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.

Topics - Jeremiah

Pages: [1]
I know this is out of date.

I’m only now reading FOTR and I have great difficulty going through the first chapters. I’m sure that most of what I shall write here have been discussed thoroughly on the special threads on FOTR. I confess that I have not read the threads yet –I don’t have the time right now, due to an ongoing project with strict deadlines. I need to finish King’s & Wilson’s book the soonest. BUT, I couldn’t help taking the time to express just a few thoughts on these first couple of chapters of the book before moving on. Forgive me.

-On Nicholas’ “impotence”

King & Wilson, p. 30: “It was the empire’s misfortune, and Nicholas II’s personal tragedy, that he took the throne at this crucial moment. Hopelessly ill equipped to deal with the burdens of his exalted position, and incapable of decisive action in the face of impending catastrophe…”

Vyrubova, Memories, p. 66: “He had qualities of leadership with very limited opportunities to exercise those qualities.”
Dehn, Real Tsaritsa, p. 87: “"He is accused of weakness," she said bitterly. "He is the strongest-not the weakest. I assure you, Lili, that it cost the Emperor a tremendous effort to subdue the attacks of rage to which the Romanoffs are subject. He has learnt the hard lesson of self-control, only to be called weak; people forget that the greatest conqueror is he who conquers himself." … "I wonder they don't accuse him of being too good: that, at least, would be true!".”
Hanbury-Williams, The Emperoro Nicholas, p. 67: “He is so keen, if he were well supported.”
Ibid, pp. 72-73: “Had a long talk to Alexeieff and Admiral Russin on munition matters, in which there appears to be some improvement, due no doubt to the energy with which the Emperor pursues this all-important question.”

According to Dominic Lieven, specialist on Imperial Russia who teaches at the London School of Economics, Nicholas II was not stupid. Nor was he nearly as weak as is commonly thought. The dilemmas of ruling Russia were vast and contradictory, and it was an illusion to think that simply by agreeing to become a constitutional monarch Nicholas could have preserved his dynasty and empire. Drawing many eerie parallels to events unfolding in Russia today, Lieven shows that social and technological change had far outstripped the existing political and executive structures.

Listen to his remarkable lecture at Gresham College:

-The distortion of his sense of orderliness

King & Wilson, p. 35: “Nicholas ruled his empire as a man might jealously guard his mistress, keeping secrets from his own government and neglecting to inform one ministry what the other was doing, in an attempt to maintain the illusion that only he truly remained in control. So complete was this jealousy that he would not even have a private secretary, for fear that another might come between him and his prerogatives.”

Vyrubova, p. 55: “The study was a perfect model of orderliness, the big writing table having every pen and pencil exactly in its place. The large calendar also with appointments written carefully in the Emperor's own hand was always precisely in its proper place. The Emperor often said that he wanted to be able to go into his study in the dark and put his hand at once on any object he knew to be there.”

-On Nicholas’ “cruelty”

King & Wilson, Entire 1st paragraph of p. 38

Amalia Kussner Coudert, The Human Side of the Tsar (see: “This well-authenticated story stated that the Tsar thus caught sight of a party of students who were being marched through the street on their way to Siberia, and, so the story went, at once ordered the release of the students. Afterward, the lady told me in a whisper, the police marched their prisoners on streets through which the Tsar did not drive.”

Spiridovich (quoted in Massie’s, Nicholas and Alexandra, p. 128):
[The story is very touching. It’s a bit long though, so I’m not copying fully here –just the end of it . If you like, I would happily do so.]
“I thank you very much for acting the way you did,” said Nicholas. “One must never hesitate when one has the chance to save the life of a man. Thank God that neither your conscience nor mine will have anything to reproach themselves for.” Quickly, he wrote a telegram to the Minister of Justice: “Defer the execution of S. Await orders.” He handed the paper to a court messenger and added, “Run!”
Orlov returned to the girl and told her what had happened. She fainted and Orlov had to revive her. When she could speak, her first words were, “Whatever happens to us, we are ready to give our lives for the Emperor.” Later, when Orlov saw Nicholas and told him her words, the Tsar smiled and said, “You see, you have made two people, her and me, very happy.”

-On his “stubbornness”

King & Wilson, p. 36: “Thus Nicholas once declared: “I shall never, under any circumstances, agree to a representative form of government because I consider it harmful to the people whom God has entrusted to my care.” … his blind devotion to its principles drove the country headlong to revolution.”

The authors contradict themselves just two pages after that (p. 38), where they present “stubborn” Nicholas granting a constitution simply just because (!): “the grand duke [Nicholas] stormed into his nephew’s study, brandishing a pistol and threatening to shoot himself on the spot unless the emperor granted a constitution. Faced with this, Nicholas reluctantly signed the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which created Russia’s first elected legislature, the Duma.”

This was just a spontaneous necessity dictated by the voice of my consciousness. Sorry... Soon I shall read the threads on FOTR. I know that most of the controversies are solved -or at least dealt with- there. Thanks.

I just came accross this book, published last year. Has anyone read it? It's just 56 pages. Publisher's note:

The spiritual diary of the saint Tsaritsa the Passion Bearer is a treasure that has been kept under wraps for a long time. If it is to reveal to the reader the truth about her pure soul, it is sure to become not as much a historical discovery as a religious one. The original diary from 1917 is a small book bound in fabric with a light blue cover sewn by Alexandra Fyodorovna herself and with a small cross embroidered in the corner. On the inside of the cover, written by the hand of Her Majesty, is a simple “Alix, 1917.”

Anyone who knows anything about it at all?

Amazon link:

A series of strange actions against Nicholas II has lately taken place in Russia. It makes one wonder: Why now? Is it because of the Revolution’s centennial? Is it because of the regicide’s coming centennial? Both? And the most critical question: Who is behind of it all? It really is strange…

A Film
“Orthodox Protesting New Film’s Portrayal of Tsar Nicholas II”

A new film, “Mathilde,” to be released in October, is dedicated to the history of the life of the ballerina Mathilde Kschessinska. It depicts an ongoing relationship with the ballerina even after Nicholas’ marriage to Alexandra.

A Vandalism
“Monument to Tsar Nicholas II, Tsarevich Alexey in Novosibirsk Attacked with Axe”

A 31-year-old Novosibirsk man placed a ladder against the newly-consecrated monument, and, having climbed up it, dealt several blows with an axe. The head of the tsarevich in the monument, which was apparently the target, is currently covered over by a cloth.

A Hero
"Communists Lay Flowers at the Grave of the Murderer of Russia's Imperial Family"

On July 16th Sverdlovsk communists laid flowers at the grave of the killer of the Romanov family, the revolutionary Peter Ermakov. The ceremony was headed by Alexander Ivachev, leader of the local Communist Party Branch.


Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) speaking in an interview with Russian Gazette, asked rhetorically… “What is that? …it is slander against real people”. As for me, Jeremiah, I’m wondering: Is there a deeper meaning to all this? I apologize for the rhetoric question. However, one can only stand with bewilderment at all these; at least that’s what I can only do.


I don’t know whether this issue has been brought up before here. If it did, then please let me know the thread that dealt with it, because I was not able to find it.

So, the question is about an article I came across on Royal Foibles, May 6, 2015, which examines the “involvement” of Queen Mary in the death of Nicholas and his Family. From the article:

“According to Lady Colin Campbell’s recent biography of the Queen Mother, the meanest girl of all toward Princess Mary among her extended family while she was growing up was Princess Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt, later Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia. Mary and her itinerant family often spent holidays in Hesse-Darmstadt, where putting her in her lowly place was among Princess Alix’s favourite pastimes.”

Later on, the article gives an account by Prince Edward, according to which it was his mother the Queen that insisted on not accepting the Romanov family in UK. So, according to the article, Mary was actually giving a payback to Alexandra for what she had “suffered” from her in the past.

For the article:


Pages: [1]