Author Topic: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?  (Read 4055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rosieposie

  • Guest
If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« on: February 12, 2010, 01:36:44 AM »
I know that there is other Romanov relatives still out there, however, if all royality still existed  today Russian, Germany, Romanian etc do you think we would have deep appreciation for the IF like we all do? 

I just thought about this as we so many new members have appeared, some with a thing for OTMA (yes I used to be like that lol) and others with a general interest.

Any thoughts?

rosieposie

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2010, 10:43:32 AM »
Come on guys be honest, if the events of 1914 didn't occur and Nicholas lived out the regin until his natural death and Alexei (if he survived his condition) married and took his rightful position and the other royal families still ruled their countries today.  

Would we as members of this forum still be interested in them?  If their tragic path/fate didn't happen would we take an anormous interest in this family?  Would those that have an *opheliac interest for OTMA be fawning over them if they actually married and lived their natural lives?  

What is it with the IF that has drawn us to them?   Is it their story?  The once beautiful and powerful family having their fate sealed with Nicholas signing his abdication thus the events turned their cheerful life (despite Alexei's condtion) into one of despair with a tragic ending.

I am interested as to what your thoughts are as to why we as a group of Romanov historians have bought us here to this site?  Do you find comfort talking to others about the IF with people that actually know what your talking about instead of your loved ones who give you a WTF look or go "weirdo" under their breaths as you go on and on about the IF.


*Yes I do mean those girls that like to make a big deal over OTMA and have a girl crush on them.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 10:48:45 AM by rosieposie »

Nicola De Valeron

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2010, 11:21:44 AM »
If you need honest answer, then here is my terse and laconic answer for you. Just sober position from sober man. who do not "infected" with the different "monarchical" diseases.

I think that if the Romanovs could have a chance to rule Russia even more 5 or 10 years, it would be even more catastrophic, disastrous and tragic for Russia and for Russian History, even more tragic than it was after October "counterrevolution". There is a great law for any sober minded leader: "If you want to continue your rulership and to be alive, you need to share your power".

Honest answer to your honest question.;)

P.S. By the way, I love personally Nicholas II. He was a very kind, intelligent and open man. Good father!! But this is not enough. Very sad truth, and tragic destiny of a one royal family.

aleksandr pavlovich

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM »
Attention  "rosieposie" and your reply #1 of this topic:   I will deal primarily with your first three paragraphs in responses that are of my opinion ONLY:   First and second paragraphs, supposing that the last IF had lived our their "normal" lives:  Had this happened, no particular interest would be shown and the males would have been relegated in time to a regnal number or proper assignment, and with the females marrying, filling up spaces iin genealogical tables in the Almanach de Gotha, or like volume. A perfectly "ho-hum" ending.     With regard to your third paragraph:   I am not a "Romanov historian " (rather a "mediaevalist"), and in fact care relatively little for the last IF, with all their woes and shortcomings (as we all have!).  Theirs ultimately was a tragedy, yes, but tragedies happened frequently, both then and now, to good and bad people alike.  Two things for many, many posters on here, have perpetuated the IF members beyond reason:  The (former) missing bodies, leading to the "Anna Anderson," et. al episode/s and the cartoon movie by Fox, "Anastasia,' which of course fed off elements of the Anna Anderson story and spawned a new generation of music boxes, plastic tiaras and little "shrines."  Without these two influences, I dare say that 90+% of the people here would not recognize the stand-alone name,"Romanov."  Only the serious readers of history and historians would go in-depth on this subject.  (I have intentionally left off the Yul Brynner "Anastasia," and lesser, similiar items of that genre, including the "mystery" of Rasputin. )   Regards,  AP
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 12:56:11 PM by aleksandr pavlovich »

abbigail

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2010, 04:09:12 PM »
One of the things that draws people to the Romanovs (specifically the last IF) is the tragedy, and the abrupt ending of that dynasty. Honestly I don't think the monarchy in that country could have possibly gone on much past the revolutions, and if it had, as Nicola said, the outcome couldn't have been much better than the outcome we know today. I think the whole history and situation is a confusing but meaningful example of remembrance, right and wrong, human nature, etc. This kind of learning makes you respect the history. If the dynasty still existed, then I honestly don't think nearly as many people would be interested because what would have been learned? But of course, I could be wrong in my speculations.

Really interesting question, rosie!  ;) 

rosieposie

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2010, 09:28:17 PM »
Thanks for your replies it is a breath of fresh air seeing a much more serious thread. Oh yes I heartedly agree that the monarchy couldn't last long if the abdication didn't happen.   Possibly if Nicholas thought it through such as getting the family out of Russia and a safe haven like Denmark before he signed his abdication then I think the IF would have lived out their natural lives. 

I noticed the "regular" OTMA opheliacs didn't responde  ::) meh what can you do.

Offline Vecchiolarry

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2010, 10:03:27 PM »
Hi,

I'm not sure I would be that interested in the Russian monarchy or many of the others, if they survived.

Speaking from today's perpective, I only follow the British monarchy, because Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada.
And, I am inteested in the Dutch monarchy because Juliana, Beatrix and her sisters were stationed here during WWII..
Canadians revere Juliana still...  And consider Margriet as a Canadian Princess too....

Larry

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2010, 12:17:52 AM »
....Oh yes I heartedly agree that the monarchy couldn't last long if the abdication didn't happen.   Possibly if Nicholas thought it through such as getting the family out of Russia and a safe haven like Denmark before he signed his abdication then I think the IF would have lived out their natural lives. 

If, if ... and only if.  OK, if Nikolai II consented to grant a constitutional monarchic system of government before the outbreak of WWI, then most likely there would have been negligible dissent stemming from the floor of the Duma. Most likely the Emperor would have been able to complete his reign and then upon his death, pass his Crown to his successor. However, given that such a complex administrative change could not have been effected during wartime, the cards began to stack against him.

It is worthwhile to recognize that Nikolai II was coerced into 'abdicating', whilst he was forcibly detained on his train. He most certainly did think "through" his options, reaching the conclusion that his brother, Mikhail Alexandrovich would accept the Crown from him.  However Mikhail failed to do that and the Provisional Government became the government of the day.

At the time of his 'abdication' the Emperor did not envision the collapse of the monarchy, nor could he possibly be expected to foresee that later on he would be seeking a surety from Alexander Kerensky for himself and his family to relocate safely to Britain.

If Russia did not enter WWII, my parents would have remained in Russia.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

rosieposie

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2010, 09:13:14 PM »
Belochka that is a good post,  I nodded with the thought that Nicholas was perhaps a little niave on his part as to forsee what was going to happen to his family and indeed it was to late to try to get help for his family to be able to seek help in Britain.

Joyann1

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2010, 01:01:51 PM »
You want my honest answer? If there would have been a constitutional monarchy and not tragedy/mystery i wouldn't be as interested in them as now. My entire interest started with the mystery of Anastasia. ( that is for the most of us )
what i learned in history class about this family was that Nicholas II fought against germany in WWI and that he and his family had a tragic fate. so if there would have been a C.M ( constitutional monarchy ) and no Tragic Mystery i would have switched my interest to The Bourbons ( haha J/K )

victoriakin

  • Guest
Re: If the dynasty still exisited where would we be?
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2010, 03:49:06 PM »
You want my honest answer? If there would have been a constitutional monarchy and not tragedy/mystery i wouldn't be as interested in them as now. My entire interest started with the mystery of Anastasia. ( that is for the most of us )
what i learned in history class about this family was that Nicholas II fought against germany in WWI and that he and his family had a tragic fate. so if there would have been a C.M ( constitutional monarchy ) and no Tragic Mystery i would have switched my interest to The Bourbons ( haha J/K )

It seems to me that because of the existence of the Duma, which was brought about as a result of the 1905 Revolution (Is this correct?), that the movement towards a Constitutional Monarchy such as in England was and could have been a realistic possibility. I think that some accounts of the circumstances leading up to the "Abdication" (which was a piece of paper not written by Nicholas which Nicholas was forced to sign at weapon-point), followed by similar by Michael (which likewise shocked Nicholas, according to the New York Times account), are flawed by who tells and what they tell. There were extraneious events and issues that took place. There were objectives and goals, and there were those who could have, if so inclined, have foisted a Constitution upon Nicholas as easily as they foisted an "Abdication". I think that what is most tragic is the filters of facts that erode truth over time and agendas.

It seems to me that the influence of the Monarchy upon the landscape of the world is a story that would have continued, and be a part of the tapestry of history that other monarchies and regimes are and continue to be. Did you know, that by the time of WW1, Russia had already an operating air force and flight schools? When Oliver and Wilbur Wright were in their bicycle shed there were Russians in theirs? And that people from all over the world sought out Russian flight training?

History is, what history is, to those who care about history. Who else enriched the world as Nicholas did during his own brief reign, whose truths were as much muffled as his own life? He was innovative in his style of addressing his public as he was in recognizing techology.

We fight for peace in our current culture, and Nicholas was criticized for being a man of peace, at the time of the "Abdication".