To an increasing degree ever since the fall of the horrid Soviet Union nostalgia has been growing around the Romanov dynasty. Peaks came on several occasions, particularly the reburial of the remains of Czar Nicholas II and his family as well as the canonization of the last Czar, Czarina and their family as martyrs for the Russian Orthodox Faith. This fascination has only increased lately with the upcoming 400th anniversary of the Romanov rise to power. However, what has lately been more remarkable than anything was the words of Alexander Belov of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration who stated that, not only are feelings growing warmer toward the Imperial Family but that there have actually been talks inside the Kremlin about the possibility of a Romanov restoration in a constitutional monarchy version of the Russian Empire.HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has gained an ever higher profile and even many who would not actively support a monarchial restoration have come to the conclusion that such a thing would not be harmful. As Belov carefully put it, in a constitutional monarchy as is common in western Europe, monarchs are incapable of doing harm (due to their lack of political power) and can only be a help to the country and people of Russia. According to Belov such a plan is "in the works" with talks underway about ideas for a restored Russian Empire in which the Czar (or Czarina) would reign while the Prime Minister rules. This would probably be the best that can be immediately hoped for in Russia today as many have already said that the autocracy is back in all but name in the person of current PM Vladimir Putin. It is believed that he would be more open to a restoration in which he continues to hold the power he has held ever since becoming president. It would, however, require a firm break from the Soviet past which would no doubt be difficult for many, the former KGB agent Putin among them.
These "talks" may be exaggerated but it is at least exhilarating to kindle the embers of hope that there may be the slightest chance of a restoration of the Romanov dynasty. Of course, in the absence of the autocracy it would not be a total restoration, but it would be a *huge* step in the right direction and a major statement not just to Russia putting to rest the nightmare that was the Bolshevik Revolution but also to the entire world which followed the satanic communist example from Cuba to North Korea. If even a limited monarchy could be restored in Russia it would be a major shot in the arm to the cause of kings all around the world. After the horror that was the Russian Revolution, Civil War, Cold War and so on; the conclusion could be drawn that if a restoration of the Romanovs could happen in Russia a return to monarchy could happen anywhere. I hope, I wish, I pray that this will continue in the best way and that whatever it takes will happen to put a Romanov back on the Russian Imperial throne.
God Save the Czar!
This is nice to hear, but it is a pity that only "powerless" monarchs seem to be considered acceptable. Personally, I am against autocracy, as I think it is better for the character of the monarch and the stability of the realm to have everyone, including the sovereign, bound to abide by certain fundamental laws. So I think some form of constitutional monarchy is ideal, but I don't agree with what this usually turns into- a largely symbolic, "figurehead" king or queen. It would be nice if some balance between the two extremes could be found.
ReplyDeleteThe autocracy was actually never formulated this way. The monarch had no written laws, but something even more burdensome or terrifying: Holy Tradition.
DeleteThe monarch of a Byzantine state (of which Tsarist Russia is an example) is responsible for the just rule of his people. He is responsible to be as saintly as possible and to be as close to the living expression of the national identity as possible. The Tsar is supposed to represent the ultimate benevolent authority of God and act in accordance with the will of God to better his people. He isn't bound by the letter of human laws, but by the divine edicts of God's law, and he knows he will in the final judgement be judged on how he fulfilled his responsibility. It is the ultimate fulfillment of Plato's philosopher-king, except rather than a philosopher the king is called to the even harder task of being a saint.
This was true of all the old monarchies (at least the Christian ones). The king could not do as he wanted. In many ways he was the least free man in his country, because he was the first and most obedient to Holy Tradition. In this, of course, he gained he gained the freedom to be himself, because a king is exactly what he was born to be and was his identity.
It astounds me how much people underestimate the power of tradition to form people's lives. Most societies didn't need written law codes because these laws were not written on paper but upon the very souls of the people, in their tradition. They were written down as living expressions of that tradition. I also don't understand how many consider something so artificial and easily manipulated as legalism to be a superior method of law to the unchangeable and natural force of tradition.
I tend to think that in a country like Russia the autocracy is necessary (it basically has always been so in fact if not in name). In the future I will try to go into more detail about it but I tend to be more in agreement with the great Bishop Bossuet who was for "absolute" monarchy but not for "arbitrary" monarchy. Even in Russia at the height of the autocracy the Czar could not do *anything* he wanted. So, I am not what most people would think of as an "absolutist". I do think monarchs should have an active role in government but I still support the powerless monarchies if for no other reason than symbolism and the fact that there is at least something to work with. The old traditional monarchies which were nominally absolute but which had checks and balances & so on would be my ideal as best as I could describe it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think that even a "powerless" monarchy is better than nothing. And yes, the old "absolute kings" were usually not as absolute as the name suggests. It would be interesting to hear more of your thoughts on these issues, they are tough problems.
ReplyDeleteI think everything returns to the characters of the leaders (politicians). 19th century UK was a constitutional monarchy; Queen Victoria was less absolute than Czar Nicholas II. But back then, in UK republicanism and advocating republic were illegal; simply because most of the politicians were still religious people who loved their God and loyal to their Monarch.
ReplyDeleteContemporary leaders are all atheist liberals, so it is natural for them to “hate” conservative & non compromising religious dogmas and Monarchy
Luxembourgers stripped the Grand Duke of His vital task while communist Nepal crushed the holy Crown in the name of democracy; so absolute or not nowadays no Monarchy is safe from these predators.
True, and no monarchy in history was ever so adept at brainwashing as the modern republic. Even the most absolute, divinely based monarchies in the world never held such a grip on the minds of their people as the modern republic. Republican governments today can actually (no hyperbole, no exaggeration) can actually *destroy* their own people, their own culture, and take away so many rights that it seems you need a government permit to breath and yet people in these countries still think that republics are the greatest and more free governments in the world. It positively staggers the imagination.
ReplyDeleteWhat is really ironic is that many people hastily dismiss monarchy by citing a few corrupt or less than ideal kings and then concluding that this is a system which merely allows decadent characters to live off the fat of the land. They then argue for a republic, although the potential corruption and selfishness of politicians are proverbial...if we are going to go by these criteria, no government ought to exist at all.
ReplyDeleteTrue and they often get away with it because monarchists lack the intellectual dishonesty to try to lump all leaders of anything called a "republic" together. They seem to act like all monarchies are the same whereas no one would try to argue that someone like Joseph Stalin is representative of all leaders of republics. It always made me laugh to hear republicans from Australia or Canada rail against President George W. Bush while at the same time advocating for the very system that brought him to power!
ReplyDeleteI believe the Romanovs should be restored under a constitutional monarchy. So that way there is a Tsar but there is also a people. The Romanovs made Russia the size and mighty figure it is today. They created beautiful cities and structures, their prescence and majesty is stuff of legend, its the kind of prescence that other countires respected and looked up to. The Romanovs ruled Russia for over 300 years, that is longer than most other dynasties in history combined. I say restore the mighty House of Romanov. God Save the Tsar!
ReplyDelete