Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[aj00192557]

so after these developments, do you guys think that russia will ever restore the monarchy?

 

[tiaraprin]

so after these developments, do you guys think that russia will ever restore the monarchy?

Well you can never say never, but at this time no. The Russian people have not strongly petitioned for its return, and there is too much fighting amongst the Romanovs as to who the legitimate heir is. The monarchy cannot be restored at the moment with all this acrimony.

 

[aj00192557]

it is so sad that romanovs are fighting against each other. they should, instead, work together. i wish that the people of russia would again welcome having an emperor and an empress.

are there any pro monarchy movements in russia though?

 

[Mapple]

...

are there any pro monarchy movements in russia though?

Some people on the lunatic fringe... they do not want the restoration of Romanovs, though.

 

[Marengo]

what do they want then? Did anybody read 'Icon' by Frederick Forsyte. It is about russia in the middle 90-ties and in the end of the book the monarchy is restored under...Prince and Princess Michael of Kent!!!! Can you imagine HER being Tsarina?? When I read it I could not stop laughing out loud for several minutes.

 

[Mapple]

what do they want then?

Erm... a 'true' Eastern Orthodox Tsar elected by the Zemsky Sobor (a kind of Parliament which existed under late Rurikoviches and early Romanovs; Mikhail Romanov was elected Tsar on one of such gatherings), Orthodoxy as a state religion, expulsion of the Jews, the whole bit... Thankfully there are few of them.

The pro-Romanov monarchists do exist, too, but they are totally unnoticeable.

Did anybody read 'Icon' by Frederick Forsyte. It is about russia in the middle 90-ties and in the end of the book the monarchy is restored under...Prince and Princess Michael of Kent!!!! Can you imagine HER being Tsarina?? When I read it I could not stop laughing out loud for several minutes.

So did I. Forsyth is (was?) a good writer, but the plot was implausible.

 

[Marengo]

Doesnt Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna go out of her ways to be as eastern orthodox as possible? She even didnt attend he burial of Tsar Nicholas II and his family because the orthodox church had problems with it.

Anyway, the monarchist groups seem terrible, it is a pity that people use the monarchy for extreme right sympathies (not only the monarchic party in Russia but also elsewhere in Europe).

----

The plot was implosable indeed and he made several mistakes with the familytrees (of course almost nobody who reads it knows the familytrees so for the plot it doesnt matter).

 

[Layla1971]

So, in summary, Russia wants a democaratic, non-intrusive new Royal Family that they have elected, and will continue to monitor to ensure they fulfill their duties, but don't overstep their boundaries?
They would have to be neutral in terms of religion, and ethnicity (either be a family of combined beliefs, or just keep their own beliefs out of their jobs), and be non-aristocratic by bloodlines, so they don't have preconceived notions of their rights, of the people and for the people, so to speak.

Mapple maybe you know, are there any people of high-standing in Russia who have devoted their time, even careers to bringing freedom, and democracy, justice to Russia?
If so, maybe they would qualify to be head of a new Royal Family?
In modern Russia I think a Royal Family could serve as a watchdog of the government, and authorities on behalf of their people.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I think that the reintroduction of a Monarchy in Russia would be seen as a re-uniting of old Russia and new Russia and almost 'making up' for the past.

I think that it will take the reintroduction of the Monarchy in several other countries before Russia has a chance - Romania is high on the list after the way King Michael was ousted - he has a huge following in Romania and in a recent interview, King Harald of Norway said that the Polish President was keen to bring a Monarchy to Poland.

If Russia saw it work in other nations, they may be more keen to bring back the Romanovs. I think any Government would support Maria - would you argue with her? Yeltsin adored her and Putin has met with her several times. She has the backing of the Church and most Romanov followers - it's a huge can of worms and it isn't as simple as plopping a crown on her beehive and making her Empress.

It's easier for Romania etc because they know who their heir definately is. For them it would be Michael and then his daughter - but all these dog-fights between Maria and the others just puts people off of opening the floodgates.

 

[Layla1971]

If I was living in Russia, I know I wouldn't want to live under (even the ceremonial) rule of Maria Vladimirovna, and I know my family wouldn't want her after they have had to put up with their current government. IMO Maria would just add to the current problems with her own greed.
And Putin isn't the great president internationals think he is.
And just because he, and Yeltsin met with Maria doesn't mean they liked her, it just means they found it mutually beneficial to reinstate the monarchy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

And just because he, and Yeltsin met with Maria doesn't mean they liked her, it just means they found it mutually beneficial to reinstate the monarchy.

Very true. She seems to have a very imperious and assuming nature and looks very regal. But there's no reason why they should have the Romanovs to have a Royal Family. Putin could declare himself Tsar, as long as the people voted for it.

 

[Layla1971]

Very true. She seems to have a very imperious and assuming nature and looks very regal. But there's no reason why they should have the Romanovs to have a Royal Family. Putin could declare himself Tsar, as long as the people voted for it.

Putin as Tsar! NEVER! We couldn't count on Putin to be honest, and not bow to corruption, and if he was crowned. we would have to replace him with someone other than his children.
The Royal Family is supposed to be somewhat permanent, not with a revolving cast of characters like on a tv show!
A person would have to be chosen that had a respectable life, as well as respectable, and responsible children to take over in the event of the monarchs death.
I know that Putin's daughters are well-educated so far, but I can't say that wouldn't follow their father's example.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Understood but not sure I agree. Anyway, definately not getting political!

I think Maria wants the throne for her son more than herself. The up side is that if he did become Tsar she'd be well looked after.

 

[Mapple]

I am from Russia, and in my opinion the restoration of monarchy in Russia has zero probability. This is simply not an option here.

I have spoken in such an authoritative manner, I know, but it is indeed true. Almost no one here considers the monarchical system as a possible future political development.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Mapple - thanks for the insight. I think that we Monarchists can become forgetful of the feeling of the people in post-monarchy countries.

Mapple, is it a question that is never asked or is there just a general opinion that it isn't the right thing to do?

I think that in general, it's countries like Greece and Romania that will restore their Kings - Russia would take some time.

 

[Mapple]

Mapple - thanks for the insight. I think that we Monarchists can become forgetful of the feeling of the people in post-monarchy countries.

Mapple, is it a question that is never asked or is there just a general opinion that it isn't the right thing to do?

...

The general opinion... Mostly we are content with the existing system as the least evil possible. I don't think, though, that Russia as we know it is going to survive into the 22nd Century. We shall have serious trouble on our hands in several decades.

No one thinks about restoring the monarchy, Romanov or not. It can be said that the Russians are as much against monarchy as they are against Christian fundamentalism--no one thinks that either is a thing worth pondering, that is.

 

[Mapple]

I don't think the true Russian monarchists are suggesting or hoping for a return 'the Autocracy of Alexander III'. but rather a constitutional monarchy, which could have easily occured in 1917.

That's just my personal opinion. I also think that by 1917 the opportunity of transition to a constitutional monarchy had already been missed -- the country had been radicalised by Stolypin's restrictions upon ftranchise and, first and foremost, by the horrible experience of the Great War.

 

[Layla1971]

That's just my personal opinion. I also think that by 1917 the opportunity of transition to a constitutional monarchy had already been missed -- the country had been radicalised by Stolypin's restrictions upon ftranchise and, first and foremost, by the horrible experience of the Great War.

It was World War I that made the Russian people lose even more faith in the Monarchy. I think even without Bloody Sunday, ect the people would have overthown the Monarchy eventually.

 

[Mapple]

It was World War I that made the Russian people lose even more faith in the Monarchy. I think even without Bloody Sunday, ect the people would have overthown the Monarchy eventually.

The transformation into a constitutional monarchy IMHO was possible, but the 'window of opportunity' was very narrow, and the First Russian revolution of 1905-1907 and Stolypin's response to it (our PM was a capable administrator and a bold economic reformer, but no clairvoyant; he decided to restrict the voting rights of working class in favour of the landlords, thus making the nascent Russian parliament a representative of his will and not of the state of the public opinion) made Romanovs' overthrow inevitable.

 

[Layla1971]

Yes, the first revolution could have moved into an opportunity for democracy, but I'm not sure of the circumstances of that period, so I can't say why it didn't.

 

[Jil]

Mapple,
What do the Russians say now about Kerensky (not sure of the spelling of his name) and the Duma? I thought that he had started a democractic government. I heard that he later moved to America and lectured at universities. I am not sure what he lectured on-I assume it was Russian History.

 

[Von Schlesian]

I don't believe that Alexander Kerensky was expecting the Tzar to abdicate on behalf of the Tzarevich as well. So under the provisional government (Febuary/March-October 1917), I think there was still a strong possibility, and perhaps will among the grovisional government members, to institute constitutional monarchy.

 

[Layla1971]

Not really because the Tsar Nicholas had already abdicated in favor of his brother, this would have nullified the Tsarevich's rights. And, along with that, the new Tsar was only in "office" for 1 day, the chances of any monarchy, let alone a constitutional one were almost non-existant.

 

[Mapple]

Mapple,
What do the Russians say now about Kerensky (not sure of the spelling of his name) and the Duma? I thought that he had started a democractic government. I heard that he later moved to America and lectured at universities. I am not sure what he lectured on-I assume it was Russian History.

That's correct, he taught Russian politics and history in the US. Kerensky is pretty much forgotten here. It can be argued whether the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 can be called democratic -- it did not wield the full authority, and the country was at war.

 

[Black Cat]

Does Russia really need Monarchy?

Does Russia really need Monarchy?
This question seemed absolutely fantastic 20 years ago. The soviet propagandamachine did not leave doubts, that the monarchy is harmful in development of a society and was consequence of violent interclass mutual relations. And all history of a monarchy in Russia was the bloody drama powdered by sex.
After falling Communistic Authority, Russia gradually opened the history. It step by step gets in depth of centuries. Time of undoubted answers finished and appeared various judgments.

I offer following questions to discussion:

1. Really the Monarchy of Russia is necessary?
2. What kinds of the Monarchy more fit to the Russian society?
3. What kind’s mutual relations the Monarchy of Russia should have with the religious organizations (particular with Orthodox Church)?

PLEASE
1. Do not use the given discussion to the purpose of promotion particular nominee to the Russian throne. Russia is not hereditary treasure for which someone has the right in greater or lesser rate, but the country where the people live who are having the right of a free choice.
2. Do not be aggressive and be respect to another's point of view.
3. Observe rules of a forum.

 

[BeatrixFan]

1. I would say that a Monarchy can benefit Russia just as it has benefitted Britain. But then as a Monarchist, that would be my feeling with any country. When applied to the Russian State, I would say yes - after so many years of oppression by the USSR, Russia does need something that it can all share and a Monarchy would fill that gap IMO. I believe that by having a figurehead who is non-political, the Russian people could begin to heal old wounds and become patriotic again without fears of being beaten down by tales of old regimes.

2. Well, obviously with the poverty rate, the Monarchy of old simply wouldn't work IMO. I think that the monarchy of Russia would have to be more like the Danish model with no aristocracy between the Monarch and the people. The Monarchy would have to be completely non-political and constitutional.

3. The Monarch/Church relationship would have to follow the same relationship Queen Elizabeth II has with the Church of England IMO. I think the popularity of the Orthodox Church would mean it still had a place in Russian society and in a Monarchy.

 

[Black Cat]

Thanks BeatrixFan for the extensive and detailed explanation, especially you are first.

It is a classical European sight to a monarchy. But I think, it is initially not right conception about Russia (particular the USSR).
The first: People in the USSR did not suffer under excessive authority. I lived in the USSR at «later Soviet time» and I can definitely tell that the ideology practically did not influence a daily life of usual people. Yes, there were ideological actions, such as meetings, assemblies and posters, but people considered it more as a tribute of tradition. Actually few people trusted communistic ideology, and for some it was simply workplace. And it was impossible to enter the university without membership of Komsomol (the youth communistic organization), but membership was required only formal.
There is an opinion inside Russia, that the organization of a public life did not change at all after revolution, names only exchanged. Tsar began to name the General Secretary, and now is the President.

The second: the Monarchy similar to Denmark already was in history of Russia just before 1917 and it led a society to the revolution. Though, the periods of a tyrannical monarchy, Russians consider like successful times.

 

[Marengo]

1. I think the restauration of a monarchy in Russia can be usefull, in a simular way as Juan-Carlos has been extremely usefull to Spain after the end of the Franco regime. So the monarch can monitor the process of transition to a democracy of the country. Especially now such an authority can be helpfull in Russia.

2. The only (european) monarchies that servived are the democratic monarchies. So that is the one I would wish for Russia to, albeit I think the monarch needs more powers then for example is Sweden, as the process of transforming Russia to a democracy has not ended yet and action from the highest authority in the country may be needed to protect the frail democracy.

3. Though I am in favour of total seperation of church and state, in this particular case it might be helpfull if the Russian monarchy would keep close ties with the Orthodox church, thus strenghtening its claim on the throne and its moral authority AND recognising Russia's past.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, I think that it's interesting that both the Imperial system and the Soviet system both had quite a poor human rights record. I think that the Russian people could only accept a new system - whether monarchy or republic, if they knew they were not under threat of being poorly treated.

Russia's Monarchy was extremely different to Denmark's in 1917. The Russian Monarchy was autocratic, excessive, absolute and all powerful. The Danish Monarchy was constitutional, tempered, bound by a parliament and not so lavish so when I said that a Danish model would need to be used, thats what I meant. Also, the Russian monarchy had several layers of aristocrats between the people and the Tsar. The Danes didn't have that to the extreme that the Russians did and I think that modern Russia would never accept layers and layers of people withrestored Russian monarchy would have to be constitutional - could Maria cope with that?

 

[Black Cat]

I think that modern Russia would never accept layers and layers of people withrestored Russian monarchy would have to be constitutional - could Maria cope with that?

BeatrixFan thanks for your reply, but let's adhere nevertheless to a rule do not mention any names, the purpose of the given discussion to define theoretical preconditions of restoration the Monarchy of Russia and why it is better than presidential power.

By the way, if “She” so appreciate in Russia why “She” is not going to nominate on the future presidential elections in March 2008, and then to restore a monarchy by an example of Napoleon III.