Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[Cory]

It is impoosible to have a job (Emperor is a job) and not to be paid.

 

[AristoCat]

The Monarchies of Thailand and Liechtenstein are self-funding.

They're also the monarchies with the least level of scandal.

If Monarchy is restored in russia there should be funds given to the imperial House to mantain the palaces and to organize public events.

They already do that right now; in the US public buildings are maintained by the State and frankly they already pay for public events.

 

[Warren]

The Prince of Liechtenstein Foundation, the "holding company" as it were for the various Liechtenstein family interests and whose main beneficiary is the Prince of Liechtenstein, derives the bulk of its income from the LGT Group. In 2009 75 million Swiss Francs were transferred from LGT's profits to the Foundation (that's just under US$100 million), the previous year the Foundation received 150 million (US$196 million); in 2007 it was 100 million (US$130 million).
Land is good, but a bank is better!

 

[Nice Nofret]

Liechtenstein has some scandals of their own, but usually they don't hit the tabloids

 

[AristoCat]

I think the RFs would enjoy a bigger income if they weren't supported by the government.

 

[Cory]

In order to maintain the residences they need money.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Liechtenstein is my country! One of the few countries in Europe that still has a monarchy that actually serves a purpose.

 

[Alexandrovich]

I would like to have all the reasons why some people in some European countries where were abolished the monarchies want the Monarchies back? Well, I am about to do an essay about Restoration of the abolished monarchies in Europe. So I would like some reason to support. Because of the popularity? government? or something else?

Thank you...

 

[AristoCat]

A lot of the monarchies were overthrown by violent Communist revolutions that had nothing to do with how badly the monarchs were ruling/reigning, but more about doing nothing but causing trouble. The Hapsburgs were tossed out because of the fact that their internal squabbles triggered WWI and the others were tossed out because of the fact that they were obsolete or other factors.

 

[Cory]

In russia people could want back the Monarchy ( a constitutional one I hope) because they do not want dictatorship guided by ex-communists.

 

[kell]

what if the ex communists want it back and not the people

 

[AristoCat]

That would make for an interesting comedy.

 

[kell]

have you ever seen thats my bush

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

To be fair didn't the Russian people never get what they wanted which was a constitutional monarchy? Instead the tsar and his heir's abdicated or gave up power and then the communist stole power and killed those who opposed them.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear XeniaCasaraghi,

It was not that simple. Some people in the provisional government would have been happy with a constitutional monarchy, others were not. They drafted the document signed by Michael in such a way that they proclaimed him Emperor but only so he could cede the power of government back to the people. There was a lot of infighting and this led to the Bolsheviks seizing the reins and instituting the red terror.

 

[COUNTESS]

You are right, VM. The people wanted a constitutional monarchy in 1905. They didn't get what they wanted. Things kept deteriorating, until they revolution began in 1917. It took a great deal of patience on the people's part and then it was quite apparent, what the Romaoff's were like. Michael might have made a good government official. Of course, the moderates couldn't maintain their power and so, in march the Bolsheviks. This is a short simplification.

 

[AristoCat]

It's the fault of Nicholas that there wasn't a Constitutional monarchy. He did that to himself and his family (extended as well as immediate).

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What I am talking about is the revolutions prior to 1917 and including 1917. The 1905 revolution wanted a constitutional monarchy which was given only in name because Nicholas pulled back on the reforms. In 1917, I don't think there could ever have been a mutual relationship between Nicholas and the Duma in 1917 there was too much damage done by him. Unfortunately Alexei was a child and for him to be Tsar there would have had to be a regency which is usually held by a parent and the parents were hated by virtually everyone. If Nicholas hadn't been so closeminded in 1905 perhaps the 1917 revolution never would have happened. Either way the Russian people got screwed when the Bolsheviks took power.

 

[COUNTESS]

They were screwed by the Romanoffs, too. It was a lose, lose situation. I, think, I wrote a thesis on this. Seems like a hundred years ago. Too many illiterate subjects, to many nationalities, too few people who understood or who cared. Nicholas couldn't rule a piece of paper, least a nation, which was a huge conglomerate and as in France,the people realizing that they were disenfranchised. From the Potemkin villages during Catherine The Great's reign to this miserable time, the populace, in general, were of no value to the ruling powers.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Who really knows what might have happened but there was an effort by many to persuade Nicholas to abdicate in favor of Alexei and allow the government to appoint the ministers. There was too much hatred/distrust of Alexandra but everyone seemed to think Michael would make an appropriate Regent. However, Nicholas waited too long, then agreed to abdicate, then while the papers were being drafted, decided to abdicate and pass over Alexei. There was some question whether Nicholas could do this legally but by then it was too late for any of the Romanovs to save the monarchy.

 

[Cory]

Let's see the chances of the Monarchy now.We can't change what happened in 1917.

 

[Lenora]

Here is the statement made some time ago by the Prince Nikolai Romanov and the other members of the Romanov dynasty("Association of the Romanov dynasty"), where they expressed their disagreement with the status given to the GD Georgii and his mother GD Maria Vladimirovna,they have not recognized their legitimacy and the role of official claimants to the throne.
romanovtoday -
Google

 

[COUNTESS]

I think Russia will do very well, without Romanovs. Their time has past. This is just nonsense.

 

[Cory]

For the republicans the time of Monarchy passed. For the monarchists the time of Monarchy is always.

 

[Nice Nofret]

so true Cory

I consider myself not monarchist and neither republican .. just demokrat .. I do see some very good reasons for having a Monarchy (like to have a "Galionsfigur" for the country and it's people.

But the problem is how to turn a Republic back into a Monarchy . .And I cant see that happening anytime soon - and espacially not in Russia with the Romanov

 

[Cory]

It is rather complicated but dependents of the Imperial Family strategy and the monarchists' themselves to convince the people.

 

[Alexey 1904]

The Royal Families of Europe also invite the ex-Empress of Iran and the King and Queen of Greece, along with Crown Prince Pavlos and his wife and children to their family weddings. The Shahbana has lived in exile in Paris since, when, 1980?, and the Greek royalty has been in exile since the late 1960's Also, GD Georgi is legally HRH Prince of Germany, just as his father is. So, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if they have titles or not. These royals had to leave their countries or be killed. That's why they're in exile to this day. So, Maria V. is and always will be a pretender to the Russian throne, which died out in 1918.

 

[Cory]

Is it impossible to know the future.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think there are enough flaws in every branchs right to the throne to make it a moot point. Under the old laws no successor remains. If a monarchy were ever to be restored it would be up to the Russian people to decide who should be Tsar and that person may not even be a Romanov.

 

[branchg]

In my mind, there are only two realistic scenarios. Either you accept that Vladimir Krillovich had the right, as the undisputed Head of the Imperial House, to declare his marriage to a Bagrid princess equal and compliant, therefore, Maria Vladimirovna is the only remaining dynast, or all lines are defunct with his death in 1992.

If all lines are truly defunct of dynasts (and realistically, they are), the throne would have passed through Grand Duchess Helen Vladimirovna's marriage to Prince Nicholas of Greece & Denmark as the only equal and compliant marriage in the female line. That would make Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia, her grandson, the rightful heir to the throne.

But I agree the matter is one of pure semantics. The Russians would restore the throne with whomever they wish as Tsar and it may not be even a royal.