Author Topic: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?  (Read 106023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #105 on: November 11, 2009, 12:37:04 AM »
Tutsi, I think (?) the OP is talking about a constitutional monarchy. In which case, the Monarch would serve as a figurehead - the embodiment of the nation.

I know this description of constitutional monarchy makes for a neat and tidy conversation. However, there are actually many different types of constitutional monarchy, and not all of them reduce the monarch to a mere figurehead. Even though we regard HM the Queen of the UK as a "figurehead", in reality her powers are much greater than that.

To be correct, a constitutional monarch is one who derives her/his power to govern from a constitution. The sovereign may reign in a parliamentary system, a republican system, and heredity can be the means of selecting the ruler, or it can be elective.

As many have pointed out, monarchy is a very flexible form of government, as is constitutional monarchy.

Offline richard_1990

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #106 on: November 11, 2009, 06:58:39 AM »
Quote from: Lisa Davidson
To be correct, a constitutional monarch is one who derives her/his power to govern from a constitution. The sovereign may reign in a parliamentary system, a republican system, and heredity can be the means of selecting the ruler, or it can be elective.
As far as I'm aware the very definition of a republic is that the head of state is not a monarch.

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #107 on: November 11, 2009, 06:37:30 PM »
 :)Yes, of course you may have a mintie!

They are so good to have when chewing things over!

One thing to "bear" in mind for Russia is to also consider the following wise words by Manly B. Halll, written quite some time ago, regarding the ancient symbol of the two headed eagle. I have heard this symbol as being discussed as being part of ancient byzantinium times...

So here is something to think about when chewing on your minties!

THE DOUBLE HEADED EAGLE - THE SUPREME SYMBOL

Here is depicted the Supreme Hierophant, Master of the double Holy Empire of the superior and the inferior universe. The ancient emblem of equlibrium consisted of an androgynous body surmounted by two heads, one male and the other female, wearing a single imperial crown. That being alone is perfect in which all opposites are reconciled, and this state of perfection is appropriately typified by the two heads of equal dignity. Hence the double-headed eagle is reserved as the emblem of completion, for it signifies the Philosopher's Stone, the ultimate soul condition, and that absolute and transcended perfection which arises only from the fullest unfoldment of the latent potentialities within the individual. Philosophocally, the thirty-third degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite represents the innermost sanctuary of the Masonic mysticism. If the double-headed eagle, the symbol of the sublime degree,
were endowed with the power of speech, it would say:

"Only he may wear me in whom there is no guile in whom all passion has been transmuted to compassion, all natural ingnorance into divine wisdom, all selfishness into selflessness; for I am an ancient and a sacred emblem of all greatness, all perfection, and all truth. I represent a spiritual condition, a mental attitude, a physical state attained only by the elect of earth. I am the symbol of the illumined and transfigured soul which has been born again and has approached the throne of Divinity. I am the symbol of the gatekeeper, for with one face I behold the radiant countenance of my Creator and with the other the expanse of the universe which He has fashioned. Upon my strong pinions of intuition and reason men have ascended to a position betwixt heaven and earth. He is whom I spread my wings is more than a man yet less than a god; therefore he is a god-man. I clutch between my talons the flaming cherubimic sword; the flaming spirit-fire with which the miracle of my existence was wrought. I am the symbol of the Initiator who through the ages carries Ganymedes in to the prescence of the gods upon his back."
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 06:45:52 PM by tutsi »

Offline Glastonbury

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #108 on: December 09, 2009, 09:35:56 AM »
One could say that Russia remains a monarchy, but in a state of interregnum. The succession was suspended, not legally removed. It is not, however, for claimants to make claims and dream of power, but only to serve Russia in humility whatever status is or is not bestowed upon them by God and the Russian people. The true Czar will work unceasingly for God, the land and people of Russia to their lives end, and if they are called to office in the meantime they will work even harder in deference to those they serve.

God preserve the right.

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #109 on: December 09, 2009, 06:27:54 PM »
Very much agreed!

Thank you, I love your post, its exactly the point.
xxoxx

Offline Ilias_of_John

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #110 on: December 10, 2009, 10:46:53 PM »
Tutsi,
Where is that mintie?
Anyway, the double Headed Eagle represents the duality of the Roman Empire.
One capital is in the West, Rome, and one is in the East, Constantinople, hence the two Heads looking away from each other.
Due to the descent of the Romanov Family from the last Imperial Byzantine familiy, ie Paleologue. they adopted the DH EAGLE.
Too many it also represent Orthodoxy.

That piece you copied is written by a Freemason who is steeling the emblem, and Orthodox and Catholic Christian would be horrified to see the Eagles beeing used by Freemasons as they consider them to be anti Christianity!
Honour all men.
Love the brotherhood.
Fear God.
Honour the king.
1 Peter 2:17

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #111 on: December 14, 2009, 10:00:16 PM »
Tutsi,
...
That piece you copied is written by a Freemason who is steeling the emblem, and Orthodox and Catholic Christian would be horrified to see the Eagles beeing used by Freemasons as they consider them to be anti Christianity!

I think it would be wiser if one of the moderators could please delete tutsi's November 11 post extolling Rosicrucianism.


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #112 on: December 15, 2009, 01:36:10 AM »
Tutsi,
...
That piece you copied is written by a Freemason who is steeling the emblem, and Orthodox and Catholic Christian would be horrified to see the Eagles beeing used by Freemasons as they consider them to be anti Christianity!

I think it would be wiser if one of the moderators could please delete tutsi's November 11 post extolling Rosicrucianism.


On what basis, Margarita? I would not expect this post to sit well with Orthodox Christians, but I don't see a violation of Forum rules.

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #113 on: December 15, 2009, 01:55:55 AM »
Thank You Lisa.

And to those who have made a judgement, think again. God moves in many circles, in many ways.


tutsi

  • Guest
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #114 on: December 15, 2009, 02:34:00 AM »
Dear Margarita,

And, the reason why I posted it....

again, back to intention.....my intention was not to bring the total focus to Freemasons nor Rosicrucians but more the fact of the type of character within a person/s that is best suited for a Monarchic role.

It was more to point out that the person that does become part of the Monarchy would have a virtous nature...to be able to see all sides of things, and make good balanced decisions, to see the bigger picture and to be able to bring all into alignment with the bigger picture, to have a high moral outlook, to be a christian, and in the case of Russia, an Orthodox Russian absolutely, to also be strong, wise and healthy. To understand and have a concept of all the fundamentals of all religions as people find God everywhere, if they have good hearts, even better. To be able to resolve differences and bring unity within Russia, with all the different races that live there.

I do hope you now understand my intention in posting what I did.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 02:40:27 AM by tutsi »

Offline Nicolas Peucelle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #115 on: December 27, 2009, 01:46:49 PM »
Reply (Part 1 (because limit of 7500 caracters)
Maybe we can start with: "Never say Never" ?? I am not a specialist of constitutional law, but in this Forum I guess also normal people can have a place to express their "view". Let's look back at Russia's history: But "precisely"... The "legal" power of Nicholas II has been delegated by himself in march 1917 to his son. A few hours later he changed his mind and "in the name of his child" also delegated the power of his child to Mihael Alexandrovich Romanov who was Nicholas II younger surviving brother. Here we can note a first "irregularity" which may have led to complications in case the son of Nicholas II (Alexei) would have lived till his majority (I guess 21 years, than). It may have not, but it is very possible that Alexei could have claimed "back" his throne from Mihael later on. Especially if the wife of Mihael was continued to be considered as a morganatic spouse of Mihael. In this case Alexei would have "simply" inherited the throne from Mihael after his "reign" ending by natural death or abdication in favor of Alexei. Now everybody knows that Alexei is dead and this explanation is ow just usefull to explain in which way the "holy power" of a Tsar was handled by the Tsar himself and what could have been the consequences without speculating too far. So maybe Nicholas II wished by abdicating his son, which is a disputable action in the long term, to free this child from the pressure of official burdens, especially in 1917 when the country was not in the best shape. The Tsar Nicholas is quoted as having said "No they will not have him". This was in response to the "blackmail" (by the court staffers,military or government people or whoever able to pressurize the Tsar at that moment), which he did not consider when signing the first version of his own and sole abdication, that this Tsar Child will have to take "office" with a regency and live without his parents in the vincinity. Nicholas, allone, without his wife made this choice to have his son have a most happy life as a child. So the abdication had to be retyped, and as it seems, the second version had the date and time of the first abdication placed on it. This choice having been done as a measure to keep his child out of trouble is an easy ground to later dispute its durability in time. Alexei was murdered, so the qestion is now to analyze how much Nicholas as the last undisputed legal leader of the Russian people was considering the transmission of his Imperial power to his brother Mihael as a final solution: This may be important when monarchists consider also the will of the last will of the sovereign to be of importance, beside other rules. I suggest here that Nicholas (even with the option of a return of his son later on in mind) was considering that his brother Mihael was the most rightfull heir to the throne of Russia after him and his son Alexei. Considering that the abdication precisely mentions the name of Mihael Romanov and that the brother as the only legal power able to decide about this choice was Nicholas II, a monarchist can consider that Mihael was rightfull to consider himself the legally designated new Tsar in the moment he was informed about this new situation by the persons bringing him the news in official fashion. So what did Mihael Romanov with this legal decision of his brother Nicholas II? He did not immediately wished to accept the succession to his brothers position and made a written statement that the choice about the new Tsar must be left open till the Russian people will have the time to plebiscite on this question. I do not know precisely if in that document signed by Mihael Romanov it was just a matter to mount an election concerning his precise Person as future Tsar, or if the choice will be open to any other pretender or even if Tsardom can be “voted out” and the country be changed into a Republic for good. But I guess that this document signed by Mihael Romanov is in fact the last “legal” document to be of value for the Russian monarchists when considering a next, fully legal step towards a new Russian regime. I considered it a big chance for them, that Mihael left behind this option in writing and probably this document is still existing? According to Nicholas II abdication and the following decision of Mihael Romanov to let the Russian government run the state affairs till “the elections” the Kerensky administration of Imperial Russia is still to be considered a legal form of Russia through monarchist eyes.. I guess that the change of the Russian Empire into a “ Russian Republic”, as it was done by the Kerensky government later in 1917 cannot be considered as “legal” any more, considering that the Russian people had never time in 1917 to fairly get an occasion to vote on the matter. When Kernsky and his men had to flee from Russia  from Lenin’s Bolcheviks, the legality of any further decision in the matter of statehood is interrupted for good. We may consider a total interruption of “legality “since late 1917 and the entire Bolchevik Era as a period to “ignore” when trying to look for a new start connected to the legal proceedings with Nicholas II and his brother Mihael. ---------- So when I started my comment with “Never say Never” I wished to attract attention to the “incredible-incroyable ” which happened before our eyes! The red bolchevik regime degenerated in front of us, and broke down. Who would have imagined that the Imperial Eagle of Russia will be raised again (not the Russian republic Eagle without Imperial crown of 1917!!), especially inside the Parliament of Russia today??? I mean.. with the Imperial crown , crests and all the rest? Will this be just a movie décor for the TV programs or is it a much deeper need which the Russian people wish to satisfy sooner or later? It may be worth to look more closely at the document signed by Mihael Romanov in 1917. Did he allow the Duma (Parliament) to have “anybody” be elected by them to be the next Tsar of Russia? Wasn’t the question of a constitutional monarchy not anyhow the only envisioned option? The disputes of present day Romanov Family members may not be too relevant in this case. The Russian Duma may be allowed to define who is the next Constitutional Monarch of Russia and with what kind of powers. The position of the Orthodox Chruch is most important, too. (First part of my reply.. to be continued with part 2)
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 01:50:54 PM by Nicolas Peucelle »
Nicolas Peucelle

Offline Nicolas Peucelle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2009, 01:48:55 PM »
(Reply continued from part 1)....
Only the ointed Tsar will be a real one, and once he will be so by the Patriarch, than his Tsardom is to be recognized by all. If he is able and loved he will restore the Tsardom day by day by his good actions and faith into his mission. The Romanov Dynastie started through an election. A vote…. By Russian free men of that time. A new vote for a new Tsar by Russian free men is absolutely a possibility especially if the modern leaders of Russia will see an advantage in this measure. The problem of the nobility of Russia is also that no more fresh blood is added to their class by a sovereign who compensates natural decline and disproportional low numbers of aristocrats with his power to make some more . People with merits who join the “club” and get accepted over time and refresh their till now ever shrinking world full of regrets. Imagine that some day the real Russian leadership “sponsors” their own Tsar, and that he will make counts and dukes out of them, if they wish so… (that their children will be full of money and other privileges)….  That this monarch will allow them into newly instaured knight orders, have a lot of medals with nice designs to attribute..That kind of Tsardom coupled with the support of their church is always an option. The first Tsar will have to be a smooth puppet in their hands and play the game. But it may work out fine for Russia. I seriously consider this option as not from the table for ever.
Nicolas Peucelle

tutsi

  • Guest
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #117 on: December 29, 2009, 07:07:41 PM »
Very good points to consider, thank you so much for sharing the information.

The really wonderful thing is that as we speak here, history is being re~written....

This whole thing is like a J.R.R Tolkien movie. Lets make it a force for Good and only Good! Gandalf type beings supreme!


and may God's will be done, for after all, its the best way.






Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
    • Rex and Hannah Chronicles Wikia
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #118 on: May 08, 2010, 05:08:29 PM »
If Russia becomes a monarchy again, and that's a big IF, it will be, IMHO, a constitutional monarchy, like Britian.  The Tsar, whomever that may be, will basically have the same powers and duties that Queen Elizabeth II currently has.
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline JonC

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: How likely is Russia to become a monarchy again?
« Reply #119 on: June 24, 2010, 12:06:41 AM »
:)Yes, of course you may have a mintie!

They are so good to have when chewing things over!

One thing to "bear" in mind for Russia is to also consider the following wise words by Manly B. Halll, written quite some time ago, regarding the ancient symbol of the two headed eagle. I have heard this symbol as being discussed as being part of ancient byzantinium times...

So here is something to think about when chewing on your minties!

THE DOUBLE HEADED EAGLE - THE SUPREME SYMBOl


Here is depicted the Supreme Hierophant, Master of the double Holy Empire of the superior and the inferior universe. The ancient emblem of equlibrium consisted of an androgynous body surmounted by two heads, one male and the other female, wearing a single imperial crown. That being alone is perfect in which all opposites are reconciled, and this state of perfection is appropriately typified by the two heads of equal dignity. Hence the double-headed eagle is reserved as the emblem of completion, for it signifies the Philosopher's Stone, the ultimate soul condition, and that absolute and transcended perfection which arises only from the fullest unfoldment of the latent potentialities within the individual. Philosophocally, the thirty-third degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite represents the innermost sanctuary of the Masonic mysticism. If the double-headed eagle, the symbol of the sublime degree,
were endowed with the power of speech, it would say:

"Only he may wear me in whom there is no guile in whom all passion has been transmuted to compassion, all natural ingnorance into divine wisdom, all selfishness into selflessness; for I am an ancient and a sacred emblem of all greatness, all perfection, and all truth. I represent a spiritual condition, a mental attitude, a physical state attained only by the elect of earth. I am the symbol of the illumined and transfigured soul which has been born again and has approached the throne of Divinity. I am the symbol of the gatekeeper, for with one face I behold the radiant countenance of my Creator and with the other the expanse of the universe which He has fashioned. Upon my strong pinions of intuition and reason men have ascended to a position betwixt heaven and earth. He is whom I spread my wings is more than a man yet less than a god; therefore he is a god-man. I clutch between my talons the flaming cherubimic sword; the flaming spirit-fire with which the miracle of my existence was wrought. I am the symbol of the Initiator who through the ages carries Ganymedes in to the prescence of the gods upon his back."



Margarita I agree with you and, Tutsi is a sly one indeed!! The double headed eagle symbol almost exactly like the Romanov symbol has been in use by ' The Order Of Malta ', I believe since AD 1087, and taken over especially by the ' Free Masons '. Instead of St George slaying the dragon they have replaced that image with a large white Maltese Cross. I was shocked when I saw it earlier today during my research of The Nights Templars and the Jesuit order...scary stuff indeed..especially the oath they took devoting themselves entirely for the protection of the Pope. If you think the Muslims are crazy blowing themselves up well I hope no-one unleashes these guys. Freemasonry promotes the worship of any god clearly differing with the Biblical command to worship only the Creator, Sovereign Lord and God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. Tutsi should be more revealing of his true beliefs. JonC.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 12:10:08 AM by JonC »