Nicholas II Romanov, the last Emperor of All-Russia, used also (among many others) titles: Grand Prince of Lithuania, and King of Poland.

The Wikipedia states he was "a titular" King of Poland. In the reference it is written:

In 1831, the Russian tsars were deposed from the Polish throne, but they soon took control of the country, ruling it as part of Russia, and abolished the separate monarchy. However, they continued to use this title. See November Uprising.

It is also noticeable that there were no "Poland" in Russia as result of January Uprising in 1863, but Vistula Province.

In traditional education in Poland children are thought that the last king of Poland was Stanisław August Poniatowski and Wikipedia also says he was the last king of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania (ended his reign in 1795, and Nicholas II in 1917), however, in the table in the very ending of the article, he was succeeded by three Emperors (Russian Tsar as King of Poland).

During the WW1, on November 5th, 1916, when all (Russian) Poland was conquered by Central Powers, the German and Austrian Emperors declared that they will grant Poland some autonomy. As this event is hardly known in Poland, this was probably the main factor that made the independent Poland two years later. However, a Kingdom of Poland was to be (re)created and as there was no king (so Tsar was not legal to Germans), but a Regency Council.

This Regency Council took power from German governor Hans von Beseler on October 6th, 1918, making thus independent Poland after 123 years. At this time the Tsar was already dead.

My questions are:

  1. Was Nicholas II the real king of Poland, or was he king of Poland the same way as Henry VIII was King of France?
  2. If Regency council passed all power to Józef Piłsudski, and the 2nd Polish Republic was created on basis of German-Austrian Kingdom of Poland, was in some way Nicholas overthrown? (The Kingdom of Poland was created from conquered Russian lands)
  3. Who should be considered as the last king of Poland: Stanisław August Poniatowski, Nicholas II Romanov or sede vacante, represented by Regency Council?
  • 1
    In the same sense as Nicholas II was a tsar of Siberia.
    – Anixx
    Feb 22, 2020 at 12:47
  • @Anixx But do bear in mind that he controlled only a part of Poland. Feb 23, 2020 at 9:30

5 Answers 5


Was Nicholas II REAL king of Poland? It is open to interpretations. But IMHO, it was just a title taken by Tsars. There was no state called 'Poland' but fragments or partitions of original Poland, which were provinces/districts in Prussia, Austria and Russia.

Stanisław August Poniatowski was the last king (reign 1764-95) of independent Poland because, Poland ceased to exist as a state after 1795, until it become independent in 1918.

Nicholas II was only the last man to have title - 'King of Poland'.

Partitions - 1772, 1773 and 1795

Partitions of Poland

Map showing territories of Poland annexed by Austria, Prussia and Russia

Poland ceased to exist after three partitions, in 1772,1793 and 1795, done by Prussia, Austria and Russia, Russia gaining the largest fragment.

At Congress of Vienna, in 1815, again Russia got the large part of Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw as a "Kingdom of Poland" from Prussia. So, Congress of Poland was formed. It was a personal union of the Russian parcel of Poland with the Russian Empire.

So, from 1815, Tsars started using the tile "King of Poland", even though much part of original Poland remained under Prussia and Austria.

Later, after the two uprisings in 1830-31 and 1863-64 in so called Kingdom of Poland, its autonomy was stripped off and it was called Vistula land And in 1867 was made an official part of the Russian Empire. But still Tsars of Russia retained the title of "King of Poland".

So, Nicholas II, as a king of Poland, was NOT like what Henry VIII as a King of France was. France had her own Kings. English monarchs just made claims.

Nicholas II, WW-I and Regency Council:

During WW-I The Kingdom of Poland of 1916-18 was proposed in 1916 by Germany and Austria-Hungary following their conquest of the former Congress Poland or Russian Poland by the Act of 5th November. It was only a client or puppet state of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Regency Council was the highest body and it announced the independence of Poland in 1918.

Nicholas II was not 'overthrown' but was force to abdicate after the February Revolution in March 1917 and later executed in July, 1918. It has nothing to do with Poland, directly.

  • Thank you for your answer. I don't understand: if Poland ceased to exist, after the January Uprising and was named Vistula land, why did Nicholas II use title "King of Poland"? You say "it was just a title taken by Tsars" but he could be also a Prince of Universe. I think the title mattered and was some prestige. In my opinion, if he used the title, he recognized somehow that Poland existed. There was no coronation, but he had everything else required: territory of Poland, control and continuation with Congress Poland.
    – Voitcus
    Jun 27, 2013 at 13:19
  • The existence of Poland was only in fragments. The prestige related to "King of Poland", I guess, was due to the image of Poland created by John III Sobieski and the influence one will get in central and western Europe after annexing the Poland. For the same, Catherine II wanted to absorbed the whole Poland in Russia but, Frederick the Great was determined to foil her plans which led to partitions.
    – fortytwo
    Jun 27, 2013 at 15:32

The Duchy of Warsaw, after Napoleonic wars, got the name of the Kingdom of Poland. The entitlement was agreed upon by the Vienne Congress in 1815, not proclaimed by the Russian Czar.

The title of Nikolaj II was, according to picabu or wiki, was:

Божиею поспе́шествующею милостию, Мы, Николай Вторы́й[прим 4], Император и Самодержец Всероссийский, Московский, Киевский, Владимирский, Новгородский; Царь Казанский, Царь Астраханский, Царь Польский.....

In this article, we can believe Wikipedia somewhat, for it has reference to a document from the year 1905

The name of the region remained the same until the revolution in 1917. And after it there was no such entity nor name. So Nikolaj II was the last Polish czar. And not the king.

The difference between these two titles is too complicated to be discussed here, but it is significant. For Russian czars were never kings of any land and refused to be ones, but they were czars - unlimited rulers. And Ponyatovsky was the last king.

  1. No, Nicholas II was not a real king of Poland because after the November Uprising of 1830 was suppressed, under the Organic Statute of 1832 Poland's legislature was abolished and its remaining national institutions probably (though this is open to legal debate) did not qualify it to be called a country in a similar sense that, for instance, Scotland is a country within the (sovereign entity of) United Kingdom.

  2. Nicholas II was overthrown (forced to abdicate) not as King Poland but as Emperor of Russia, although as such his titles included Tsar of Poland. His abdication manifesto did not mention Poland at all and indeed was not in any way intended as instrument of renunciation of Russian sovereignty over the Polish regions in question. From the Polish retroactive point of view, Russia never had sovereignty over Poland in the first place but had been illegally occupying Polish territory, thus no "overthrowing" was required to proclaim Polish independence. The legal ambiguity that characterized Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War I is reflected in the fact that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk makes no mention of Poland at all.

  3. The last person to be crowned king of Poland was neither Stanisław August, nor Nicholas II, but Nicholas I, in Warsaw in 1829. Poland (within the borders of the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw) and Russia at that moment can reasonably be viewed as twin monarchies in personal union; this ceased to be the case 3 years later with the Organic Statute, as mentioned above. No Russian emperor after Nicholas I was crowned as King of Poland, although they retained the title for reasons of prestige but with no legal weight.

  • That trick: proclaiming to be the king, but not to be crowned, was often done by many emperors. Because when the ruler was crowned, he got not only rights but obligations as well. Austrian monarchs did the same with the Czech crown. Russian rulers did that from XVI Century ad minimum.
    – Gangnus
    Feb 23, 2020 at 11:22

During the Napoleonic wars Napoleon granted Poland a level of autonomy (duchy of warsaw) but it was still a puppet state of the French Empire. Many Poles backed Napoleon, up to 100,000 Poles served in the Grand Armee and King Poniatowski's nephew, Jozef Poniatowski even became a marshal of France. However after the fall of Napoleon the Grand duchy of warsaw, which included lands from Prussia and Austria as well, was left to question of what to do with it. Prince Jerzy Czartoryski, once a dear friend and right hand man to Tsar Alexander vied for the tsar to reclaim the lost territories of Poland and join them to the Russian Empire in a dynastic union, crowning himself "king of Poland". More or less that did happen, Alexander gained the lands of the grand duchy of Warsaw, however they did not reclaim the lands of Partitioned Poland. Alexander did Crown himself King of Poland. This gave rise the the Congress Kingdom of Poland. It was granted a degree of Autonomy; however it was still under the Empire. The congress Kingdom however became slowly liquidated and lost most of all its autonomy; many uprisings in Poland forced the Tsars to punish Polish lands and took away their autonomy and later discouraged Polish indentity and language. However during this whole time they still recognized that they did have Poland in the Russian empire and did style themselves legitimate kings of Poland. ( Russia did in fact have rule over the majority of Partitioned Poland). Most Poles however will say they don't recognize this because they viewed these time as times of supression and foreign rule, to a degree this is correct but one must also see that the Polish nation pre partition was a country with a broken ruling class, very corrupt and almost incapable of self rule which evidently helped lead to the partitions. In the end its a matter of opinion.

  • 2
    Could you break this into paragraphs please? Nov 10, 2014 at 4:15
  • 1
    It is also worth to mention that presently the only person to have a dynastic claim to the crown of Poland is Maria Vladimirovna of the house of Romanov, she descends from the line of Emperor Alexander II. Her mother descends from a royal Georgian-Polish line, Bagration-Muhkrani.
    – Lach
    Nov 10, 2014 at 4:23
  • 1
    I believe that the Polish constitution of 1791 said that after the current King Stanisław August Poniatowski the rightful king would be the heir of the Saxon kings of Poland. I believe there are currently 2 possible claimants to the Saxon throne and thus indirectly to the Polish throne. There are, of course, several other potential hereditary claimants as well. Jul 24, 2016 at 4:26

If anything, it was Michael II of Russia, not Nicholas II who was the last king of Poland. Michael II was formally the tsar of Russia between February 1917 and August 1917 when the Provisional government declared republic. And since Poland declared independence later, it was part of the game.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.