0
The Romanovs
The Romanovs reigned over Russia from 1613 to 1917. During the Romanov’s reign, their descendants were called the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, and ruled all of Russia, Lithuania, Finland, Poland and Malta.
919 Questions
What dynasty of rulers did Selassie belong?
Well Halie Selassie belonged to the Chang dynasty i thinks
Who was leader of Russia before Tsar Nicholas II?
Tsar Alexander III, Nicholas's father, was the leader of Russia before Nicholas II.
What did the March revolution in 1917 force?
In Russia, the 1917 March revolution forced Czar Nicholas to step down from the Russian throne.
Nicholas 11 - what was this tsar famous for?
Tsar Nicholas (2) is remembered because of his poor ability to govern Russia. The decisions of the Tsar provoked the Russian Revolution of 1905.
Russia was stricken with extreme poverty, famine and other sufferings as a result of the Russian-Japanese war of 1904. Over thirty thousand Russian lives had already been lost due to war with Japan, causing the conscription of Russian peasants in preparation for Russia's next war, the First World War. In addition to public disapproval of war involvement, discontent was increasing due to poor working conditions for over two million industrial workers who worked for employers without concern for occupational health and safety. Russia's resentment for the Tsarist government (the total monarchy) was sparked by the lack of hospitals and educational facilities. This kind of discontent began the demand for a constitution, the demand for a Duma where the public could vote for an elected parliament, and the demand for more rights and better living conditions.
An example of Tsar Nicholas II's ignorance toward the public's demand would be the occurrences of 'Bloody Sunday'. 'Bloody Sunday' is the name for the twenty-second of January 1905, when workers who were participating in a peaceful demonstration for better working conditions were fired upon by the Tsarist authorities. By the end of the day hundreds of common people were dead, many of which were women and children. The Tsar claimed to have known nothing about the demonstration, and also claimed he did not authorise for the shooting of protestors. The events of bloody Sunday resulted in resentment for the Tsarist government, the articulation of revolutionary ideas, and the influence of leadership on revolutionary movements.
hi!
What was the nationalists explanation Of Bloody Sunday?
It depends which Bloody Sunday you're talking about. I don't know much about the one in the North of Ireland in 1972, but I do know what happened in Dublin on 21 November 1920. Basically, it is know acknowledged that Michael Collins had a hit squad, informally known as the 'Twelve Apostles' and on the morning of the 21 November they took out 14 members of a British intelligence squad known as the 'Cairo Gang'. In reprisal, members of the British 'Black 'n' Tan' forces broke into Croke Park later that day where a match was taking place and opened fire into the crowd, killing 12 spectators and one player. It is widely acknowledged as one of the worst atrocities of the War of Independence, along with the burning of Cork city. [Yavemil] ----
The other "Bloody Sunday" took place on the 30th of January, 1972 in Derry. A civil rights march was taking place in Derry on that afternoon. The British Army tried to break it up and ended up shooting dead 13 unarmed civilians. On the day, they initially claimed that they had fired only 3 shots! Two enquiries into the events have happened, one shortly afterwards, known as the Widgery Inquiry, and one in recent years. The Widgery Report concluded that:
* shots had been fired at the soldiers before they started the firing that led to the casualties; * for the most part, the soldiers acted as they did because they thought their standing orders justified it; * although there was no proof that any of the deceased had been shot while handling a firearm or bomb, there was a strong suspicion that some had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon.
Relatives and friends of the dead have always rejected these conclusions. No one was ever charged with the killings.
They didn't really have to explain anything, they didn't do anything.
they lived in a house callled cruck houses wich were named because of the half moon beams to surport the house
A Tsar (Царь in Russian)(Tzar, Csar or Czar) was the emperor of Russia until the 1917 February Revolution. Tsar is a Russification of the Roman word Caesar.
The first Russian emperor to use the title was Tsar Ivan III (the Great). By the time the Romanovs came to power, it had become the standard title applied to the Russian head of state.
male monarch or emperor
Illegimate children Czar Nicholas II of Russia?
no his children were not illegimate, he was indeed married
Tsar Nicholas II, The Last Ruler of the Russian Empire
Who were the first and last czars of russia?
The first was Ivan IV (also known as Ivan the Terrible), and the last was Nicholas II.
Who was the tsarina Alexandra's lover?
Her husband, the Czar, of course. As far as is known she had no extra-marital dalliance though was extremely friendly with Rasputin. Olga ( oldest child) was Born before Nicholas II became Czar-he being Crown Prince ( Czarevich) at the time, if that means anything. Olga was six feet two inches, a regular Wonder Woman type.
Where did the February Revolution happen?
The February Revolution in Russia in 1917 broke out spontaneously in Petrograd, Russia as a city wide protest demonstration and general strike. Things then spread to other cities as well and calmed down only when news of the Tsar's abdication was announced.
Petrograd had been St. Petersburg, then Petrograd, then Leningrad and is now St. Petersburg again.
Who was the last Czar of Russia?
Nicholas II (executed by the communists in 1918)
Though it is commonly believed that Nikolas II was the last czar of Russia, that information MAY be incorrect. Nikolas II abdicated his throne in 1917. Because he was not assassinated or overthrown the throne should have gone to his son Alexei, the rightful heir. But, Nikolas abdicated for his son, "although there is a question about whether he had the legal right to do this well."
Grand Duke Michael Romanov had lost the right to become czar when he was married without the consent of Czar Nikolas II, but Nikolas abdicated in his favor. Michael realized the throne would never be safe unless the people wanted a monarchy. A few hours after Nikolas and Alexei's abdication, Michael signed a manifesto explaining that he would only become czar if through an election at the Constituent Assembly the people agreed to a monarchy. This election never occurred and so Michael refused to be czar. So since Nikolas II did indeed legally abdicate his throne, he certainly isn't the last czar. The question is whether Alexei really was the last czar or if Michael II truly was the last czar of Russia.
Actual Fact:
Even if Nicholas II had legally abdicated the throne, he remains the last Czar of Russia, because no one else was crowned or acted as Czar. Nicholas II was indeed the last Tsar for exactly the reasons stated above. The answer states that Mikhail refused to become Czar, so how could he be considered the last Czar?
The Russian Law of Succession stated that the throne was not the Emperor's personal property to do with as he pleased. Title descended automatically to the eldest son. The Grand Duke Michael was not the eldest son and to complicate things more, he had disqualified himself from being Tsar by marrying a commoner. Since Mikhail refused to accept the appointment, was never crowned Czar (or Emperor) and never acted as Czar, he cannot be considered the last Czar. In fact, the abdication to Mikhail was illegal and of no effect. Similarly for Alexei, the abdication was not to him, but even if it had been to him, he was never crowned Czar and never acted as Czar.
It is also arguable that Nicholas II's voluntary abdication of his position was in and of itself illegal and of no effect. Thus, it can be looked at as Nicholas II abdicating the right to rule the country but that he was still the Tsar until his death. The question of the legality of the abdication was serious enough to suggest that Nicholas II might be restored to the throne at some time in the future, had he lived and political conditions changed. One thing is fairly certain. Had the monarchist forces succeeded in overthrowing the new Bolshevik regime, they would certainly have put Nicholas II back on the throne, rather than Mikhail or Alexei.
If Mikhail or Alexei were the true last Czars of Russia, one of them would have had to be restored to the throne, not Nicholas II.
Who is the director of Anastasia?
Donald Bluth. as this was a cartoon film producer/director ranks overlap. He took considerable (Flak) from a Russian Orthodox cleric who thought he was needlessly trivializing the Romanov Martyrdom.
The "house of special purpose" or the Ipatiev house was where Nicholas II, his wife, Alexandra along with their son and four daughters were imprisoned before they were murdered by the local Soviet in Ekaterinburg.
The house of special purpose was the residence of Nicholas Ipatiev the governor of Ekaterinburg. Hastily made up as a prison for the last Imperial family, the half-cellar room was the scene of the bloody regicide of Nicholas, his family and a few faithful retainers from the Imperial court. Shot and stabbed with bayonets at point blank range.
The story is told in John Boyne's Book, 'The House of Special Purpose'
ISBN: 9780385616065
Nicholas Romanov, Prince of Russia was 91 years old when he died on September 15, 2014 (birthdate: September 26, 1922).
What month did the first revolution of 1917 occur?
The first revolution in Russia in 1917 occurred in February according to the Julian calendar which was in effect within Russia at that time. In the western world, which used the Gregorian calendar, it occurred in March.
unrest in the Russian military and civilian population.
