Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - brendan

Pages: [1] 2 3
Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas II was Unprepared to Rule. Why?
« on: September 24, 2005, 01:19:43 PM »
Well said, Belochka.

I think this goes back to what Georgiy said about there not being an understanding in the West of Orthodox culture.  Nicholas has been much to often, judged according to western standards. What has so often been viewed as weakness in his character, would be recognized as piety and inner peace from an Orthodox standpoint.
Its also worth noting that there are qiute a few documented examples of Nicholas exerting power when he needed to.

I KNOW this has been brought up in other threads, but since this is the first thread questioning his abdication as a MAIN topic, it should be kept going for anyone interested.  This subject WAS dealt with in passing on other boards, but its should be looked into more.
Im not trying make anyone angry by keeping this going, so I guess my my advice to those who are tired of the subject is to just ignore this thread.

Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas and the Ark?
« on: September 06, 2005, 02:52:31 PM »
I came across this article online today, for anyone interested.

"In the summer of 1916, during the thaw, Lieutenant Roskovitsky of the Russian Imperial Air Force noticed a half-frozen lake on the shelf or gully on the side of Mount Ararat while flying high-altitude test to observe Turkish troop movements. As they flew nearer to the lake, he saw a half submerged hull of some sort of ship. He noticed two stubby masts and a flat catwalk along the top. The following excerpts were taken from Berlitz.
In Roskovitsky's words (from the New Eden Magazine, California, 1939): "We flew down as close as safety permitted and took several circles around it. We were surprised when we got close to it, at the immense size of the thing, for it was as long as a city block, and would compare very favorably in size to the modern battleships of today. It was grounded on the shore of the lake, with one-fourth underwater. It had been partly dismantled on one side near the front, and on the other side there was a great doorway nearly twenty feet square, but with the other door gone. This seemed quite out of proportion, as even today, ships seldom have doors even half that large ...."

He then told his captain who wanted to be flown over the site. The captain stated that it was Noah's Ark and explained the reason for its survival as "frozen up for nine of ten months of the year, it couldn't rot, and has been in cold storage, as it were, all this time .... "

The captain forwarded a report back to St. Petersburg resulting in orders from the Tsar to send two engineering companies up the mountain. One group of fifty men attacked one side, and the other group of one hundred men attacked the big mountain from the other side. Two weeks of hard work were required to chop out a trail along the cliffs of the lower part of the mountain, and it was nearly a month before the Ark was reached. Complete measurements were taken, and plans drawn of it, as well as many photographs, all of which were sent to the Tsar.

From the magazine article: "The Ark was found to contain hundreds of small rooms, and some rooms that were very large, with high ceilings. The unusually large rooms had a fence of great timbers across them, some of which were two feet thick, as if designed to hold beasts ten times the size of elephants. Other rooms were also lined with tiers of cages, somewhat like what one sees today at a poultry show, only instead of chicken wire, they had rows of small iron bars along the front. Everything was heavily painted with a waxlike paint resembling shellac, and the workmanship of the craft showed all the signs of a high type of civilization. The wood used throughout was oleander, which belongs to the cypress family and never rots; which of course, coupled with the fact of its being frozen most of the time, accounted for its perfect preservation."

The investigation officers sent photographs and reports by courier back to Petrograd, to the personal attention of the Tsar. But Nicholas II apparently never received them during the breakdown of communications that followed the February and October Revolutions of 1917. The results of the investigation have never been found or reported.. A rumor says the results and pictures of the Ark came to the attention of Leon Trotsky, who either destroyed them or placed them in a file destined to be kept permanently secret. And the courier who delivered the news, his silence was sealed with his execution. "

I agree with RussMan. The idea of a forced abdication might seem like a crazy conspiracy theory to anyone who has never considered it, but there is actually a great deal of evidence to support this.
1. Tzar Nicholas's last journal entry on the day of supposed abdication talked about being surrounded by untrustworthy people. Wouldnt ANYONE making such an important decision have at the very least mentioned the decision?
2. The next day the Tzar was reported as being in a carefree and almost  youthful mood. Even if the abdication was voluntary, the mood almost certainly would have been more somber and reflective. While its been said often that Nicholas never wanted the throne, there is no evidance to back this claim, other than opinions expressed by people other than Nicholas.
3. Its not a matter of opinion to say that Nicholas consulted Alexandra in the majority of his decisions. One can make the case that due to pressure being placed on him, he didnt have time, however why wouldnt he have sent a telegram to his wife the next day then? Instead he Supposedly sent not just one but 2 telegrams to his brother saying basicly "good luck".
He had know contact with Alexandra until he arrived back at the palace ONE MONTH LATER.

Theres alot of other odd things about this such as, the reason we are told he didnt contact Alexandra during this time was due to being so close to German front and communications lines were down. How did he manage to contact his brother than?

Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: July 19, 2005, 01:09:09 PM »
Alexander wasn't exactly celibate before his marriage to Marie, either.

Do you know that as a fact, or is that something you read in a biography?

Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: July 19, 2005, 01:03:33 PM »

This is what happens when a biography is quoted rather than actual source material.  
  Pleshakov graduated from Moscow state university in the 1980's.  That of course doesnt mean he has any sort of agenda, but its probably safe to say he wasnt given a "fair  and balanced" education as far as Nicholas II is concerned.

Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: July 19, 2005, 02:34:01 AM »
Alexander III encouraged his son to visit brotherls and prostitutes (this is before Nicholas became engaged evidently) to train him in the sexual field. Greek Georgie was a usual companion, as was Sandro and other Romanov males of Nicholas II's age.  They called it "potatoe" which was a polite way of putting "going out at night and have sexual intercourse". I don't see why one or more of the women Nicholas visited couldn't have become pregnant, but I've never heard of any illegitimate children attributed to him. However, any information at the time (if there really was a child) was probably destroyed...

First of all, thats got to be just about the most ignorant fabrication I think I've ever heard regarding Nicholas II.
Where did that information come from, Stalin's personal diary?
("dear diary, today the chief of the KGB told me some amusing stories about Nicholas II.  He had a funny laugh, so I had him shot.")
My point is, unless you got that bit of information directly from Tsar Nicholas himself, his memoirs, his father, or his fathers memoirs, its either a gross exageration,wild speculation or the figment of someone's imagination.
"Alexander III encouraged his son to visit brotherls and prostitutes to train him in the sexual field."!?

Regardless of what whether these people were raised Orthodox, Catholic, or southern Baptist, the idea that ANYONE especially a future Tsar would be told BY HIS FATHER to go and have meaningless sex  in order to either "sow his wild oats" or "train him in the sexual field" is just plain ignorant. If this really was an excepted pratice among monarch's, then wouldnt there have been an offical sex ed instructor? If they they were worried enough about its effect on their reputation that they remained secretive about it, wouldnt it make more sense to have a "professional" around for the job?  Why run the risk of creating a scandal or catching a disease?

Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: July 10, 2005, 12:16:32 AM »

I think the main thing Ive been trying to say here, is that regardless of what opinions anyone including myself has of this even being possible,  why create one more thing to be speculated on by those who may have been misinformed to begin with?

The point is, Tsar Nicholas II, his wife and children, and everyone who really cared about them have had every possible type of misinformation and slander hurled at them for nearly 100 years. Unless Nicholas II wrote something himself in one of his journals concerning this matter,its not an appropriate thing to be discussed here without concrete facts to draw from.  And because of the fact that this is the only website of this size dedicated to the Royal family,I think anyone who takes this site seriously has a responsbility to at the very least keep the speculating to a minimum.  No matter what our personal opinions I think everyone would agree they deserve that much at this point.

Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: July 09, 2005, 05:18:47 AM »
Getting a little drunk with some friends is not equivalent to having sex a number times with someone he barely knew, I dont care how you look at.
Were not talking about events that took place 10 years ago in a cheap hotel.   People so often seem to have this idea of historical figures that more often than not, reflects the morals and behavior you might see in a made for tv movie instead of reality.
First of all, Ive heard those storys of Alexannder and
his father, but I have yet to see anything that could be considered more than just a theary.
Second, Catherine was not a Tsar, you had to be a male for that.
Last but not least, let me know if you think of any more Bill Clinton type tsars, but because I honestly dont think you'll find any.

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tzar Ivan IV the Terrible
« on: July 09, 2005, 03:59:01 AM »
actually he had 8 children...

feodor was retarded, vasili died young and dmitri was the result of the seventh marriage which was not considered by the church (the orthodox church only allows three marriages).... and the tsar apparently caused ivan's death (the only one left who could qualify as an heir) when he kicked him with an iron (ivan jumped in the defence of his wife who was pregnant but was not wearing according clothes - or so the tsar thought)....

basically after he died there were two boys left: feodor and dmitri... feodor was tsar for 15 years but he was basically no good because he was retarded. dmitri died in 1591 (official version was that he had epilepsy, but there were many rumours of murder and even more rumours of him not being dead - there were three false dmitris and two of them actually ruled russia... now dmitri is a saint...)...

feodor only had a daughter, that led to a succesion crisis, civil war and there came the romanovs :)...

does anyone get the feeling ivan the terrible sounds a lot like henry viii? just like him, he was obsessed with the succession, had many wives, fights with the church and in the end all that for nothing... there was still no proper heir...  :-/


No offense, but you really ought to do a little more reasearch before you go stating information usually only found in a junior high school textbook account of Russian history.  Everything youve written about this so far is not only disrespectful to those your writting about, but it also helps to keep these horribly inaccurate and just plain "retarded" versions of history around even longer.
Just as an example, in your last paragraph alone there isnt one single thing there that can be considered fact, let alone actually backed with solid evidence.  Not only was Feodor NOT retarded, he was also responsible for a period of prosperity and growth in Russia that lasted until shortly after his death (directly into whats known as  the "time of troubles"). He as WELL as his father Ivan, were also listed as saints in the Orthodox church  until the revolution. There's also no account in Rusian I've  come across that has said a word about Ivan being either obsessed with having an heir OR having any problem with the church.  In fact he built a quite a number of church's during his reign, and consulted  clergy members concerning just about everything.
And if he did actually have more than one wife, it was probably because people kept poisoning them to death.

Rasputin / Re: Rasputin Descendents ?
« on: July 09, 2005, 02:49:41 AM »
    She was indeed a lion tamer. and aparently a good one.  She was even on a box of wheaties at one point.

Rasputin / Re: What would've happened if Rasputin wasn't kill
« on: July 09, 2005, 02:36:57 AM »
Not to be snippy, but I dont see any way this could have possibly gotten any worse than it actually did.

Rasputin / Re: Stabbing of Rasputin in 1914
« on: July 09, 2005, 02:28:15 AM »
Tioumen hospital."

Wilson points out the weird fact that he was stabbed at the same time as the shots were fired in Sarajevo - same day, almost at the same time.

R heard of the Russian mobilisation when in hospital. He telegrams Nicholas to avert war, but it is too late.


That account sounds pretty much the same as the one  R's daughter Maria later wrote except for one small, but nevertheless interesting, detail that was left out.  

Maria write's :

...And when the fatal news was brought
to him,  he understood that the inevitable had been done.He sobbed bitterly repeating obstinately:
“now all will perish.”

I think this does an excellent job of shedding some light on just who this man really was.

Nicholas II / Re: Did Nicholas II Have any Illegitimate Children
« on: July 08, 2005, 11:04:19 PM »
What people have to remember here is the fact that the Russian Monarchy was, even from the very begining, an overwhelmingly christian monarchy.  And this was not just symbolic; it effected every aspect of a Tzars life,from the decision making process on down to family life, especially in the case of Tsar Nicholas II.  And to say he was a man of the times, with the implication being that he must have done the sort of things a politician of today might have done in his youth,is really doing him a diservice. The other members of the royal family may have not lived according to the same high moral standards(they also were not expected to), but I think thats one of main reasons why both Tsar Nicholas, and his family, stood out from the rest of the nobility. It's also worth noting that Tsar Nicholas rarely let his children come in any contact with the rest of his family, outside of family gatherings and social events, because of their lack of disipline and morals.
What tends to be overlooked these days, and is crucial to really understanding who these people were, is that holding a position of leadership back in those times was never taken lightly by a Monarch no matter what country or religion the ruler was brought up in.   And because of  how close of a relationship the Orthodox Church had with  the Russian Monarchy, this strict moral code was ingrained in them from early childhood.  In the case of an heir to the throne, such as Nicholas, any deviation from this would have been sorted out and set aside early on in life. So its not a matter of "could there have been an illegitimate son?", its a matter of, would he have had a sexual relationship with someone he was not married to, given the fact that he was a devout Christian both before AND after his marraige to Alexandra(back then being a devout christian meant you actually abided by the law's of the church).  

This may sound naive given the times we live in, but just because he was involved with another woman before marriage,  does not mean he was involved sexually, and there is nothing about his character that has ever suggested otherwise.

 There is a reason why there has never been a Bill Clinton-esque Tsar throughout the history of Russia, and it has to be understood that there never could have been.  

Nicholas II / Re: Nicholas and the Ark?
« on: July 08, 2005, 07:55:27 PM »
I remember seeing something about this awhile back on TV,  I think it was a discovery channel documentary but I dont remember for sure. Anyway,  I looked around a little online and came across a site said this on it:

"A Russian pilot flying over the area reported a dark structure about the size of a battleship with a rounded-over top on Mount Ararat. He claimed it was definitely a boat. In 1917, Czar Nicholas dispatched two companies of soldiers to locate and document the extraordinary find. Incredibly in view of failed later expeditions, they had no trouble finding the relic. After measuring it, they made a photographic record of it. Later that year, Russia was in the throes of the Revolution that saw the defeat of Czar Nicholas, and the photographic evidence disappeared. It was seen, though. Anastasia, the Czar's youngest daughter, reported seeing the photographs and reading the report. She also reportedly wore a cross made from the wood of Noah's Ark."

Here's a link to the site I pulled this off of,  for anyone intersted in reading the rest of the article.

Pages: [1] 2 3