Why in the title of Nicholas II was not indicated that he is the Russian Tsar 

Monarch titles grow throughout their history. New designations are strung on them, and the old ones, which have long lost their historical content, remain. For example, the English royal dynasty officially renounced the title “King of France” only in 1800, although in reality the English king only once – during the Hundred Years War, and then only for a short time – occupied the French throne (Henry VI in 1431-1450. ).
The imperial throne was not Petersburg
In the title of Nicholas II , the emperor went first with a list of lands, then the king, the grand duke, the prince, and others with the same lists. “The Emperor and the All-Russian Autocrat” was supplemented with adjectives: “Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod.” The word “Petersburg” was not encountered anywhere.
The word “king” stood separately before each designation of “kingdoms”, of which six were considered: Kazan, Astrakhan, Polish, Siberian, Tauric Chersonesos, Georgian. The “King of Poland” is puzzling because the Polish kingdom never existed, it was the Kingdom of Poland. Perhaps the Orthodox Russian emperor could not be called the king of a Catholic country. However, he calmly considered himself to be the king of Muslim countries and the duke of Western Europe.
It is not clear why the historical title of the Crimean king was changed to “the king of Tauric Chersonesos,” who never existed in nature. And it is also not clear why, along with the other titles of Chinggisids, the imperial title did not include naming, for example, the kings of Kasimov and the Nogai Horde.
Lord of the Samoyeds and the Chukchi
“Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volyn, Podolsk and Finland; Prince of Estland, Lifland, Kurland and Semigalsky, Samogit, Bialystok, Korela, Tver, Ugra, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others; Sovereign and Grand Duke Novagorod of the Nizov land, Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsky, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Ugorsky, Obdorsky, Kondiysky, Vitebsk, Mstislavsky and all Northern countries sovereign ”.
In this passage, the enumeration form and the absence of any logical order are striking. The lands giving the right to name the Grand Duke are divided into two by transferring lands with a simple princely title. Geographical confusion is especially hurt.
After the title of the Polotsk Grand Duke, lands northeast of Moscow go – from Rostov and Yaroslavl to Western Siberia (Ugorsky, Obdorsky, Kondiysky). Following this, the titles of the Grand Duke of Vitebsk and Mstislavsky again bring us back to Western Russia, and then another sharp zigzag again to the North: “and all the Northern countries are the sovereign.” Moreover, the word “sovereign” makes one think that it was once invented to bring some Ostyak and Tungus princes into awe.
As for historical titles, for some reason there is no “Grand Prince of Tver”, although Ryazan, Smolensk, Nizhny Novgorod, and even some Mstislavsky – in place.
Below the emir of Bukhara in Turkestan
“Sovereign of Iverskie, Kartalinskiy and Kabardinian lands and regions of Armenskiy; Cherkasy and Highland princes and other hereditary sovereign and owner “. This designation of the Caucasian countries affiliated with Russia, although the Georgian kingdom was one of them, as we have seen, outlined above. It does not matter that the Iversk and Kartalinsk lands are geographically the same as the Georgian kingdom. A similar repetition was higher with the kingdom of Kazan and the principality of Bulgaria (Volga Bulgaria). It is surprising that, while striving for verbosity, the kingdoms, khanates, and principalities of the Eastern Caucasus (Shusha, Karabakh, Shemakha, Nukhinskoe, etc.) are not listed here separately. Apparently, the royal heralds did not bother to enumerate them, limiting themselves to “and others.”
In the newly joined Central Asia, the royal title was not developed at all. He limited himself to a modest mention: “the sovereign of Turkestan.” Although here one could paint the king of Khorezm, Sogd, Kokand, Chagatai, etc. Unless, of course, follow the same logic that was used in the preparation of other parts of the title.
Norwegians didn’t know
The title was mentioned but the Western European states, in which the Russian emperors really did not rule. Nicholas II was the “heir to the Norwegian”. At the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815. Denmark as an ally of Napoleon was deprived of possession of Norway. Most of the allies, against the wishes of Alexander I, transferred the Norwegian crown to Sweden. Since then, Russian emperors have presented their “historical” claims for the Norwegian crown in their title. In 1905, when Sweden granted Norway independence, Nicholas II tried uselessly to recall his “rights.”
Dynastic kinship led to the presence of Nicholas II titles “Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarnskogo, Ditmarsenskogo and Oldenburgskogo.” The Russian emperors claimed the Duchy of Oldenburg because of the marriage of the sister of Alexander I to Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna for Peter of Oldenburg, although he did not have the rights to the ducal throne. The three other duchies of the Russian emperors considered their heritage because of the origin of the male line from Peter III of Holstein-Gottorp.
Nicholas II was not considered the king of all Russia
The archaic bulky title of Nicholas II was ridiculed by the liberal public. After the convocation of the State Duma in 1906, the title “autocrat” became legal nonsense.
For brevity, Nicholas II used the formula in his manifestos: “All-Russian emperor and autocrat, Polish Tsar, Grand Duke of Finland.” This was clearer than the full title, since all lands, except Poland and Finland, were administratively part of the Russian Empire.
But Russian nationalists also criticized the soulless, in their opinion, title construction, which did not say anything to the Russian people. The publicist Nikolai Chernyaev was indignant at why the Russian monarch was called the “Tsar of Poland”, but in his title there are no words “the Tsar of Russia”. Indeed, with such a predilection for collecting the smallest titles, the disappearance of the historically real title “the king of Great, Little and White Russia” seemed the strangest.

Show More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button