text:
Jeconiah

Jeconiah (יְכָנְיָה Yəḵonəyā, meaning "Yah has established"; Ἰεχονίας; Iechonias, Jechonias), also known as Coniah and as Jehoiachin (יְהוֹיָכִין Yəhōyāḵīn ; Ioachin, Joachin), was the nineteenth and penultimate king of Judah who was dethroned by the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar II in the 6th century BCE and was taken into captivity. He was the son and successor of King Jehoiakim, and the grandson of King Josiah. Most of what is known about Jeconiah is found in the Hebrew Bible. Records of Jeconiah's existence have been found in Iraq, such as the Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets. These tablets were excavated near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon and have been dated to c. 592 BCE. Written in cuneiform, they mention Jeconiah (𒅀𒀪𒌑𒆠𒉡, Yaʾúkinu [ia-ʾ-ú-ki-nu]) and his five sons as recipients of food rations in Babylon.

Reign
Jeconiah reigned three months and ten days, beginning December 9, 598 BCE. He succeeded Jehoiakim as king of Judah after raiders from surrounding lands invaded Jerusalem and killed his father. It is likely that the king of Babylon was behind this effort, as a response to Jehoiakim's revolt, starting sometime after 601 BCE. Three months and ten days after Jeconiah became king, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II seized Jerusalem, with the intention to take high class Judahite captives and assimilate them into Babylonian society. On March 15/16th, 597 BCE, Jeconiah, his entire household and three thousand Jews were exiled to Babylon.

The Masoretic Text of 2 Chronicles 36 states that Jeconiah's rule began at the age of eight, while in 2 Kings 24:8 Jeconiah is said to have come to the throne at eighteen. Modern scholars have treated the difference between "eight" and "eighteen" as reflecting a copying error on one side or the other of the issue.

During exile
After Jeconiah was deposed as king, his uncle Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17) was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar to rule Judah. Zedekiah was the son of Josiah. Jeconiah would later be regarded as the first of the exilarchs. In the Book of Ezekiel, the author refers to Jeconiah as king and dates certain events by the number of years he was in exile. The author identifies himself as Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeconiah, and he never mentions Zedekiah by name.

Release from captivity
According to 2 Kings 25:27–30, Jeconiah was released from prison "in the 37th year of the exile", in the year that Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) came to the throne, and given a prestigious position at court. Jeconiah's release in Babylon brings to a close the Books of Kings and the Deuteronomistic history. Babylonian records show that Amel-Marduk began his reign in October 562 BCE. According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "on the 27th day of the twelfth month": this indicates the first year of captivity to be 598/597 BCE, according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The 37th year of captivity was thus, by Judean reckoning, the year that began in Tishri of 562, consistent with the synchronism to the accession year of Amel-Marduk given in Babylonian records.

Curse
Jeremiah (22:28–30) cursed Jeconiah that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of Israel: "This is what the says: 'Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

- Jeremiah 22:30, NIV

Chapter 1, verses 11–12 of the Gospel of Matthew lists Jeconiah in the lineage of Jesus Christ, through Joseph. If Joseph was the biological father of Jesus (contrary to Christian belief), then Jesus could not rightfully claim to be the Messiah as the curse of Jeconiah, if true, would apply to Him.

Richard Challoner interpreted the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke to be referring to a biological offspring and an offspring from a Levirate marriage. According to this concept, Joseph may have been a biological descendant from Jeconiah, but within Jewish law he would have been counted as a descendant of someone else due to the carrying of a brother's name through the Levirate marriage.

In Rabbinical literature
Jehoiachin was made king in place of his father by Nebuchadnezzar; but the latter had hardly returned to Babylon when some one said to him, "A dog brings forth no good progeny," whereupon he recognized that it was poor policy to have Jehoiachin for king (Lev. R. xix. 6; Seder 'Olam R. xxv.). In Daphne, near Antiochia, Nebuchadnezzar received the Great Sanhedrin, to whom he announced that he would not destroy the Temple if the king were delivered up to him. When the king heard this resolution of Nebuchadnezzar he went upon the roof of the Temple, and, turning to heaven, held up the Temple keys, saying: "As you no longer consider us worthy to be your ministers, take the keys that you have entrusted to us until now." Then a miracle happened; for a fiery hand appeared and took the keys, or, as others say, the keys remained suspended in the air where the king had thrown them (Lev. R. l.c.; Yer. Sheḳ. vi. 50a; other versions of the legend of the keys are given in Ta'an. 29a; Pesiḳ. R. 26 [ed. Friedmann, p. 131a], and Syriac Apoc. Baruch, x. 18). The king as well as all the scholars and nobles of Judah were then carried away captive by Nebuchadnezzar (Seder 'Olam R. l.c.; compare Ratner's remark ad loc.). According to Josephus, Jehoiachin gave up the city and his relatives to Nebuchadnezzar, who took an oath that neither they nor the city should be harmed. But the Babylonian king broke his word; for scarcely a year had elapsed when he led the king and many others into captivity.

Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii. 30; Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b); he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]). It was especially his firmness in fulfilling the Law that restored him to God's favor. He was kept by Nebuchadnezzar in solitary confinement, and as he was therefore separated from his wife, the Sanhedrin, which had been expelled with him to Babylon, feared that at the death of this queen the house of David would become extinct.

They managed to gain the favor of Queen Semiramis, who induced Nebuchadnezzar to ameliorate the lot of the captive king by permitting his wife to share his prison. As he then manifested great self-control and obedience to the Law, God forgave him his sins (Lev. R. xix., end). Jehoiachin lived to see the death of his conqueror, Nebuchadnezzar, which brought him liberty; for within two days of his father's death Evil-merodach opened the prison in which Jehoiachin had languished for so many years.

Jehoiachin's life is the best illustration of the maxim, "During prosperity a man must never forget the possibility of misfortune; and in adversity must not despair of prosperity's return" (Seder 'Olam R. xxv.). On the advice of Jehoiachin, Nebuchadnezzar's son cut his father's body into 300 pieces, which he gave to 300 vultures, so that he could be sure that Nebuchadnezzar would never return to worry him ("Chronicles of Jerahmeel," lxvi. 6). Evil-merodach treated Jehoiachin as a king, clothed him in purple and ermine, and for his sake liberated all the Jews that had been imprisoned by Nebuchadnezzar (Targ. Sheni, near the beginning). It was Jehoiachin, also, who erected the magnificent mausoleum on the grave of the prophet Ezekiel (Benjamin of Tudela, "Itinerary," ed. Asher, i. 66). In the Second Temple there was a gate called "Jeconiah's Gate," because, according to tradition, Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) left the Temple through that gate when he went into exile (Mid. ii. 6).

Genealogy
Jeconiah was the son of Jehoiakim and Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. He had eight children: Assir, Shealtiel, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah. . Jeconiah is also mentioned in the first book of Chronicles as the father of Pedaiah, who in turn was the father of Zerubbabel. A list of his descendants is given in.

In listing the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Matthew 1:11 records Jeconiah the son of Josiah as an ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary. This Jeconiah is uncle of Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim (1 Chron 3:16), which the Jeconiah/Jehoiakim lineage was cursed (Jer 22:24,30). The Jeconiah/Josiah (Matt 1:11) lineage to Jesus is not cursed.

Dating Jeconiah's reign

The Babylonian Chronicles establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem for the first time on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BCE. Before Wiseman's publication of the Babylonian Chronicles in 1956, Thiele had determined from biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem and its king Jeconiah occurred in the spring of 597 BCE, whereas Kenneth Strand points out that other scholars, including Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BCE.

Thiele's dates
Thiele said that the 25th anniversary of Jeconiah's captivity was April 25 (10 Nisan), 573 BCE, implying that he began the exile to Babylon on 10 Nisan 597, 24 years earlier. His reasoning in arriving at this exact date was based on Ezekiel 40:1, where Ezekiel, without naming the month, says it was the tenth day of the month, "on that very day." Since this fits with his idea that Jeconiah's (and Ezekiel's) exile to Babylon began a month later than the capturing of the city, thus allowing a new Nisan-based year to begin, Thiele took these words in Ezekiel as referring to the day in which the captivity or exile proper began. He therefore ended Jehoiachin's reign of three months and ten days on this date. The dates he gives for Jeconiah's reign are then: 21 Heshvan (9 December) 598 BCE to 10 Nisan (22 April) 597 BCE.

Thiele's reasoning in this regard has been criticized by Rodger C. Young, who advocates the 587 date for the fall of Jerusalem. Young argues that Thiele's arithmetic is inconsistent, and adds an alternative explanation of the phrase "on that very day" (be-etsem ha-yom ha-zeh) in Ezekiel 40:1. This phrase is used three times in Leviticus 23:28–30 to refer the Day of Atonement, always observed on the tenth of Tishri, and Ezekiel's writings in several places show familiarity with the Book of Leviticus. A further argument in favor of this interpretation is that in the same verse, Ezekiel says it was Rosh Hashanah (New Year's Day) and also the tenth of the month, indicating the start of a Jubilee year, since only in a Jubilee year did the year begin on the tenth of Tishri, the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 25:9). The Talmud (tractate Arakin 12a,b) and the Seder Olam (chapter 11) also say that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of a Jubilee year, the 17th, consistent with this interpretation of Ezekiel 40:1.

Because this offers an alternative explanation to Thiele's interpretation of Ezekiel 40:1, and because Thiele's chronology for Jeconiah is incompatible with the records of the Babylonian Chronicle, the infobox below dates the end of Jeconiah's reign to 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BCE, the date of the first capture of Jerusalem as given in the Babylonian records. Thiele's dates for Jeconiah, however, and his date of 586 BCE for the fall of Jerusalem, continue to hold considerable weight with the scholarly community.

However, no such complication is necessary since the tenth of Tishri 574 BCE is precisely as stated in Ezekiel 40:1, both in the fourteenth year of the Temple's destruction in 587 BCE and the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah's exile in 597 BCE.

Gershon Galil also attempted to reconcile a 586 date for the fall of Jerusalem with the data for Jeconiah's exile. Like Thiele, he assumed that the years of exile should be measured from Nisan, but for a different reason. Galil hypothesized that Israel’s calendar was one month ahead of that of Babylon because Babylon had inserted an intercalary month and Israel had not yet done so. This would make Adar (the twelfth month) in the Babylonian records correspond to Nisan (the first month) in Judean counting. But this hypothesis, like Thiele's, runs into difficulty with Ezekiel 40:1, since the 25th year of captivity would begin in Nisan of 573 and the fall of Jerusalem, 14 years earlier, would be in 587, not the 586 that Galil and Thiele advocate. There is further conflict with the Babylonian data, because the 37th year of captivity, the year in which Jeconiah was released from prison, would be the year starting in Nisan of 561 BCE, not Nisan of 562 BCE as given in the Babylonian Chronicle. Recognizing these conflicts, Galil admits (p. 377) that his date for the fall of Jerusalem (586 BCE) is inconsistent with the precise data given in the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicle.

Dating the fall of Jerusalem using Jeconiah's dating
The reign of Jeconiah is considered important in establishing the chronology of events in the early sixth century BCE in the Middle East. This includes resolving the date of the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar. According to Jeremiah 52:6, the city wall was breached in the summer month of Tammuz in the eleventh year of Zedekiah.

Historians, however, have been divided on whether the year was 587 or 586 BCE. A 1990 study listed eleven scholars who preferred 587 and eleven who preferred 586. The Babylonian records of the second capture of Jerusalem have not been found, and scholars looking at the chronology of the period must rely on the Biblical texts, as correlated with extant Babylonian records from before and after the event. In this regard, the Biblical texts regarding Jeconiah are especially important, because the time of his reign in Jerusalem was fixed by Donald Wiseman's 1956 publication, and this is consistent with his thirty-seventh year of captivity overlapping the accession year of Amel-Marduk, as mentioned above.

Ezekiel's treatment of Jeconiah's dates are a starting point for determining the date of the fall of Jerusalem. He dated his writings according to the years of captivity he shared with Jeconiah, and he mentions several events related to the fall of Jerusalem in those writings. In Ezekiel 40:1, Ezekiel dates his vision to the 25th year of the exile and fourteen years after the city fell. If Ezekiel and the author of were both using Tishri-based years, the 25th year would be 574/573 BCE and the fall of the city, 14 years earlier, would be in 588/587—i.e., in the summer of 587 BCE. This is consistent with other texts in Ezekiel related to the fall of the city. Ezekiel 33:21 relates that a refugee arrived in Babylon and reported the fall of Jerusalem in the twelfth year, tenth month of "our exile." Measuring from the first year of exile, 598/597, this was January of 586 BCE, incompatible with Jerusalem falling in the summer of 586 BCE, but consistent with its fall in the summer of 587 BCE. The other side holds that since Jeconiah surrendered in March 597, January 586 is less than eleven years later and therefore can not be considered in the twelfth year of the exile.

Thiele held to a 586 BCE date for the capture of Jerusalem and the end of Zedekiah's reign. Recognizing to some extent the importance of Ezekiel's measuring time by the years of captivity of Jeconiah, and in particular the reference to the 25th year of that captivity in Ezekiel 40:1, he wrote, "Although the Babylonian tablets dealing with the final fall and destruction of Jerusalem have not been found, it should be noticed that the testimony of Ezekiel 40:1 is definitive in regard to the year 586. Since Ezekiel had his vision of the temple on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his and Jehoiachin's captivity (28 April 573), and since this was the fourteenth year after Jerusalem's fall, the city must have fallen eleven years after the captivity. Eleven years after 597 is 586."

In order to justify his 586 date, Thiele had assumed that the years of captivity for Jeconiah must be calendar years starting in Nisan, in contrast to the Tishri-based years that he used everywhere else for the kings of Judah. He also assumed that Jeconiah's captivity or exile was not to be measured from Adar of 597 BCE, the month Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and its king according to the Babylonian Chronicle, but in the next month, Nisan, when Thiele assumed Jeconiah began the trip to Babylon. Granting these assumptions, the first year of captivity would be the year starting in Nisan of 597 BCE. The twenty-fifth year of captivity would start in Nisan of 573 BCE, (573/572) twenty-four years later. Years of captivity must be measured in this non-accession sense (the year in which the captivity started was considered year one of the captivity), otherwise the 37th year of captivity, the year in which Jeconiah was released from prison, would start on Nisan 1 of 560 BCE (597 − 37), two years after the accession year of Amel-Marduk, according to the dating of his accession year that can be fixed with exactitude by the Babylonian Chronicle. Thiele then noted that Ezekiel 40:1 says that this 25th year of captivity was 14 years after the city fell. Fourteen years before 573/572 is 587/586, and since Thiele is assuming Nisan years for the captivity, this period ended the day before Nisan 1 of 586. But this is three months and nine days before Thiele's date for the fall of the city on 9 Tammuz 586 BCE. Even Thiele's assumption that the years of captivity were measured from Nisan does not reconcile Ezekiel's chronology for the captivity of Jeconiah with a 586 date, and the calculation given above that uses the customary Tishri-based years yields the summer of 587, consistent with all other texts in Ezekiel related to Jeconiah's captivity.

Another text in Ezekiel offers a clue to why there has been such a conflict over the date of Jerusalem's fall in the first place. Ezekiel 24:1–2 (NIV) records the following: "In the ninth year, in the tenth month on the tenth day, the word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man, record this date, this very date, because the king of Babylon has laid siege to Jerusalem this very day.'"

Assuming that dating here is according to the years of exile of Jeconiah, as elsewhere in Ezekiel, the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem began on January 27, 589 BCE. This can be compared to a similar passage in (NIV): "So in the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it."

The ninth year, tenth month, tenth day in Ezekiel is identical to the period in 2 Kings. In Ezekiel, the years are everywhere else measured according to Jeconiah's captivity, which must be taken in a non-accession sense, so that the beginning of the siege was eight actual years after the beginning of the captivity. The comparison with 2 Kings 25:1 would indicate that Zedekiah's years in 2 Kings were also by non-accession reckoning. His eleventh year, the year in which Jerusalem fell, would then be 588/587 BCE, in agreement with all texts in Ezekiel and elsewhere that are congruent with that date.

Some who maintain the 586 date therefore maintain that in this one instance, Ezekiel, without explicitly saying so, switched to the regnal years of Zedekiah, although Ezekiel apparently regarded Jeconiah as the rightful ruler and never names Zedekiah in his writing. Another view is that a later copyist, aware of the 2 Kings passage, modified it and inserted it into the text of Ezekiel. In his study of all biblical texts related to the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, Young concludes that these conjectures are not necessary, and that all texts related to the fall of Jerusalem in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles are internally consistent and consistent with the fall of the city in Tammuz of 587 BCE.

Archeological findings
During his excavation of Babylon in 1899–1917, Robert Koldewey discovered a royal archive room of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate. It contained tablets dating to 595–570 BCE. The tablets were translated in the 1930s by the German Assyriologist, Ernst Weidner. Four of these tablets list rations of oil and barley given to various individuals—including the deposed King Jehoiachin—by Nebuchadnezzar from the royal storehouses, dated five years after Jehoiachin was taken captive.

One tablet reads: "10 (sila of oil) to the king of Judah, Yaukin; 2 1/2 sila (oil) to the offspring of Judah's king; 4 sila to eight men from Judea." Another reads: "1 1/2 sila (oil) for three carpenters from Arvad, 1/2 apiece; 11 1/2 sila for eight wood workers from Byblos ...; 3 1/2 sila for seven Greek craftsman, 1/2 sila apiece; 1/2 sila to the carpenter, Nabuetir; 10 sila to Ia-ku-u-ki-nu, the son of Judah's king[1]; 2 1/2 sila for the five sons of the Judean king."

The Babylonian Chronicles are currently housed in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin.

title: Jeconiah


text:
Charles Duclerc

Charles Théodore Eugène Duclerc (7 August 1812, Bagnères-de-Bigorre – 29 January 1888) was a French journalist and politician of the Third Republic. He was a member of the editorial board of the National newspaper. Duclerc served as Minister of Finance from May through June in the Provisional government of France. He later served for six months as prime minister, from 1882 to 1883 under the third Republic.

Duclerc was born in Bagnères-de-Bigorre and he died in Paris.

Duclerc's Ministry, 7 August 1882 – 29 January 1883

 * Charles Duclerc – President of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs
 * Jean-Baptiste Billot – Minister of War
 * Armand Fallières – Minister of the Interior
 * Pierre Tirard – Minister of Finance
 * Paul Devès – Minister of Justice and Worship
 * Jean Bernard Jauréguiberry – Minister of Marine and Colonies
 * Jules Duvaux – Minister of Public Instruction and Fine Arts
 * François de Mahy – Minister of Agriculture
 * Anne Charles Hérisson – Minister of Public Works
 * Adolphe Cochery – Minister of Posts and Telegraphs
 * Pierre Legrand – Minister of Commerce

Changes
 * 13 September 1882 – Armand Fallières succeeds Devès as Minister of Worship. Fallières remains Interior Minister, and Devès Minister of Justice.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Charles Duclerc


text:
Talk:Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia

Miscellaneous early discussion
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)

AFAIK he did accept the throne initially then declined and abdicated without naming an heir. It happened within a couple of hours but it did make him, even though only theoretically, the Tsar, in which case wikipedia's 'highest title' rule comes into place. FearÉIREANN 20:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he can be considered to have accepted. My understanding is that he expressed willingness to accept, then chatted it out with Rodzianko, et al, and decided not to. and, which are generally my go-to sources as far as listing world leaders go, do not list him as having reigned. He is far better known as Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich...I dunno. Perhaps some Russian contributors would like to express their thoughts...

 * 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)

Just to note, most of the google results for "Michael II of Russia" are wikipedia and mirror sites. john 09:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again again again. He never reigned. He never even accepted the throne, officially (he may have privately expressed his acceptance to the Duma commissioners, very briefly, but he never publicly accepted). Michael was never Emperor of Russia. This article should be at Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia. john k 18:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is a perfectly logical viewpoint but Wikipedia policy is to use the highest title associated with a personage. He was the person who theoretically inherited the throne when Tsar Nicholas II in his own and his son's name abdicated. AFAIK he indicated an acceptance, then indicated a withdrawal of acceptance. In the area of monarchy, technically an acceptance means automatic status; you can't actually say 'well, no. I don't think I will after all.' It is too late. Saying Nicholas II was the last tsar suggests in effect that he abdicated and ended the crown. In fact he understood he was abdicating the throne to another Romanov. He might not have done so if he thought there was not going to be another tsar. So historically, it is important to point out three facts -

 * Nicholas abdicated in favour of his brother, expecting that there would be another tsar.
 * Michael said yes, or implied it, then said or implied no.
 * Michael then having left a throne he had in a theoretical sense accepted then rejected, effectively abdicated but unlike Nicolas II, did not abdicate in favour of a named successor, so leaving the throne vacant.
 * Michael's death some months later indicated clearly that the lifes of members of the Imperial Family were in danger. If the man to whom Tsar Nicholas II had abdicated the crown could be murdered, then it was only a matter of time before Nicholas's family or even he himself would face the same fate.

The constitutional vacancy caused by Michael's decision not to stay as tsar is when one can say, in a strict sense, that the monarchy ended. You are right that most sources do not see him as a tsar, but wikipedia really should aim for factual accuracy, not "common knowledge". The last effective Egyptian monarch was King Farouk but the last theoretical king was Faud II. Most people when asked who the last Egyptian king was would say Farouk, but to say that doesn't capture the subtle nuances of what happened and the fact that the monarchy was not actually abolished when Farouk abdicated. Michael II was only a footnote in history, but understanding his albeit miniscule role in the succession and his facilitation of Tsar Nicholas II's abdication by being the man to whom Nicholas theoretically passed the throne is crucial. In that situation he wasn't just another grand duke or the Tsar's controversial brother, he was Nicholas II's last role of the family dice, the man who was supposed to step into Nicholas's shoes and did, then didn't and so ended the dynasty in a whimper. Referring to him by the theoretical title he nominally held for an instant contextualises his role, or non-role and sets Nicholas II's abdication in the relevant context. Nicholas II was the last real tsar, but he didn't expect to be, any more that Farouk expected to be the last Egyptian monarch, etc. FearÉIREANN 19:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, nice to get into a good argument/discussion. Some of your points are correct, I think. Certainly, Nicholas's abdication did not end the monarchy, per se. But neither, exactly, did Michael's refusal to accept the throne. To take the easiest point first, I don't think the Fuad II/Michael comparison works. Fuad II reigned but did not rule. But he did reign, and for several months. Michael never reigned. A better analogy would be to 1830 in France. Charles X abdicated in favor of his son the Dauphin on 2 August 1830. A few minutes later the dauphin, now theoretically Louis XIX, abdicated in favor of his nephew, the Duc de Bordeaux, who thus became, again in theory, Henri V. It wasn't until several days later that the Duc d'Orleans, who had been appointed by the revolutionaries Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, declared himself King of the French. As such, by the standards applied to this article, Louis XIX of France and Henry V of France ought to be the locations of their articles, and they ought to be listed on the monarchs of France page. But I don't think this is right. People who reigned but did not effectively rule, like Fuad, should clearly be recognized as Kings. But those who didn't even really reign, except in some very theoretical sense, should not be. Michael is, I think, in the latter category. Yes his brother abdicated in his favor. But, among other things, many legal authorities considered this to be illegal - Nicholas had no right to renounce the rights of his son. Michael may have privately then expressed a willingness to take on the responsibilities. But he immediately changed his mind, and then publicly stated as his response to his brother's abdication that he would not accept the throne, and would wait to see what the Constituent Assembly said. So, under the old rules, it is unclear if Michael did legally become Emperor upon his brother's abdication (even more unclear than the issue of Charles X's abdication - in that case, it was clear, at least, that the Dauphin should succeed him, and the Duc de Bordeaux should succeed the Dauphin, even if abdication itself might not be valid (that is to say, the heir-male of Hugh Capet is King of France until he dies - this was certainly a widely held opinion among hard core monarchists, including the Comte de Chambord himself, who did not proclaim himself king until his uncle died in 1844). In Nicholas's case, not only might abdication as such be invalid, but even if it is valid, there remains the question of his right to abdicate on behalf of his son.  And under the "rules on the ground" it's clear that Michael was never actually head of state.  Obviously, the exact details of all this should be discussed on the page. But to actually call him "Michael II of Russia" is to endorse a quite dubious constitutional theory, I think, and is POV unless this is what he is commonly called, which it is not (certainly the comte de Chambord is more commonly called "Henri V"). john k 20:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

THE QUESTION of Michael as Tsar is fully explained and sourced in Chapters 24/25 of Michael & Natasha and has to be understood in the critical circumstances then obtaining. Briefly, Michael was proclaimed Tsar to the Army on the morning of Friday March 3 (OS) (Melgunov S P Martovskie dni 1917 goda, Paris 1961); at a Te Deum in Pskov Cathedral where the congregation, after the reading of Nicholas’s manifesto, prayed ‘for the prolongation of the days of the New Tsar”  (Marie Pavlovna Education of a Princess, Viking NY 1931);  in the Crimea where by the afternoon portraits of Nicholas had been replaced by those of Michael after the reading out of the abdication manifesto (Princess Cantacuzene, Revolutionary Days, Chapman & Hall, London 1920); in Moscow where those sympathetic to the revolution greeted the manifesto with ‘wooden indifference’ and where in the Chudov Abbey the liturgy was changed  to ‘Our Right Orthodox and Sovereign Lord and Emperor Michael Aleksandrovich’ (E M Almedingen, An Unbroken Unity: A Memoir of Grand Duchess Serge, Bodley Head, London 1964); and at the Warsaw Station, Petrograd, by the two Duma deputies — Guchkov and Shulgin — on their return from Pskov — ‘Long Live Emperor Michael” they cried, with the crowds cheering the news (V. V. Shulgin,Dni, Sovremennik, Moscow 1989).

When the Provisional Government arrived at 12 Millionnaya Street that morning to meet Michael — hoping that he had not yet heard the news, though he had — they brought with them ‘an abdication manifesto’ which the majority were determined to persuade him to sign and which began: We by God’s Mercy, Michael II. Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias...(Baron Nolde, who helped draft the final manifesto, in V. D. Nabakov and the Russian Provisional Government 1917. Yale university Press 1076).

In short, Michael was already recognised as Tsar by the Church, the Army, and the Provisional Government as well as by the public at large, when he met the government in Millionnaya Street. He had not sought the crown, and had expected instead that was he was to be Regent for his nephew Alexis; however, he had a choice and that was to refuse the crown ‘thrust upon me by the will of my brother’. He did not do that, and therefore his acceptance becomes a fact; in any event, the meeting was firstly about persuading him to abdicate, which would have been a pointless morning if he had told them he was refusing — in which case someone else would have had to become Tsar —  and secondly to obtain his authority to have their self-elected government made lawful, before he abdicated.

In the event, his manifesto denied his abdication, while seeming to make his position as Tsar conditional upon the democratic vote of an elected Constituent Assembly which by his manifesto he called into being. He therefore suspended his assumption ‘of the Supreme Power’ without that having been confirmed by popular mandate. However, that was after his acceptance of the crown and making Provisional Government the lawful government of the land. Baron Nolde said later that Michael’s manifesto was ‘in essence the only constitution during the period of existence of the Provisional Government’;' Nabakov who was also brought in to help draft the manifesto, recognised it ‘as the only Act which defined the limits of the Provisional Government’s authority’. Only a Tsar can introduce an Act. After the Provisional Government printed Michael’s manifesto, but claimed it to be his abdication — only Sovereigns can abdicate, not Grand Dukes — the new foreign minister Paul Milykov, when asked by the British ambassador where the new government derived its authority, he answered ‘We have received it, by inheritance, from Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich’ (Grand Duke then because he was said to have abdicated). Donald Crawford, co-author Michael & Natasha, August 2 2010.

where is the neutral point of view?
This article is clearly not neutral. It assurts all kinds of things without a single source. The Grand Duke death clearly concided with the start of the Russian civil war and the efforts of generals and admirals to restor the tsars to power! As to the reaction of the British government, the British were helping the Whites in their fight against the soviets. --130.161.31.26 20:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that some sources would be nice. In 1918, the British were hardly helping the Whites, though, and there was hardly any organized monarchist white movement in 1918 either - the Siberian resistance to the Bolsheviks consisted of the Czech Legion and a bunch of SRs, and the Volunteer Army was at this point tiny and restricted to the lower Don area. john k 23:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If the British weren't helping the Whites in 1918 (and I think you are right about this point) it's because the British were still fighting the Germans in France and the Whites as a Force weren't yet organized enough to be helped. I think serious organized White forces came in August of 1918 (e.g. Officers Battalion that helped take over Kazan).

 * The Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Germans in the spring of 1918, if the British had any kind of “retribution” they would have used it to stop the Bolsheviks from signing the peace and freeing 40 German divisions that were immediately transported to the west in a last effort to break the stalemate before the Americans came in numbers, see Ludendorff offensives.

 * Perm fell to Kolchak in 1918, having a rallying point like the Grand Duke would have helped the Whites tremendously. As they were, every General and Admiral wanted to become the next Franco of Russia. If the Bolsheviks wanted to shoot the nobility from spite they would have done this back in November of 1917. The conduct of the Bolsheviks towards the ruling class of Russia proves beyond doubt that they were only interested in the safety of the Revolution (whether you agree with the revolution or not is not the issue here).

 * The whole article should be re-written as a biographical article and not as a thinly veiled political polemic; surely there is more to tell about the man than only being shot by the Bolsheviks. --130.161.31.26 19:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I (130.161.31.26) have decided to be bold in editing and change the article myself. I have also added some more information, replaced the table with a succesion box. We only need a picture now, thers is one that is perfect for the article, but I can't upload it because I don't have an account! --145.94.41.95 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Michael II???????
He was NEVER known as Michael II, nor was he emperor. I got rid of the reference at the top of the article that he is "often reffered to as Michael II". I never heard of it anywhere but here. He never took up the throne, meaning there can have been no abdication or even being titled as tsar/emperor.

In any case, if he had a royal title, he would better be known as Michael IV, not Michael II. Read N. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia.

-James

 * It's Michael II.

-G

Nicholas abdicated in his favour. He agreed to take it, then change his mind. It is in plenty of history books. Legally in Russian law having accepted the throne he was from that moment Tsar, even if a couple of minutes later he turned around and said "actually I won't, if you don't mind." It doesn't matter whether one is a pope, a tsar or any other sort of monarch. If one is the heir, or person to whom the throne is abdicated, and you say you accept, you are from that moment the monarch. I've reinserting the edit, which is factually correct. He was officially designated BTW as Michael II. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Russian law is that legally Nicholas had absolutely no right to abdicate on behalf of his son. Can you provide sources for the assertion the he was ever "officially designated" Michael II? He never acted as Tsar, and never formally accepted the throne, only informally. john k 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas's behaviour in abdicating directly in favour of his son was questionable. My understanding is that the second abdication was not being done by him as Tsar but effectively as guardian and regent for his son. But it is a legal mess and happening so fast that, as sometimes does happen, people play hard and loose with the law. As to the designation with an ordinal, that never happens immediately. It usually requires some form of constitutional process (in the UK an Accession Council). But in its absence one still is monarch. All documents I have ever seen say that his regnal name was Michael II. And yes he did act as Tsar. He issued a conditional renounciation on the advice of the Government. He signed that by his regnal name, Michael, minus an ordinal.

 * Wrong!! By the 1906 constitution, Alexei was heir to the throne, so why didn't Alexei automatically become Alexei II? Yes his father had abdicated for him but technically illegal. Michael had no claim, no authority, and no right to be emperor. Sorry, but the idea of him as Michael II is just a myth, and yet another reason for questionable validity of wikipedia.

The key facts that indicate his status were
 * The renounciation was partial. You can't be half a monarch. If he didn't renounce it unconditionally then he accepted it conditionally, meaning that he was monarch but reserving the right to abdicate if certain conditions were not met subsequently.

 * A grand duke isn't advised by the Government much less bound by advice. He formally took advice and did what that advice said. That indicates that both they and he believed that he had the status requiring formal constitutional processes, namely that he was a monarch.

 * The language of the renounciation is unambiguously that of a monarch to his people, not a grand duke. Royalty follow strict codes in terms of language. Monarchs structures messages to the people in a way which is not replicated by other royalty. Michael's message was unambiguously monarchical in language and tone.

 * His signed the renounciation not as a grand duke but in standard monarchical form. All that was missing was an ordinal, and that would be formally used (though it would exist) until the formal accession body was assembled to be told the new monarch's regnal name and ordinal. (It was widely expected, for example, that the current British queen was going to be called Mary III. They were very surprised when she chose Elizabeth II.)

It is all a minor point given that whatever about reigning he never ruled. But looking at documents I have no doubt but that legally he believed he was a monarch, the Prime Minister believed he was a monarch, the Attorney-General believed he was a monarch, and the ex-Tsar believed Michael was a monarch. Even if it was for only about 14 hours Michael technically on the basis of the evidence was a monarch. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't have too much of a problem with the current text, but I'd still like to see some sources which say what you are saying. Beyond that, I don't think that the case is really all that different from that of the ostensible Louis XIX and Henry V, as I mentioned when we discussed this topic before.  It is quite evident that the Dauphin believed himself to be King for the half hour between his father's abdication and his own, and that, presumably, whatever ministers and so forth were present believed the same.  The same can be said of the Duke of Bordeaux after his uncle's abdication.  The previously existing governmental authorities recognized them both as proper sovereigns.  The question of whether Henry V was king was not conclusively settled, in fact, for several days, until the Duke of Orleans proclaimed himself king.  We need to be careful about asserting questionable legal theories unless we can find secondary sources to support them.  john k 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see how there is much questionable about it. Nicholas abdicated in favour of Michael. Michael issued a partial renounciation on the advice of the Government (the fact that it was partial not full, and that it was on the advice of the government, unambiguously indicates his status at the time). Events overtake him and the monarchy is swept away. I deliberately haven't added in my own analysis on whether, for example, Nicholas was acting as Tsar or regent in abdicating in his son's name (though the fact that he gives the excuse that he wasn't to keep his son near him suggests the former, as does the fact that the new abdication was declared to be at the same timing as the earlier one; i.e., one replaced the other. But other things suggest the latter. It is a hard one to call). I have also not mentioned issues to do with accession councils, ordinal usage, monarchical language, etc because that would be straying into OR (or rather, noticing points that some books, while reaching the same conclusions, missed. It is so frustrating reading a book where the author goes into convoluted theories and you want to scream at him "hold on a friggin' moment. You don't have to go there. Just look at x. It is staring you in the face!"). Unfortunately, like most footnotes, Michael doesn't get the sort of coverage needed and where he is mentioned at all, it is usually because of his love life, so constitutional analysis is missing.
 * The difference between Henri V and this guy is that Henri was replaced by another monarch who formed a government. This guy is different. He inherited a throne that effectively turned to sand in his hands and it, not just he as with Henri V, was swept away. So whereas the issue for Henri V was merely the continuation of a branch of the Royal Family on the throne, rather than their replacement by another branch, in Michael's case it is perhaps more fundamental: an entire system, and not just a branch of the Royal Family, was being swept away. He was Nicholas's last roll of the dice. Did Michael mishandle it? If he had done differently how differently would history have turned out? Did Kerensky make the right judgment call? etc etc.
 * Revolutions are rather hard to categorise in terms of procedure. All we can say here is that Nicholas abdicated the throne to Michael. Michael the next day issued a conditional renunciation, on government advice (something that would only be done by a monarch), history overtook them. The end. (Literally) FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)  03:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Duke of Orleans did not become "King of France and Navarre" - that title, and the old French monarchy, were swept away. The Duke of Orleans got a new title, "King of the French" and ruled over a monarchy based on entirely different principles. There was a new flag, and so forth. The old monarchy was swept away, and permanently. At any rate, the description of Michael's role that you provide in this post seems perfectly fine. But the position that he actually was Emperor seems questionable. And the idea that because he took "government advice" (which was, as I understand it, mostly actually the advice of various Duma members, particularly Rodzianko, and not advice of the previously existing government) does not necessarily imply anything, especially given the unclear situation. Michael talked to a bunch of Duma members and decided to conditionally renounce the throne. Whether the advice they gave him was formal advice, in the way that Mr. Blair provides advice for Her Majesty today, seems open to question, especially since, well, they weren't formally the government at all, just a bunch of Duma members. Anyway, as I said, the article itself is mostly okay. john k 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird sentence
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)

The Mans name was Mikhail, NOT Michael
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)

 * Your grandfather was not royalty, was he? Charles 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * 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)

Source
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)

Succession box
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)

Mikhail Alexandrovich's status after issung his ukase was similar to that of Nicholas I after initially refusing the throne. No one claims Nicholas had abdicated, and there was no question of his right to assume the throne after Grand Duke Constantine made clear he would not do so. Wikipedia dates the reign of Nicholas I from the date of Alexander I's death, not the date he agreed to rule. If the legal status of Nicholas I did not change by his firm renunciation in December 1825, why would Mikhail Alexandrovich's by his conditional one in March 1917?Soshea50 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

A flaw in this entry is the impression it creates that in March 1917 the Emperor's brother was a non-entity who came out of nowhere, sat at a meeting, signed a document put in front of him, and returned to oblivion. The commission appointed by the Provisional Government to document the circumstances of the February Revolution devoted a surprising amount of attention to the Grand Duke's activities in Petrograd in the days preceding the abdication of Nicholas II. The Grand Duke first persuaded General Alexeyev to ask the Emperor to appont Michael as Military Governor of Petrograd, in an effort to bring some order to what the Grand Duke recognized as the deepening chaos in the capital (which Nicholas refused to do). Then, when it became clear to him that Nicholas would fall, Michael opened a line of communication with Rodzianko, President of the Duma, to assure his support for the Succession of Alexei Nicolaevich, with Michael as Regent (which Rodzianko agreed to do). Although fruitless these initiatives show that the Grand Duke Michael possessed (and displayed) a degree of political judgement, skill and energy of the type otherwise lacking in Petrograd. In this light one may give recognition to the good judgement the Grand Duke showed in refusing to rule (can we imagine any other of the Grand Dukes making a similar refusal) and the admirably crafted ukase he issued as 'Mikhail' anointing the Provisional Government without ending the monarchy.Soshea50 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

It is of interest that the report of the Provisional Government's Commission always refers to the Emperor's brother as the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich. Those of us who believe he is entitled to the dignity of Michael II based on his de jure status must accept that he is not remembered that way in history, just as Jane Grey is remembered as Lady Jane, not as Queen Jane. Therefore, the article is properly is titled.72.146.26.203 (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Johnson
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)

Nicholas Johnson was a Russian but his grandfather was British, having moved to Russia as many did to work, and settled there. His mother was a court musician, and Johnson also played the piano well. He spoke English badly

 * Thanks. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Death date
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)

Absolutely. As we say in our book (p360 UK) Tbe time was approximately 2 a.m. on Thursday June 13.

Donald Crawford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.121.104 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that this was LOCAL time. At the beginning of June on orders from Moscow the clocks in Bolshevik Russia had been advanced by two hours, effective in Perm from June 2. However, as with Michael, so with Nicholas, who was also murdered after midnight in Ekaterinburg (the same time clock as Perm) though almost every source gives his date of death as July 16, not correctly July 17. That said, in cultural terms, the Russians treat ‘next morning’ as the day you get up so they would think June 12 as being the same day for an event which goes beyond midnight but is still part of the day before. Curiously, since Nicholas and his family had gone to bed at 10.30 pm, and were woken at midnight, by that test it was July 17 for them. So the easier get-out is ‘on the night of June 12/13’ and ‘on the night of July 16/17’. The thousands of people in Perm who now commemorate the death of Michael each year take June 12 as the date — so for our part we take June 12 as ‘the last day of his life’, which seems to cover the point to the satisfaction of all. However, when — as we do — we give the precise time and date of his death, then it cannot come out other than as 2 a.m. Thursday June 13. Apply that same test to Nicholas, and — oh dear — the history books have the wrong date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.121.104 (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

It says he was born december 4. That is the Julian calendar. To convert Julian to Gregorian you need to add 12 days. That makes it december 16! 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabianWahlSandvold (talk • contribs)

Someone changed his Gregorian calendar date of birth to November 22. You are going the wrong way! Since he was born between 1800 and 1900, you need to add 12 days to the julian day to get the gregorian date! 23:56 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabianWahlSandvold (talk • contribs)
 * December 4 is the Gregorian date, November 22 is the Julian one. DrKiernan (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GA
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)

Alexis' rights to the throne
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

In November 1898, he attained legal adulthood, and just eight months later became heir presumptive to Nicholas as the middle brother, George, was killed in a motorcycle accident.[16]

where does this come from? grand duke george died of tuberculosis, michael's son, george died in a car crush! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fralence (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The superscript number [16] is the link to the reference: Crawford and Crawford, p. 25. DrKiernan (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnson
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)

Rehabilitation
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)

Mention of Alexei in the lead
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)
 * 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)
 * The article doesn't say he was terminal. Cited content restored. DrKay (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Starflight

Untitled
Need to add sections about Starflight 2 and Starflight III
 * Reid 08:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is the link to Greg Johnson correct?

Andete 09:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Screenshot
What platform is the screenshot from? It's too nice to be from the DOS version. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

And out of all seriousness, it's too ugly for the Genesis version. Silly me, the caption says Atari ST and Amiga.
 * Looks exactly like the DOS version to me. --HunterZ 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Circular Link
The link to Binary Systems redirects back to the Starflight page. Should it be removed? --HunterZ 03:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Commodore 64 Release Date
I got the MS-DOS EGA 16-color version for Christmas in either '86 or '87 (the first store-bought PC game I ever owned). I'd have to dig out the box (which I still have) and check to be sure, but I seem to remember mentions of the C64 version in the booklet describing how to run the game (a fold-out book with green text on white cardstock I think). In light of this, I'm surprised to see MobyGames' listing the C64 release date as 1989: http://www.mobygames.com/game/starflight/release-info - can anyone confirm this? --HunterZ 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't recall the exact date, the Commodore 64 version of Starflight, I can confirm that it was released in 1989. The C64 was actually in the works before the IBM PC version began; development lasted approximately one month before Binary Systems & Electronic Arts decided to shift 100% to the IBM platform. I don't see how there could possibly have been any mention of how to run the C64 version in 1986/1987. --Kercso 20:25, 10 August, 2010

Wow, right from the horse's mouth. My memory must have been bad! --HunterZ (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"We"?
Who is this "we" that is constantly referred to in the article?
 * Good question. It looks to me like the Races section in the article may have been plagarized verbatim from somewhere else without credit. I've added a citation needed tag, but personally I wouldn't object if someone wants to rewrite or even remove that section. It really doesn't come across as very encyclopedic anyways. --HunterZ 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The races section is verbatim from genesis version of the games manual pages 103-105.

External Link
I updated the fan-site link to the most complete and frequented Starflight resource I have been able to find. If anyone feels that there is a better one, feel free to update it. Crescentnebula 19:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Open-Endedness
"Starflight is widely regarded within the game industry as being one of the games responsible for pioneering the open-ended gameplay featured in modern games such as the Grand Theft Auto series."

I deleted this, because the same definition applies to all RPG-like games of the time: Ultima, Elite, Alternate Reality, etc. GTA is a much less linear style of game in comparison. It isn't clear the Starflight is "widely regarded" as a precursor to modern open-ended games in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.226.55 (talk • contribs)

 * Good move. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

the screenshot
the screenshot IS from the dos version, but not from starflight.. somebody uploaded a picture from starflight 2 (see www.mobygames.com)
 * No, it is from Starflight. Look at the date in the picture. It shows 4620, the time Starfligt took place. Starflight II plays 19 years later at 4639. -- Bhaak 07:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

category for games
Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators may be about to be deleted. I understand some of the concerns raised, though. At some point in the future, perhaps we can think about some alternate category names, to group together all games like this one, which have some form of plotline, and unique game depth, and which create some sort of in-game type of "universe" with a whole set of interactions. this seems (to me, at least, IMHO) to mark a significant subgroup in this genre. feel free to weigh in at the cfd discussion, by the way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

SFX and music
Did Starflight have sound effects? Did it have music? Maybe I just missed it, but I didn't see mention either way in the article.

ScooterJohn (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The PC version of the game did not have any music other than that played in the opening screen. This theme is, however, the one most strongly identified with the game. No version of the game had music during gameplay. There were some PC speaker quality sound effects in all versions.

Some fixes
I've fixed a few things...

- The Captain isn't necessarily the Player Character; I've changed it to be just another of the positions to be filled.

- Reworked the species listing. Also, there are only five races available for crew selection: Human, Velox, Elowan, Thrynn, and Android. (For some reason the article said six.)

- Referenced Starport by name instead of just as "Interstel HQ".

- Fixed some small spelling errors and rewrote a few sentences here and there.

The "ATV" was called the "Terrain Vehicle" in the DOS version I'm familiar with (and it also could not be upgraded at Starport, only replaced if lost), but this might be different in the other versions so I've left it alone.

Jesternaut (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I wrote that stuff about the ATV. I've only played the megadrive version, so its important to clear this up. This article focuses on the original release, so your suggestions are good ones. Johnnyfog (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Your rewrites look great to me. And as far as I'm concerned, the Sega version has just as much of a place in the article as the original DOS version, so long as the unique aspects of each are made clear.  I'd offer to help parse it all out, but I have (literally) about five minutes of experience on the Sega version and even that was... holy cow, more than a decade ago.  (I'm getting old.)  The DOS version, on the other hand, I still enjoy re-playing from time to time to this day, despite its primitiveness -- hooray for DOSBox! Jesternaut (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * This article could really benefit from some sources. If you recall any magazines or websites mentioning this game, you might was to post a reference. Johnnyfog (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

References to Fan Projects Added in "Legacy" Section
I am one of the project team members on the Starflight III Project. This morning I added a few references to major fan-based projects I was aware of, as well as links leading to those projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capi3101 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Colonizable Planets?
First off, I brought that subject up because I was getting incorrect info and wanted to see if yours was better, which it has been. You are more precise, even though you don't need all the artifacts you may as well put them all up. Also I've noticed you have a colonizable planet in orbit 5 of system 149,133. I have tried this planet luckily that was my first uh oh so I was only fined 100 MU but it is uninhabitable due to violent storms the planet in orbit 4 is O.K.. I will update the planets conditions as I explore also I am talking about StarFlight on Sega Genises. Or it has some relation to it. Mystickknight (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference material
Several reviews of Starflight may be located at amr.abime.net. You might also check Archive.org's Computer Magazine Archive, which hosts numerous publications from around the time this game was released. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links! I'll take a look at those soon. —Torchiest talkedits 21:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

GA promotion comments
Thank you for improving such an interesting piece of gaming history and for being the guinea pig for my first GA review. For the road to FA, I believe the Development and Reception sections need expansion to be considered comprehensive. There are dozens of reviews for this game which must be considered. The legacy also needs expansion, and probably to be split into subsections for the sequel, other games it inspired, and fan games. Here are two reliable secondary sources that deal with the fan games:. And here is another fan game that appears to have never finished, but might be worth mentioning. Great work on this article, and I look forward to working with you again in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whew, thanks for the epic review, and thanks for the having the patience to help me work through all the issues. This game is a treasured memory for me, and I'd love to take it to FA in the future. Look forward to more collaborations.  Great review for your first time. —Torchiest talkedits 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Three DOS releases?
FYI, Mobygames shows evidence of two releases of Starflight 1 for DOS:
 * Album-style box with CGA and Hercules support only
 * Conventional box with EGA/Tandy support added

I own a physical copy of Starflight 1 with EGA/Tandy support, but it's in the album-style box with a green sticker added to show the EGA/Tandy support. I suspect the conventional box release may contain the exact same game version as mine, and that mine was probably an early release of the EGA version while they still had the original album-style boxes around (hence the added sticker).

I would be interested to know if anyone has information about the EGA/Tandy release versus the original release, including whether it fixed or added any bugs. I can say that the EGA version is missing some animations that are in the CGA versions, like the spinning moon on the title and the docking bay doors opening/closing. I don't remember how Tandy fared, except that I think Tandy doesn't even get a discrete menu option at startup (it's activated when choosing one of the other options while running on a Tandy - don't remember which). --HunterZ (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I remember having an album-style box with Tandy support. I believe it lacked EGA support.  It may or may not have had a sticker.  An eBay search finds album-style boxes listed as "IBM & Tandy" but without the green sticker and without any mention of EGA.  Based on my memories and on available evidence, I agree EGA support was probably added later.  And interesting question is whether or not Tandy support was present in the initial release.  There is evidence to suggest that the Tandy support was present prior to the EGA.  Specifically, with Tandy graphics the title screen animations are present.  I suspect the Starport door animation is also present, but I have not verified that yet.  With Tandy graphics, you may select either "RGB" or "Color TV or Composite" graphics, depending on your monitor type.  Tandy graphics came from the IBM PC Jr, where they were called CGA Plus.  Mpb2 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Update: On eBay, I found an album-style box with a grey sticker that mentions "Tandy" and "Color graphics adapater" support. The sticker does not mention EGA.  Mpb2 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Legacy -- "STARFLIGHT: Tales From The Starport Lounge"
I added a bit about the new book set in the Starflight universe, including how Greg Johnson helped provided background info and one of the stories was written by Robert Silverberg.

Review
207.229.139.154 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeux & Stratégie nouvelle formule #5

title: Talk:Starflight


text:
Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Why was Julian Carr’s Name removed from a University Building?
Who recommended it be removed and what were their reason for the recommendation? Unc1999 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Public Ivy in lede
@ElKevbo, I'm guessing you may have thoughts about how to move this toward a less boosterish state; offers an academic experience similar to that of an Ivy League university isn't something I think we can support. Overall, we need to either reform or delist GAs like this, since editors ought to be able to point to them as precedent-setting examples. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we must include this information in the lede - more on that in a moment - then I don't know why we need to expand on it at all as readers who would like to know more can easily visit the article all about it.
 * I don't think this has been centrally discussed in several years but I am still opposed to including this information in the lede of any article. Why in the world are we giving so much weight to one or two books published in either 1985 or 2001? The compromise that was struck in the previous discussion was to only include this in the lede for institutions named in the 1985 book, excluding the "runner-ups." I would be very amenable reopening this discussion to overturn that compromise in favor of relegating this to the "Rankings" or a similar section if it's included at all. ElKevbo (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Integration
No Wiki entry on a large Southern institution would be complete without a section on the history of race relations and integration at that institution. 2600:1700:2980:51A0:61C1:F9A:D203:641B (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill could certainly use some improvement and expansion. S0091 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)