Romanovs about to return to Russia?

[Benjamin]

Old pics.

But with the rumour of a `return` of some Romanovs to the Crimea,it did emerge there are more opponents then she could have ever imagined.

Вести.Ru: Игры с престолом: русские дворяне ополчились на "Ð*омановых-самозванцев"

The Russian Nobility Association is hardly known for its steadfast support of Maria Vladimirovna so this probably does not come as "news" to anyone.

 

[Cris M]

Old pics.

Which means absolutely nothing. I'm sure Pope Francis would receive The Grand Duchess of Russia, that Her Imperial Highness will always be invited to European royal events and that she's still welcome in Russia by the country political e religious authorities.

That some Romanovs like to believe she's not the legitimate heir to the Russian Throne is hardly a surprise.

 

[Royalotta]

I have a theory on this notion but it doesn't fill me with confidence.

Whilst many people disagree on Maria's role within the Imperial Family, it does seem that Putin and his government have always offered her....well....shall we call it a professional courtesy? When the Prince of Wales was quoted as having suggested that Vladimir Putin was comparable to Adolf Hitler, Maria was fairly vocal in her support for Putin but this went against her insistence that she remains politically impartial. Again, whilst we may all have our own view on the Russian succession, the Russian Orthodox Church seems to back Maria as well. Would this be of use to Putin? Is the offer of Livadia a way to secure more vocal support from the Imperial Family or to secure the backing of the church? Either way, if it is true, it seems it's an offer 'with hooks'.

 

[COUNTESS]

Very astute. The seizure of the Crimea and now the offer of Livadia. Helping the crook legitimize his theft.

 

[Royalotta]

Which goes against everything she ever said of course. I think it's time she gave up her delusions of grandeur quite honestly. I once respected her and thought she understood that she could only ever be a kind of one woman unofficial embassy for Russian culture but jumping into bed with Putin makes her an opportunist in my eyes.

 

[Ceallach]

Putin seems to be offering Livadia, Ropshinsky or Pavlovsky so she doesn't have to choose Livadia. But good luck accepting the offer and avoiding the politics.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-Putin-reinstate-Tsar-Nicholas-Second-Romanov

 

[Royalotta]

What I do find slightly difficult to understand is that Putin has allegedly made the same offer to Dmitri but seemingly, he's never offered him anything in the way of informal recognition has he? At least not as publicly as he has to Maria. Which leads me to think that this is all to do with having the idea of the Romanovs and the Church on his side rather than having any real wish to restore something historical or cultural. And as you rightly say Ceallach, if either one accepts, they can't really avoid politics.

I did wonder if this news was the reason as to why Maria hasn't been invited to any gatherings of the exiles since the story broke.

 

[Al_bina]

Who exactly has told you that President Putin wants the restoration? The western mass media "heard the song, but got it wrong".

 

[Royalotta]

Who exactly has told you that President Putin wants the restoration? The western mass media "heard the song, but got it wrong".

I don't think he's in favour of a restoration, that would remove too much power from him unless it was constitutional and arranged in a way that offered his life presidency/prime ministership legitimacy. I was thinking more of the fact that he'd offered Livadia etc as a bargaining chip.

 

[Ceallach]

Who exactly has told you that President Putin wants the restoration? The western mass media "heard the song, but got it wrong".

A number of people have proposed it; and the press says they wouldn't be doing so without his approval. But he has not publicly said it.

 

[Ceallach]

I don't think he's in favour of a restoration, that would remove too much power from him unless it was constitutional and arranged in a way that offered his life presidency/prime ministership legitimacy. I was thinking more of the fact that he'd offered Livadia etc as a bargaining chip.

If he works it as a constitutional monarchy he can put all the power in the position of Prime Minster. Unlike President there is no term limit. So yes he can avoid having to change positions and the repositioning of power and be Prime Minister forever. They are also reportedly giving a choice of three palaces.

 

[Al_bina]

I don't think he's in favour of a restoration, that would remove too much power from him unless it was constitutional and arranged in a way that offered his life presidency/prime ministership legitimacy. I was thinking more of the fact that he'd offered Livadia etc as a bargaining chip.

" ... he's offered Livadia etc as a bargaining chip" ... Did you personally hear that? It sounds incredulous to me.

If he works it as a constitutional monarchy he can put all the power in the position of Prime Minster. Unlike President there is no term limit. So yes he can avoid having to change positions and the repositioning of power and be Prime Minister forever. They are also reportedly giving a choice of three palaces.

I find your opinion on the Russian matters more sensible than others from the enlightened west. I do not think even President Putin can restore the monarchy. "Reportedly giving a choice ..." means nothing.
It remains to be seen whether or not the Russia Federation can become the Russian Empire.

 

[Royalotta]

I can only offer an opinion based on what I have read. If it hasn't been offered, it hasn't been offered but my initial point that Maria has sacrificed her impartiality still stands I think.

 

[COUNTESS]

I, and I do not know, do not see anything but a showpiece. I don't think Putin gives a hoot about Romanovs. He wants some sort of an image and, as he is a thug, he figures he can hide behind placing a "royal figure", so to speak in a place that might give him more credence. And, dear Al Bina, I do not see a Russian Empire anywhere. He is looking for more legitimacy for himself, in whatever way he can get it.

 

[Al_bina]

Rumours and baseless assumptions/hasty conclusions from the western mass media outlets are exhilarating. We shall see what will come out of it.

 

[Royalotta]

Maria's defence of Putin over the Prince of Wales' comments did not come from the Western media but rather from Maria herself in one of her grandly worded edicts. Zakatov commented on the offer of a residence in Russia by saying that Maria wouldn't consider it unless it was a legal act and he reaffirmed her position that she doesn't seek any financial restitution, again this was not featured in Western media but in the Russian press.

 

[Al_bina]

Naturally, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna welcomed Crimea's return. The Romanovs brought this peninsula into the fold of their empire.
It would be much better, if President Putin did not deign to comment on Prince Charles' remarks.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Which goes against everything she ever said of course. I think it's time she gave up her delusions of grandeur quite honestly. I once respected her and thought she understood that she could only ever be a kind of one woman unofficial embassy for Russian culture but jumping into bed with Putin makes her an opportunist in my eyes.

But more than 80% of the Russians are behind Putin. They are not forgotten the chaos of the Gorbachev and Yeltsin years. The Grand Duchess sides with a man which has Russia behind him. Don Juan Carlos de Borbón litterally was General Franco's puppet. He became King and now sees his son on the throne of Spain...

Being impartial really does not bring you anywhere. Whith whom should Maria ever side in the 98 years since 1917? She has little options left and needs to take the opportunities. Remember the greatest King of France, ever: Henri IV. Paris vaut bien une Messe. More opportunistic than Henri was not possible...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Maria's defence of Putin over the Prince of Wales' comments did not come from the Western media but rather from Maria herself in one of her grandly worded edicts. [...]

Millions went to the streets and shouted Je suis Charlie!. What Grand-Duchess Maria did, was exactly what Prince Charles did: just giving her opinon. That her opinion probably might not be congruent with that of her illustrious far cousin in London, tja... c'est la vie.

 

[Royalotta]

The difference is that Maria has always bleated on about being politically impartial. By supporting Putin, she's clearly not doing so and IMO, shows how insincere she's been. Whilst she may personally like Putin, whilst the Russian people may support Putin and whilst she may agree in private with Putin's annexation of the Crimea, it isn't her place to speak out just as it wasn't the Prince of Wales' place to publicly bash Putin. Royals shouldn't intefere in politics. If anything, Russia is living proof of what happens when they do.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The difference is that Maria has always bleated on about being politically impartial. By supporting Putin, she's clearly not doing so and IMO, shows how insincere she's been. Whilst she may personally like Putin, whilst the Russian people may support Putin and whilst she may agree in private with Putin's annexation of the Crimea, it isn't her place to speak out just as it wasn't the Prince of Wales' place to publicly bash Putin. Royals shouldn't intefere in politics. If anything, Russia is living proof of what happens when they do.

All royals are partial because they are human beings and have an own worldview and ideals they have a zest for. Even Queen Elizabeth II is not impartial seeing her warnings against a break up of the Union and Cameron's painful revelation to Mr Bloomberg that she "purred like a cat" when she heard about the outcome of the referendum (instead of being impartial and saying: "Thank you for your information, Mr Prime Minister"). So we can not blame Grand-Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, who has to find her way in a chaotic situation, in a minefield (social, familial and constitutional) and try to win a more semi-formal position for her House.

 

[Royalotta]

All royals are partial because they are human beings and have an own worldview and ideals they have a zest for. Even Queen Elizabeth II is not impartial seeing her warnings against a break up of the Union and Cameron's painful revelation to Mr Bloomberg that she "purred like a cat" when she heard about the outcome of the referendum (instead of being impartial and saying: "Thank you for your information, Mr Prime Minister"). So we can not blame Grand-Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, who has to find her way in a chaotic situation, in a minefield (social, familial and constitutional) and try to win a more semi-formal position for her House.

Of course members of royal families have political opinions and some are even allowed to exercise a right to vote. But as Queen Margrethe once said, her position means that she must be impartial and therefore, she sacrificed an interest in politics at an early age so that she wouldn't favour one party over another. It's the same for all of them. Whilst the Queen may have offered a few indications of her views, she would never have openly said, "Do not criticise Mr Cameron's actions" - and had she done so, she'd rightly be living a quiet life as Mrs Windsor in Sandringham today. The Prince of Wales overstepped the mark but it was softened slightly by the fact that this wasn't a direct quote.

But for Maria to come out fighting, to issue an edict which praised Putin's actions (which the rest of Europe - and the wider world - regarded as unacceptable) and slammed Charles' comments tells us two things. The first is that she isn't at all politically impartial. She may be a friend of Mr Putin's in private but Elizabeth II was close friends with Harold Wilson. She never once praised his political decisions. The second is that she doesn't understand what her desired role would be. A future Empress of Russia would only ever exist in a constitutional role and that means she couldn't voice such opinions, especially when they are so controversial.

Whatever minefield she faced, constitutional monarchs do not offer public support for one political party or one particular candidate over another. It is the very opposite of impartiality and it shows that for all her talk, Maria can be just as autocratic as her forebears. Whilst 80% of Russians may support Mr Putin, a great many do not. Maria's role as a constitutional monarch would require her to support all of her people. And clearly, she wouldn't support those who dared criticise her friend Vlad.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The fault was Mr. Cameron's for reporting what the Queen said. When the monarch meets with her prime minister, it's understood that all comments remain confidential; because of this, both parties have an opportunity to speak openly. It would have been odd had the Queen not expressed pleasure at her Kingdom remaining United.

Even Queen Elizabeth II is not impartial seeing her warnings against a break up of the Union and Cameron's painful revelation to Mr Bloomberg that she "purred like a cat" when she heard about the outcome of the referendum (instead of being impartial and saying: "Thank you for your information, Mr Prime Minister").

 

[Royalotta]

We also have no proof that what Mr Cameron said was true and that it wasn't being....embroidered...to impress. In the case of Maria, we have her words on record which read very much like a pro-Putin political broadcast. Which of course, it was.

 

[Al_bina]

We also have no proof that what Mr Cameron said was true and that it wasn't being....embroidered...to impress.. [snipped]

It seems to me that the subjects can not elect Prime Minister, who has an ability to think before speaking. I can not imagine a Japanese Prime Minister making such comments.

As for the return, the following nicely sums up the situation.

The head of the Institute of Political Studies, Sergei Markov said that the return of the Romanovs in no way will affect the mood of citizens.

— In most countries the population has no respect for Imperial houses, with the exception of the UK and the Netherlands, - he says. — In Russia, the Romanovs are viewed as either innocent victims because of the execution by the Bolsheviks, or traitors, who in the critical years of the Tsarist monarchy behaved irresponsibly. Many believe that the abdication of Nicholas II led to the civil war.

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-house-of-romanov-invited-to-return.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The fault was Mr. Cameron's for reporting what the Queen said. When the monarch meets with her prime minister, it's understood that all comments remain confidential; because of this, both parties have an opportunity to speak openly. It would have been odd had the Queen not expressed pleasure at her Kingdom remaining United.

Of course the Queen has an opinion about that. And she expressed it. And that is okay. Blabbermouth Cameron was the wrong one here. A major difference with Maria Vladimirovna is that the last one has no Prime Minister, no ministers, no Government whatsoever which speaks for her. In a normal situation her Prime Minister, backed by Parliament, would have issued statements regarding the status of Crimea or other political affairs. Maria Vladimirovna, asked about this, can not remain stoney faced and refer to a Prime Minister or something. So it is always easy to blame the Grand-Duchess for having an opinion while Queen Elizabeth has -on paper- around 450,000 persons working "for her" in Her Majesty's Civil Service. Her Government takes the words out of her mouth. She only need to wear a pretty outfit and to wave. Basically that is.

 

[COUNTESS]

The Queen is, a Constitutional Monarch, basically a show piece. Maria has no staus all.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The difference, as I see it, is that Queen Elizabeth II and Maria Vladimirovna are in entirely different positions. I believe that's also what you're expressing Duc_et_Pair. I simply wanted to correct the idea that HM was wrong in stating her opinion to her Prime Minister.

The latter has no official position in Russia, and so she can say what she likes IMO.

Of course the Queen has an opinion about that. And she expressed it. And that is okay. Blabbermouth Cameron was the wrong one here. A major difference with Maria Vladimirovna is that the last one has no Prime Minister, no ministers, no Government whatsoever which speaks for her. In a normal situation her Prime Minister, backed by Parliament, would have issued statements regarding the status of Crimea or other political affairs. Maria Vladimirovna, asked about this, can not remain stoney faced and refer to a Prime Minister or something.

 

[Royalotta]

The latter has no official position in Russia, and so she can say what she likes IMO.

This would be true if Maria was content to be plain old Ms Romanova from Spain but in pursuing the same role for herself as that enjoyed by Queen Elizabeth (or any other constitutional monarch, which surely is her ultimate, though unrealistic, goal) she has always said that the appeal of such a role in Russia would be that she would be politically impartial. By voicing her support for Putin, she shows herself to be anything but and therefore a return to Russia as a private citizen is one thing but to return as an officially recognised head of the Imperial Family (whether reigning or not) would be totally impossible for as long as she insists on voicing political opinions a monarch, or a monarch in waiting, shouldn't discuss in public.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Grand-Duchess Maria Vladmirovna has no any position in Russia. That first. Secondly, it is not true that a Sovereign has no opinion. In a modern constitutional system the opinion of the King is the opinion of the Government, and vice-versa.

When King Willem-Alexander wanted to go to Russia, to visit the Olympic Games of Sotchi, this was met with criticism: a substantial part of Parliament wanted the King to boycott Russia. But he was more than backed: the Prime Minister even joined the King on this trip, with that taking the whole politcal responsibility for this exercise.

When Queen Margrethe II urges action against climate change, then this is not an impartiality because there are also people who claim that the whole climate change thing is completely nonsense. But by speaking out for action, Queen Margrethe is 100% in line with the Danish Government which has exactly the same opinion.

So, back to Maria Vladimirovna. When she sees Crimea as part of Russia, she is not only voicing an opinion which is shared by almost all Russians, it is also the opinion of the Russian Government. Was Maria Vladimirovna the Tsarina and the Russian Government acted the same as they did the last two years, then Tsarina Maria had not sounded differently. Stronger even: she would have made three crosses, kneeled down and thanked the Lord Almighty for Crimea and Sebastopol back into the arms of Mother Russia! She would have handed high decorations to "meritorious" soldiers of the "glorious" armed forces! What else do we expect???