Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 6      1   2   3   4   Next   »
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,570
Reply with quote  #1 
Just saw this on a Facebook monarchist page. Anyone heard anything?

Quote:
According private source Grand Duke Georgi of Russia is planning to marry his long-term girlfriend Rebecca Bettarini this year. Marrying a commoner he is gonna lose all.


Marrying non-dynastically would certainly throw a spanner in the works, and make the Succession even more controversial than it is.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #2 
Couldn't find anything about it in a cursory search. Anyway, to me there would be no controversy. The rules on unequal marriages are what made him Heir in the first place, and if he breaches those rules while his personal claim would be unaffected any children of the marriage would have no claim at all, the future succession passing to the Leiningens as next representatives of Grand Duke Kyril.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jovan66102
Just saw this on a Facebook monarchist page. Anyone heard anything?



Marrying non-dynastically would certainly throw a spanner in the works, and make the Succession even more controversial than it is.
Well in the first place, Grand Duchess Maria's claim is debatable, because her grandparents marriage and her great-grandparents marriage violated Emperor Pavel's laws of succession, because as far as I know neither his grandmother, nor his great-grandmother were Orthodox Christians at the time of their marriages. But in any case, the Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp dynasty have largely discredited themselves. In spite of the conspiracy against them (read Professor Anthony Sutton's book Wall Street and the Bolsheviks), it was Nicholas II's shear incompetence that sealed the fate of the dynasty.  Had  his father lived, Russia might still be a monarchy today. Alexander III would not have allowed the Russo-Japanese war to happen, and would have kept Russia out of WW1. Alexander did not like wars. Maybe Russia needs to elect a new dynasty to the Throne with new rules of succession- that's what they did in 1613. Polls show that while a third of Russians are keen on a monarchy restoration, very few native Russian monarchists support Maria Vladimirovna. She is mainly supported by the emigre community, not in Russia itself. None of the family's recent marriages comply with Emperor Paul's rules of succession. That's the fact of the matter. 
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domhangairt
Well in the first place, Grand Duchess Maria's claim is debatable, because her grandparents marriage and her great-grandparents marriage violated Emperor Pavel's laws of succession, because as far as I know neither his grandmother, nor his great-grandmother were Orthodox Christians at the time of their marriages. But in any case, the Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp dynasty have largely discredited themselves. In spite of the conspiracy against them (read Professor Anthony Sutton's book Wall Street and the Bolsheviks), it was Nicholas II's shear incompetence that sealed the fate of the dynasty.  Had  his father lived, Russia might still be a monarchy today. Alexander III would not have allowed the Russo-Japanese war to happen, and would have kept Russia out of WW1. Alexander did not like wars. Maybe Russia needs to elect a new dynasty to the Throne with new rules of succession- that's what they did in 1613. Polls show that while a third of Russians are keen on a monarchy restoration, very few native Russian monarchists support Maria Vladimirovna. She is mainly supported by the emigre community, not in Russia itself. None of the family's recent marriages comply with Emperor Paul's rules of succession. That's the fact of the matter. 
CORRECTION: Should read "his great-grandmother's and great-great grandmother's marriages". 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #5 
It's not 'the fact of the matter', Dom. Paul I's statute on the succession, normally admirably clear and detailed, is vague on that one particular point. It states that 'those who might succeed' should marry an Orthodox bride. But anyone in the line of succession might succeed; the likelihood gets less as you go further along the line, tending towards extreme improbability, but never disappears altogether. The statute then was always reasonably interpreted such that a Tsesarevich and his immediate heir must marry a bride already Orthodox, as must an heir presumptive highly likely to attain the Throne. Other Grand Dukes could marry a non-Orthodox bride if they wished, and that was never seen as disqualifying either themselves or their issue from succession.

However, to qualify what I said earlier, while Grand Duke George marrying unequally would not affect his personal claim, marrying non-Orthodox, even if equally, would instantly remove him from the line, he actually being direct heir after his mother and therefore definitely bound by that otherwise unclear provision. I do agree, as I have said before in similar discussions, that a Romanoff restoration would only be possible if that was the expressed will of the Russian people, and if their will were to elect a new dynasty instead then that would be completely valid.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It's not 'the fact of the matter', Dom. Paul I's statute on the succession, normally admirably clear and detailed, is vague on that one particular point. It states that 'those who might succeed' should marry an Orthodox bride. But anyone in the line of succession might succeed; the likelihood gets less as you go further along the line, tending towards extreme improbability, but never disappears altogether. The statute then was always reasonably interpreted such that a Tsesarevich and his immediate heir must marry a bride already Orthodox, as must an heir presumptive highly likely to attain the Throne. Other Grand Dukes could marry a non-Orthodox bride if they wished, and that was never seen as disqualifying either themselves or their issue from succession.

However, to qualify what I said earlier, while Grand Duke George marrying unequally would not affect his personal claim, marrying non-Orthodox, even if equally, would instantly remove him from the line, he actually being direct heir after his mother and therefore definitely bound by that otherwise unclear provision. I do agree, as I have said before in similar discussions, that a Romanoff restoration would only be possible if that was the expressed will of the Russian people, and if their will were to elect a new dynasty instead then that would be completely valid.
  Personally, I think that Paul's laws of succession were  not only very unrealistic, but ignored Russian imperial tradition completely. Paul himself was the direct descendant of a Lithuanian peasant woman who was elevated to the Throne by her lover Peter the Great. Historically, the Czar chose his bride from among young ladies of the high Russian nobility- this was a very sensible practice in my opinion- and a practice which also prevented the Imperial family's Russian blood from being diluted. Nicholas II played poker with the Pauline laws by first exiling Grand Duke Kyrill upon his marriage to Victoria Melita, then inviting them back to Court with full imperial titles when he realized that the Imperial succession would eventually pass to them anyway. In the event of a monarchy restoration in Russia, a constituent assembly might choose another family altogether- perhaps one of the Rurikovichi noble families, or even Vladimir Putin! I doubt whether such an assembly would keep the Pauline laws- they are just not viable in an age with so few royal families left. Romanov statues are going up everywhere in Russia lately, so maybe some sort of monarchy restoration is on the cards either with or without Maria Vladimirovna and her family. 
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #7 

Very interesting question ... And a very painful issue for Russian monarchists. In the spring of 1990, when there was still Soviet power, we swore secretly to the Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, the grandfather of Prince George. In those years, for the monarchical sympathy, we could be arrested by the KGB and sent to the Gulag. We were very young, but we took chances. We then thought that the Restoration of the Monarchy is 100% anti-communism and the return of Russia to the family of the peoples of Europe.

For 25 years I headed the department of the Imperial Union-Order in Eastern Siberia. This organization has always supported the descendants of the Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich: his son Vladimir Kirillovich, Maria Vladimirovna and Prince George. However, we were always very embarrassed when Maria Vladimirovna in her appeals hinted at the need for reconciliation with Bolshevism. We never wanted to put up with the Communists. Finally, in November 2017, on the 100th anniversary of the accursed Bolshevik revolution, Maria Vladimirovna made an ugly and unacceptable statement that "everyone is guilty of the revolution, including the Emperor Nicholas."

Maria Vladimirovna willingly photographed against the background of revolutionary symbols: the red flag, the cruiser Aurora. She and her son Prince George willingly take pictures with the "St. George's ribbon" (this symbol became a sign of Russian aggression against independent Ukraine!).

In 2013, the year of the 400th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, Maria Vladimirovna opposed the dismantling of the monument to Lenin in the city of Kostroma. This monument was installed on a pedestal, which was supposed to stand a monument in honor of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. But Maria Vladimirovna believes that if you remove the monument to Lenin from the monarchist pedestal, it "... will offend the feelings of the Communists."

Once Maria Vladimirovna and her son Prince George had financial content from King of Spain Juan Carlos I. After the King of Spain became His Majesty Philip, the financial content ceased. Maria Vladimirovna tries to solve her financial affairs in such a way as to receive financial support from the government and the President of Russia. Given that in modern Russia there is a movement towards neo-Bolshevism and Soviet ambitions, Maria Vladimirovna makes disgraceful, disgusting statements that Vladimir Putin likes it. It all boils down to money ...

Thus, I and my supporters believe that Maria Vladimirovna PREDATELY Russian monarchists and anti-communists. This is betrayal. Therefore, we consider ourselves free from the previously sworn oath. About the fact that the marriages of this line of Romanovs have always raised doubts, I'm not saying ...

I think that in Europe there are many worthy dynasties that can be offered to the Crown of Russia, if the question arises. Leynengainy, Coburgi, Habsburgs, Romanov-Yuryevskie ... I myself give preference to His Royal Majesty Prince Michael Kent. But this question is a matter of a long time. First, Russia needs decommunization, cleansing of Bolshevism, lustration laws and restitution laws for seized property. Russia needs a return to the family of the peoples of Europe, and this is a very long process. The restoration of the Crown of Russia can only be said after these conditions are met.

However, it is already clear that the descendants of Grand Duke Cyril have lost all moral right to make claims to the Crown of Russia. "Queen", which from mercantile goals speaks of "reconciliation with Bolshevism," we do not need such.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

Very interesting question ... And a very painful issue for Russian monarchists. In the spring of 1990, when there was still Soviet power, we swore secretly to the Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, the grandfather of Prince George. In those years, for the monarchical sympathy, we could be arrested by the KGB and sent to the Gulag. We were very young, but we took chances. We then thought that the Restoration of the Monarchy is 100% anti-communism and the return of Russia to the family of the peoples of Europe.

For 25 years I headed the department of the Imperial Union-Order in Eastern Siberia. This organization has always supported the descendants of the Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich: his son Vladimir Kirillovich, Maria Vladimirovna and Prince George. However, we were always very embarrassed when Maria Vladimirovna in her appeals hinted at the need for reconciliation with Bolshevism. We never wanted to put up with the Communists. Finally, in November 2017, on the 100th anniversary of the accursed Bolshevik revolution, Maria Vladimirovna made an ugly and unacceptable statement that "everyone is guilty of the revolution, including the Emperor Nicholas."

Maria Vladimirovna willingly photographed against the background of revolutionary symbols: the red flag, the cruiser Aurora. She and her son Prince George willingly take pictures with the "St. George's ribbon" (this symbol became a sign of Russian aggression against independent Ukraine!).

In 2013, the year of the 400th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, Maria Vladimirovna opposed the dismantling of the monument to Lenin in the city of Kostroma. This monument was installed on a pedestal, which was supposed to stand a monument in honor of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. But Maria Vladimirovna believes that if you remove the monument to Lenin from the monarchist pedestal, it "... will offend the feelings of the Communists."

Once Maria Vladimirovna and her son Prince George had financial content from King of Spain Juan Carlos I. After the King of Spain became His Majesty Philip, the financial content ceased. Maria Vladimirovna tries to solve her financial affairs in such a way as to receive financial support from the government and the President of Russia. Given that in modern Russia there is a movement towards neo-Bolshevism and Soviet ambitions, Maria Vladimirovna makes disgraceful, disgusting statements that Vladimir Putin likes it. It all boils down to money ...

Thus, I and my supporters believe that Maria Vladimirovna PREDATELY Russian monarchists and anti-communists. This is betrayal. Therefore, we consider ourselves free from the previously sworn oath. About the fact that the marriages of this line of Romanovs have always raised doubts, I'm not saying ...

I think that in Europe there are many worthy dynasties that can be offered to the Crown of Russia, if the question arises. Leynengainy, Coburgi, Habsburgs, Romanov-Yuryevskie ... I myself give preference to His Royal Majesty Prince Michael Kent. But this question is a matter of a long time. First, Russia needs decommunization, cleansing of Bolshevism, lustration laws and restitution laws for seized property. Russia needs a return to the family of the peoples of Europe, and this is a very long process. The restoration of the Crown of Russia can only be said after these conditions are met.

However, it is already clear that the descendants of Grand Duke Cyril have lost all moral right to make claims to the Crown of Russia. "Queen", which from mercantile goals speaks of "reconciliation with Bolshevism," we do not need such.

  I agree that Maria Vladimirovna should be set aside, but WHY do you want Prince Michael of Kent. He hardly has a drop of Russian blood in his veins. The "Romanovs" who reigned till 1917 had no Russian blood. The original Romanof dynasty died with Elisaveta Petrovna in 1762. The later royal family were descended from her sister's marriage to a Danish prince of German heritage. All the subsequent marriages were to German princesses. WHY don't you raise one of the Rurikovichy families to the Throne like Prince Nikita Lobanov-Rostovsky, or Prince Nikolai Gagarin. These are truly Russian with multiple Russian marriages over the centuries. 
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #9 

I do not think that the issue of "Russian blood" is important. His Imperial Majesty Nicholas II, strictly speaking, had no "Russian blood" at all, but at the same time he was the Russian Emperor. Let's leave the issue of "ethnic purity of blood" to the Nazis, but we will not be assimilated to the Nazis. It is much more important for us that the blood be ROYAL, not "Russian" or any other.

Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, like the other descendants of Rurik, were never the Russian Emperors, never belonged to the Russian Imperial House, nor to any other ruling houses in Europe. In addition, the current Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky is "Putin's lobby" in Europe. Why does Russia need a Monarch who was associated with Putin?

I am sure that the best Monarch for Russia is the one that is least connected with the modern Russian government. After 100 years, when there was no monarchical tradition in Russia, the best thing is the "second calling of the Varangians", the calling to the throne of some Dynasty from the side. Moreover: it should be the representative of the European Dynasty, closely connected with the Royal Houses of Europe, and not some Russian emigre prince. The restoration of the monarchical order in Russia should not be an end in itself; it is an opportunity for Russia to return to the family of European nations. Therefore, the best candidates for the Russian throne are Prince Michael Kent (he is also a relative of Emperor Nicholas II). Or, it is necessary to consider someone from among the Habsburg princes: apart from everything else, the Habsburgs wore the title "King Russian" after joining the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria to the Crown.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

I do not think that the issue of "Russian blood" is important. His Imperial Majesty Nicholas II, strictly speaking, had no "Russian blood" at all, but at the same time he was the Russian Emperor. Let's leave the issue of "ethnic purity of blood" to the Nazis, but we will not be assimilated to the Nazis. It is much more important for us that the blood be ROYAL, not "Russian" or any other.

Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, like the other descendants of Rurik, were never the Russian Emperors, never belonged to the Russian Imperial House, nor to any other ruling houses in Europe. In addition, the current Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky is "Putin's lobby" in Europe. Why does Russia need a Monarch who was associated with Putin?

I am sure that the best Monarch for Russia is the one that is least connected with the modern Russian government. After 100 years, when there was no monarchical tradition in Russia, the best thing is the "second calling of the Varangians", the calling to the throne of some Dynasty from the side. Moreover: it should be the representative of the European Dynasty, closely connected with the Royal Houses of Europe, and not some Russian emigre prince. The restoration of the monarchical order in Russia should not be an end in itself; it is an opportunity for Russia to return to the family of European nations. Therefore, the best candidates for the Russian throne are Prince Michael Kent (he is also a relative of Emperor Nicholas II). Or, it is necessary to consider someone from among the Habsburg princes: apart from everything else, the Habsburgs wore the title "King Russian" after joining the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria to the Crown.

I must respectfully disagree with you Sir. The majority of Russians cannot identify  with Maria Vladimirovna or her relatives - because of her foreign heritage. As for "royal" heritage, the Romanov- Oldenburg family are descended from a Lithuanian peasant woman who was raised to the Russian Throne by her lover Peter the Great. One of the Lobanov-Rostovskys can always marry into the former Imperial family- there are plenty of female members of the Imperial family. If you don't like Nikita Lobanov-Rostovsky, then why not Nikolai Nikolaievitch Gagarin? It might be a good idea to keep in with Putin- you might not like him, but he has so much power in Russia- he has the power to promote the restoration of a monarchy in Russia. 
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domhangairt
I must respectfully disagree with you Sir. The majority of Russians cannot identify  with Maria Vladimirovna or her relatives - because of her foreign heritage. As for "royal" heritage, the Romanov- Oldenburg family are descended from a Lithuanian peasant woman who was raised to the Russian Throne by her lover Peter the Great. One of the Lobanov-Rostovskys can always marry into the former Imperial family- there are plenty of female members of the Imperial family. If you don't like Nikita Lobanov-Rostovsky, then why not Nikolai Nikolaievitch Gagarin? It might be a good idea to keep in with Putin- you might not like him, but he has so much power in Russia- he has the power to promote the restoration of a monarchy in Russia. 
Further to my previous post, Prince Michael of Kent has two children who are both married to commoners, so his grandchildren will hardly be royalty. There is no such thing as royal blood in Europe anymore, only royal descent. I have a family tree which shows my descent in the legitimate female line from 14 European royal houses- including the Grand Princes of Russia, yet I am living as a middle class person with very limited resources in South Africa. I don't even own my own home any more. Rather have a Russian family on the Throne, than a foreign "royal" family whom no-one in Russia can identify with.  
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #12 

The fact is that Mr. Putin will never contribute to the restoration of the monarchy in Russia. The only "monarchy in Russia" that interests Mr. Putin is his own perpetual power. In addition, Mr. Putin is a big supporter of Stalinism, although he does not show it publicly. But it was with him that the Russian Stalinists took revenge for their defeat in the 90s. It is very difficult to explain in a few words; to understand this, you need to observe Russian politics from the inside ... But this is exactly so. It's not that I love Mr. Putin, or I do not like it, it's an objective reality.

You write about the "Lithuanian peasant woman", who was the mistress of Emperor Peter I. Yes, it is. But later she became the wife of the Emperor, became the Russian Empress. At the time of the Emperor Peter I in Russia, there was still no Law on Inheritance of the Throne given to us by the great Emperor Paul I.

In addition, we need to clarify that after the accession to the Russian Throne of the Empress Catherine the Second, our Dynasty has changed. The daughter of Peter the Great, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, had no children. She appointed Prince Carl Peter Ulrich Holstein-Gottorpsky as his heir, who became Emperor Peter III. His wife was the princess Sophia Augusta Frederika Anhalt-Zerbstskaya future Empress Catherine II Great. In fact, it was a complete change of the Dynasty. From the boyars of the Romanovs this new dynasty inherited only a surname. So, "the blood of a Lithuanian peasant woman" in the veins of our Emperors no longer flowed.

I have great respect for our old Russian aristocracy, but I believe that there is no point in bringing to the Russian throne neither the Golitsyns, nor the Obolensky, nor the Gagarins, nor the Lobanov-Rostov, nor the Trubetskoi, Golenishchev-Kutuzovs, or even Bagration-Mukhran. What for? This is our aristocracy, but these are not kings, not emperors.

In addition, the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire states that if a Member of the Imperial House marries a person who does not belong to another Royal or landed house, he loses his right to the See. This same situation applies to the marriages of Members of the Imperial House with aristocrats. Russian laws on the succession to the throne are very strict, and only the ruling Emperor can change them. While there is no ruling Emperor, no one can change these laws, and any attempt to replace the Dynasty with some Russian aristocratic family will be considered as usurpation. By the way, our aristocrats also know about this, and they never claim any rights to the Russian throne.

The best that Russia can have as the future of the Monarch is the foreign Prince or Duke of the influential European Dynasty. Coburgs, Windsors, Lainengains are related by ties of kinship with the Romanovs; The Habsburgs are an authoritative dynasty. In addition, the Russian Empire viewed itself as the "Third Rome". In my opinion, it is most logical if the Emperor of the Russian "Third Rome" becomes the heir of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire: for Russian monarchists, such a step will be very symbolic and help overcome the internal split.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

The fact is that Mr. Putin will never contribute to the restoration of the monarchy in Russia. The only "monarchy in Russia" that interests Mr. Putin is his own perpetual power. In addition, Mr. Putin is a big supporter of Stalinism, although he does not show it publicly. But it was with him that the Russian Stalinists took revenge for their defeat in the 90s. It is very difficult to explain in a few words; to understand this, you need to observe Russian politics from the inside ... But this is exactly so. It's not that I love Mr. Putin, or I do not like it, it's an objective reality.

You write about the "Lithuanian peasant woman", who was the mistress of Emperor Peter I. Yes, it is. But later she became the wife of the Emperor, became the Russian Empress. At the time of the Emperor Peter I in Russia, there was still no Law on Inheritance of the Throne given to us by the great Emperor Paul I.

In addition, we need to clarify that after the accession to the Russian Throne of the Empress Catherine the Second, our Dynasty has changed. The daughter of Peter the Great, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, had no children. She appointed Prince Carl Peter Ulrich Holstein-Gottorpsky as his heir, who became Emperor Peter III. His wife was the princess Sophia Augusta Frederika Anhalt-Zerbstskaya future Empress Catherine II Great. In fact, it was a complete change of the Dynasty. From the boyars of the Romanovs this new dynasty inherited only a surname. So, "the blood of a Lithuanian peasant woman" in the veins of our Emperors no longer flowed.

I have great respect for our old Russian aristocracy, but I believe that there is no point in bringing to the Russian throne neither the Golitsyns, nor the Obolensky, nor the Gagarins, nor the Lobanov-Rostov, nor the Trubetskoi, Golenishchev-Kutuzovs, or even Bagration-Mukhran. What for? This is our aristocracy, but these are not kings, not emperors.

In addition, the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire states that if a Member of the Imperial House marries a person who does not belong to another Royal or landed house, he loses his right to the See. This same situation applies to the marriages of Members of the Imperial House with aristocrats. Russian laws on the succession to the throne are very strict, and only the ruling Emperor can change them. While there is no ruling Emperor, no one can change these laws, and any attempt to replace the Dynasty with some Russian aristocratic family will be considered as usurpation. By the way, our aristocrats also know about this, and they never claim any rights to the Russian throne.

The best that Russia can have as the future of the Monarch is the foreign Prince or Duke of the influential European Dynasty. Coburgs, Windsors, Lainengains are related by ties of kinship with the Romanovs; The Habsburgs are an authoritative dynasty. In addition, the Russian Empire viewed itself as the "Third Rome". In my opinion, it is most logical if the Emperor of the Russian "Third Rome" becomes the heir of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire: for Russian monarchists, such a step will be very symbolic and help overcome the internal split.

Emperor Pavel's laws of succession are not realistic in the 20th century. None of the European royal families still adhere to the marital equality rules. Furthermore, in terms of Emperor Pavel's laws, NONE of the present generation of the Imperial Family qualify for the Succession: Maria Vladimirovna's  immediate ancestors' marriages violated the Pauline laws. At least  two of her ancestresses were Lutherans at the time of their marriages. Maria's mother comes a Georgian family which was reduced to nobility of the Russian Empire. I'm sure a Constituent Assembly/Zemsky Sobor would set aside the Pauline laws. They might even elect Putin to the Throne! Most of the European royal families are either German or French - this might not go down with a Russian electorate which still thinks that the Soviet Union was a good thing. Bad memories seem to fade very fast in Russia. Only about 28%  of Russians favor restoration of the Czars. I'm surprised to read that Putin is a Stalinist. His own deputy Medvedev denounced Stalin a few years ago. This is new to me. Why are they erecting Czarist statues all over the place then? A new one was unveiled just recently 
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #14 

Yes, you correctly say that many European Royal Dynasties have revised their laws on equal weddings. This is true. But let's not forget that these Royal Dynasties are continuously in power, and they change together with the change of the modern world. In Russia, however, the monarchy was not 100 years old; Our monarchical legislation remained at the level of 1917. If there was no revolution, our monarchical legislation would change the same as in Europe. But in Russia there was no ruling Cpl, there was nobody to change these laws. The way out of this situation is this: first - the restoration of the Monarchy, and only then - the change of dynastic laws. These laws can only be changed by the King, who has power.

In Russia, about 25% of the citizens support the idea of restoring the Monarchy in one form or another. This is approximately the same as in other countries that lost the Crown: as in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and others. But! One must understand that "people who want the restoration of the Monarchy" are very different people, with different levels of culture. And they all quite differently understand what "monarchy" is. Among these people there are those whom we will call "lumpen", "pogromist" and "anti-Semite": they imagine a "monarchy" over the black caricatures painted by the Communists; but these people change the "minus" to "plus." There are a large number of pseudo-"monarchists" who do not understand how the Christian Monarchy is different from the national-Bolshevik dictatorship. They say: "Stalin is the Red Emperor!" Do you think it is necessary to consider such people as real monarchists? ...

If tomorrow - do not let this God! - In Russia the Constituent Assembly is going to, and the question of restoring the monarchy is being raised, then these false "monarchists" will indeed choose the KGB officer, Mr. Putin, as the Tsar. Save us, God help us!

Mr. Putin is really very good about Stalin. Mr. Putin prefers the concept of an "indivisible history", where the USSR is, as a continuation of the Russian Empire. For him, the heroes are "strong rulers": it will be either the Emperor Peter I, or the Emperor Nicholas I, or the Emperor Alexander III, or the dictator Joseph Stalin. But this is all the same if the monarchists in Germany were equally fond of Friedrich Wilick, Wilhelm II, and Adolf Hitler ... In the case of Russia, the principle of "indivisible history" is unacceptable: the Russian Empire, with all its problems, was European a law-governed state, with the rudiments of parliamentarism and the rights of nationals; The USSR was a criminal totalitarian terrorist state, which killed its citizens, supported world communist terrorism and poisoned the whole world with an atomic bomb. US President Reagan very correctly called the USSR, as the "Empire of Evil." We do not want to be an "indivisible history" with the Soviet Empire of Evil, we want to condemn the USSR, get rid of its heritage.

All the statements of the modern Russian leaders about the "condemnation of Stalinism" are calculated only for the public of the West; Neo-Stalinism is being planted inside Russia. Please look in the search engine for the question "New monument to Stalin": you will see that for the years of Putin such monuments appeared much more than monuments to our Tsars. Mr. Putin pretends that he has nothing to do with this. But Russia is a country where there is no democracy; here the local chiefs are accustomed to get an unofficial hint and do as the most important leader wants. In Russia, a lot of books are published about Stalin, films and television programs about Stalin are being shot, private "Stalin's Museums" are open ... It's very scary. Propaganda inspires the public that "Stalin is the Red Tsar". Stupid people believe, but stupid people are always the majority.

In fact, in Russia there are very few such people who understand the meaning of the Christian Monarchy. This idea exists in the sphere of the intellectual elite, the descendants of the aristocracy and the nobility, the descendants of the officers of the White Army. There are very few such people, and we do not exert any real pressure on politics.

Therefore, when we talk about the need for the Restoration of the Monarchy in Russia, we mean this:

- The monarchy should become an anti-Soviet, anti-communist, anti-Stalinist regime. This should be a regime of rapprochement between Russia and Europe, the return of Russia to Europe. This should be the return of Russia from the Soviet "Babylonian captivity." To do this, you need a Tsar or a King who has nothing to do with Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, is not connected with modern Russian politicians. It should be a "Man from Europe", a fundamentally different person.

Do not be afraid of the fact that "the population of Russia will not accept it." The population of Russia will accept at least the King of Lesotho if the population is told about this on TV. The population of Russia does not decide anything - because it does not want to decide anything; the population of Russia says: "If the bosses decided so, then it's good."


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

Yes, you correctly say that many European Royal Dynasties have revised their laws on equal weddings. This is true. But let's not forget that these Royal Dynasties are continuously in power, and they change together with the change of the modern world. In Russia, however, the monarchy was not 100 years old; Our monarchical legislation remained at the level of 1917. If there was no revolution, our monarchical legislation would change the same as in Europe. But in Russia there was no ruling Cpl, there was nobody to change these laws. The way out of this situation is this: first - the restoration of the Monarchy, and only then - the change of dynastic laws. These laws can only be changed by the King, who has power.

In Russia, about 25% of the citizens support the idea of restoring the Monarchy in one form or another. This is approximately the same as in other countries that lost the Crown: as in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and others. But! One must understand that "people who want the restoration of the Monarchy" are very different people, with different levels of culture. And they all quite differently understand what "monarchy" is. Among these people there are those whom we will call "lumpen", "pogromist" and "anti-Semite": they imagine a "monarchy" over the black caricatures painted by the Communists; but these people change the "minus" to "plus." There are a large number of pseudo-"monarchists" who do not understand how the Christian Monarchy is different from the national-Bolshevik dictatorship. They say: "Stalin is the Red Emperor!" Do you think it is necessary to consider such people as real monarchists? ...

If tomorrow - do not let this God! - In Russia the Constituent Assembly is going to, and the question of restoring the monarchy is being raised, then these false "monarchists" will indeed choose the KGB officer, Mr. Putin, as the Tsar. Save us, God help us!

Mr. Putin is really very good about Stalin. Mr. Putin prefers the concept of an "indivisible history", where the USSR is, as a continuation of the Russian Empire. For him, the heroes are "strong rulers": it will be either the Emperor Peter I, or the Emperor Nicholas I, or the Emperor Alexander III, or the dictator Joseph Stalin. But this is all the same if the monarchists in Germany were equally fond of Friedrich Wilick, Wilhelm II, and Adolf Hitler ... In the case of Russia, the principle of "indivisible history" is unacceptable: the Russian Empire, with all its problems, was European a law-governed state, with the rudiments of parliamentarism and the rights of nationals; The USSR was a criminal totalitarian terrorist state, which killed its citizens, supported world communist terrorism and poisoned the whole world with an atomic bomb. US President Reagan very correctly called the USSR, as the "Empire of Evil." We do not want to be an "indivisible history" with the Soviet Empire of Evil, we want to condemn the USSR, get rid of its heritage.

All the statements of the modern Russian leaders about the "condemnation of Stalinism" are calculated only for the public of the West; Neo-Stalinism is being planted inside Russia. Please look in the search engine for the question "New monument to Stalin": you will see that for the years of Putin such monuments appeared much more than monuments to our Tsars. Mr. Putin pretends that he has nothing to do with this. But Russia is a country where there is no democracy; here the local chiefs are accustomed to get an unofficial hint and do as the most important leader wants. In Russia, a lot of books are published about Stalin, films and television programs about Stalin are being shot, private "Stalin's Museums" are open ... It's very scary. Propaganda inspires the public that "Stalin is the Red Tsar". Stupid people believe, but stupid people are always the majority.

In fact, in Russia there are very few such people who understand the meaning of the Christian Monarchy. This idea exists in the sphere of the intellectual elite, the descendants of the aristocracy and the nobility, the descendants of the officers of the White Army. There are very few such people, and we do not exert any real pressure on politics.

Therefore, when we talk about the need for the Restoration of the Monarchy in Russia, we mean this:

- The monarchy should become an anti-Soviet, anti-communist, anti-Stalinist regime. This should be a regime of rapprochement between Russia and Europe, the return of Russia to Europe. This should be the return of Russia from the Soviet "Babylonian captivity." To do this, you need a Tsar or a King who has nothing to do with Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, is not connected with modern Russian politicians. It should be a "Man from Europe", a fundamentally different person.

Do not be afraid of the fact that "the population of Russia will not accept it." The population of Russia will accept at least the King of Lesotho if the population is told about this on TV. The population of Russia does not decide anything - because it does not want to decide anything; the population of Russia says: "If the bosses decided so, then it's good."

This is very disturbing. I thought that Putin was reviving Christianity in Russia. I saw a video in which Putin has given awards to the parents of large families- so he supports the family- which is dying out in Europe. But you would know much more than I do as you live there, so I will respect your opinion of Putin and the revival of Stalinism. Stalin was a true psycopath, I can't understand why anyone would want to bring back his system of government. People were thrown into gulags just because they were late for meetings- Stalin wanted slave labour for his various projects. 

But let me share  some interesting information about the Revolution in 1917- which you may or may not already know?. My late father was an investigative journalist in South Africa. He was well acquainted with the leading American investigative journalists in the 1970s. He met and knew them personally. My father gave me a book in about 1975 which revealed that the Russian Revolution of 1917 had nothing to do with Russians at all. The whole thing was organized from outside of Russia by Americans, Germans, British and Jews. Before 1914, the Russian Empire was one of the fastest growing economies in the World. The peasants had been liberated by Alexander II and by 1914 the peasants owned about 3/4 of the land in the Empire. As a result, the economy exploded- Russia was producing some 40%  of the World's grain, and 80% of the World's flax. The Empire's steel and other industries were also growing by 60% plus.  And all of this was under the control of just one family- the House of Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp. There were very powerful people outside of Russia- all Free Masons- who looked with envious eyes on Russia. These Masons and their allied bankers hated the Romanovs because Emperor Alexander I had put a stop to the establishment of a World organization (future United Nations) in 1815, and Emperor Alexander II had helped Abraham Lincoln win the American Civil War which prevented an international slave state being established in the American South in 1861. The Romanovs also prevented the Rothschild banking dynasty from establishing a Central Bank in Russia. The Masons had decided by 1870 to get rid of the Russian Imperial House- but this was very difficult because (1) the Russian troops were very loyal to the Czar, and (2) the Emperor had a very efficient secret police called the Okhrana which successfully infiltrated every revolutionary organization in Russia.  Even Lenin had given up on the idea of a Marxist revolution in Russia. So the only way to bring down the monarchy was to draw Russia into a disastrous war with Germany. This was achieved with WW1. The War went very badly for Russia. In the meantime, Free Masons had infiltrated the Duma, and also the Russian High Command. Several of the Emperor's generals were Masons. So was Kerensky (Grand Master of the Russian Grand Lodge, 33deg), Milyukov, and Guchkov. At the height of the War in 1916, a British agent killed Rasputin (who was a pacifist), the Masons organized artificial bread shortages in Petrograd. Then Nicholas II was encouraged to take a train from Military headquarters in Mogilev to Petrograd, but the train never got there. The imperial train was diverted to Pskov, there the Emperor was held captive. His own generals and Duma leaders -all Free Masons- told him that if he did not abdicate - his family would all be killed. Nicholas abdicated in favour of his brother- knowing full well that this abdication was unlawful i.t.o the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire. Afterwards, the Emperor and his family were held prisoners in their own palace and later moved around the country. Kerensky's provisional govt made way for the Bolsheviks who took power without any fatalities in November 1917. The Bolshevik leaders were all Masons. Lenin (Ulyanov) was a member of the French and Russian Grand Lodges 31deg, Trotsky (Bronstein) was a member of the Russian and Jewish Grand Lodges (B'nai Brith), Stalin was a member of the Russian Grand Lodge. You can see the famous photo of Stalin showing his hidden hand in his shirt- a famous Masonic gesture. Pavel Milyukov later wrote in his memoirs that the Feb revolution was a Masonic plot. The whole plan had nothing to do with "liberating" Russian working classes. The plan was actually to destroy Russia's Christian monarchy, destroy Christianity, and LOOT the Russian state from top to bottom. All the wealth looted from the state and the upper and middle classes was all sent OUT of Russia. It was never used for the benefit of the people. Millions of Russian Christians were then killed in the Red Terror. The reason why the Whites lost the Civil War is because the Americans funded and armed the Bolsheviks! The first government in the whole World to recognize the Bolshevik regime was the United States of America. This was Rooseveldt- another Mason. Whatever Hitler did, this does not explain why Churchill would want to form an alliance with someone like Stalin? After all, Stalin was a direct threat to Britain. Well it's easier to understand when you find out that Rooseveldt, Stalin, and Churchill were ALL Free Masons. So was Truman. The royal dynasties which were overthrown and killed in 20th century were all Non-Masonic Christian dynasties, the royal dynasties which have survived are all Masonic dynasties, especially the British and Swedish royal families. The Duke  of Kent is/was Grand Master of the English Grand Lodge, the King of Sweden Carl Gustaf is a 33 deg Free Mason. Communism and Marxism were invented by Free Masons to destroy nation states, destroy civil liberties, destroy democracy, and destroy Christianity. And the Revolution is still going on right now- in the European Union. Christianity is being banned from Schools, young English schoolchildren are being forced to attend  Mosques, boys are being made to wear  dresses. All this is designed to destroy Christianity, destroy European civilization, and  destroy the Family so that the European birthrate collapses. And Free Mason are behind all of it. Their ultimate goal is to get the whole planet's wealth and resources under their control, reduce the human population to a controllable level, eventually set up one global state under Masonic control. I know this sounds crazy, but it's all in the Soviet Archives which were opened up to the public by Yeltsin. There is a small group of families who control the whole of Europe and  the West- and most/all of the men in these families are Free Masons. If you talk about this in public in Sweden, you can actually be arrested, and your publications banned. My father was very well informed and so were his friends in the international journalist community . They would not lie about these claims. 


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.