Does Russia really need Monarchy?

[Turkish Delight]

I don't think.

[COUNTESS]

You don't think what?

[Turkish Delight]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

You don't think what?

I don't think that Russia need a monarchy for now.

But I heard that some of my friends they said they need.

I hope that they will be happy.

[COUNTESS]

I think you are right. They don't need a monarchy now or later. It is over.

[BeatrixFan]

Surely monarchy is the last of Russia's worries at the moment? Having said that, if and it's a very big if, Russia did decide on a monarchy in a referendum, I am sure they'd be well served Maria Vladimirovna who's a thoroughly decent woman with alot of common sense.

[Harry's polo shirt]

Most people don't even know that Russia is a monarchy.

[BeatrixFan]

Well no. But let's face it, Maria's a great deal more committed to Russia than some Russian politicians and certainly more than 'Prince' Nicholas Romanov. He's only interesting in getting invitations to dinners than doing whats best for his homeland.

[COUNTESS]

And Putin the Tsar. They will be well rid of all these types, although, Putin, in many ways, has served them well. Maria is committed to herself and her son, after that she may and may not do a good job. She has never run a country and spouting cliches is not taking the heat. She has never run a candy store, much less a country. Yes, she is decent, at least now. Power corrupts.......

[Al_bina]

You are absolutely correct Countess. Running the Russian Imperial House in exile greatly differs from running such huge country as Russian Federation. She seems to be a decent lady and speaks nicely capitalizing on the grand imperial past. The question is whether Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Grand Duke Georgiy Mikhailovich will be capable of effectively resolving issues of the modern Russia. Finally, Countess is right stating that power corrupts people. Upon getting power, Maria Vladimirovna may show a different face.

[Ex-Princess Lisa]

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

Most people don't even know that Russia is a monarchy.

They have kept that one quiet!

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Harry's polo shirt

Most people don't even know that Russia is a monarchy.

I would be interested in reading your reasoning behind this statement.

On the topic overall, I think it is easy, especially in the West, to think we know what another nation needs. However, our perspective is limited to our own understanding and experiences. One cannot really consider this question without some idea of the Russian "pschye."
The reality right now is that probably very few Russians are considering whether they need a democracy, monarchy or autocracy. They are merely trying to survive.
Lexi

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

In addition to the theme of "false myths", - I have found out recently, that the President of USA Taft (? – I don’t know English transcription of his name) in 1912 has told about Nicholas II:
"Russian emperor has created such perfect working legislation of what any democratic state till now cannot brag".
Really, the social status of workers in Russia those years was rather good (relatively Europe and USA). Nicholas conducted active social policy for improvement of position of city workers at factories. Whether you know, that till 1905 the police frequently acted on the side of workers in their conflicts against employers (during strikes)? It was Nicholas's internal policy.
Boris

President William Howard Taft (1909-1913) who became a Supreme Court justice after serving as President.
I was always led to believe that Nicholas was weak and not a good manager. I am glad to hear that he did have some successes and if not for the Great War and other mistakes might have made a go of things.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by Picmajik

... I was always led to believe that Nicholas was weak and not a good manager. I am glad to hear that he did have some successes and if not for the Great War and other mistakes might have made a go of things.

Yes, Picmajik, and please, read my post 89 (10-13-2007):
ACHIEVEMENTS of Russia during the period of Nicholas's II reign :
Does Russia really need Monarchy?
Regards
Boris

[COUNTESS]

Nicholas II, as his forbears were autocrats. Nicholas was not an evil person, nor do I think he wished any harm to come to anyone, but he couldn't run anything, least of all government well. Forget about WWI, the Russo-Japanese War was another debacle for him. As for workers being better off than their counterparter in Europe is really not true. They didn't revolt not once, but twice, because of the condtions were so good. 1905 was just the beginning and could have been the end, if conditions were met, a decent Duma set up. The troops and police, often sided with the strikers, that is true, but not because of the Tsar. Because, they, too, realized the conditions. In 1916, had Nicholas aceeded to the requests by the Duma, revolution might have been averted then. But he stuck to his autocratic ideas, spurred on by his neurotic wife and Rasputin. Russia is well rid of the monarchy. What the Russian people need is a good government that they can have confidence in and is approved of by the majority. It could have social values or be a republic, or be both.

[lexi4]

I do agree that Nicholas, had he any sense, could have avoided the Revolution. But he could not let go of the idea that he alone was destined by God to rule the Russian people. And his wife couldn't let go her low opinion of the Russian people. I don't think Nicholas was evil, just inept. He made the wrong move at every turn.

[COUNTESS]

Correct assessment, Lexi. They had no skill at governing and believed all the "ordained by God" stuff. He never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Picmajik

President William Howard Taft (1909-1913) who became a Supreme Court justice after serving as President.
I was always led to believe that Nicholas was weak and not a good manager. I am glad to hear that he did have some successes and if not for the Great War and other mistakes might have made a go of things.

I wouldn't put to much stock in what Taft said especially since the quote is not given in context. Taft was a politician who might say one thing publicly, given the right circumstances, and something else privately. In my research, this is the only reference that I've found that Taft made any comment about Nicholas. So either he was playing politics or he was completely ignorant of conditions in Russia. His only interest in Russia was in being able to "buy" or "lease" the railroads so he could create more trade with China and protect China from Japan. Russia ended up forming an alliance opposing Taft. So I would imagine his compliment to Nicholas was far from genuine.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I wouldn't put to much stock in what Taft said especially since the quote is not given in context. Taft was a politician who might say one thing publicly, given the right circumstances, and something else privately. In my research, this is the only reference that I've found that Taft made any comment about Nicholas. So either he was playing politics or he was completely ignorant of conditions in Russia. His only interest in Russia was in being able to "buy" or "lease" the railroads so he could create more trade with China and protect China from Japan. Russia ended up forming an alliance opposing Taft. So I would imagine his compliment to Nicholas was far from genuine.

Lexi and Countess (and all here),
My grandfather (Paul Romanov) was born in 1880 in the Yaroslavl province (he died in 1942). I know, that he has arrived to St.-Petersburg per 1900 and worked till 1920 as simple worker at a factory. In a year after arrival in St.-Petersburg he lived with family in a separate two-room apartment. By 1913 they had four children. The grandfather worked one (the grandmother was engaged in housekeeping). The grandfather earned enough money and family was in well-being. He was not exception. Fair hardworking workers (not drunkards and not idlers) lived well till 1917. In 1907-1914 the workers lived well (at least, much better than after 1917).
I know all this from stories of my relatives which knew the grandfather and its family.
Revolution was madness of Petrograd.
The grandfather has been involved in this madness too. He wanted socialism and communism. He has believed in illusions of the Bolshevism and communism. Of course, I don't condemn him, - he was honest simple worker.
Boris
P.S. All of us we can consider as our luck, that I'm 62 years old and that I know the truth about that time in Russia directly from the parents (not only from president Taft and from Winston Churchill) :).

[Mermaid1962]

Is one of the problems in governing Russia simply that the country is so large and has so many ethnic groups? Whether a President of a Tsar is at the top, they have the same geography to work with.

[COUNTESS]

Dear Boris, all those people in 2 rooms is hardly good living conditions. My gandmother fled Russia with three small children, one of them my mother, right after the war. WWI. My grandmother died in 1972. She fled terrible conditions and was glad to come to the United States, where her children could grow up without "fear" and be well fed and get a good education, even though my grandmother did not have much money. My mother was only 6 when she came here and does not remember Russia at all. The revolt did not just take place in St. Peterburg, it took place all over the country. People wanted a better life. Did they get it? It depends on your interpretation. Why is Russia so difficult to rule? I guess the mutiple ethic groups that have never homogonized into one people is a problem. The U.S. is large and we have regional difference, but we are all basically the same, even though we come from such different background. We are all Americans, in the end. So, maybe that is the problem.