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!