Restoring the monarchy in Russia: step by step instructions


The wedding of Georgy Romanov, which took place recently in St. Petersburg, caused a significant resonance in Russia and, in particular, led to the appearance of several articles on this topic in our edition. With all due respect to his colleagues (and, above all, to the your opinion Sergei Marzhetsky), I can't help but notice that the most important aspects of the issue under discussion, alas, “remained behind the scenes” of the discussion. And the word "never" in relation to the monarchist restoration in our Fatherland can hardly be appropriate. In my opinion, this assessment is too categorical.


Our world has entered a period of incredible, long unprecedented "turbulence", a decisive breakdown of the foundations and foundations that seemed unshakable a year or two ago. Most serious analysts are inclined to believe that the public consciousness of the conditional “aggregate humanity” is quite clearly beginning to gravitate towards forms of government and social structure that are much more conservative and authoritarian than liberal democracy, which is clearly unable to cope with global challenges and crises.

As the Chinese say, "in times of change" anything can happen.

Today in our country someone (looking at all the same China or appealing to their own history) seriously begins to reflect on the advantages of the once discarded communist ideology, and someone, looking even further into the past, is thinking about the return of the “tsar-father ". Why not? But only if it still comes to our minds to become an empire again, this should not be done anyhow (otherwise nothing but shame and misfortune will come of it), but in accordance with strict canons and rules, without which in such a serious there is no way to do it.

Do Russians want a tsar?


To begin with, before delving into the intricacies of such specific issues as dynastic law and succession to the throne, you should decide on the main thing: do we need it? If we talk about the fundamental foundations of the answer to this question, it is more "yes" than "no". The adherence of Russians to a "strong hand", their desire to live under one leader who leads the country on a stable course and does not suit "leaps" from side to side, both in the external and in the internal policy, absolutely obvious. Otherwise, Vladimir Putin would not have held office for more than two decades. Are there dissatisfied and dissenting ones? They are always and everywhere, absolutely under any government, it was and will be so at all times. Another thing is that some of the most famous Russian sayings are “They don't look for good from good”, “They don’t change horses in the river” and the like.

Our people are very conservative (with the exception of a small part of it) and do not see any pleasant prospects for themselves in the sharp changes that in our Fatherland are absolutely inevitable when the supreme ruler changes. The author is ready to confirm this statement by the data of sociology: in 2006, during a poll conducted by VTsIOM, 10% of Russians spoke in favor of restoring the monarchy in the country, who considered this form of government the most acceptable for the country. However, if there was a "really worthy" candidate for the throne, all 19% of our compatriots would support him. In 2013, the number of adherents of a return to tsarist times even slightly increased (up to 11%), while almost 30% of respondents “did not object” to it. It should be noted that in 2017 the numbers were about the same.

So the first step in the case of a real monarchist restoration should be an all-Russian referendum on this issue, in the course of which the matter, as we see, can turn out in any way. However, in this case, in no case only one main question should be brought up for general discussion: "Should the Tsar (Emperor) be in Russia or not?" Far from it! In this form, everything will result in the purest boltology. In addition to this, you should decide on the mass of other, most important and most important points. First of all, what kind of monarchy do we want to revive? A crowned puppet that "reigns but does not rule", which is only a decoration, is not needed by anyone in our country! No, the monarch should definitely be endowed with a number of serious powers, otherwise there is no point in breaking a comedy. But where should they begin and where should they end?

The question of succession to the throne is no less important. After all, the decision to return to the monarchical form of government Russians can take, first of all, thirsting for stability and "correct continuity" of power. An elective monarchy? Let us leave this misunderstanding to the Poles, who in their time, thanks to him, played out to several sections of the state. Dynasty? But where is the guarantee that all of its representatives (or at least most of them) will be worthy of the title of "Sovereign of All Russia?" Again, there are many nuances in the transfer of power within the reigning house. In any case, such a fateful milestone as the revival of the monarchy must be preceded by colossal legislative work, since in this case it is impossible to do without cardinal changes not only to the Constitution, but also to the entire “legal field” of Russia.

Not the Romanovs!


And now, by the way, about the dynasty ... Almost the first step in the legal preparation for the restoration of the throne of the Russian Sovereigns should be the adoption of a legislative act stating that the Romanovs cannot claim it in any case. They are, you see, "ready to be endowed with imperial power." Russia is not ready for such, God forgive me, "rulers"! The last legitimate Emperor from this dynasty, Nicholas II, abdicated the throne on February 27, 1917, both for himself and for his heir son Alexei. That member of the reigning house, in whose favor this abdication was made, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, absolutely without any coercion, personally resigned imperial powers in favor of the Provisional Government. That's all. Point! Basta!

Further clowning performed by Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich and his numerous descendants has nothing to do with the true issues of succession to the throne. It is well known that Cyril (and his children, as well as grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on) were deprived of the right to the throne by Nicholas himself. The reason was the marriage of the Grand Duke, which completely contradicted the clear and direct, like a rifle bayonet, rules of inheritance in the Russian Imperial House, established in the final form by Nicholas I and Nicholas II. I will not retell the details of these violations for the hundredth time, I will focus on something else. In February 1917, Kirill, who was the commander of the Guards naval crew of His Majesty's retinue, brought his unit (under the red flag!) To the State Duma and announced that he was "going over to its side." The Duma at that time was dissolved, and this scoundrel did not hesitate ... to renounce the rights of succession to the throne (which did not exist in nature) in favor of the Constituent Assembly.

After such quirks and feints, what talk can there be about the "restoration of the Romanovs" ?! Oh, yes, besides the "Kirillovich line" there are also all sorts of Hohenzollerns, Leiningens and other Karageorgievichs, who also have certain views and claims regarding our throne. Well, we definitely don't need these for nothing. And in general - autocracy in Russia was not erected by the Romanovs. It just ended with them ...

It should not be forgotten that the Rurik dynasty stood at the origins of the Russian state, which was suppressed in 1598 after the death of Fyodor Ioannovich, the son of the great Ivan the Terrible. Further, if we speak strictly legally, two more dynasties reigned: the Godunovs and the Shuisky. True, they were represented on the Russian throne, so to speak, each in a single copy. And only in 1613 the Romanovs were on it. How? Yes, as a result of the election! This is exactly what our people acted when the royal family was suppressed, and within its framework there was simply no one to transfer power. No, the current Romanovs may well try to fight for the throne, and someone may even "lead" to the "antiquity of the family" and other arguments in their mouths. However, it is precisely because of this that such a possibility should be completely excluded at the legislative level. And at the same time also because in the event of their restoration, in practice, the question of restitutions will certainly arise - that is, the return of all those material values ​​that belonged to them, movable and immovable, which were mercilessly nationalized in 1917. And there, you see, the descendants of chamberlains with maids of honor will catch up and other "blue princes" ... In the end we will get such a mess that the "dashing 90s" seem like a sweet fairy tale!

Zemsky Sobor and strong law


And Boris Godunov, and Vasily Shuisky, and the first of the Romanovs were elected to the kingdom by the Zemsky Sobor, which at that time, speaking in modern terms, was the highest representative body of the Russian land. Its delegates gathered in all towns and villages, which is typical, without any "property qualification", from representatives of all estates, without exception, up to the black-haired peasants. That's where true democracy was! And some are still trying to “teach” us ... Introduced the practice of such meetings, by the way, John the Terrible, a satrap and a kind of tyrant. And, by the way, his son, Fyodor Ioannovich, was again “confirmed” on the throne by the Zemsky Sobor. But just from the time of the Romanovs (from the end of the 17th century) they stopped convening.

Nevertheless, proceeding from historical traditions and the true monarchical principles of our Fatherland, if a decision is made to revive the tsarist or imperial power in Russia, this can only happen in conjunction with the restoration of the practice of Zemsky Sobors or a similar body, albeit with a different name, but with with the same essence and powers. The first of them will have to elect a new Tsar from a number of available candidates. And the next one is to decide whether each of the prospective heirs is worthy of the scepter and orb. Each! Yes, as for the heirs to the throne ... You can repeat as much as you like that here too we are dealing with a kind of "lottery" - you never know how it will turn out. The saying that “nature rests” on children of geniuses was not invented for nothing. That is so, but the only counterbalance against such accidents can be considered the fact that in any real reigning house, heirs are brought up almost from the cradle in a very special way, preparing ahead of time for colossal Power and Responsibility, the concepts of which they must absorb, as they say , with mother's milk.

Here is such, in fact, a clear and intelligible step-by-step strategy: a nationwide referendum on the revival of the monarchy, “cutting off” those who are on the throne should not be for anything, holding a Zemsky Sobor to elect a new Sovereign of All Russia. The rest is technical details. What to add in conclusion? Well, of course, to speak out about the coronation of Vladimir Putin. This is exactly what you expect? I will say this: the sovereign would be excellent from him. However, why would it "be" ?! These are not personal emotions and sympathies, but a statement of fact. However, starting the monarchy with the accession of Vladimir Vladimirovich would be a very bad idea. First of all - due to his, alas, not too young, let's say, age.

I am sure he understands this perfectly and would never agree to such a thing. However, the revival of the monarchy in Russia could be an excellent opportunity for this leader, who has been leading our country for so many years, to transfer power into truly reliable hands, without worrying that all his work will go to dust. After all, by and large, the point is not in the crown, but in that particular head on which it will be worn. Everything written above is in no way a call for an indispensable monarchical revival, of which I personally, in general, am not a supporter. Just thinking about how it could and should have happened, do everything not for the sake of someone's personal ambitions and benefits, but for the greatness and good of Russia. It has only two paths - either as a great power, living according to its primordial rules and laws, or decline and final destruction, which half the world is now dreaming of. There will be someone who will be able to lead our Fatherland in the first way - so let him be a king, if necessary. Use it!
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 October 2021 08: 13
    -2
    In fact, in the text I allowed the restoration of the constitutional monarchy. smile And he even made hints about the direction in which things could go through the popularization of monarchist ideas and PR "heirs" in the media.
    And the headline, well, you yourself know how they are composed. hi
  2. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 October 2021 08: 49
    +2
    After writing that article, I had time to think more. And I came to the conclusion that the constitutional monarchy in Russia will be beneficial primarily to the oligarchs. They, through their pocket parties, will control the Parliament and form a tame government that will defend precisely their interests to the detriment of the people. Our oligarchs are brothers in the class of Western super-oligarchs. Nothing good will come of RI-2 in practice, beautifully, as in Great Britain, we will not succeed.
    I could be wrong, of course. But in modern realities, I personally will oppose the restoration of the monarchy.
    1. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 3 November 2021 19: 12
      -1
      Marzhetsky. This has already been done before zeroing, but the people do not understand and will not understand, only when they are driven into the trenches. For the Tsar God and the Fatherland!
  3. Kim Rum Eun Offline Kim Rum Eun
    Kim Rum Eun (Kim Rum Yn) 24 October 2021 08: 53
    +4
    The wedding of Georgy Romanov, which took place recently in St. Petersburg, caused a significant resonance in Russia ...

    Oh really? All the media have already forgotten about this "event".
    And only here they pour from empty to empty for the hundredth time.
  4. Oleg Valevsky Offline Oleg Valevsky
    Oleg Valevsky 24 October 2021 09: 23
    +1
    The monarchy in Russia is half the trouble ... It is much more interesting that the estates have revived in Russia again ...))

    And Zhirinovsky, with his careful throwing in on Red Square: "... serfs and slaves" hinted about this to those who have not forgotten how to think.

    In the Russian Federation, there are not only elites and rich people.
    In Russia, noblemen appeared who were not subject to jurisdiction and passed on the title by inheritance.
    Oprichniks appeared - those who guard the nobles (only the National Guard is larger than the German army in number) .. And serfs and slaves, who, just like their serf grandfathers described by the Russian classics, are ready to throw their fists at someone who says that their master has a shorter yacht than overseas ..
    1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 24 October 2021 09: 29
      +4
      The point is that the RCMP (Russia, which we lost) was not the best place on Earth, with the exception of a very narrow circle.
      People today do not like the fact that they were divided into vaccinated and unvaccinated, with the latter being restricted in their rights. And then they will inevitably be divided into estates and the "lower ranks" will not be allowed into places for the elite.
      It is possible to talk about the restoration of the monarchy, but real movements in this monarchical direction must be suppressed immediately and harshly.
    2. Bitter Offline Bitter
      Bitter (Gleb) 24 October 2021 19: 42
      +1
      How sloppy you are the most ardent patriots have given up in shit, but aptly.
  5. And maybe also to return serfdom, enslaving the workers and peasants and whipping them forcing them to work for lack of money? And the nonesh kosher oligarchs will become serf bars and will trade serfs on the stock exchange in St. Petersburg?
    1. Bitter Offline Bitter
      Bitter (Gleb) 24 October 2021 19: 50
      0
      laughing Normally, instead of "bondage" - to count and digitize, instead of whips - a loan and a mortgage, and for debts you can sell it as a master's need.
      The plan takes shape.
      Boris Nikolaich, he died while already a count. So the work is in full swing, but so far it is not visible under the lid.
      1. and what, it goes to that! The people are completely zadolbali, and the yacht themselves are being built for billions!
  6. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 24 October 2021 11: 31
    +1
    Cases of transformation of republics in an empire are not rare.
    Rome, France in the 19th century, CAR ... ended sadly ...
    More often, of course, on the contrary, with the loss of territories.
  7. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 24 October 2021 19: 50
    -1
    quite clearly begins to gravitate towards forms of government and social structure much more conservative and authoritarian than clearly not coping liberal democracy with global challenges and crises.

    Just the same coping, the author. At least for now, coping. With mistakes, not always good decisions, but still coping. In contrast to the absolute monarchy and socialism in our country, which really failed.

    Our people are very conservative

    So conservative that in 1917 he adopted a completely different ideology (by the way - Western), and in 1991 he rejected it in favor of - again - Western :)

    The author is ready to confirm this statement with the data of sociology: in 2006, during a poll conducted by VTsIOM, in favor of the restoration of the monarchy in the country, 10% Russians who considered this form of government the most acceptable for the country. However, if there was a “really worthy” contender for the throne, he would be supported by all 19% our compatriots.

    A maximum of 19 is not all the people, and not even the majority. Normally, the author says about the supporters of liberalism in Russia (which are also about 20%):

    Our people are very conservative (with the exception of a small part of it)

    But when it comes to about 20% of those supporting the monarchy, the author gives this as confirmation that:

    Our people are very conservative

    The adherence of Russians to a “strong hand”, their desire to live under one leader who leads the country on a stable course and does not suit “leaps” from side to side, both in foreign and domestic policy, is quite obvious.

    Otherwise, Vladimir Putin would not have held office for more than two decades.

    Well, of course, this is due to "the desire of the Russians for a strong hand." It is not at all due to the fact that administrative, or even just forceful pressure is used against other candidates or political forces, well, not at all because of this :)

    The question of succession to the throne is no less important. After all, the decision to return to a monarchical form of government Russians can take, first of all, thirsting for stability and "correct continuity" of power. Elective monarchy? Let's leave this is a misunderstanding to the Poles, who in due time thanks to him, reached several sections of the state.

    And then the author begins to paint about what a cool practice was the election of Russian monarchs by Zemsky Sobors.

    This is where true democracy was! And some of us are still trying to "teach" her ...

    The author, "some" had class representation (that is, an analogue of the Zemsky Sobor) long before Ivan the Terrible. In France, the States General have operated since 1302, Parliament in the Kingdom of England since 1265, and in the German principalities, goftags have operated since the 12th century.

    And yes, the Zemsky Sobor (like its counterparts in other countries, with the exception of the Polish and Lithuanian Seimas) was not a true democracy, because it was legislative, not legislative organ. There is a big difference between the two.

    And most importantly, the author, considering the possibility of the revival of the monarchy in Russia, somehow concerns only one aspect of it - the monarch itself. Well, also the principles of the continuity of power.

    And somehow he completely "forgets" the fact that the monarchy consists not only of the monarch, but also of the stratum of society on which the monarch relies.

    Is the author ready for the revival of feudalism and nobility? Or does the author naively think that the monarch will rely on commoners?
  8. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 24 October 2021 19: 50
    0
    Everything that will be done now will be done so as not to be responsible for the entire collapse of the country and theft, for the 90s, for the shooting of parliament for as long as possible. And for this, it is possible to introduce serfdom. Panfilova will always be over 70% !!
  9. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 24 October 2021 21: 23
    +1
    Yes. Monarchy will be cool. Vladimir 1st, for example.
    There was once an idea in Caesar to make it, but for some reason it quickly disappeared from the media ..

    And so, kings and kings were often celebrated with something good. Support for fascism and the Black Hundreds. Seven Boyars and Banking. Favorites and bills abroad. Estates, serfdom and the laws of the cook's children.

    Some of this has already been tested ...
  10. Face Online Face
    Face (Alexander Lik) 24 October 2021 22: 55
    +1
    Too much bukaf for an obviously sucked question.
    All these costumed clowns can walk through the forest.
  11. Face Online Face
    Face (Alexander Lik) 24 October 2021 23: 00
    +1
    And one thing is invariable in this world - the so-called. liberal democracy is a fool's tale. Monarchy is the overt hereditary power of some over others. Democracy is the same, but covered with a fig leaf of the purest LIE.
  12. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 25 October 2021 06: 51
    -1
    Quote: Cyril
    And somehow he completely "forgets" the fact that the monarchy consists not only of the monarch, but also of the stratum of society on which the monarch relies.

    Is the author ready for the revival of feudalism and nobility? Or does the author naively think that the monarch will rely on commoners?

    Who does the British, Spanish or Belgian monarchy rely on today?
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 October 2021 15: 29
      -3
      Who does the British, Spanish or Belgian monarchy rely on today?

      Does the article speak of a constitutional monarchy? O_o Have you read the article? I will give you an excerpt:

      First of all, what form of monarchy do we want to revive? A crowned puppet that "reigns but does not rule", which is only a decoration, is not needed by anyone in our country!

      Give the author not a constitutional monarchy - he needs "strong power". Aka Alexander III or even Ivan the Terrible.
      1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 26 October 2021 07: 47
        0
        You still answer the question. and what is the basis of the British or Spanish monarchy today? Is there a class division of society there?
        Or is it just a funny rudiment, a relic that does not correspond to modern realities, relying only on traditions, customs and an unwritten constitution, and not on the nobility?
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 26 October 2021 08: 25
          -1
          And you still answer the question - what side does the British constitutional monarchy have to what the author writes about?

          I understand why you asked your question.

          By the way, to call at least the British monarchy just a "funny rudiment" is still the language, taking into account the powers of the Queen. which, by the way, has its own chamber in the British Parliament.
  13. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 25 October 2021 07: 00
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    The author, "some" had class representation (that is, an analogue of the Zemsky Sobor) long before Ivan the Terrible. In France, the States General have operated since 1302, Parliament in the Kingdom of England since 1265, and in the German principalities, goftags have operated since the 12th century.

    I believe that my colleague had in mind the broad nature of the representation of the Zemsky Sobor, which included representatives from all estates, if we compare, for example, with the British Parliament.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 October 2021 15: 54
      -1
      I believe that the colleague had in mind the broad nature of the representation of the Zemsky Sobor, where there were representatives from all classes

      Not all. There were no serfs and slaves.
      1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 26 October 2021 07: 44
        0
        Well, still the slaves participated in the Council. However, the representation was as wide and wide as possible than in Britain.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 26 October 2021 08: 26
          -1
          The only question is whether the interests of these very black-haired peasants were really taken into account or their participation in the Council was a simple formality.
          1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 26 October 2021 10: 00
            0
            You know, let's move on. In the Novgorod Republic, the opinion of the people decided something, or everything depended on who would shout down whom at the veche: professional "screamers" from one trading corporation or from another?
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 26 October 2021 10: 47
              -1
              The Novgorod veche is an example of a "feudal republic" or, in Russian, a "boyar republic". It was not the people who took part in it (more precisely, they participated formally), the real decisions in it were made by the nobility. So the example is not the best.
              1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
                Marzhecki (Sergei) 26 October 2021 10: 48
                0
                This is a real example. The point is that decisions are always and everywhere made by the "know", and the people are the object of manipulation.
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 26 October 2021 10: 59
                  -1
                  The point is that decisions are always and everywhere made by the "know", and the people are the object of manipulation.

                  Then your argument that the estates were more widely represented in the Zemsky Sobor than in the same British Parliament (this still needs to be clarified), therefore "they dare not teach us" - does not make sense.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 25 October 2021 22: 56
    +3
    I am against the monarchy in the Russian Federation in any form, that's why - I have many times met cases when quite decent parents, or even grandfathers, had, to put it mildly, not smart children and grandchildren, and therefore I consider any transfer of supreme power by inheritance to be untenable stupidity, for we may well, after a while, get an incompetent tsar-heir, even if today we choose a genius-father for them.
  16. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 26 October 2021 10: 01
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    And you still answer the question - what side does the British constitutional monarchy have to what the author writes about?

    I understand why you asked your question.

    I asked the question because you said that the restoration of the monarchy requires the restoration of feudalism. I don’t think so, which is why I asked what the real British monarchy is based on.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 26 October 2021 10: 53
      -1
      I asked the question because you said that the restoration of the monarchy requires the restoration of feudalism.

      You asked an incorrect question, because I (following the author) did not speak about a constitutional monarchy. This time.

      And yes, to restore even a constitutional monarchy, you will need to restore (albeit limitedly, but restore) the rights of the nobles. Explore the history of Restoration in the same Britain.

      After the Restoration, England, Scotland and Ireland were again viewed as separate states with a common king. The war with Spain in September of the same 1660 was ended peacefully, after which the English army, a stronghold of Puritan influence, was disbanded (partially transferred to the local authorities). The Anglican Church regains its privileged position in England (especially for civil servants), and the Puritan denominations were subjected to various kinds of infringements until the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.

      The emigrant nobles returned to England and received some compensation for their lost property. George Monk was also generously awarded: he received the rank of knight, the titles of Earl of Torrington and Duke of Albemarle (Duke of Albemarle), two baronies in different counties, as well as a court position of a stable boy (Master of the Horse) and 700 pounds a year. In 1668, a government was made up of the aristocrats loyal to the king, which went down in history under the abbreviation Cabal..

      And this, mind you, is the history of the British constitutional monarchy. And the author is not talking about the constitutional one.