Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[branchg]

The vast majority of the state palaces throughout Russia were, in fact, built with the income of the state. The Romanovs essentially controlled almost all of the Empire's major resources and production. There was little distinction between the state's money and their money.

For that reason, I highly doubt there would ever be a restitution of property to the imperial family. Unlike Serbia, Bulgaria or Romania, whereas various dynasties were invited to assume the throne and brought their personal fortunes along with them, the properties of the Tsar belonged to Russia.

[Benjamin]

As far as I know, the modern Romanovs' public position is that they do not seek restoration of assets that were nationalized.

However, it seems that a (very) small number of nobles have indeed been able to recoup some properties which were seized under the Communists.

Here are some links on the issue of royal and noble restitution in Russia:

Russian Tsar descendants officially entitled to royal family property in Russia | NowPublic News Coverage

Rehabilitation, Tsarist-style: Finally, the Last Autocrat of all the Russias is recognised as a Victim of Political Repression « Voices from Russia

Restitution for Russian Nobles? - BusinessWeek

Russia's dispossessed aristocrats fight oligarchs for their palaces / Culture / Russian London

After nine decades, Russia royalty returning home

Playing Politics with the Romanovs - TIME

[Marsel]

I wasn't entirely sure where to put this: sorry if this is a wrong thread.


Informal photographs of the Imperial Family, taken by Pierre Gilliard, will be exhibited in the Historical Museum (on the Red Square). The exhibition will take place from September 8 to 29.

Pierre Gilliard was the French tutor of Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. From 1913 and onwards, he also taught Alexei. He was passionate about photography and took some of the best known informal pictures of the Imperial Family. His pictures are unique not only because they depict the family in very informal situations, but because all the photographs are so natural: the family truly trusted Gilliard.
Gilliard didn’t leave the Romanovs till the very end: only in May of 1918, despite his protests, he was ordered to leave the family (that probably saved his life). Gilliard managed to sent his photographic archive to France though the British Council. He was one of the first to return to Yekaterinburg after the city was re-taken by the White army and took part in the investigation of the fate of the Imperial Family.

I am certainly going to see the exhibition, what a wonderful and exciting opportunity!

[Keiser_Konstantiv_]

No i don`t think so

[vsriCo]

Russia Profile - Monarchist Past and Future

Thousands of Petersburgers and millions of television viewers yesterday witnessed the culmination of a promotional campaign: A magnificent ceremony of reburial of the Danish-born Russian Empress Maria Feodorovna – the mother of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II. It is a fitting moment to speculate on the place of the monarchist idea in modern Russia.
First of all, I should state that I have not been part of any discussions of a monarchist plan with any group, however legitimate or even remotely proximate to the corridors of Russian power. Nor have I any evidence that such discussions have taken place or are under way.
Yet some recent occurrences suggest that the monarchist idea is not simply an element of the traditional Russian mentality. It is also a spice, if you will, in the country’s political kitchen in which the recipe for the next presidential term is being prepared. The reburial splendor is just the last episode in an ongoing row, which will not be settled soon.
About a month ago I received a strange package. Inside was a nicely printed, anonymous book with a gilded cover called Proekt Rossia, or Project Russia. It was mailed to me without a return address, but with a mysteriously self-important stamp: “To the leaders of public opinion. Special distribution.” Inside was a well-written, scathing, and intermittently very persuasive 380-page-long critique of democracy as a form of government. The main claim was that the power of the people is a myth, and in a democratic society, the blind masses are always ruled by mammon. The text then moves to an apology for monarchy in its authentic, autocratic form. “There is no greater authority than the power from God,” write the mysterious authors. “Whether or not we believe in God, such a conclusion is absolute.”
Above all, the authors argue that – in a sentiment shared by many Russians – the country needs a continuity of power rather than a constant change of government mandated by democracy. Such a change leads to a short planning horizon, theft, and further degradation of Russia. As an interim solution, until the society matures to the point where monarchy can be restored, it is worth keeping the current team rather than changing it. Sounds somewhat similar to those arguing in favor of President Vladimir Putin’s third term, doesn’t it?
The publisher, OLMA-Press, said in a preface that the book, which is rumored to have been conceived in the depths of the security services, was apparently written in 2004-2005 and distributed to the upper echelons of the Russian elite in September 2005, prompting a lively internal discussion in these circles. OLMA said it had failed to find the author but decided to go ahead with the publication, promising the authors a hefty fee were they to surface. The book is labeled to have a staggering print run for non-fiction in Russia -- 50, 000 copies.
A quick Internet search also located a website where the opus is published http://projectrussia.ru (allegedly on behalf of a young man who found the book on his four-star general father’s desk). I witnessed an alarmed reaction to the book from Alex Goldfarb, a pro-democracy activist and an associate of Boris Berezovsky. He cites CIA interest in Project Russia and suggests that Putin's Kremlin is connected to the initiative. Goldfarb has called on Russia’s liberals to rally against monarchist totalitarianism instead of mobilizing to oppose a bogus fascist threat.
I don’t know who the authors are and whether there is a connection to the Kremlin. But this monarchy promotion appears very well organized and well funded. Project Russia is a far cry from the amateurish monarchist leaflets of the early 1990s which were printed on bad paper, handed out by poorly dressed bearded men, quoting the motto from the early 20th century priest, St. John of Kronshtadt: “Democracy is in hell, and in the Heaven – Kingdom!”
Then last week the government-owned VTsIOM polling agency published figures stating the number of monarchy supporters in Russia has doubled over the past decade and now stands at about 10 percent. Twenty percent of Russians would support restoring the monarchy but don’t see a suitable candidate. A solid majority -- about 65 percent – are firmly against monarchy, saying that it is a past phase for Russia.
What is most interesting, however, is that younger, educated urbanites are more likely to favor the monarchy than their less educated elders, who were perhaps more influenced by Soviet anti-monarchist propaganda. This pattern is confirmed in similar polls conducted by other companies, such as the 2002 report from the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM), which puts the number of monarchy supporters at around 20 percent. FOM found that representatives of higher socio-economic strata are most likely to be monarchists.
Some liberal commentators suggested the VTSIOM monarchy poll was requested by the Kremlin. I called a friend from VTSIOM. He said that the inclusion of monarchy questions into the standard regular poll reflects the personal interest of one VTSIOM researcher, who has been pushing for it for a long time. Colleagues were simply tired or resisting. “There was no order from above,” the friend said.
There is one identifiable pattern however: monarchy issues resurface in Russia towards the end of presidential election terms, when powers that be are preoccupied with the search for the successor.
I have heard from several sources that back in the 1990s monarchy was one of the scenarios seriously considered in the Kremlin as a means of ensuring continuity of power for Boris Yeltsin and his entourage. At one point, there was a plan to grant some official legal status to one of the branches of the Romanov family. In 1998, after a lengthy, controversial, and inconclusive identification process, remains believed to be those of Tsar Nicholas II and his family (but not recognized as such by the Russian Orthodox Church, despite strong government pressure) were ceremoniously interned in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in the presence of President Boris Yeltsin.
In the second half of the 1990s, Yevgeny Kiselyov, then an influential anchor on Vladimir Gusinsky’s NTV channel, produced several documentaries on the Romanovs, prompting allegations that he was orchestrating a Kremlin-ordered pro-monarchist campaign.
Kiselyov confirmed in a telephone interview that he had heard from several prominent figures (including film director Nikita Mikhalkov and oligarch Boris Berezovsky) that a constitutional monarchy would be the best regime for Russia. However, Kiselyov also said NTV coverage of the Romanovs simply arose on slow news days. He adamantly denied receiving any requests from Yeltsin’s inner circle asking him to popularize the idea of monarchy: “It is just a story that’s interesting and it sells well – it generates good ratings.”
So, maybe the answer is that there is no planning under way and monarchy keeps returning to the public scene simply because it sells well? Perhaps the explanation is that royal families are celebrities similar to pop stars? Maybe OLMA-Press simply wants to make money on Project Russia?
But why does the monarchist idea sell so well? How many miles of opinion columns discuss the lack of democratic tradition in this country? There is an opinion that Stalin saw himself as an emperor of a distorted Communist version of the Russian Empire; others note the disproportionately strong presidency and the fact that the 1993 constitution bestows upon the head of state more powers than Tsar Nicholas had after 1905! Or take the very concept of VLAST – that impersonal, top-down alien force, which weighs down upon everything in this country – without which no Russian political or business discourse can take place and which we struggle to translate into English inadequately, as “power” or “authority.” Doesn’t it speak of the essentially monarchist mentality of my compatriots?
On the one hand, the degree of monarchist sentiment within the Russian Orthodox Church is astounding. Although the Church has officially declared that it is not affiliated with a particular form of government, Nicholas II, who was canonized under vast popular pressure in 2000, is one of the most venerated saints today. The hierarchy is ineffectively fighting a heresy within the Church which sees the slain emperor as a “co-redeemer” on par with Jesus Christ. The situation is such that I have heard a prominent priest exclaim at an internal conference: “We are becoming Ceaserodox instead of Orthodox!”
For the state, on the other hand, there is a fundamental, long-term unsolved question of legitimacy. After all, the Russian Federation is a successor to the Soviet Union, itself the result of a coup d’etat. The quest for continuity with historical Russia recalls the “new old” flag and coat of arms, the rebuilding of a throne hall in the Kremlin and the reburial of the Romanovs. But it doesn’t address the actual issue, which the restoration of monarchy would have solved. It would give direction and meaning to Russia’s development; it suggests the elusive national idea which the country’s elite has been unable to formulate during the past 15 years.

A good article. It would be interesting to see if this idea is still floating around: the article is 4 years old.

[vsriCo]

Rest of the article:

Yet any discussion of the monarchist idea in Russia leads to several major stumbling blocks. First, are we talking about a constitutional or an absolute monarchy? In the 1990s, the talk was about the constitutional one (6 percent are in favor according to the latest VTsIOM survey). Project Russia calls for the absolute one (3 percent support it in the VTsIOM poll). In a 2002 interview, Putin ruled out the former, but jokingly defended the latter. Second, would the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church be sufficient to legitimize a new form of government in the eyes of the country’s non-Orthodox and atheist minority? And third, who would be the new Tsar, when the Romanovs are too remote and divided? How do you convene today the new Council of the Estates to elect the new Tsar and what should the criteria be? Or do you elect the Constitutional Assembly according to the laws of 1917? Take these questions, add more than 60 percent of those opposed to monarchy, and you realize that no matter how attractive the idea might be, no matter how organic it appears for the Russians almost 90 years after they lost their monarchy, its restoration is largely unrealistic. Perhaps Russians' attitude to monarchy should be similar to that of the Jews to the Temple of Jerusalem: We should mourn its loss every day without trying to rebuild it.
But then again, as my monarchist friends say, when the right time comes, God will simply make manifest the Tsar.

[AdmiralSteven]

Hello everyone, I know I don't post here very often, in fact, I can't remember the last time I did post, so let me re-introduce myself; my name is Steven, I go by AdmiralSteven, and I'm from Massachusetts, USA, Cape Cod to be exact, and I've always been interested in royalty.

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Under the current circumstances, I do not think that the Russian government will take any steps toward putting any extra burden on the budget.

I wanted to comment, or ask a question I guess, on the above post by Al_bina. Russia has both a President and a Prime Minister. Both have offices with staff, and I would assume that both require some form of security 24/7. I would also venture a guess that the immediate families of both would get some form of security as well. Like the United States, England and any other country, the head of the government, whatever the name of the title is, would live in some form of government housing. Soooo, wouldn't you just be exchanging the office of President for a Tsar? Now I know there are going to be costs and expesnes I don't know about, but there's gotta be some costs that wouldn't change all that much. Just a thought/question. Thanks for letting me post.

[icedemigod12]

Originally Posted by vsriCo

Rest of the article:

Agreed. After everything that happened with the Revolution and Communism, there's hardly a chance that Russia will become a monarchy once again. Still, it would be nice if this were to happen, although I'd rather call for a constitutional monarchy rather than an absolute one since the load will not fall to one person alone, given how large Russia is.
Anyway, you're still right. The best we can do now is mourn the loss of the monarchy as a dark period in Russian history.

[Star of Persia]

Originally Posted by branchg

Maybe Vladimir Putin will be proclaimed Tsar of All Russias.

That makes more sense than any of the current Romanovs.

There have been rumors he is related to the princely line of Putjatin.

Maybe little Prince Roman didn't die in infancy after all.

[Star of Persia]

Originally Posted by icedemigod12

Agreed. After everything that happened with the Revolution and Communism, there's hardly a chance that Russia will become a monarchy once again.

Stalin is being restored for the huge Red Army parade in Moscow on May 9th.

Just when it seems a restoration of the Monarchy is within reach, something
like that happens.

But I still have hope.

[kell]

Russia: Monarchist Nostalgia Remains Powerful - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2010 since all this time noone i see posted this article i may as well

[COUNTESS]

That because no one has ever lived under the old Tsarist rule. It sounds glamerous, but it was hell. Most of them didn't live under the Stalinist hell either. Things look good on paper, often are just foolish revery.

[Hereditary Thane]

Al bina, one could also say defunct failed royals are like stale fish. The present and emerging generation of ex royals seem to show an intelligence and compassion that is bereft in their parent's and garndparent's generations.

[august w]

that is so wrong, i wonder who you are? do you know what your saying?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by august w

that is so wrong, i wonder who you are? do you know what your saying?

Actually I think Thane has it correct. Did Nicky not persecute the Jews? Would a current ruler of the House of Romanov dare the same thing?

[COUNTESS]

Unfortunately, given the right circumstances they might. The Soviet Union had no trouble were persection of Jews and others. What a monarch would bring to the table seems to me, not much. It will not solve the problems they have.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Hereditary Thane

Al bina, one could also say defunct failed royals are like stale fish. The present and emerging generation of ex royals seem to show an intelligence and compassion that is bereft in their parent's and garndparent's generations.

Never I have compared defunct royals to stale fish. The key question is "How would the Russian Federation benefit from the restoration?". I can not answer this question in a clear manner. A fair number of modern Russians might be viewed as pragmatic. They does not care about communism or monarchy and see no reason to support the restoration. The current crop of the Romanovs brings nothing valuable to the table.

Originally Posted by AdmiralSteven

... [snipped] I wanted to comment, or ask a question I guess, on the above post by Al_bina. Russia has both a President and a Prime Minister. Both have offices with staff, and I would assume that both require some form of security 24/7. I would also venture a guess that the immediate families of both would get some form of security as well. Like the United States, England and any other country, the head of the government, whatever the name of the title is, would live in some form of government housing. Soooo, wouldn't you just be exchanging the office of President for a Tsar? Now I know there are going to be costs and expesnes I don't know about, but there's gotta be some costs that wouldn't change all that much. Just a thought/question. Thanks for letting me post.

It is not as easy as it might seem. There should be a basis for restoring the monarchy. The Romanovs' restoration has nothing to capitalise on. There is an obvious lack of influential powerful monarchists, who are willing to put time, effort and sufficient funds to lobby for the referendum on the matter. The viable chance of restoration faded away when Mr. Putin emerged as Prime Minister in the Yelstin government.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Unfortunately, given the right circumstances they might. The Soviet Union had no trouble were persection of Jews and others. What a monarch would bring to the table seems to me, not much. It will not solve the problems they have.

I would like to think that were a monarchy restored they woudn't resort to starving around 15 million of their population to consolidate power like Uncle Joe did.

[Varaz]

The Truth about Leonida Georgievna Kirbi (Bagration-Mukhranski).

Leonida Georgievna was born 23 (on October, 6th) 1914 in Tiflis, in a family of the former leader of Dusheti district nobility of Tiflisky province., prince George Aleksandrovicha Bagration – Muhransky and of the Polish noblewomen origin Elena Sigizmundovna Zlotnitskaja. (Daughters of the linear controller of Vladikavkaz railways. Cheslava-Sigizmund Zlotnitsky).

Leonida Georgievna belonged to the Muhransky high-nobiliary branch of Bagrationis, branche separated from reigning Bagrations in the beginning of 16 century and owned «Mukhrani fief». It is necessary to notice that the lawful head of the House of Bagrations lives in Georgia till today, HRH Crown Prince Nugzar Petrovich Bagration of Georgia, the direct descendant of last King of Georgia - George XII.
Thus, Leonida Georgievna from father side does not belong even to the reigning House of Bagrationis, but from one of the line which representatives never occupying the Throne of Georgia.

In 1921 after overthrowing of the Menshevic government of Noe Zhordania, George Bagration- Mukhransky family has gone abroad, however in 1923 they have returned back. In 1931 the family by means and help of M.Gorki has left the USSR. Leonida Georgievna has grown in France, and in 1934 in Nece has married the American financier Samner Moore Kirbi. For Mr. Kirbi it was already a third marriage. From this marriage in 1935 daughter Elena was born. In 1937 the couple has divorced. Samnera Moore Kerbi was waited by sad destiny, in 8th of April 1945 he was lost in German camp Buhenvald.

With the beginning of the Second World War friends have helped Leonida Georgievna with daughter Elena, to leave for Spain. There in 1946 the citizen of the USA Mrs. Leonida Kirbi, has got acquainted with the Head of the Russian Imperial House Grand duke Vladimir Kirillovich. On August, 13th, 1948 on the eve of the "Uspensky post" they have secretly got married in the Greek church in Switzerland.

On this moment it is necessary to concentrate more carefully on this particular case. In 1911 Princess of Imperial Blood Tatyana Konstantinovna has decided to marry by love on prince Konstantin Aleksandrovich Bagration-Mukhranski, the second cousin of the Leonidas father Georgi. This marriage has been estimated as morganatic by the Russian imperial House. Emperor Nikolay II asked the permission to fulfilment of marriage to Empress Maria Fedorovna as the senior in a sort. From Princess Tatyana Konstantinovna was taken renunciation of Throne rights of succession. (Later "the moving chancellery of Grand duke Vladimir Kirillovich" has tried to hide this left-handed marriage).

Thereby unequal position Bagration – Muhransky in relation to Romanovs was underlined. It is indicative, as senator Korevo, without assuming in 1922 whom the successor of Grand duke Kiryl Vladimirovicha will select to itself in spouses, resulted marriage of prince of Imperial Blood of Tatyana Konstantinovna with prince Bagration – Mukhranski as a left-handed marriage example «with the person who does not have own advantage, that is not belonging to any reigning or sovereign house».

It is necessary to notice also that the Synod of Russian Orthodox Church Abroad having received the telegramme of the aunt of Vladimir Kirillovicha – HIH. Grand duchess Elena Vladimirovna, the princess of Greece, has then forbidden wedding of the Grand duke with Mrs. Leonida Kirbi . But they have hastily left to Switzerland and got married in the Greek church. (Vladimir Kirillovich will explain later it in "naive" tradition: «Then in Madrid there was no orthodox church (!!!!) the Nearest was in Lausanne (Switzerland), therefore we have gone there»...)

Thus Grand duke Vladimir Kirillovich - in 1948 has entered the Morganatic MARRIAGE from dissolved American civil Mrs. Leonida Kirbi, nee Bagration-Muhranski. After that marriage almost all Members of the Russian Imperial House have torn the relations with Vladimir Kirillovich. The exception was made by his uncle - Grand duke Andrey Vladimirovich, itself married to ballerina Matilde Kshesinsky. As to the Russian colony in Madrid, it has stopped any relations with Vladimir Kirillovich, considering that Leonida Georgievna cannot name itself "grand duchess" in any way.

It is necessary to notice that the family of Grand duke Vladimir Kirillovich - after unworthy and doubtful business - of operations of prince Irakli Bagration-Mukhranski (brother of Leonida Georgievna and grandfather of David), there were rather intense relations with generalissimo F.Franko and for some years they have been compelled to leave Spain.

In 1953, at Grand duke Vladimir Kirillovich and Leonida Georgievna was born the daughter, Maria Vladimirovna, nowadays self-appointedly claiming the Russian Throne. In 1969 Grand duke Vladimir Kirillovich declares the daughter «the successor of the Russian throne». However their Highnesses Princes of Imperial Blood- Vsevolod Ioannovich, Roman Petrovich and Andrey Aleksandrovich «as representatives of three branches of the Russian Imperial House» declared the protest. In the protest in particular it was said that «the marital status of the Spouse of Prince Vladimir Kirillovich equally with what Spouses of other Princes of Imperial Blood have, and we do not recognize behind her the right to be called as "grand duchess". This split remains till today; the majority of recent descendants of the House of Romanovs did not recognize use of a grand-ducal title by Leonida Georgievna.

[Hereditary Thane]

Why this post mortem animosity towards the Grand Duchess and her memory. This red herring: left handed marriage - the Church does no distinguish between a so called morganatic union and a a dynastic marriage. Indeed in Orthodoxy a peasant's marriage is equal to a prince's.

The Grand Duchess was married legally to the head of the imperial house, and as such he was the arbitrator of Romanov house rules. Don't pick and mix your support for the House of Romanov; it appears these so called adherents are doing more damage to the imperial family than any mad Bolshevik. And show some respect for a great Christian lady!