Monarchy and Restoration; Rival Families and Claimants

[Al_bina]

The views of the person, who lived on the outskirts of the great Empire...

Boris,
You have provided very interesting perspective on the matter under discussion. I have read many books by Valentin Pikul that portrayed different periods of the Russian history. I do understand that these novels might be viewed as inaccurate because they are somewhat biased interpretation of the historical events.
Based on reading various books related to the Russian history and learning the Russian history at secondary school and institute, it might be fair to say that Russians tend to be attracted to strong and charismatic leaders. I do factor in the degree of bias and inaccuracies in “serving” the course of history in the educational system. This implies that Russia may have a monarchy as soon as such person appears and seize power through coup d'etat.
Furthermore, Russia did show favourable developments at the macro-economical level. However these developments were not clearly manifested at the micro-economical level. This allowed the parties involved to seize the opportune moment and take power.
At the same time, I do not understand why and how Russians should repent the Romanovs’ assassination. Many leaders (royal and non-royal) were assassinated over the course of times. No one seems to call to repent similar actions in other countries (e.g., France). What can the collective repentance for the brutal assassination of the Imperial Family change at the state level?

 

[BorisRom]

the collective repentance for...

Boris,
...At the same time, I do not understand why and how Russians should repent the Romanovs’ assassination. Many leaders (royal and non-royal) were assassinated over the course of times. No one seems to call to repent similar actions in other countries (e.g., France). What can the collective repentance for the brutal assassination of the Imperial Family change at the state level?

Al bina,
ALL Russians have sworn on fidelity of a dynasty of Romanovs in 1613 "for ever", therefore - from the orthodox point of view - ALL people which have accepted citizenship of the USSR (and their descendants) have broken this oath, this oath - therefore EVERYONE should repent now.
If to distract from Orthodoxy, the fact will be, that the overwhelming majority of citizens of Russia today are descendants of bolsheviks and those who sympathized with them. (my ancestors were bolsheviks too). Thus, the majority of people in Russia should repent of those atrocities which were made by bolsheviks.
Unfortunately, the true repentance is impossible in Russia now - even because not less of 15-20% of Russians would like to return in days of the USSR.
USSR was empire of evil. Certainly, those people which disagree with it, they do not consider it necessary any repentance also.

 

[branchg]

The problem with reinstating the Tsar in Russia, is the question of just who? The Grand Duchess Maria seems to be disqualified under the family rule regarding the inequal marriage of her parents.Because of Salic law the descendents of Xenia Alexandrovitch can be ruled out. Do we then go to Nicholas of Russia grandson of Alexander II's brother Nicolas as successor? Would Russia want an 85 year old tsar? According to the article in Point de Vue after the reinterrment of the Empress Dagmar, the family relations are so cold, that there is no chance of concensus in any case? Any ideas as to who?

The Government and the Church both recognize Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna as the Head of the Imperial House. The rest of the family is clearly morganatic, although certainly they are descendants of Grand Dukes and Princes of the Blood Imperial, and they do not have the goodwill Maria has built-up over the years in Russia.

 

[Al_bina]

Hopefully... you will understand my point

Boris,
I have been pleased to get your comments. It is really great that you are a person of faith. With all respect, I can not agree with your views.
Firstly, it is rather lopsided to define the USSR as the empire of evil. The USSR used carrot and stick to govern its subjects as well as the Romanovs’ did. The Romanovs’ reign might be not viewed as totally cloudless and progressive. Why do you hate your family so much? I assume your Bolshevik parents did their best in giving you means to succeed in this life.
Secondly, I believe that Nicholas II was not strong enough to quell disobedience among his subjects of all levels (elite and ordinary people) and fight for his throne. Furthermore, Russians should be allowed just to live a normal life without always repenting something. Russians and other ethnic groups suffered many hardships from both Monarchy and Bolsheviks.
Thirdly, I think that the Romanovs’ time is over. If there is restoration, any other noble family should take power (e.g., Golitsyns, Dolgorukovs, Yussupovs, or Sheremetevs).

 

[BorisRom]

Boris,
... Why do you hate your family so much? I assume your Bolshevik parents did their best in giving you means to succeed in this life....

Al bina,
I think, you have not rather truly understood me. First, certainly I do not feel any hatred to my ancestors (to the late grandfathers and grandmothers). I'm deeply feeling their life and their tragedy. One my grandfather has been executed in 1937, other grandfather has died of famine in blockade of Leningrad. Both of them were simple fair people (not "commissars", not security officers (not NKVD) and not ministers) and both of them were victims of devil bolshevik "realm". They trusted in devil lie of communism («construction of paradise on the Earth - without God and against God »).
However, I trusted in this big lie till 1975-1980 too. Those years already the majority of people have started to laugh at a fairy tale on communism.
Unfortunately, it was not the harmless fairy tale. This big lie cost Russia up to hundred million innocent victims (civil war, famine in Ukraine, reprisals, WWII). By the way, I shall remind you, that USSR of beginnings WWII (in 1939) was the ally of nazi Germany. Bolshevism and nazism is two sides of one devil medal.
Besides, USSR cannot be anything other as Empire of evil for all believing people all over the world. USSR was the country of aggressive state total atheism down to 1985.
For example, a regular visiting of church could break any career in any official organization down to 1985.
Stalin used Russian orthodox church extremely in own purposes and he has spoiled her(it) for long years.
I feel to a history of my country of XX century not hatred, but grief and repentance.
I am the normal person in other relations

 

[Al_bina]

Hopefully, I have done a better job in expressing my views...

Al bina,
I think, you have not rather truly understood me. First, certainly I do not feel any hatred to my ancestors (to the late grandfathers and grandmothers). I'm deeply feeling their life and their tragedy. One my grandfather has been executed in 1937, other grandfather has died of famine in blockade of Leningrad. Both of them were simple fair people (not "commissars", not security officers (not NKVD) and not ministers) and both of them were victims of devil bolshevik "realm". They trusted in devil lie of communism («construction of paradise on the Earth - without God and against God »).
However, I trusted in this big lie till 1975-1980 too. Those years already the majority of people have started to laugh at a fairy tale on communism.
Unfortunately, it was not the harmless fairy tale. This big lie cost Russia up to hundred million innocent victims (civil war, famine in Ukraine, reprisals, WWII). By the way, I shall remind you, that USSR of beginnings WWII (in 1939) was the ally of nazi Germany. Bolshevism and nazism is two sides of one devil medal.
Besides, USSR cannot be anything other as Empire of evil for all believing people all over the world. USSR was the country of aggressive state total atheism down to 1985.
For example, a regular visiting of church could break any career in any official organization down to 1985.
Stalin used Russian orthodox church extremely in own purposes and he has spoiled her(it) for long years.
I feel to a history of my country of XX century not hatred, but grief and repentance.
I am the normal person in other relations

Boris,
We have got a few things in common. My Karachay great grandfather and two brothers (one of whom was a prokuror of the oblast) of my grandmother were executed in 1937-1938. My great grandmother along with two remaining children (i.e., my grandmother and her younger brother) was deported to Kazakhstan in 1940-1941 in spite of the fact that she had a son, who was a Hero of the Soviet Union. My grandmother was not allowed to get a higher education. Thus, I am aware of (1) the fact that the USSR did collaborate with Germany in 1939; and (2) reprisals for attending religious ceremonies and services. As any other regime (democracy, dictatorship, or monarchy), the USSR applied necessary methods to suppress discontent of people against the state.
Going back to repentance of the Russian for the brutal assassination of the Imperial Family, I believe that Russians and other nationalities of the Russian Federation have seen enough hardships to atone this horrible event. By the way, what about the French Royal Family? What way have the French people repented the public execution of the Royal Family and other aristocrats?
Finally, the restoration may entail returning the nationalized property (lands, plants, estates, restitutions of some kind, and etc.). I dare to assume that new rich elite is not eagerly anxious to stand down their newly acquired property in favour of previous owners.

 

[BorisRom]

Boris,
We have got a few things in common. My Karachay great grandfather and two brothers (one of whom was a prokuror of the oblast) of my grandmother were executed in 1937-1938. My great grandmother along with two remaining children (i.e., my grandmother and her younger brother) was deported to Kazakhstan in 1940-1941 in spite of the fact that she had a son, who was a Hero of the Soviet Union. My grandmother was not allowed to get a higher education. <...>
Going back to repentance of the Russian for the brutal assassination of the Imperial Family, I believe that Russians and other nationalities of the Russian Federation have seen enough hardships to atone this horrible event. By the way, what about the French Royal Family? What way have the French people repented the public execution of the Royal Family and other aristocrats?
Finally, the restoration may entail returning the nationalized property (lands, plants, estates, restitutions of some kind, and etc.). I dare to assume that new rich elite is not eagerly anxious to stand down their newly acquired property in favour of previous owners.

Al bina,
First, I thank you for sharing with me the history of your family. I think, not less than 80 % of families (of the modern population of the countries of former USSR) have similar biographies of grandfathers and grandmothers in USSR. Simultaneously, more than 90 % of Russians in the USSR trusted in lie of bolsheviks (and then of communists) almost until this strong Empire of evil did not begin to rot in 1960th years and then to collapse in 1980th years.
Neither the Frenchmen, nor other European peoples had not in the history anything similar. We, Russians, count ourselves as Europeans and we should realize own responsibility for a bloody history of Russia of XX century (and of all peoples of USSR, and Karachays, Chechens, Kalmyks and others).
Winners of WWII have forced Germans to pass a way of de-nazification and it has rescued Germany and it has provided to Germany a worthy place in modern Europe. Russia in 1991-1994 had chance to pass a way of de-bolshevisation (a court above the CPSU, a lustration), but we have not made it up to the end. Now Russia again "creeps" down into a spiteful skin of the USSR. We have not now other chance for rescue, except of voluntary collective repentance… Perhaps, we have no any chances in general …
The main reference point of tragedy of Russia in XX century is brutal murder (more exactly – bloody massacre) of Imperial family (together with children and servitors) on July, 17, 1918. Majority of Russian people «has not frowned at all», having found out it … Certainly, moral falling of people began earlier, but on July, 17, 1918 there is the main reference point. A repentance should begin from it.
Boris

P.S. I hope, you are not confused by a definition of Russians as European people By the way, till now many Russian put all responsibility for all troubles of Russia (since 1917) on Jews. Alas, it only strengthens validity of comparison of the USSR with nazi Germany and Russians with Germans.
P.P.S. As to that «the restoration may entail returning the nationalized property (lands, plants, estates, restitutions of some kind, and etc.)» - all members of Romanov’s dynasty (modern Romanov's House) for a long time have refused these claims. However, bank contributions of Imperial family to English banks (made by Nicholas and Alexandra till 1917, for their children too) are estimated now in 100-400 billion dollars (and even up to 2000 billion, by some estimations) - I think, in case of the restoration of a monarchy with Romanov's dynasty it would be a fair "prize" for them.

 

[Al_bina]

P.P.S. As to that «the restoration may entail returning the nationalized property (lands, plants, estates, restitutions of some kind, and etc.)» - all members of Romanov’s dynasty (modern Romanov's House) for a long time have refused these claims. However, bank contributions of Imperial family to English banks (made by Nicholas and Alexandra till 1917, for their children too) are estimated now in 100-400 billion dollars (and even up to 2000 billion, by some estimations) - I think, in case of the restoration of a monarchy with Romanov's dynasty it would be a fair "prize" for them.

Well, the Romanovs seem to have financial means. What about the others (i.e., nobility or Russian entrepreneurs, who lost everything as well)? Can they claim the nationalized property?

 

[BorisRom]

Well, the Romanovs seem to have financial means. What about the others (i.e., nobility or Russian entrepreneurs, who lost everything as well)? Can they claim the nationalized property?

Al bina,
The best palaces are in the state federal list of a cultural heritage and cannot be privatized by anybody and never - it is the most probable.
The destiny of several best palaces till now is not clear. For example, Alexandrosky Palace "is occupied" by naval department (Navy) and the government ostensibly has no money (till now!) for resettlement Navy and for the restoration of this palace.
However, there are thousands objects (former nobiliary and latifund manors and other historical buildings) which are in lists of the regional property of objects of a cultural heritage. Many of these buildings are in bad condition till now. Last two-three years the government of the Russian Federation develops the law on privatization of these objects (under condition of their restoration by new owners). I think, former owners of these objects would can participate in their privatization. In turn, Romanov's House would can finance for these purposes of former noble owners (long-term credits from the huge monetary contribution of Imperial family to English banks).
As to thousand industrial and agrarian objects (which are privatized in 1991-2007), former owners would can participate in their management in accordance with general practice (purchase of share holdings and to that similar market mechanisms).
It is possible to not doubt, that Romanov's House is interested in stability of Russia not less, than the present Russian government.
Boris
P.S. One of my great-grandmothers was noblewoman (she had a nobiliary family tree) and her family had the good house (but not a palace) in Saint Petersburg (on the Petrograd side). However, my mother any more did not know the exact address of this house She was afraid even to tell about her grandmother-noblewoman down to 1960th years … In any case, tens thousand such successors of former owners (similar I am) have no any chances to return the similar property and will not apply for it.

 

[Al_bina]

To Boris

My paternal great grandmother belonged to a noble family. She had to marry my great grandfather in order to save her family from persecution. My family still has got a mansion not far from the resort Mineral’nye Vody. My father does not want “this headache” since the region is a war zone now.
Possible return of the nationalized property is an extremely complex and complicated issue. Current descendants of the Russian nobility are not quite Russian due to marriages and life abroad. I am almost sure that these descendants would like to get back what was taken illegally from their families, without participating in any privatization.
P.S. I truly enjoy our discussion.

 

[BorisRom]

My paternal great grandmother belonged to a noble family. She had to marry my great grandfather in order to save her family from persecution. My family still has got a mansion not far from the resort Mineral’nye Vody. My father does not want “this headache” since the region is a war zone now.
Possible return of the nationalized property is an extremely complex and complicated issue. Current descendants of the Russian nobility are not quite Russian due to marriages and life abroad. I am almost sure that these descendants would like to get back what was taken illegally from their families, without participating in any privatization.
P.S. I truly enjoy our discussion.

Al bina,
Really, it is the surprising concurrences in biographies of our ancestors.
As to “possible return of the nationalized property to current descendants of Russian nobility”, - I think, you are right: it is an extremely complex and complicated issue. I don't think, that this problem can be solved for the benefit of the descendants.
I am glad to our discussion too

 

[branchg]

Well, the Romanovs seem to have financial means. What about the others (i.e., nobility or Russian entrepreneurs, who lost everything as well)? Can they claim the nationalized property?

They are not well-off at all, with the possible exception of the Illyinskys in the U.S., who inherited Audrey Emery's considerable fortune after the death of her son, Paul (son of Grand Duke Dimitri).

Grand Duchess Maria has a half-sister, Helen Kirby, from her mother's first marriage, who inherited her father's fortune after his death by the Nazis. It is presumed Helen supports Maria and Leonida, since Vladimir did not have much money himself.

The imperial fortune was one and the same with Russia's treasury. Even the alleged "fortune in the Bank of England" was returned to Russia by Nicholas II to pay for hospitals and food during WWI. The rest of their Russian holdings belonged to the State and cannot be reclaimed.

 

[Al_bina]

They are not well-off at all, with the possible exception of the Illyinskys in the U.S., who inherited Audrey Emery's considerable fortune after the death of her son, Paul (son of Grand Duke Dimitri).

Grand Duchess Maria has a half-sister, Helen Kirby, from her mother's first marriage, who inherited her father's fortune after his death by the Nazis. It is presumed Helen supports Maria and Leonida, since Vladimir did not have much money himself.

The imperial fortune was one and the same with Russia's treasury. Even the alleged "fortune in the Bank of England" was returned to Russia by Nicholas II to pay for hospitals and food during WWI. The rest of their Russian holdings belonged to the State and cannot be reclaimed.

Such a sad development for the Romanovs... Some royalists and historians have claimed that there is another portion of gold in the Japanese banks as well, but the Japanese side has not denied or confirmed it.

 

[BorisRom]

<...>The imperial fortune was one and the same with Russia's treasury. Even the alleged "fortune in the Bank of England" was returned to Russia by Nicholas II to pay for hospitals and food during WWI. The rest of their Russian holdings belonged to the State and cannot be reclaimed.

Branchg,
Really, in 1918 Nicholas said to Charles Gibbs (in Tobolsk) that he has not money in Bank of England. However, it is very probably that Nicholas (and Alexandra) had put aside (before 1917) contributions in England on names (for) their children (OTMAA). Nicholas could not consider these money as his own (or state) money.

Now, attention:
September, 18 Russian tv-channel RenTV (under the partial control of the state) has shown documentary film «Romanovs. Revival after execution». Film expresses the official point of view about pretenders for "role" of survivors Anastasia and Alexei.

The main idea of the film is: pretenders have mercenary interests to receive Nicholas's II foreign bank contributions (money of Tsar’s children). By different estimations - announcer said - now the sum of these contributions of England makes from 100 billion (100 000 000 000) up to 2000 billion dollars (most probably, from 100 up to 400 billion dollars).
Anna Anderson in the film is mentioned casually (as Polish impostor) - only, announcer has told that courts in 1938-1977 could not neither confirm, nor deny her identity ANR. The basic attention in film is given to pretender Natalia Belihodze (1901-2000, "Anastasia") and to nowadays alive pretender Oleg Filatov (54 years old, "grandson of Nicholas").
Natalia Belihodze lived in Sukhumi, then in Tbilisi. In 1994 and 1997 she addressed in court of Tbilisi for her recognition as Anastasia. However, judicial sessions have not taken place because of her absence in the court [? - BR]. She asserted, that ALL family has been rescued. She died in 2000. Posthumous genetic examination has not confirmed her relationship with Imperial family (with the remains of 1998, Saint Petersburg [?- BR]).
[I think, Natalia Belihodze was a member of Imperial family-doubler (Berezkins) which lived in Sukhumi (according to Vadim Viner).- BR]
Oleg Filatov has told in this film, that ALL documents confirming his relationship with Imperial family are stored in the International court in Hague.
The announcer of film («an official point of view») has told, that Filatov’s claims till now cannot be neither are confirmed, nor denied.
In the beginning and at the end of film the hope is expressed, that the new find of new Ekaterinburg remains (Alexei and Maria) «will place all points above i».
Twice in the film it has been told, that official certificates on death of all members of Imperial family have been written out in 1998 (on deaths of Alexey and Maria - «correspondence certificates on death», therefore any pretender now (after 1998) will be compelled to prove his (her) "I am the descendant" against the state (RF). - Instead of somewhere in independent court abroad - BR]
Boris

 

[branchg]

The issue of the "imperial fortune" has been addressed by various foreign governments for over fifty years. The Bank of England's records show the monies held by the Tsar were withdrawn during World War I. The remaining funds held by various individuals and ministries were later settled by Margaret Thatcher and Mikail Gorbachev in an agreement on the matter.

Japan has refused to pay Russia for the multibillion dollar value of the gold once held by the Bank of Japan, arguing they lost their rights to it after losing the Russo-Japanese War in 1895.

Either way, there is no mysterious fortune out there for the surviving descendants of the imperial family.

 

[Al_bina]

... there is no mysterious fortune out there for the surviving descendants of the imperial family.

So it would be fair to say that at this moment the Romanovs have neither hidden fortunes to claim and, thus, fund the restoration nor enough powerful and rich supporters that would give a due impetus to the above process.

 

[BorisRom]

<..>The imperial fortune was one and the same with Russia's treasury. Even the alleged "fortune in the Bank of England" was returned to Russia by Nicholas II to pay for hospitals and food during WWI. The rest of their Russian holdings belonged to the State and cannot be reclaimed.

Branchg,
Of course, I don’t assert the bank contributions for OTMAA have been made till 1917 though it would be strange if in 1914-1917 Nicholas and Alexandra did not care of material maintenance of children in the future. It seems, in March - April, 1917 Alexandra spoke, that they (Imperial family) will not have financial problems in England.
[By words of Lille Dan (she testified it under the oath) the empress Alexandra said: “At least, we shall not beg there, in fact we have a lot of money in English bank”]
On the other hand, in last months I had an impression, that someone in Kremlin is confident in an existence of the bank contributions in England. Documentary film «The Romanovs. Revival after execution» confirms these my impressions.

At last, any bank will not confirm to extraneous persons (or to mass-media) the presence of nominal contributions till presentation of requirements from the owner of the contribution or till excitation of the judicial claim.
What are your opinion?
Boris

 

[BorisRom]

Well, I think the situation with the "imperial fortune" in Bank of England looks like the photo:
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/b/070925/391de9d6490ce47a3e.jpg
We don't know, what is in this refrigerator. Perhaps, the kitten (Unbekannt?) knew it …

 

[BorisRom]

02 October 2007:
INTERFAX-RELIGION:
Head of Romanov dynasty believes president’s tenure limited to two terms a restriction on people’s will

Moscow, October 2, Interfax - The head of the Russian imperial dynasty, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, believes it justified that the tenure of the president should be extended, while noting that Russia is gradually moving towards monarchy.
“It is inherent in the Russian people to treat the authorities as some paternal institution. This attitude is built in the people’s awareness. It could not be exterminated by either the 1917 Revolution or the subsequent reforms and counter-reforms”, the grand duchess told Interfax on Tuesday.
In her opinion, “in its ideal expression, monarchy is such an authority, and the fact that the authority is seeking to be consonant with the people’s aspirations and to introduce some elements based on Russia’s state tradition can be recognized as a move in the right direction”.
“It is premature to speak about the restoration of monarchy, but it is certainly necessary to revive the best of our traditions”, the grand duchess believes.
In her view, the limitation of the Russian president’s tenure to two terms is “a restriction on the people’s will”.
“After all, in a republican system there is no need for anybody to stay in power for life. But still, if the people wish to see a man in this office for a third or a fourth term, why should the people’s will be restricted?” Maria Vladimirovna asked.
She noted that nobody should stay in power against his will, “but if a president is capable of continuing the work, the people should be given the right to decide whether they would like to see this man as head of the state”.
According to the grand duchess, to limit the elective presidential rule to two terms, “which Russia has clearly borrowed from the US constitution, is not a well-considered step”.
The grand duchess also expressed the wish that Vladimir Putin may stay “in one of the leading offices and use his still vital potential for the benefit of the country”.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3724

My short comments:
If Vladimir Putin consciously prepares Russia for restoration of a monarchy, monarchists should «take off one's hat to him». However, I strongly doubt of it.
On the other hand, I think, if Putin will rule Russia anyhow (officially or informally) some more years, - in this case after two-three such years only a restoration of constitutional monarchy can rescue Russia from the totalitarianism.

 

[Al_bina]

Boris... Freedom to the KITTEN!

It is rather strange that Grand Duchess has decided to express her opinion on whether Putin should run for re-election or not. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely for Putin to take any significant steps toward the restoration.
The only possible explanation might be that Grand Duchess hopes to put her son on the throne by supporting a strong and charismatic leader such as Putin. She wishes to utilize “the Spanish model of the monarchy restoration”. Grand Duke may be designated a Tzar according to the special succession law, which will be promulgated by Putin. Thus, there will be the bloodless transition of the Russian Federation to the democratic consitutional monarchy. It may safely be said that Grand Duchess srives to take any opportunity to attian her goals.
By the way, I am curious to know how the monarchy can rescue Russia from totalitarianism.


Boris …. Poor kitten …, but the allegory is apt.

 

[BorisRom]

Al bina,
I think, you are right at all.
As to “ how the monarchy can rescue Russia from totalitarianism ” - I think, the Spanish model of the monarchy restoration has shown it very well.
Of course, Russia has the features of national character and a history, but - anyhow - ALL modern constitutional monarchies are protected from authoritarianism (especially from totalitarianism).
Weaver Lapshina (Oh! Soviet tradition) has addressed to congress of «Uniform Russia» (on October, 1 this year) with the request to Vladimir Putin:
«We know that only some clauses of the Constitution prevent you to continue management of Russia after 2008. But in fact the Constitution is only a paper [!-BR]- let's change these clauses and after that we shall concern to these clauses with the same respect as to former articles! »
It sounds rather funny (especially «and after that we shall concern to them with the same respect»), however, actually the Kremlin operates under this "recipe", breaking if not the letter, spirit (the general and main sense) of the Constitution.
The constitutional monarchy is much more protected system of board in this sense.

 

[poniatowski]

I said in another thread that Vladimir Putin was busy trying to engineer a new form of government. Something that is a cross breed between a monarchy and a presidency. I do not think that Russia wants to go back to the time of the Romanovs when it was incredibly poorly managed and had issues like a 90% illiteracy rate. Nor does it want to go back to the faux egalitarianism of the communist era. The new billionaires would love to have their status immortalized in a new form of aristocracy and become titular as well as de facto princes. For that to happen there would have to be some form of constitutional monarchy to ennoble them. I think that a significant portion of the Russian population would like to have some of the pomp and circumstance that a royal family would bring but conversely, there is a problem in that most of the Romanovs have descended into a very bourgeoise, not aristocratic, lifestyle. As well there have been too many morganatic marriages. Royal legitimacy relies on a pure blood line so who would you have in place? Communism did a good job of severing that and ensuring that the Romanovs were cut off from their wealth to maintain their lifestyle. There seems to be a great deal of romantic hindsight in Russiia now and with the influx of money from its natural resources, who knows. My gut feeling is that most Russians are in a state of mind stemming from communist schooling and it will take some time for this to stop being a factor. Even now Putin is still trying to sanitize communist era leadership in the Russian education system, so that won't die soon and for the right mindset to exist for a restoration of a constitutional monarchy, Russia needs to get over its communist past first.

 

[lucien]

One thing,you forget that at the time more then 90% were illiterate everywhere,not just in Russia,and not just due to the Romanovs.

But on to the topic,does Russia need.....no,not now,and not under a lady pretender from Madrid.As the saying is "it isn't over till the fat Lady sings"....this is already over before she ever gets to sing.

 

[poniatowski]

This was in 1890. Considering that Russia at this time was considered to be one of the great powers in Europe, that was far higher than other comparable countries like Britain, France, Germany and the US where the illiteracy rates were around 20%. You would have to go to countries like Bulgaria and Albania to find lower rates of literacy. Nicholas II's budget for education in the 1890s was about 2 million roubles, which was the same as was spent on one of his yachts, the Shtandart. Alexander III tried to close the science faculties of Russia's universities as he thought that was where most of the revolutionaries came from. The standard of living in Russia was significantly lower than in most parts of Europe. The Romanovs had absolute power which means they had complete power to institute any policy they wanted so they also had absolute responsibility for the empire's welfare. Therefore the standard of living in Russia was a direct result of Romanov mismanagement. The decisions made in the First World War when Nicholas II had supreme command of the armed forces was a prime example of this. Having said that I totally agree with you about the unsuitability of the Grand Duchess to rule in any capacity, including constitutional.

 

[BorisRom]

ACHIEVEMENTS of Russia during the period of Nicholas's II reign

Basically I agree with Poniatovsky and Lucien relatively Putin, modern members of Romanov's House (and “ a lady pretender from Madrid ”).
However, I cannot agree with false myths about Nicholas II. First, concerning problems of education in Russia in 1894-1913:

1. Unprecedented earlier a program of national education was entered. Universities and higher educational institutions experience a blossoming, using freedom which they never had and will not have in the future. By 1913 the general(common) budget of national education achieves the enormous sum - half-billion gold roubles, and rate of its gain for twenty years - 628 %! Right at the beginning of Nicholas's II reign the elementary education in Russia becomes free-of-charge, and since 1908 - obligatory. Unprecedented earlier a development is experienced with Russian science.

Other ACHIEVEMENTS of Russia during the period of Nicholas's II reign:
_____2. In Nicholas's II reign a Russian financial-currency system has been created. The rouble "restricted" franc and mark, overtook dollar and promptly came nearer to pound sterling. For the first time in a history of Russia the incomes exceeded charges: in 1908 this excess was 30 million gold roubles - in 1912 a proficiency was already 335 million. It is very important, that it occured without increase in tax burden.
_____3. The burden of direct taxes at Nicholas II in Russia was twice less, than in France and Germany, and in 8.5 times less, than in England. All this has led to blossoming of Russian industry and to an inflow of capitals from all advanced countries.
_____4. During the period with 1894 for 1913 the young Russian industry has increased the productivity twice. An extent of railways increased for 1574 kilometers one year (the best parameter of the USSR (by 1956) has made 995 kilometers.)
_____5. The agriculture of Russia promptly developed too. Within 1894-1914 a harvesting of bread was doubled. With 1907 for 1913 the crops of the basic cereal cultures in Russia on third were higher, than in the USA, Canada and Argentina taken together. Never in the future (in USSR) it repeated! Russia became the basic provision dealer to the Western Europe; 70% percent of world (global) export of oil and 50% of world (global) export of eggs made at Russia. On a change to bearded Russian merchants there came the industrialists and financiers having behind shoulders the Russian and foreign universities. On the rivers of the country the biggest in the world a river fleet was.
_____6. "Silver Age" in art, "Golden Age" in the literature and publishing, blossoming of journalism, a newspaper affair, occurrence of thousand of every possible magazines, hundreds new museums and fifty temples only in one Petersburg - all this has taken place in reign of Nikolay Aleksandrovich Romanov.
_____7. He gives to the country of a basis of parliamentary democracy and free elections, he watches closely these processes, perfectly understanding, that Russia is not absolutely ready to similar transformations.

Nicholas's II reign is an real RUSSIAN MIRACLE. The wide open space for creative and creative activity opened, it has grasped all Russian society. Russian intellect has received a powerful charge, probably, for the first time for one thousand years in full. The most interesting plans of new economic reforms and a financial policy were still ahead.
Certainly, would be silly to deny, that during Nicholas's reign in Russia there was not many problems, inevitable at so prompt movement from a feudal gloom to a civilization, at a jump from world outsiders - into world leaders.

In addition, under Nikolay's initiative right at the beginning of his reign the first in a history of a civilization an attempt to limit «race of arms» by the wide international contract has been undertaken. In 1898 his government, under his initiative has suggested to call the international conference for discussion of a question on disarmament. Conference has taken place in Hague in 1899 - I already mentioned it earlier.
I think, not everyone know, that the decisions and the charters of the Hague conferences were included then as a basis in the charter of League of the Nations and then in the basic authorized documents of the United Nations.


Let me to repeat here my post on this theme (August of this year)
I think, many at this forum will agree that Nicholas II has been defamed (by "an irreconcilable opposition") else at time of his life and that false myths about him have been hundredfold increased by the Soviet historians and that many of these wrong stamps are alive even till now.
I think the following five theses are most needing in objective consideration:
__1. Nicholas II was a man of weak will.
__2. Positive achievements of Russia in 1894-1914 have been made by famous clever ministers of his government (by Vitte and Stolypin) - and Nicholas II has prevented from their reforms more likely, than helped them.
__3. Nicholas II aspired to «small victorious war» against Japan.
__4. Nicholas II is guilty of awful events of "Bloody Sunday» on January, 9, 1905.
__5. Nicholas II has made a mistake, having headed Russian army in August, 1915 owing to what Russia has ostensibly lost the war by 1917 and revolution began.
__6. Nicholas II has not undertaken sufficient efforts for prevention and suppression of revolt in Petrograd in February, 1917.
__7. Rasputin has strongly and negatively influenced on an acceptance of political decisions in Imperial family through empress Alexandra.
I think, these seven are the main false myths about Nicholas II. There are still other wrong stamps, but these seven are main, I think.
Certainly, I don’t think that Nicholas II was «the ideal ruler» of Russia. He made mistakes and had some wrong ideas (for example, he was the anti-semite always; and other things), but I am going to expose these seven main false myths.

***
You can read detailed discussion of the theme " False miths about Nicholas II " on my topic at the other forum:
http://www.kingandwilson.com/forum/read.php?51,6232,6232#msg-6232

 

[Al_bina]

I said in another thread that Vladimir Putin was busy trying to engineer a new form of government.

I agree with you that the Romanovs did “brew” the demise themselves to a certain extent as any other regime did (e.g., the French Royal Family). Russia showed steady economical improvements at the macro level, whereas these improvements were not adequately manifested at micro level (i.e., a fair number of people had sub-standard living in comparison with well-developed European countries). I would say that the Romanovs did have a fair chance to restore monarchy, if they managed to win the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922. However, the White movement failed to “strangle Bolshevism in its cradle” even with help of allied foreign intervention.
I am not sure whether Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna or Grand Duke Georgi will be capable of ruling the Russia, which has got many complex problems (e.g., Chechnya). In light of the strained relationships between Georgia and Russia, the Georgian heritage of Grand Duchess may adversely impact her image.

 

[Al_bina]

Basically I agree with Poniatovsky and Lucien

Boris,
The points 1-6 may be untrue to reality. At the same time, I believe that Rasputin did have an undue influence on the Imperial Family. Empress Alexandra was a desperate mother in search of treatment of her sick child. So she could have been easily manipulated without even noticing it. The fact that Felix Yusupov participated in killing Rasputin might indicate that the Staretz significantly harmed the political power players.

 

[BorisRom]

In addition to the theme of "false myths", - I have found out recently, that the President of USA Taft (? – I don’t know English transcription of his name) in 1912 has told about Nicholas II:
"Russian emperor has created such perfect working legislation of what any democratic state till now cannot brag".
Really, the social status of workers in Russia those years was rather good (relatively Europe and USA). Nicholas conducted active social policy for improvement of position of city workers at factories. Whether you know, that till 1905 the police frequently acted on the side of workers in their conflicts against employers (during strikes)? It was Nicholas's internal policy.
Boris

 

[BorisRom]

Boris, The points 1-6 may be untrue [?-BR] to reality.

Dear Al bina,
As to hearsays about the influence of Rasputin on Alexandra\Nicholas decisions these hearsays were hundredfold exaggerated by opposition. It was the intentioned slander of opposition.
Director of Department of police A.T.Vasiliev (see his memories «Okhrana - Russian secret police») wrote about that time (1916), that he specially was engaged in investigation of Rasputin's influence and has found, that only two (from approximately ten-twelve) Rasputin's "notes" with requests for the important purposes(assignments) have been satisfied. His conclusion was those: Rasputin's requests were satisfied only when they corresponded to opinion of Alexandra and Nicholas.

Vivid example of unfair charges represents the history with assignment of minister Protopopov (autumn 1916). He was one of leaders of oppositional fraction of "progressists" in the Duma and he had there the big respect. His authority has increased even more after the visit of Russian parliamentary delegation to England. For peace-reconciliation with the Duma Nikolay and Alexandra have (together) decided to appoint him as Minister of Internal Affairs. Rasputin has approved the nominee also - but NOT HE has chosen this nominee. Becoming Minister of Internal Affairs, Protopopov began more to communicate with Nikolay and Alexandra and he began to be convinced of their nobleness and correctness. In opposition of Imperial family and Duma Protopopov has sided with Imperial family. After that he continuously was exposed to furious criticism and even slander. Actually Protopopov was strong minister. Kerensky was afraid and hated him very much.
Other matter, that when in the autumn of 1916 (and then in February 1917) the opposition has actually presented the ultimatum to Nicholas II- or to remove the wife (to send her in a monastery) and to keep the Throne, or to begin to be the enemy of opposition together with the wife - he has chosen the wife and the war with opposition. After murder of Rasputin, «the poisoned spears» of oppositions aimed all directly in Alexandra. It was poison of lie and slander.
Whether it is possible to blame him for it and to declare him «a weak ruler» on this basis? I think it is impossible.
Reading correspondence of Nicholas and Alexandra (1915-1917) I have come to a conclusion, that Nicholas II would keep the Throne if he followed her advices «to be strong-firm and ruthless».
However, Nicholas by the end of 1916 any more did not doubt of predictions and prophecies on loss of the Throne in 1917 and besides he already counted Russian people not worthy a Monarchy! (see memoirs of lord Buchanan about a meeting with Tsar on December, 30, 1916). As opposed to Nikolay, Alexandra refused to trust all gloomy predictions and prophecies down till the abdicate of Nicholas off Throne on March, 2, 1917.
So, I think, all this taken together is the Destiny, a Fate.

 

[poniatowski]

I do not want to contradict BorisRom without doing decent research and I cannot do that without access to some electronic journals that the University has access to. I will just say that quite a few of the statements made by BorisRom are contrary to my intuitive understanding of Russia at this time. I do know that most of the major industrialization was done by foreign firms as the Tsar had a profound fear of allowing powerful Russian industrialists to develop. For example, most of Alfred Noble's wealth did not come from explosives but from exploitation of Russia's oil reserves. My feeling is that Russia was highly in debt at this time. the main source of revenue for the Russian government prior to World War One was the national monopoly on the production and sale of vodka. When this was forced to cease in the war as a result of prohibition, the indebtedness increased.
The attack on the myths surrounding Nicholas smack of hagiography, which is always dangerous. As I said, I will do some research this week and keep an open mind until I have done that.

I agree about the increase in the railways, most of which was instigated by Sergei Witte. The forecast for construction of the Trans Siberian railway was 300 million rubles but the actual construction was over 1 billion rubles.
Military expenditure in 1913 had increased exponentially and was about 850 million rubles.
The following is from a paper written by Peter Waldron on Financing the Russian State

Education provision expanded rapidly at the end of the nineteenth
century and the financial demands on the state grew significantly. In 1879, the central
government budget had only contributed 11 per cent of total funding for rural schools, but
this proportion increased to 45 per cent by 1911. The government spent 2 million rubles on
primary education in 1895, but this increased very rapidly to 19 million rubles in 1907 and to
more than 82 million in 1914. Total education expenditure accounted for 2.69 per cent of the
state budget in 1881, but this had increased to 7.2 per cent in 1914.


Vodka sales accounted for something like 500 million of the 1400 million rubles raised from various sources. Most of the taxes were indirect. Things like taxes on oil and sugar and import duties. So while the Russian people were not taxed heavily in terms of farming and property taxes, the cost of things like sales taxes and other duties was very high in comparison with other European countries.
I will do some more research and report what I find.