Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[branchg]

I agree that it is extremely unlikely any of the current Romanovs would ever be called upon to return to the throne. The time for monarchy has passed in Russia and would not solve any problems.

[AristoCat]

If Kyril did support Hitler against Germany, well, shows how loyal he is to the country; the Communists were murderers, but Hitler was a class-A monster like Stalin and Communism didn't stop Kyril and Maria from cozying up to the ruling elite hoping for a restoration with them in charge.

Russians are nationalistic and Georgi and Maria are hardly Russian lineage at all. So I don't think that either are going to be accepted as rulers/sovereigns.

Nicholas Nikolaevich hated Hitler from the beginning, and none of the Romanovs were active in their support the way Kirill and Ducky were. During the war, even Yusupov turned down Hitler's support, as did Dmitri Pavlovich, who stated "nothing would induce him to fight against fellow Russians," according t

Grand Duke Vladimir wrote in a letter to the Supreme Monarchist Council on September 21, 1942 that he sided with the Germans, who were responsible for the deaths of millions of Jewish people as well as Russians, and the Soviet Union was nothing more than a haven for the "World Jewry." Those were his words.

Vladimir didn't face facts that Hitler considered Slavs, non-Jewish Russians to be human either and Hitler marked them for extermination as well.

What the Vladimirs wouldn't do for a position in power, eh?

Succession laws or not, too much has happened in an interim to end up realistically having things work as they used to. A violent revolution is something that is radically disruptive and it is something that doesn't respect the laws of succession. Throw in how the Romanovs have had to change to survive and marry and have children/families I would have to state that realistically both sides should stop fighting and end up just going about their business.

It's shameful that the Vladimirovichi ended up supporting the monster Hitler who didn't just go after Jews, but endless other vulnerable types.

[Perislov]

The irony is that if the Communist Regime had fallen during the Civil War or in the immediate years after and the throne had been reinstated, Kirill would've been undoubtedly passed over for Nikolasha and the Nikolaivich branch of the family, who was the most popular choice among the emigres as well as those loyalists still inside Russia, and the Orthodox Church. Kirill had some members of the family on his side, but even their support was soft at the time, and they would've jumped ship the moment the Dowager Empress was forced to make a statement in one way or another.

[branchg]

Passed over by whom? The succession was automatic with Cyril assuming the Headship of the Imperial House with the death of Nicholas II, his son and his brother. All of the surviving dynasts, with the exception of Grand Duke Nicholas and Grand Duke Peter, publicly declared their support of Cyril and agreed with the table of succession.

The Dowager Empress refused to make a statement of any kind because she hoped beyond hope that somehow her son and his family had survived their terrible fate. She did acknowledge privately to her daughters that Cyril had the right to declare himself Head of the Imperial House.
.

[kell]

Over a quarter of Russians would welcome new monarchy ? RT Russian politics

Over a quarter of Russians would welcome new monarchy
Published: March 19, 2013 17:42



The imperial regalia of Russian Tsar Mikhail Romanov
The Hat of Vladimir Monomakh, scepter and orb featuring gold, precious stones and pearls on display at the Moscow Kremlin's Armory

28 percent of Russians say they would not mind a revival of the monarchy in the country, a poll has revealed, noting however that people don’t know anyone who could fill such a position. Meanwhile, four percent of the population both want the Tsar back and do know who could come to the throne, a survey by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) discovered.

Almost a century after the February 1917 revolution put an end to the rule of Romanov dynasty and the Russian Empire, one in ten Russians still believes that being a monarchy would be better for Russia. Notably, in Moscow and St Petersburg such a view is shared by 19 percent of residents.
However, the vast majority of respondents (82 percent) are happy with the current – republican - form of the government, where the head of the country is chosen through elections. Only 7 percent of people could not decide which of the two they would actually prefer.
Two thirds of Russians are confident that autocracy is a closed chapter for Russia. This opinion is particularly common for supporters of the Communist party and the elderly, pollsters found.

When asked who could hypothetically become a new Russian tsar, 70 percent of people stated that the revival of monarchic rule would simply be “impossible and wrong.” At the same, time 13 percent of those questioned suggested that a possible ruler could be a politician or a public activist elected either directly by people through a referendum or – alternatively –by parliament. Only six percent of respondents would want to see the descendants of the Romanov Family on the Russian throne.

2013 marks 400 years after the Romanov dynasty ascended to the Russian throne in 1613, reigning for over three centuries, until the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917. In July 1918, Nicholas and his family were executed by the Bolsheviks.
.

[AristoCat]

I think seeing people WANT to reign instead of moaning about it is a positive thing.

I mean, no one in the Romanov family, in history, has ever showed a lack of interest in reigning, except for Nicholas II who wasn't properly prepared for the role.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by kell

Over a quarter of Russians would welcome new monarchy.

The way this article is worded and the related percentages are questionable and misleading.

It says that 28% of Russians want to restore the monarchy, but don't know who the monarch should be, 4% want a restoration and know who the monarch should be, 82% want the republic to continue, and 7% don't know. It's kind of implied that this is a poll with 3 or 4 options, but even without the 4% who know who the monarch should be, the numbers don't add up - they hit 117% (121% if you include that other 4%).

Unless they went "do you know how you feel in the debate between republic vs. monarchy in Russia?" To which people presumably answered yes/no. Then, "do you support a restoration of the monarchy?" yes/no (and if they answered yes, we're then asked who the monarch should be), then asked "do you support the continuation of the republic?" yes/no.

In which case a good chunk of the answers were contradictory.

[kell]

i know whats werid they even asked

[Ish]

I get why you would ask in general - I think a poll like this, if done the right way, can reflect a lot about the state of a country and the way people feel about their government.

If you did a poll with 3-4 questions it could show something about Russia, Russians, and the state of both the republican and monarchist movements in both. The way this article is presented makes it sound as though that's what they did, but the way the numbers add up make it apparent that either they didn't do it that way (and the way they did do it was ridiculous and essentially inconclusive) or that they have some kind of weird system of math in Russia.

I, personally, would love to see the results of proper polls done in countries that had monarchies, abolished within the last 100 years or so, and have attempted and possibly struggled with democracy (or other forms of government) in the intervening years.

The question: Would you like to see a restoration of the monarchy?
The possible answers: Yes (which can be broken into yes, I know who the monarch should be/yes, but I don't know under who, or even yes, I support X/yes, I support Y/and so on), No, I don't know

Then you get a far more accurate representation of what the people think (presuming you don't use wonky math).

[AristoCat]

I wonder how the Romanovs would react if someone with an undisputed claim to headship of the family came along and was in fact the rightful head, what then?

I don't think MV would go away quietly.

[Ish]

I think if such a person were to appear their claim would be disputed on the grounds of "how have you avoided being known until now?" I don't think it's possible for there to be an undisputed claimant here.

[AristoCat]

I wonder how on earth the Romanovs have ever survived; so much relentless friction and so much endless hot headed accustions, one after another.

[Ish]

Well, on the one hand, one can argue that the reason why they've continued to exist is because it is no longer considered fashionable to simply overthrow your opponents to a throne and then have them killed (especially when said throne doesn't technically exist anymore and all claimants are pretenders).

On the other hand, one can argue that from a technical standpoint they don't actually exist anymore - descendants do, but the Imperial Romanov house was destroyed by the Bolsheviks in 1918. And that can be said to have happened not because of the overthrowall of the monarchy or the executions of Nicholas II and his family, but because the criteria for succession in the house is to complicated, particularly in a time when there are fewer imperial houses in general and the throne itself no longer exists.

In order to inherit the Russian Imperial seat of power one has to be descended from the Romanovs through equal marriages - something that has proven to be rather difficult for a House to do when in exile. This dispute exists because from various argumentative points of view, neither claimant nor their direct ancestors meet this criteria. As such, the fighting happens because everyone wants the power but no one can prove without a doubt that it belongs to them - or that it doesn't belong to another claimant. The fighting will continue until one line dies without any possible claimants.

When you look at thrones that have less complicated rules for succession, the claimants become clearer. Even though it's been over 300 years since the Glorious Revolution, there is still a widely agreed upon Stuart heir, Franz of Bavaria. Were the British throne to be abolished now, it's easy to believe that in 100+ years the Windsor heir will not be as easily identifiable, owing to the fact that there are more criteria to be a legitimate heir -much like how it's more complicated in Russia. It's worse in France, where there are 4 different pretenders, through 3 different houses, or Spain where there are 3 pretenders (through 1 house) plus the actual monarch.

[branchg]

I really do not think it is that complicated. Vladimir Kirillovich was indisputably the last surviving dynast and Head of the Imperial House and he died in 1992. He only had one child, Maria Vladimirovna, and she has an heir, George of Prussia.

The issue of equal marriages is really moot in my opinion. While it's true Leonida was unquestionably of a noble house at the time of her marriage to Vladimir, both branches of the Georgian Royal House are now reunited in marriage and there is a male heir. Arguably, Vladimir certainly married a woman of sufficient rank and his daughter also married equally.

The other descendants are not in compliance with the Laws on many counts, while Maria is only disputable from the point of her mother's status. There really is no question she is rightfully the Head of the Imperial House.

[NGalitzine]

But it is exactly this point that is arguable....Leonida was from a noble family, and a branch of the former royal family that was incorporated into the nobility. What has happened since has no bearing on the matter at all unless MV is planning on launching a claim to the former Georgian throne. Her own subesquent marriage to a Prussian prince also has no bearing on her claimed position except to give her son a place in the succession to the former Prussian throne. Having a Prussian prince as a father certainly does not benefit any claim her son might make to the former Russian throne.
.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by branchg

I really do not think it is that complicated. Vladimir Kirillovich was indisputably the last surviving dynast and Head of the Imperial House and he died in 1992. He only had one child, Maria Vladimirovna, and she has an heir, George of Prussia.

Except it's debatable whether or not Vladimir Kirillovich's marriage was morganatic or not - or whether his father's marriage was.

The issue of equal marriage here is not of a moot point. Leonida was of a house that was not royal in accordance to Russian belief - following Georgia's incorporation into the Russian Empire it was regarded as a noble, not royal, house, by the Russian imperial house. Thus it can be argued that the marriage is not equal.

Going back further than that, Cyril Vladimirovich's marriage is considered by some to not have been within House Laws, eliminating both him and his son from having been the last surviving male dynast.

The way the succession in the Romanov House works is that it goes from one male dynast to the next closest related male dynast - typically father-to-son, but it can also go brother-to-brother, uncle-to-nephew, or nephew-to-uncle. When the Romanovs were overthrown it went Nicholas II - Alexei Nikolaevich - Michael Alexandrovich. From there, it's debatable as to who the proper head was, and there were 3 claimants as early as 1918, including Cyril.

In order to determine the line of succession first you must determine who the last surviving male dynast is (and if he still lives, then he's the claimant). Then you determine who his closest female relative is, and she (or her heirs) become the successor. The problem is, because of the issue of equal marriage it is debatable whether or not Cyril or Vladimir were dynasts at all, and as such the claimant to the throne becomes debatable.

[AristoCat]

It's such a mess.

On the hand of the Imperial House being destroyed, Nicholas did abdicate, but often abdications under duress are not recognized as legal and the immediate family was obliterated in what was essentially murder.

Realistically, the Bolsheviks and Communists were never a legitimate government and never really recognized by too many countries.

Then the fall of Communism came, but then Russia was plunged into chaos and hasn't really recovered from it. So really, Russia has never had a real government.

If a monarchy were to end up being restored, it would probably end up being the first legitimate government that Russians have had in a long time and a stabilizing factor.

It would in fact end up being a stabilizing factor while a republic is worked on, then it would in fact be the finest example of how a monarchy is supposed to work.

Realistically, it would take someone exceptionally unambitious to agree to take on the mantle of the throne, be a steadying force, and then end up abdicating once a republic is established.

Realistically, Russia has no had a universally recognized unquestionably legitimate government for almost an entire century since 1918.

[BrazilianEmpire]

I wonder why some people believes that, when a Monarchy is overthrown, the Line of Succession simply disapears, and no one can be the rightful heir to the Throne, and, if the Monarchy is to be restored, people, or the Parliament, has to choose a the Monarch. Well, when the Head of State is elected, we call Republic, not Monarchy.

Lines of Succession do not disapears, they still going on, even centuries after the overthrown of the Monarchy. You just have to look the line of Succession in order to see who is the Head of the House and heir to the Throne. In the Russian case, is Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna.

Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich was the Head of the Imperial House by the time he married Princess Lonida. Only he had the power to declare his marriage as dynastic one.

As Prince Antônio of Brazil always says: "The best Monarch will always be the the rightful heir".

Messing up with the Line of Succession will make no good.

[AristoCat]

Oh no my firend, you misinterpret what I'm saying.

The line continues, but the official legal reinforcement of the monarchy might actually still exist in my mind.

Murder wasn't a way of resolving or ending the monarchy, I've never believed in that. Louis XVI was murdered and so was Marie Antoinette and it has been a curse on the nation of France ever since. Same with Russia; if none of them had been executed, I am certain that things would have been much different.

I believe that if any legitimate nation wants to end their monarchy and be credible and avoid bloodshed, there is no reason to end up making a maockery of justice with a show trial and then an inevitable execution via firing squad or the guillotine.

Each time a nation becomes a republic after tossing off a monarchy, how they treat the monarchs sets the precedent for how people who dislike the new regime will be treated.

After the murder of the French monarchs, anyone who was suspected of disliking the new regime was arrested, tried (in the most mocking sense of the word), then killed. Notice I said killed, not executed, which indicates that there was a legitimate trial.

Now, in Greece, the royals were deposed and then rescued and anyone who was against the new regime, pretty much left of their own accord if they could get out.

IN the US, anyone who disliked the new government was left alone to their own opinions. This is why I believe that the Bolshevik government was never legitimate and in a way, the monarchy is still very much a force in Russia and it's the same with France. Neither institution never really went away because of the brutal circumstances of their removal and the mockery of the so called 'justice system.'

The succession is important, even if there is no reigning family and it is important to maintain that link with the past and ensure that something is still there.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

I wonder why some people believes that, when a Monarchy is overthrown, the Line of Succession simply disapears, and no one can be the rightful heir to the Throne, and, if the Monarchy is to be restored, people, or the Parliament, has to choose a the Monarch. Well, when the Head of State is elected, we call Republic, not Monarchy.

.

Actually yes, I do firmly believe if monarchy were to be restored that the people and the parliament should have a say in who they place on the throne assuming the restoration is in a democratic society and not put in place by a military coup. Having a historic claim on the throne does not mean that you are necessarily the right person to be on the throne in a restored monarchy or the right person to re-establish the reigning family in the mids of the public.
Spain, although not a true democracy at the time, saw Juan Carlos named as heir ahead of his own father and in 1975 accend the throne while his father still lived. It took a few more years before his father resigned his own claims in favour of Juan Carlos.
In 1905 Norway had both election by parliament and a referendum to elect Prince Carl of Denmark to their throne.
In 2013 I do believe such debates are pretty pointless and that the "pretenders" have a better chance of winning the lottery than they do of sitting on thrones lost by their families a century or more ago. .