The return of Maria Fyodorovna's remains to Russia

[Chrissi]

The return of the remains of Tsar Nicholas II's mother to Russia (her beloved adopted homeland) has sparked talks among many Russians (within the country) who are wondering if this is part of a secret plan to reinstate the Russian royal family to power (Reported on ABC News Australia). I was wondering if anyone had any comments to make on this subject? What would be the implications of such a move?

Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060926/ts_afp/russiadenmarkroyals_060926123824) is one news story on the return of Maria Fyodorovna's remains from Tuesday 26th (I haven't found anything more recent as such).

In Christ,
Christina

[Elena]

This is not the first time this rumour has occurred. I think Yeltsin even mentioned it once following the Tsar's burial in 1998. However it is difficult to see how Russia would benefit from a restoration of the monarchy. Whilst the manner of the deaths of the royal family are widely lamented in Russia the passing of the monarchy is not and many would strongly resent their return. Furthermore the behavior of the surviving Romanovs has not been encouraging; the Tsar's burial was postponed whilst they argued over seating precedence.

[Chrissi]

This is not the first time this rumour has occurred. I think Yeltsin even mentioned it once following the Tsar's burial in 1998. However it is difficult to see how Russia would benefit from a restoration of the monarchy. Whilst the manner of the deaths of the royal family are widely lamented in Russia the passing of the monarchy is not and many would strongly resent their return. Furthermore the behavior of the surviving Romanovs has not been encouraging; the Tsar's burial was postponed whilst they argued over seating precedence.

Dear Elena,

Thankyou for your reply. I am interested in the story of the last Tsar, and this information is helpful to me in gaining an understanding of this story.

In Christ,
Christina

[Scott Pierson]

I just read a great book on Tsarism. I would really recomend it. its :

The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy
by Matthew Raphael Johnson

Was Ivan the Terrible Really a Mad Butcher?  Wasn't Emperor Paul a monster?  Was Tsarist rule completely unlimited?  Was the peasantry under serfdom oppressed?  Who financed the Bolsheviks?  Did the Tsars really represent the Russian people?  Where did Russian Liberalism actually come from? Just in time for the 300th anniversary of Petrograd, a new book on pre-Bolshevik Russian history has been published in English. It is a defense of royalism from Kievan Rus' until the abdication of Tsar Martyr Nicholas II at the end of World War I. For English speaking readers, it is the only published account of Tsarist Russia that succeeds in demolishing the arguments of the left Anglo-American historians on the evils and tyranny of the Tsarist government. This work is a concise defense of Tsarism and the notion of Orthodox Russia. Just after the History Channel's hatchet job on the Romanovs recently ran on American television, referring to the Tsars as butchers and tyrants, this new book could not be more useful.

[Chrissi]

I just read a great book on Tsarism. I would really recomend it. its :

The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy
by Matthew Raphael Johnson



Thanks for the recommendation Scott, I'll look into it when I get a chance, it sounds very interesting.

In Christ,
Christina

[Elena]

For English speaking readers, it is the only published account of Tsarist Russia that succeeds in demolishing the arguments of the left Anglo-American historians on the evils and tyranny of the Tsarist government. This work is a concise defense of Tsarism and the notion of Orthodox Russia. Just after the History Channel's hatchet job on the Romanovs recently ran on American television, referring to the Tsars as butchers and tyrants, this new book could not be more useful.

The history channel does a hatchet job on almost every area of history they address. I studied the history of Russia from 1600-1800 at university and the vast majority of serious historians today do not consider Tsarist government one of "evils and tyranny."

Christina I'm afraid the twentieth century is not really my period but I would suggest 'Nicholas II: Twilight of the Empire' by Dominic Lieven, it provides a general background to the last Tsar's life and the many causes of the revolution.

[Kris]

Hi,

I recently read a book called Nicholas and Alexandra (http://www.amazon.com/Nicholas-Alexandra-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345438310/sr=1-1/qid=1159616065/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2355751-5945537?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Robert K. Massie.

I thought it was extremely well written, since it managed to avoid the dryness one usually finds in these kinds of books, and it covered every aspect of the blessed Tsar-martyr's life in a fair and balanced manner, without resorting to the slander and untruth one finds in other western authors.

So if you have an interest in the subject, this book is a must imho.

In XC,
Kris

[Anthony]

Thank you for this recommendation. I have read his book on Peter the Great, and thought that that too was excellent.

[Scott Pierson]

I recently read a book called Nicholas and Alexandra, by Robert K. Massie.

wow I can get a copy in hard back for only 1 cent. At that price everyone should pick a copy up.

[John Charmley]

I wouldn't want to intrude much on this thread, since there seems a general determination to see Nicholas II as a martyr. He was certainly one of the early victims of the Bolshevik terror which went on to kill so many over the next eighty years, but that does not dispense him from responsibility for mismanaging a difficult inheritance.


Certainly Dominic Lieven's excellent Nicholas II (1993) is the place to go for a balanced account - but Massie is a little on the 'history-lite' side of things. Orlando Figes, A Peoples' Tragedy gives one a slightly different perspective. What is especially good about Lieven is that he tackles head on the idea that Nicholas was stupid and weak; he was neither, but then nor was he equipped to rule in the way he tried to rule, and his choices were not of the wisest.

The debate about whether he was or was not a martyr is an interesting one, although I find it disturbing that some of those arguing for it stress the fact that the leaders of the local Bolsheviks who killed him were Jewish; so they were, but most of those who shot him and his family were not. It seems like a nasty reminder of the anti-semitism that was part of the Imperial Russian experience.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Dear All,

As to the sanctity of Nicholas II, there can now be no doubt - my wife and I have been to the church in Moscow where there is the myrrh-streaming icon of him, and he is now widely venerated in Moscow. It is interesting that in 1905, he proposed to the Holy Synod that he should step down as Tsar in favour of his brother, Grand Duke Michael (a more 'typical Romanov', like their father, Alexander III), and that he, Nicholas, become a monastic, be ordained and, on restoration of the Patriarchate, become Patriarch. This proposal was met with stony silence!
People we know in Moscow do not seriously await or want a restoration of the monarchy. For one thing, a tsar could not be a constitutional monarch on the English model because a tsar has to have the authority which would flow from being God's instrument on earth for the governance of Russia. It seems Nicholas was not weak but was betrayed by those who were influenced by western liberal ideologies. One might say that this process began in France in 1789. Certain Russian elders of the twentieth century did, however, predict there would be a pious and strong tsar near the last times.
As to life before the Revolution, my wife remembers conversations with her grandparents who were children just before the Revolution, who in turn remembered conversations with their parents. There was no suggestion of feeling oppressed but on the contrary of a contented and ordered life. I doubt the conditions of life for the poorest were any worse than for the poorest elsewhere in Europe, including England.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Andreas

I think you paint a rather rosy picture.

I am myself a monarchist but I do not believe that the Imperial model is generally successful or even very godly. Most of the problems of Orthodoxy seem to me to actually be rooted in the Imperialism of the past. I am happy with a constitutional monarchy.

The monarch is a member of the Church. No monarch can become a monk and then patriarch just because they suggest so. We don't tend to have hereditary episcopates for very good reasons.

Here in England all manner of evils sprang from the political power of ecclesial figures, and likewise the ecclesial power of political figures.

To be honest I am very glad that such a model is unlikely ever to be revived. A godly monarch is a great blessing, but the most powerful king on earth is of less authority than a catechumen in the Church if he is not himself a man of faith. And if he is a man of faith then he is a layman in the Church and should know his place, even as the bishops of a godly king should know theirs. Emperor Haile Selassie was such a ruler. Truly devout and humble. But he was fairly out of the ordinary in the world catalogue of rulers.

I cannot speak for or against the personal holiness of Nicholas II, but life for English peasants was generally not very good and was generally fairly short. They had all manner of legitimate greivances that were normally dealt with violently by 'God's instrument on earth' at the time.

Power tends to corrupt. The last thing anyone with power needs is to be told that their actions are divine. Putin is pretty much an analogue for a Tsar. Frankly I am glad to be English.

Peter

[Anthony]

I have no doubts about the sanctity of the Royal Martyrs, and had the same opinion even before they were formally canonized - despite not coming from the kind of political background that leads naturally to such a belief.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I do not believe that their canonization is, as such, an endorsement of the pre-revolutionary regime in general or of St Nicholas' own reign in particular, though of course there are many Orthodox who believe in both. It has more to do with the personal qualities with which he and his family, as Christians, met their imprisonment and death.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Peter,

I'm not sure which part of my message you thought 'rather rosy' but presumably it was the last paragraph. What I alluded to were the accounts of life in Russia related to my wife and her elder brother by their grandfather George (their father's father), 1897-1984. George was from a family who were serfs but who managed eventually to improve their lot by hard work. George's father acquired a small farm on the edge of an estate in the Tver region, and it was on that farm that George and his family lived, and on which my wife spent her summer holidays as a child (though two-thirds of the farm had been taken by the collective farm of the village). George was in no doubt about which of the two systems under which he lived was the better, even though no one in the family was sent to the camps, and even though his life after 1917 was happy enough. Not a rosy picture but the factual account of one who lived through those times.

There are many examples of royals becoming monastics, e.g Alexander Nevsky. I do not see the conection between this and your refeence to 'hereditary episcopates'.

Nicholas II was indeed a man of deep faith and humility and took a deep interest in the Church. Did he not overrule the Holy Synod and insist on the canonisation of St Seraphim of Sarov? As Anthony says, the canonisation of Nicholas is not to be regarded as any kind of comment on his reign.

England and Russia are so different that comparisons are not to be drawn. I could comment on Putin, but this is enough!

[Anthony]

Dear Andreas,



As to the sanctity of Nicholas II, there can now be no doubt - my wife and I have been to the church in Moscow where there is the myrrh-streaming icon of him, and he is now widely venerated in Moscow.

Could you tell me which church this is? I was not aware of this icon, which is a pity as I was in Moscow a few months ago.

Anthony

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Anthony,

The icon of Tsar Martyr Nicholas II is now in the church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker (Svyeti Nikolai V Ryzhah) in a street called Bolshaya Ordinka close to the Tretyakovskaya metro station. It was formerly in the Ascension Cathedral. In Russian websites, and a few English language ones, there are many accounts of miracles attributed to the icon.

It must be understood and stressed that veneration of the Tsar Martyr is not any kind of expression by Russians of nostalgia for the Tsarist regime. However, it is widely held that the regicide needs atonement by the Russian people. Veneration of the Tsar is the means of doing this. It is signficant that the icon issues myrrh on certain significant dates such as the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, the day of the murders and on the day of the canonisation of St Seraphim (whom the Tsar loved and who prophesied the fall of the Tsar and his murder).

[Kris]

I am myself a monarchist but I do not believe that the Imperial model is generally successful or even very godly.

Hi,

Since we're on this topic, I wondered whether you knew of any movement within the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to canonise H.I.M. Haile Selassie I.

I see something of a similiarity between him and H.I.M. St Nicholas II. Both were the last Orthodox Emperors within their respective churches, both suffered at the hands of Marxists, and both are widely aknowledged to be men of great religious piety.

In XC,
Kris

[Alec Lowly]

It is interesting that in 1905, (Nicholas II) proposed to the Holy Synod that he should step down as Tsar in favour of his brother, Grand Duke Michael (a more 'typical Romanov', like their father, Alexander III), and that he, Nicholas, become a monastic, be ordained and, on restoration of the Patriarchate, become Patriarch.

May I ask for your source for this account, Andreas? I have read a great deal over the years about Nicholas and never came across this story. It seems very unlikely to me. Nicholas was a profoundly devoted family man, deeply in love with his wife and very involved with his children. As for any restoration of the patriarchate, that's a puzzle. If Nicholas had wanted that, all he had to do was order it to be done and it would have been done. He gave no such order.

In XC,
Alec Lowly

[Scott Pierson]

It is interesting that in 1905, (Nicholas II) proposed to the Holy Synod that he should step down as Tsar in favour of his brother,

I have read that he wanted his brother to be Tsar I dont remember anything about him wanting to be monk and then patriarch though.

[Andreas Moran]

Last time my wife and I were in Moscow, we bought a video called, 'Wondrous is God in His Saints' which is a biograpy of Nicholas II. It is full of film footage, and the dialogue mentions this. Since the rest of the dialogue contains material we have read elsewhere, we had no reason to doubt mention of this, but on the other hand, we don't have the source for it.
I am not a historian but it does seem that conventional western and Russian history needs to be re-examined objectively. For instance, it is usually said that the Revolution happened because the people suffered intolerable repression, but this seems not to have been so, as Russians know now. It was said that Russia was a backward country, but there is evidence that western economists said that Russia just before WWI had the fastest growth rate in Europe, and that economically, it would outstrip all countries in a few decades. It is now well known that the Revolution was the work of external enemies, principally Germany, because the west was afraid of Russia's wealth and power - as, indeed, it is now, hence the attempts to undermine it just as then. Putin is not perfect, but he is vilified in the west because he stands up for Russia. He is accused of reducing democracy but I know that that is not true. I don't bang a drum for Russia from nostalgia or because my wife is Russian, but I have been there many times now, and I can see western media coverage for what it is.
There is world-wide coverage of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya - protests and so on, and comment that this is yet another sign of lack of freedom and of oppression in Russia. And where is the coverage of the inquest verdict last week on the death of Terry Lloyd? Who was Terry Lloyd? He was an English ITV journalist killed by the American military in Iraq. The inquest recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. The evidence from a Belgium journalist with him was that the Americans didn't like his coverage. He was in a minibus clearly marked, Press, but an American tank fired on it from behind. Lloyd was injured, and an ambulance came and he was put in it. Not content, the Americans fired on the ambulance and killed him. The Coroner called for American film of the incident but the film they supplied had 15 minutes cut from it. See BBC News website.
Where is the world-wide coverage of this war crime? Where are the statements from human rights organisations saying that this shows a retreat from democracy in America? Nothing!
And what has this got to do with a website like this? Holy Russia is the centre of Orthodox faith. It is there that St Seraphim will be resurrected according to his prophecy to preach repentance to the world. Russia is the spiritual core of the world. The forces in the west which are anti-Christian know this and will seek to undermine and destroy Russia and the Orthodox Church as they did before.
I'm not off my trolley, in case you were wondering.

[Alec Lowly]

I am not a historian but it does seem that conventional western and Russian history needs to be re-examined objectively. For instance, it is usually said that the Revolution happened because the people suffered intolerable repression, but this seems not to have been so, as Russians know now. It was said that Russia was a backward country, but there is evidence that western economists said that Russia just before WWI had the fastest growth rate in Europe, and that economically, it would outstrip all countries in a few decades.

Yes, Andreas, I am aware that this is basically true. There is tremendous ignorance in the West about Russian history. The "revolution" initially was only one city -- Petersburg -- and the emergence of a constitutional monarchy remained possible there for some time, headed by some Romanov other than Nicholas, of course. But his brother, Michael, declined to serve, after which political affairs began to spin out of control. Nicholas' abdication was forced by the military, hoping against hope that new leadership might turn the war effort around; the military was also spooked by the unrest that was spreading among the people as a result of the staggering losses the Russian army was incurring. The fact is, by the time of the abdication, no one had confidence in Nicholas' civil or military leadership, so desperate people resorted to desperate measures. And the Bolsheviks did not lead the revolution, of course -- they stole it by force of arms.


I'm not off my trolley, in case you were wondering.

I never said you were.

[Scott Pierson]

Russian history needs to be re-examined objectively. For instance, it is usually said that the Revolution happened because the people suffered intolerable repression, but this seems not to have been so, as Russians know now. It was said that Russia was a backward country, but there is evidence that western economists said that Russia just before WWI had the fastest growth rate in Europe, and that economically, it would outstrip all countries in a few decades. It is now well known that the Revolution was the work of external enemies, principally Germany, because the west was afraid of Russia's wealth and power - as, indeed, it is now, hence the attempts to undermine it just as then. Putin is not perfect, but he is vilified in the west because he stands up for Russia. He is accused of reducing democracy but I know that that is not true. I don't bang a drum for Russia from nostalgia or because my wife is Russian, but I have been there many times now, and I can see western media coverage for what it is.

I couldnt agree more. That book "The Third Rome" I mentioned a few posts back is really good it dispells a lot of myths about Russian history. Its not so much a "scholarly work" but its a really good popular introduction to the topic I think.

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you, Alec - I know you didn't say so! It's just that when one peers behind the superficial and biased media reports of, well, most things, you see a different picture but many people think it's a bit odd to disagree with received opinion. You know the prophecy of St Anthony the Great - that a time would come when the few Christians left would be sane and the rest of the world mad but the world would call them mad.
It really is alarming to think how things have changed in just 50 years. When I was a boy growing up in 1950's England, it would never occur to anyone to have to say that they were Christian. On official forms we were asked for our Christian name. Now, to say one is a Christian is like saying one is a member of some strange sect. One is marked out as different. And of course to be Orthodox is to be very odd indeed! But to be Orthodox is simply to do what everyone used to do. I will probably get some stick for some of the things I say on this site, but I am genuinely distressed when people water down the Orthodox faith. In these times, we need to practice the faith in all its fulness and richness, not so as to be legalistic and pharisaic, of course, but to have that abundance which the Church in its wisdom offers.
My late first wife died of cancer five years ago. She was the most ordinary person you could have met. But she accepted the Orthodox faith (three years before) completely and unreservedly, and for that she gained an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom.

[Olga]

Now, to say one is a Christian is like saying one is a member of some strange sect. One is marked out as different.

Perhaps one reason for this is that the term Christian has been stridently appropriated in recent years by charismatic, pentecostal, born-again and other such sects, as they have become far more visible in the public eye. Frequently they refer to themselves as having "found Christianity/God/Jesus", or "become Christian" on their joining the sect, yet I suspect the majority of these people would have been baptised as children in a mainstream denomination, rather than being converts from a non-Christian faith, or having had no faith tradition at all. By contrast, the official titles of the mainstream, traditional churches do not use the word Christian in their title, viz: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Church of England, Lutheran. It used to be that everybody knew that Church meant Christian, it needed no further qualification. However, now that there has been a gradual "cultural ignorance" coming over the past generation or so, this is no longer the case. Along come the sects, who have taken the word Christian, and run with it, using it as their rallying-cry and standard.

[Anthony]

Certainly Dominic Lieven's excellent Nicholas II (1993) is the place to go for a balanced account - but Massie is a little on the 'history-lite' side of things. Orlando Figes, A Peoples' Tragedy gives one a slightly different perspective. What is especially good about Lieven is that he tackles head on the idea that Nicholas was stupid and weak; he was neither, but then nor was he equipped to rule in the way he tried to rule, and his choices were not of the wisest.



Dear John,

Do you mean that there is inaccurate or misleading material in Massey, or just that he doesn't present his account in the way a professional historian would? I ask because I have been thinking about buying the book. (I have already read Figes.)

Anthony

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

Do you mean that there is inaccurate or misleading material in Massey, or just that he doesn't present his account in the way a professional historian would? I ask because I have been thinking about buying the book. (I have already read Figes.)

Anthony


Dear Anthony,

Massie is OK for light reading, and I certainly would not discourage anyone with an interest in Russia and its history from reading it; indeed, as a holiday read it is rather fun; my point was more to do with those who want to get beneath the narrative into the analysis, here Massie scores less highly. The great thing about Dom Lieven's book about Nicholas II is that it combines an easy reading style, deep scholarship, and a love and knowledge of Russia and its culture.

Figes, I must admit, I found harrowing, and actually difficult to read, not because of its style - he is an excellent writer - but just because the subject matter is so horrific. I have seldom read a book that brought out the bestiality of the revolutionaries in the way he does - and, as he writes as no sympathiser with the ancien regime, this is all the more telling, since no one could accuse him of a 'white' bias.

Of course, from an Orthodox point of view, what happened shows the results of a materialist philosophy; but Figes' portrait of it made me shudder.


In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

If I had the money I would buy 100 copies of "The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy" by Matthew Raphael Johnson and give it to everyone for free. The book is certainly biased in favor of the Russian Monarchy and at times could be charged with giving.. well a little too much of a rosey picture but at least he is honest about his bias and you know where he is coming from. It works as a good counterbalance to the majority of other english books on Russian history that are biased in the other direction. Its also written in a very easy to read and enjoyable style.

[Anthony]

Thank you for the replies; I will look out for these titles, and probably read Massie in the meantime. I certainly agree about Figes being a gruelling experience. I have also read, and can recommend, his book "Natasha's Dance", an interesting look at aspects of Russian culture.