In Russia Nicholas II abdicated but wasn't succeeded (technically) by his son Alexei II but his brother Michael II.
In both cases, the succession was determined in the context of revolutions.
The legal line in France was overpassed because the Bourbons were conservative and the Orléans were liberal/opportunists.
In Russia, Nicholas II abdicated not only in his name, but also in his son's, so Michael was the obvious next in line.
I wonder how Parliament could have twisted the succession in 1936 to overpass, not only the Duke of York and his daughters, but also the unmarried Duke of Gloucester in order to give the throne to the more glamorous Dukes of Kent.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index