries that were included were excessive, and I think the page is considerably better now than from the previous versions. If you guys need more help, just post on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Images of Nicholas II

The picture of Nicholas II listed as being from 1913 belongs to Bob Atchison, I colorized it in December 2001 and it was published on the Alexander Palace website in 2002 with copyright. It appears here without permission and cannot be copied or duplicated. This is also true of the colorized picture of Felix Yussupov which was first copyrighted in 1997--

216.30.130.30 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Bob Atchison

"The Russian High Command was moreover greatly weakened by the mutual contempt between Sukhomlinov, the ineffectual Minister of War, and the redoubtable warrior giant Grand Duke Nicholas Nicolaievich who commanded the armies in the field." POV. Sukhomlinov was a vastly better leader and decision-maker than the Grand Duke. That's a POV too, only it's the POV of Norman Stone and Bruce W. Menning. And since it's tangential to this article, I'm thinking of dropping all the judgement words from discussions of the Minister and the Grand Duke. Boris B (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rape of Nicholas II and his family

I read some time ago that Nicholas II was sodomised and his daughters and wife raped during a bolshevique celebration (the boy was spared). The guards got drunked and took his oldest daughter in first place and the wife and the rest afterwards. The guards overwhelmed the Tzar warning him if he resisted, they would rape the boy also. The rape ocurred in one room and all (except the boy) were assaulted at the same time in front of the tzar. This tale was told by the family's doctor to his son. What do you know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.121.99 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing this with the speculated incident that happened on the journery from Tobol'sk to Ekaterinburg onboard the Rus. There are stories that all the servants (both female and male) along with Alexei were locked away in their cabins and the Grand Duchesses (Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia [Maria was already in Ekaterinburg, having travelled with her parents earlier on]) weren't allowed to lock their doors. Apparently, the servants heard screams coming from OTA's room and those such as Gilliard and Gibbes tried to get out to stop whatever was transpiring but were powerless in their attempts. There's no record or source to say what actually happened to the Grand Duchesses that night. Some say they were raped, some say they were just terrorized... It's a mystery we will never know the answer to...

--SaraFL (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

German?

I'd like to see cites that the Danish are German. --NellieBly (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to tell us what you are talking about? Lars T. (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Bodies

Why is the missing bodies of the Tsar's kids given such a large paragraph on this pgae? Gavin Scott (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really relevant to mention that Nicholas II was 94% German and "only 6% Russian"? I was born in Mexico and the 100% of my ancestors are of Spanish and Portuguese heritage. However my family have lived in Mexico for almost 400 years and I am not less Mexican due to the fact that I have no Native blood. Nicholas II was Russian enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.154.26.121 (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sophie of Prussia and other potential brides

According to this website, when Princess Sophie of Prussia, second youngest daughter of Frederick III, German Emperor and Victoria, Princess Royal was fourteen, a plan to marry her to Tsarevitch Nicholas (future Nicholas II) was set in motion by Herbert von Bismarck, who was then serving in the German Embassy in St. Petersburg. Anything else about this.

Also other potential brides were Princess Hélène of Orléans and Princess Elena of Montenegro Cladeal832 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

huh?

"{{BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" at the start, and is his title REALLY "Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russia's"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.210.162 (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and yes (but note it's "Russias", not "Russia's").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fake Anastasia...

In the article it says that there was DNA testing done on the Anna that Hollywood made the movies out of, that wasn't possible she had her body cremated. She did, however have appendicitis (spelling?) forcing her to have her appendix removed. Her appendix was saved and thats what the DNA testing was done on.

I know its just one of those little nit~picky things, but it bothered me.

I don't have a source for this one, I just saw it on an HBO special, Autopsy: A Special. It was something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.105 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Peacock and other issues

This article suffers from a considerable amount of creeping violation of WP:Peacock, in that it has been too much edited by people who wish to portray the Tsar as variously a hero, a misinformed but basically good man, a martyr, a victim of the Jewish conspiracy etc. without providing much in the way of solid evidence. It is not the job of Wikipedia contributors to pass judgment on Nicholas II's lovableness, gentleness, good nature etc., or for that matter on his lack of same, but to report faithfully what a variety of existing sources had to say about him. The article is at present too much inclined to argue in Nicholas II's favour, when it should restrict itself to reporting the fact that there are and have always been arguments about him. It is not up to us to tell people what kind of guy he was, but to give them enough hard information to enable them to use their own judgment and make up their own minds. I am accordingly tagging the article. It's also too long, so I'm tagging that too; for example, I am surprised to note that the assassination section does not contain a link to a separate article on the assassination itself. Lexo (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried a little copyediting here and there and remove the most obvious cruft, but the whole article should be reworked by someone who's an expert on the issue and has the necessary sources. Also, some stuff should be moved into the existing sub-pages, and there should not be too much duplication between them... Averell (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Im rather new to Wikipedia and I certainly do not have a PhD on the subject, but I do have somewhere between 20 and 30 books on the Romanovs and Russian history, as it is the topic of my master's thesis. I don't know what kind of sources you need, but if you email me at Keltara@roadrunner.com and know what you are doing with editing the pages, I'll be more than happy to look up whatever I can with and reply with the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltara (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder/Killing/Execution...?

Someone deleted the word "murder" and replaced it with "assassination" or "execution". I wonder if the term "murder" should not apply - this is the term usually used for illegal killings. An "assassination" it is not, clearly. "Execution" implies that the killing was legal under some code of law, which I don't see here (especially since the whole family is included). I'd opt for the term "murder", but if someone finds this too POV we could probably settle for the neutral (but slightly awkward) term "killing"? Averell (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying he was murdered is not POV because murder is what it was...I think. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)