Church on the Blood Consecrated

The Associated Press | Thursday, Jul. 17, 2003

[B-Chan]

I agree. His Imperial Majesty Czar Nicholas II was a weak ruler and a terrible judge of character -- but let no one criticize his devotion as a husband, a father, or a Christian. He made mistakes, he sinned greatly, true, but he was not a monster and did not deserve to be butchered with his family in a dank basement far from home.

Despite the misery of life in pre-revolutionary Russia, the peasants never lost their affection for nor reverence toward the House of Romanov, and the steps taken by the Czar in the last years of his reign did more to improve the lot of the average Russian (especially the Kulak) than anything the filthy Bolsheviks ever did.

The regicide of the Romanovs at the hands of the godless Leninist monsters that destroyed the Christian empire of Russia will echo down the ages as an example of what happens when a nation attempts to kill God and remake the world in the image of Man. May St. Vladmir and St. Andrew pray with Our Lady of Fatima for the people and the crown of Russia!

[AD from SpringBay]

...a golden-domed memorial church...

A church is not a building bump!

[Aliska]

Thank you for the wonderful links. There is a lot of inspirational reading there, and when it isn't so hot, I'll slowly work my way through the material.

I'm neither monarchist nor orthodox, but there is something about that family that draws me. Everyone who learns more about them is touched deeply by what happened to them. Their patience and steadfastness in their suffering near the end should be a shining example to all Christians.

[RussianConservative]

Actually misery not misery in pre-Revolutionary Russia. Example: In 1919 Soviet do census on what percentage 17-25 could read...well it was over 75%....so figure, if that high and Tsar gone for only 2 years...most learned under Tsar. Stalipen, before murder by soviets and WW1, destroyed the villages by taking farm families from village (where elders realloted land every 5 year) and plant them on own farmland. Farm family then given large 0% interest loan so all equipment and food/seed in hand. That why soviets kill him, they know in 1 generation no farmer/peasant support them. That why, out of population of 150 million, soviet kill 15 million kulaks, and that was richer farmer...rest collectivized.

Also, Russia at time had 10% growth rate for last 5 years before WW1. Did you know...while Tsar at front fighting enemies what Tsarina and daughters doing? I tell you, they work as nurses in hospital, every day, upto elbow in blood...why? Because it is sons of motherland they treat. Where were British royals while boys dieing at front? Froliking?

Tsar made mistake, first and biggest was not persuing Ruso-Japanese war to victory but caving in to socialist "peaceniks" who then use excuse of armestice as reason for attempted 1905 revolution. Russia winning, Japan ran out of men, they call up everyone from 16-60 and not able to match Russia which move 1 brigade/week into theater summer or winter....now consider distance. That why Japanese plead with Theoder Roosovelt for help.

In WW1, outbreak, so many men want join army that many turn back from lack of uniforms and rifles....most men wanted piece of glory.

Tsar second mistake, again listen to socialist and step down to avoid civil unrest and soviet take over...boy that big mistake or what? Tsar's biggest mistake is attempted Divine Rule instead of Constitutional Monarchy...taking executive for life role. Other huge mistake...not destroying racists groups Alexander III allow to start. They cause nothing but disruption and hate in empire.

[RussianConservative]

Not Georgy...even Patriarch said never that spoiled brat. When funeral ceremony start for Tsar, what Georgy do? He go and jump on throne to "feel it out"....Russia need strong leadership not spoiled British style royal.

[royalcello]

Where were British royals while boys dieing at front? Froliking?

No. Future kings Edward VIII (1894-1972) and George VI (1895-1952) both served in the British Armed Forces during World War I. Edward would have liked to take a more active role but the government wouldn't let him. Albert (the future George VI) showed great bravery in the Royal Navy at the Battle of Jutland.

Otherwise I agree with you.

[royalcello]

If not Georgy, than who? He is the most obvious heir. Maybe he showed some immaturity as a teenager (who doesn't?) but people grow up.

Monarchy does not guarantee that every ruler will be good. But neither does democracy or any other system.

[RussianConservative]

Hell, many families still around, many to choose from. Mine for one...russian aristocracy/polish royalty on mother side for example. Some time, fresh blood is what called for.

[RussianConservative]

Stolypin's boldest measure was his peasant reform program. It allowed, and sometimes forced, the breakup of communes as well as the establishment of full private property. Stolypin hoped that the reform program would create a class of conservative landowning farmers loyal to the tsar. Most peasants did not want to lose the safety of the commune or to permit outsiders to buy village land, however. By 1914 only about 10 percent of all peasant communes had been dissolved. Nevertheless, the economy recovered and grew impressively from 1907 to 1914, both quantitatively and through the formation of rural cooperatives and banks and the generation of domestic capital. By 1914 Russian steel production equaled that of France and Austria-Hungary, and Russia's economic growth rate was one of the highest in the world. Although external debt was very high, it was declining as a percentage of the gross national product (GNP--see Glossary), and the empire's overall trade balance was favorable.

In 1911 a double agent working for the Okhrana assassinated Stolypin, and Finance Minister Vladimir Kokovtsov replaced him. The cautious Kokovtsov was very able and a supporter of the tsar, but he could not compete with the powerful court factions that dominated the government.

Historians have debated whether Russia had the potential to develop a constitutional government between 1905 and 1914. The failure to do so was partly because the tsar was not willing to give up autocratic rule or share power. By manipulating the franchise, the government obtained progressively more conservative, but less representative, Dumas. Moreover, the regime sometimes bypassed the conservative Dumas and ruled by decree.

During this period, the government's policies waivered from reformist to repressive. Historians have speculated about whether Witte's and Stolypin's bold reform plans could have "saved" the Russian Empire. But court politics, together with the continuing isolation of the tsar and the bureaucracy from the rest of society, hampered all reforms. Suspensions of civil liberties and the rule of law continued in many places, and neither workers nor the Orthodox Church had the right to organize themselves as they chose. Discrimination against Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, and Old Believers was common. Domestic unrest was on the rise while the empire's foreign policy was becoming more adventurous.

[royalcello]

So you want to be Tsar...no wonder you don't like Georgy...

As a pragmatic monarchist, I would accept a new dynasty, but there should be some sort of genealogical connection to the Romanovs--as in 1613, when Michael Romanov was the grandnephew of one of Ivan IV's wives.

Of course I realize that the restoration of the monarchy is not likely, at least in the near future. But I will never give up hope.

[RussianConservative]

Never said I want Tsar...would be interesting, just gave family as example. Romanov's claim to fame to Rurik's line thin at best....simply during Troubled Times, all upper families killed and Michael's father patriarch.