Talk:Nicholas II/Archive 4

Last edit
Changing German names for Germans into English - Wilhelm to William - makes no sense for this article.Moryak (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2022 (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)

I read a book about the Anna case (can't remember which; there are so many!), and they mentioned doing a microscopic comparison of photographs of Anna Anderson's right ear, and Grand Duchess Anastasia's right ear. I do not remember the conclusion reached by that book.

Of course, since they have recently found the remains of the missing Alexei Nikolaevich and one of his sisters, isn't the Anna debate now moot?Sdsures (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The most famous fake Anastasia was Anna Anderson, who is the "Anna that Hollywood made the movies out of". She was indeed cremated. But not all of her. She had had intestinal surgery during her lifetime, and the surgical specimen that had been removed was still at the hospital where the surgery was done. So she did indeed have DNA testing that showed not only was she not Anastasia or any other member of the Imperial family, but also that she was actually Franziska Schanzkowska, previously a Polish factory worker, with a history of mental illness. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Geographical error with Birthplace
This page is on 'lock' with reading that the district he was born in (Tsarko Selo, now called Pushkin), is near the city of St. Petersburg. Technically, it is a district of the city (St. Petersburg is a large city) and not a different town. This is a --Common misconception about the district, the same is with Peterhof district.

If someone argues, the full title is Pushkin, St. Petersburg Federal City, St. Petersburg, Russia.

'St. Petersburg' has to be added to his birthplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.14.175 (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Passion-bearer vs. Martyr
There is no a priori distinction between a martyr and passion-bearer in the case of Nicholas II, as this article claims. We read in the ROCOR version of the prayer at the Litia:

[Molitvami] svyatykh slavnykh i dobropobednykh muchenikov i svyatykh strastoterptsev: Tsarya Muchenika Nikolaya, Tsaritsy Aleksandry, Tsarevicha Aleksiya, Tsareven Olgi, Tatiany, Marii, i Anastasii i vsekh novomuchenikov i ispovednikov tserkve rossiiskiya

[Through the prayers of] the holy glorious and victorious martyrs and holy passion-sufferers: Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, Tsaritsa Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexey, Grand Duchessess Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, and all the New-Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.161.245 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is not the above debate still emotive rather than objective? On one hand, these distinctions are verifiably present in the ROC, but the application of them (i.e. deciding which to use) is somewhat subjective.Sdsures (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick lookup of passion bearer. I find that martyr is a subset of passion bearer; passion bearer who is not a martyr was not killed explicitly for his/her faith. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Last Tsar?
Wasn't Nicholas's brother Michael technically the last Tsar of Russia? C.L. Sulzberger says this in his The Fall of Eagles. After Nicholas abdicated on behalf of his son, then changed his mind, he passed the empire to his brother Michael who abdicated the following day after being warned that his life could not be protected.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon the historians have the final say. They've chosen to ignore the reluctant Michael II. IMHO, Mike was the 'last Tsar', as the Russian succession was automatic & the monarchy hadn't been abolished upon Nicky's abdication. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Michael wasn't crowned isn't a significant factor either seeing as Russian tsars always waited a year following the deaths of their predecessors as that was the period of official mourning. When the full year had passed they were then crowned tsar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose, one could add Michael II into the Infobox & Navbox; atleast with 'dispute' next to it. Though, I'd get WP:RUSSIA's opinon on it, first. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IF the WikiProject approves it, a model to copy from would be the Infobox/Navbox at Charles X of France. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think historians pretty much have spoken (look at the book titles: Nicholas II, The Life and Reign of Russia's Last Monarch; Last of the Tsars; Nicholas II, The Last Tsar: you won't find Alexei or Michael in a historian's list of tsars. The issues around the abdication are manifold, but moot: the fact is that neither Alexei nor Michael ever acted as Tsar. The questions that make the "technical" issue of who was the last tsar are the same questions that make the answer unknowable: does a forced abdication have legal force? could Nicholas abdicate on his son's behalf? does trying to do so violate his oath to defend the fundamental laws of succession? If so, does it carry legal force? can someone who has already abdicated change his mind, given that he's given up the power to make such a decision, which now rests with his son? Does Michael's refusal count? etc. If the technical issues bother anyone, the statement that Nicholas II was the last tsar to rule Russia should finesse the issue. - Nunh-huh 15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon, the historians have got the final say. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Michael was murdered before Nicholas also needs to be taken into consideration. I suppose all things considered, Nicholas was the last Tsar. I just thought I'd question it, seeing as how author Sulzberger called Michael the last Tsar in his book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Michael was the last; oh well. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you, however, we do need to take into account the legality of Nicholas' abdication; whether or not it was made under duress, plus the fact that Michael died before Nicholas.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually (when ya re-think it), Alexis was the last Tsar, as he never consented to the renouncement of his succession rights. But like I say, the historians have got the upper hand. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one could argue that Nicholas was pressured into abdicating; although certainly not with the same strong-arm tactics used against Mary, Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always a tricky situation, when a monarchy is nearing its end. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was given the final push into the abyss by a lethal combination of Rasputin and German assistance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Republics are much better anyways (not the communist ones, though). GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting very much off the subject. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Easy, guys. Mikhail never ruled a minute, nor Alexey. Mike did not accept the tittle. By your reasonin, should we also include Constantine Pavlovich, who similarly abdicated, as an Emperor? I'd say, no. Who does not accept the tittle, is not emperor. Neither army nor parliament have sworn to him. Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The royal/imperial succession is not based upon personal acceptance, but primogeniture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You propose to list Constantine as well, then? And possibly exclude Catherines I and II as usurpers, who were not in right to claim the throne. Garret Beaumain (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't propose anything. I was merely posing a question based on the words of Sulzberger.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Russian monarchial history, has alot of unexpected twists & turns, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very turbulent, mysterious and dramatic dynasty interlaced with a great deal of tragedy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Trick question. The Empress of Russia is Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, the Russian realm is just under the occupation of republican forces at the moment. ;) - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't Tsar Paul I of Russia impose Salic Law, thus barring female succession due to his neurotic hatred of his mother?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. The Pauline Laws (the ones governing succession) barred females from the throne IF, and only if, there were remaining male dynasts. If there aren't, Maria is Tsarina. If not, there are other claims CanadianPrince (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The most disastrous ruler ever
Nicholas II gets the title “The most stupid ruler in XX century”. Reasons:
 * Despite a visit to Great Britain before his accession, where he observed the House of Commons in debate and seemed impressed by the machinery of democracy, Nicholas turned his back on any notion of giving away any power to elected representatives in Russia.
 * Despite the onset of the war and the many defeats Russia suffered, Nicholas still believed in, and expected, a final victory. . . As Russia continued to face defeat by the Japanese, the call for peace grew. Nicholas's own mother, as well as his cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm, urged Nicholas to open peace negotiations. Despite the efforts for peace, Nicholas remained evasive.
 * Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (Nicholas's sister) wrote regarding the Bloody Sunday: . . . I felt at the time that all those arrangements were hideously wrong. Nicky's ministers and the Chief of Police had it all their way. My mother and I wanted him to stay in St.Petersburg and to face the crowd. I am positive that, for all the ugly mood of some of the workmen, Nicky's appearance would have calmed them. . . The situation turned ugly and bringing the Bloody Sunday.
 * Nicholas' relations with the Duma were not good: Reactionaries such as Prince Vladimir Orlov never tired of telling the Tsar that the very existence of the Duma was a blot on the autocracy. With this attitude, the Tsar was breeding revolutionary thinking in some intellectuals and the poor population.
 * The concept of Pan-Slavism and ethnicity allied Russia and Serbia in a treaty of protection. This treaty forced Russia to get into conflict against Austria-Hungary and Germany. Count Witte told the French Ambassador Paleologue that from Russia's point of view the war was madness, Slav solidarity was simply nonsense and Russia could hope for nothing from the war.
 * On 31 July 1914 Nicholas took the fateful step of confirming the order for a general mobilization. Nicholas was strongly counseled against mobilization of the Russian forces but chose to ignore such advice. Despite the experience of defeat against Japan few years before, Russia got into conflict with Germany, a more powerful adversary than Japan.
 * In July 1915, King Christian X of Denmark, first cousin of the Tsar, sent Hans Niels Andersen to Tsarskoye Selo with an offer to act as a mediator. Nicholas chose to turn down King Christian's offer of mediation.
 * As the government failed to produce supplies, there was mounting hardship creating massive riots and rebellions. Despite efforts by the British Ambassador Sir George Buchanan to warn the Tsar that he should grant constitutional reforms to fend off revolution, Nicholas continued to bury himself away at the Staff HQ.
 * Nicholas couldn't go into exile in the United Kingdom following his abdication due to political sensitivity issues in England. Nevertheless, he was offered exile in Germany but he and his wife rejected the offer indignantly. Later, the revolutionaries slaughtered him and his family.

Just imagine, this tsar had the key to start up the war: if he hadn't mobilized the troops (because he knew this would provoke the declaration of war from Germany), the war wouldn't have started! How many calamities the Russians and the rest of the world had ever avoided without this war: the Red Revolution, Stalin, Hitler, millions of dead people, the Holocaust. I wonder, who was worse ruler for the Russians Nicholas II or Stalin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.17.146 (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * More to the point - just imagine what would have been had not some crazed nihilists assassinated Tsar Aleksandr II, the "Tsar Liberator". It was largely due to that assassination that Russia's successive rulers plunged into deepening conservatism and paranoia.  Nicholas II, unfortunately, reigned when the cross currents of a wide range of historical events crashed down upon Russia's ruler.Федоров (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nicholas could hardly go into exile in Germany while Russia was still at war with the Central Powers. (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC))


 * How easy to say "most disastrous ruler ever". We really need to study the situation and the period under the rule of Nicholas II at first before judging on anything.
 * This Anti-Nicholas retoric is very much taken from Soviet historical perspective. First of all Russia wasn't doing that bad in WWI. Fighting a war on the broadest front against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey they
 * weren't fighting that disastrous as you are telling here. The Russian were advincing on the Turkish front and had taken out practically the whole Austrian-Hungarian army in one sweep. None of other allies ever
 * managed to achieve such victory as in the Brusilov offensive.
 * The perspective on rebellions and massive riots is also very misleading. As we know the image of the revolution is not the one as it seems in the movie of Eisenstein
 * where rioting people are storming the palace and taking the ruling of the country.


 * We should also ask ourselves the question why the English, French who were fighting together with the Russians against the German enemy, practically supported the revolutionary movement of the provisional government.
 * French general Maurice Janin for example wrote in his diary that the English were heading and supporting the revolution financially. General Gulevich also commented that large funds were transferred to the revolutionaries.
 * Now lets ask ourselves the question why representatives from the British embassy were communicating behind the back of the Tsar with representatives of the Duma who were not supportive of the regime.
 * Kerensky even called several times for the defeat of Russia in the First Worldwar to achieve the goals of becoming a Russian republic. He had always been anti-monarchy.


 * Also on the abdication. The Tsar didn't just decided to abdicate. The Tsar was invited by General Alexeev to go to the Stavka. After the Tsar went away the riots suddenly happened and reports were suddenly coming in.
 * Then the Generals started to ask the Tsar to abdicate.
 * We will never know what happened in that train. What we only have is a typed document with a pencil signature from Nicholas II. But however this was all non-legitimate, because the abdication of the throne
 * needed to go through more complicated judiciary processes. This never happened and the case was never discussed or investigated because the Tsar was arrested by the proclaimed Duma and then he got shot without trial by
 * the bolsheviks. The problem was internal. The generals of the Stavka refused to cooperate and to obey the commander in chief. Instead they gave support to the Duma and arrested the Tsar.


 * This is still a case that needs to be investigated further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:3E0E:6E00:EC10:382E:52B6:8340 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. If you wish to discuss how to improve this article, you are in the right place. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018
The article currently claims Nicholas the Bloody was executed with the approval of Lenin and the higher Bolshevik leadership. That is not true and his family has failed to prove it in court. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8264321/No-proof-Lenin-ordered-last-Tsars-murder.html Pickle juice123 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicholas II of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306192343/http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-167726 to http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-167726
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026154641/http://www.freewebs.com/romanovsisters/romanovsisters.htm to http://www.freewebs.com/romanovsisters/romanovsisters.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208191424/http://www.kingandwilson.com/ to http://www.kingandwilson.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Last ethnic Russian ancestor of Nicholas II
It is well known that Nicholas II's ancestry was basically Germanic, being himself an Oldenburg by patrilineal descent. The article states that his last ethnically Russian ancestor was Grand Duchess Anna Petrovna of Russia, Duchess consort of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp (6 generations and 160 years back), daughter of Peter the Great. However, Anna Petrovna was not ethnic Russian as her mother was Eastern Balt, and her father was of Tatar descent by his mother. This means that the last ethnic Russian ancestor of Nicholas II was the father of Peter I, Tsar Alexis I of Russia (8 generations and 239 years back), as his mother Eudoxia Streshneva was Russian and his paternal grandmother was also a Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.180.107 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018
change Maria to Anastatia when talking about Tsar Nicholas' families identification. Anastasia was not identified until 2007, not Maria. Dpalmolj (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Each body was incontrovertibly identified as one of the daughters but the remains cannot be distinguished from each other definitively because there are no comparator samples to distinguish one sister from the other. DrKay (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Title between 1906-1917
Sorry, that I'm writing this without the source at hand, but I've recently read that Nicholas'title changed after the creation of the Duma,from Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, to simply Emperor of Russia. Does anyone know where this may be sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.179.165 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Mysterious isolated reference to Lenin
If you search the article in its current form the word Lenin appears once, and with no context or explanation or link, and not even a full name. Is that a vestige of a prior removal of Lenin from the article? Perhaps either this sole reference should be removed, or it should be changed to the correct intended name, or a sentence or paragraph and hyperlink to a Lenin page should be considered. I am unknowledgeable on the subject matter so I am just presenting the finding.2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:C092:12D4:811F:E625 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Though I have not examined the edit history, after writing the above paragraph I see extensive discussion of Lenin on the talk page. I surmise that there is controversy regarding Lenin's role during the reign and lifetime and death of Nicholas II. Did some editor(s) decide to quash all dissent and just delete everything about Lenin, because discussions/theory/evidence of Lenin's role in Nicholas II's death was deemed invalid by an editor(s)? Would not valid historical reporting at LEAST have an italicized article saying "Some speculate that Lenin was involved in the death of Nicholas II. See {link here}" where the link points to a section in the Lenin article that presents the theory or evidence? (I'm assuming that the triggering issue was regarding Lenin and possible assassination role?)

Regardless of that, it would seem to be a *serious* omission to not say *anything* about Lenin, as I see on the Lenin Wikipedia page that he was the actual head of Russia from 1917 to 1924. Nicholas II was the head of Russia until 1917. It is inconceivable that there is no functional overlap or connection. At very LEAST a sentence/paragraph and link to Lenin is appropriate, at bare minimum, for the article to have any serious credibility.

Something is very wrong here. I don't even know Russian history but there is a serious malfunction here. More sinisterly, based on trends of late in Wikipedia, I wonder if encyclopedic journalism is being corrupted by the power of editors who insist on one opinion, and crush even an italicized sidebar that says "(There is some debate about X Y X)" containing footnotes, if not specific links.

That prospect is disturbing. Wikipedia is showing signs of crumbling due to zealous editors essentially bullying across their version of history. I'm seeing it more and more, and after the incalculably great amount of work to build the product, and amazing growth of mainstream acceptance despite mocking cynical public rejection, things like this could send it all crashing down. There needs to be a higher discussion of this apparent trend. (END EDIT) 2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:C092:12D4:811F:E625 (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Does this not merit action?? Lenin was his successor. Why the silence on him? Is there some hesitation to even simply LINK to Lenin's wikipage??2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:7C6A:B0CB:CBBA:FDF2 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

a paragraph now displaying correctly on my tablet
"Russia was defeated in the 1904-1905 ..." paragraph was not displaying correctly, and I could not figure out why even when I viewed it in editor mode. However, I saw 2 places where commas should be inserted anyway, and when I saved those changes, the paragraph then displayed CORRECTLY. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assassination attempt in Otsu, Japan
How do we know that the police officer which attacked Nicholas II was "deranged"? Is there any medical evidence to prove this or any symptoms noted by officials during his arrest and detainment? Because it's a big statement. The man might've just been against the Russian Empire and/or it's leadership, not all assassins are deranged but rather some may take their anti beliefs to the extreme and attempt an assassination on the political figure they oppose. Can anyone give any evidence that the officer was deranged?Migboy123 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Most scholars studying the period" agree
here is the full quote from Morrill article pp 296-97 re the call for the Hague conference: " Some individuals have argued that the genuine idealism of Nicholas II contributed significantly to the decision to issue the circular of August 24. The czar sought to lead mankind into a better world. It was just that simple.4  Most scholars studying the period, however, have presented the circular in a different light. To them,  what Muraviev handed the diplomats was a document "conceived in fear, brought forth in deceit, and swaddled in humanitarian ideals."5 In short, the circular "sprang from decidedly realistic and practical needs of the Russian government," not from humanitarianism, not from love for mankind.6" Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Most Soviet scholars? Or most American scholars? I think you are giving undue weight to Dan L. Morrill's opinion. — . -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Horrill cites lots of scholars in English and Russian in 78 footnotes. Most are to Russian sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Dan L. Morrill, "Nicholas II and the Call for the First Hague Conference' Journal of Modern History (1974) — So Dan L. Morrill states that, for most Soviet scholars, the invitation was "conceived in fear, brought forth in deceit, and swaddled in humanitarian ideals...Not from humanitarianism, not from love for mankind." — . I still think it's WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY-PICKING. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:French maneuvers of 1901
There's a draft at Draft:French maneuvers of 1901 if you would like to review it. 80.12.34.66 (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nicholas II (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Franz Joseph I of Austria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved.  Calidum   04:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Nicholas II of Russia → Nicholas II – The "of [country]" descriptor seems to be peculiar to Wikipedia and is not used by any published reference work that I am aware of. See these examples. Our guidelines instruct us to use published works as titling models. "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," according to WP:TITLE. Nicholas II currently redirects to Nicholas II of Russia, so there is no primary topic issue. "Of [country]" descriptors have been dropped off the titles of numerous royal biographies recently, as you can see here. Allan Rice (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose move. The "of [country]" format was carefully thought out and discussed before its introduction early in the history of Wikipedia. It has since been gradually broken down by a preference for "common name" so we now have inconsistent article titles such as "William the Conqueror" and the ludicrous "Queen Victoria". I think it would be difficult to argue that "Nicholas II" is instantly recognisable as the Tsar of that name. The argument that "of [country]" descriptors have been dropped recently is not really an argument at all; each article should be judged on its own merits. Deb (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A wider discussion needs to be opened at WP:NCROY, per these growing number of RMs on monarch bio articles. Inconsistency is rapidly developing among a number of article titles. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "of [country]" format is still the best way for disambiguation. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that there was a discussion that rejected the move to a no primary topic situation. Discussion here. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but these RMs are popping up frequently, these last few weeks & it's causing a messy inconsistency, even among monarchs of the same country. Thus my advice for going to NCROY. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). Interstellarity (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Tsar's voice?
There are a number of brief recordings of Tsar Nicholas's voice, currently available on YouTube. Is it worth inserting a link? Valetude (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But they should comply with copyright policies. --Thinker78 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, there are none (know) recordings of the Tsar's voice, as the main on know in youtube (and the few ones). That is most likely the voice of one of the Grand Dukes of Russia, because the soldiers reply with "Ваше Высочество" (Your Highness) and not with "Ваше Императорское Величество" (Your Imperial Majesty) to the Tsar/Grand Duke greet, which is the correct form to address the Tsar of Russia. Also, for example in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9hv3ghdSPk the translations and transcriptions are wrong in many places. Here are the corrected ones chronologically: "Братцы! Спасибо вамъ за славный парадъ!" "Здравія желаемъ Ваше Высочество!" "Спасибо братцы, вамъ за отличныя ученія!" "Здравія желаемъ Ваше Высочество". Translation: "Brethren! Thank you for (this) Glorious parade!" "We wish You good health Your Highness!" "Thank you brethren, for the excellent military games (war games)!" "We wish You good health Your Highness!". The original recording is much longer and contains the same voice at the start of the parade saying: "Братцы! Пью за дорогое здоровье нашего державнаго Вождья Государя Имератора Николая Александровича! Ура!" (Brothers! I drink to the health of our sovereign Chief Our Lord Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich! Hurray!). Therefore the voice can not belong to H.I.M. Nicholas II himself. Mattia332 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead rework
Hi all, I've significantly reworked the lead as it was overly repetitive, unstructured and had a number of poorly source statements not reflected in the article body. Please feel free to make adjustments to my wording. One thing to note is that I changed the wording "After the Bolsheviks took power in the October Revolution, the family was held in Yekaterinburg, where they were assassinated in July 1918" back to "they were executed in July 1918". I did this because there doesn't seem to have been any consensus on the wording recently established here on the talk page, and primarily because I believe "assassinated" was less clear (it suggests to me a nefarious, secret faction outside of the main Bolshevik leadership, whereas execution was a decided course of action). Execution is a neutral, accurate term that contrary to some claims I've read above, doesn't inherently imply guilt (it can simply mean the "killing of a person as a political act", which is what I understand it to be in this context: compare with Execution of Charles I and contrast with this dictionary definition of assassinate: "murder ... by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons"). It also provides consistency with the article on the execution. Although I think execute is the clearer term, I don't think "assassinated" is particularly wrong as such, and I don't object to that term (or "murder") if there was a consensus in favour of either. Jr8825 •  Talk  13:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Assassinated" in summary
"Murdered", surely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WmDKing (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "deaths", as I agree "assassination" doesn't sound correct there. I did consider "murdered", but 1) "exactly 80 years after their murders" didn't sound quite as natural and 2) "deaths" is self-evidently neutral and accurate, so there's no problem with it. I don't dispute they were murdered, and if someone wants to point to sources which indicate it's the most common/preferred term among experts, or make an argument as to why we should favour of that term, I don't object to using it. Right now I see no reason to prefer "murdered" over equally appropriate synonyms which just fit better. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Execution"
This article still claims Nicholas and his family were executed, no, they were murdered. Pyromilke (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not mutually exclusive terms, both are correct and are used to describe their deaths. I prefer "executed" simply because it's the narrower, more precise term (it makes it clear they were murdered by Bolshevik authorities, whereas "murder" doesn't indicate who did they killing). Please see my comments in the above sections. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Please add the category Category:Royal reburials 67.173.23.66 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ DrKay (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

House name
Removed the Holstein-gottorp from his house name as it doesn’t actually exist, it’s a genealogical invention, the house was known as Romanov during his lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famaja (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022
Change the photo to this: Nicholas II by Boissonnas & Eggler c1909.jpg Just look better that way. Ruttoperuna (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Infobox images are not normally whole body images, and normally focus on the face, therefore consensus would be required for this change.  Terasail [✉️] 16:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Royal Navy?
The infobox shows Nicholas II in a Royal Navy uniform. The link Royal Navy goes to the British Royal Navy. Nicholas II was Russian, not British. Am I missing something here, or could it perhaps be that in the early 20th century, royal families in Europe were quite interconnected and thus it is possible that Nicholas II did indeed have a rank in the British Royal Navy or osmething? J I P &#124; Talk 13:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He was an admiral in the Royal Navy. (EVanguard (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Appointed Admiral of the Fleet in 1908 by Edward VII.  Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a common practice among the pre-World War I monarchs to appoint each other to honorary positions of high rank in their respective armed forces. This involved little more than being entitled to wear the ceremonial uniforms of the other nation on appropriate occasions. Nicholas II was also a colonel in the British Army (of the Scots Greys) and held similar Imperial German ranks. Buistr (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Description Needs Changing
Nicholas II was an Emperor, not a tsar. The article description needs to be changed. 216.197.134.44 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Titles" go before his biography?
I admit I don't have much experience with biographies in particular, however in other types of pages things like definitions and etymologies unilaterally go before discussion of the subject's actual history, nestled right under the lead section. Shouldn't titles and honors be treated the same way since they are what is officially used to identify a monarch? Orchastrattor (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretenders
There have been many discussions so I don’t know if this was one of them but why does the Russian Emperor article’s infobox list 2 pretends and the infobox on House of Romanov list 3? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Because information in different pages many times is not coordinated. Thinker78  (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)