The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Imperial Family of Russia (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f80/)
-   -   How would life be today? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f80/how-would-life-be-today-38643.html)

Shaym16 05-20-2015 11:55 AM

How would life be today?
 
I was wondering what would life be like be today in Russia if the Imperial Family remained? Assuming that the monarchy had become a constitutional monarch in line with the Russian Revolution that had ended the monarchy? Does this make sense?

COUNTESS 05-21-2015 09:43 PM

That would be a stretch. It probably would be no different. There seems to be a synapse between western thought and eastern thought. Things would have had to change,dramatically. They would have had to marry "commoners". Look, the last vestiges of what was the Romanov family still sees themselves too important for that and are trying to get a guy who is in line for the throne not to marry someone who is not of the "Blut". Yet, his possibility of a throne is a joke.

Chubb Fuddler 05-28-2015 07:01 AM

Russia did not officially become a republic until September 1917, a good six months after the February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas II, so there might have been a very small window of opportunity for the popular assembly, envisaged by Grand Duke Michael in his manifesto, to set the foundations for a transition to parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy (that's if you ignore the war, the abysmal reputation of the Imperial House, the return of Lenin, starvation, etc. etc.) If it had endured, the Russian Empire might today be a stable constitutional monarchy. It might have remained more united than the Soviet Union of the 1990s, though no doubt some parts would have become independent anyway. A constitutional monarch might also have been a bulwark against the dictatorial tendencies of the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Putin.

If Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna became Empress today, I expect she would keep her nose out of politics, having learnt the lessons of a life in exile. But a new constitutional monarch in 1917, under whichever Grand Duke got the crown, might have found the transition difficult (I doubt Nicholas II could ever have made a comeback, and as long as the former Tsesaravich Alexei did not have children, there wouldn't have been any dynastic rivals from that branch of the family). I imagine there might have been some pretty tense power struggles between a government not used to power, a dynasty not used to sharing power, and, to complicate things even more, the ever powerful Orthodox Church.

JR76 05-28-2015 09:00 AM

I think the shipped sailed for Russia becoming a constitutional monarchy when the Imperial couple did everything in their power to undermine the somewhat democratic system implemented after the revolution of 1905. Had that system been allowed to work uninterrupted for the 12 years it was in place before the revolutions of 1917 the Russian monarchy would've stood not a small chance of surviving even without Nicholas II abdicating. Europe at the time had many examples of how not so bright and in their hearts very conservative monarchs survived the turmoil of the war because they let a parliamentarian system already in place evolve even further.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Thumbahlina 06-18-2015 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubb Fuddler (Post 1783661)
Russia did not officially become a republic until September 1917, a good six months after the February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas II, so there might have been a very small window of opportunity for the popular assembly, envisaged by Grand Duke Michael in his manifesto, to set the foundations for a transition to parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy (that's if you ignore the war, the abysmal reputation of the Imperial House, the return of Lenin, starvation, etc. etc.) If it had endured, the Russian Empire might today be a stable constitutional monarchy. It might have remained more united than the Soviet Union of the 1990s, though no doubt some parts would have become independent anyway. A constitutional monarch might also have been a bulwark against the dictatorial tendencies of the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Putin.

If Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna became Empress today, I expect she would keep her nose out of politics, having learnt the lessons of a life in exile. But a new constitutional monarch in 1917, under whichever Grand Duke got the crown, might have found the transition difficult (I doubt Nicholas II could ever have made a comeback, and as long as the former Tsesaravich Alexei did not have children, there wouldn't have been any dynastic rivals from that branch of the family). I imagine there might have been some pretty tense power struggles between a government not used to power, a dynasty not used to sharing power, and, to complicate things even more, the ever powerful Orthodox Church.


that was a great post. However Putin for example might still be around as a war minister or equivalent and the same for Lenin and Stalin. While the Russian (Dynasty?) Royals were constitutional monarchs by the 1917 mark, right? So now we have a man who is not royal, wants war, takes places by storm, causes an uproar, Russia itself doesn't much like and the rest of the world tolerates, Putin. His new thing is tossing the ball to The United States suggesting another arms race, I do believe Putin is figuratively out of his bounds on that one. With Russia's history and America's history, surely, this is gonna work out to benefit both parties, we have been friends since the cold war, before and during, Russians and American's depending on who you ask, perhaps it'll work out and poor Putin won't wind up with a Russian history royal catch to have to dodge and history won't repeat itself. Makes sense enough to me.

Meraude 07-11-2015 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR76 (Post 1783698)
I think the shipped sailed for Russia becoming a constitutional monarchy when the Imperial couple did everything in their power to undermine the somewhat democratic system implemented after the revolution of 1905. Had that system been allowed to work uninterrupted for the 12 years it was in place before the revolutions of 1917 the Russian monarchy would've stood not a small chance of surviving even without Nicholas II abdicating. Europe at the time had many examples of how not so bright and in their hearts very conservative monarchs survived the turmoil of the war because they let a parliamentarian system already in place evolve even further.

1905 would also have been too late to let Russia become a constitutional monarchy, perhaps there would have been a possibility for that during the early years of Alexander II:s reign (1855) as he had liberal views, but the seeds to the revolution were already sown, and during the harsh reign of his son Alexander III and his counter-reforming rule the idea of a revolution spread.

There were unrest in the countries under Russian rule (Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, the Caucasian states), and it would have been impossible to continue to hold the empire together. Then with the development of the nihilist movement and anarchism in Russia in the 1860ies and forward, the possibilities for a peaceful political change towards a constitutional monarchy ended, especially with a autocratic tsar who did his best to combat this.

CyrilVladisla 04-21-2016 11:27 PM

If Russia still had a reigning Tsar, do you think the coronation ceremony would be quite elaborate? Or would it be scaled back so there would not be comments about the expenses?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises