Nicholas II and the Sacredness of a Monarchy: Truth and Myth behind the relations between the Power and Christianity Paper presented on October 27, 2018 at Colchester, UK, for the “Nicholas II: . . Saint” international Symposium

Igor Krasnov, Victoria, BC Canada

The first Russian royal was the House of Rurik established back in 862 AD. The last Russian Rurik Tsar died in 1598 and the crowning of the first Romanov Tsar took place in 1613. The interim time is commonly referred to as the , a period known for its great famine, multiple civil uprisings and devastating war. Tsar Nicholas II belonged to the , the second and the last royal dynasty which reigned between 1613-1917. He was blessed by the Church to reign over Russia in a beautiful ceremony of coronation that is described in detail in R. Massie’s book “Nicholas and Alexandra” and in many other publications.

After Nicholas II abdicated from power in March of 1917 another much more devastating time of trouble befell Russia involving a Civil war, ten-year economic setback, mass purges and migration, a bitter and long war with Germany of 1941-1945, another economic setback afterwards. Arguably, Russia lost the to such powers as the USA and even Germany it had defeated in World War II. After exactly a hundred years after the tragic 1918, Russia is still not where it should belong on the international arena: politically it is an outcast rather than a leader of the civilized world. What is it, just a sequence of unfortunate events that somehow happened to a great country just within a century, or logical consequences of a huge catastrophe? I argue it is the latter, and that this catastrophe was the heinous crime of the regicide of 1918 and the subsequent abolition of the monarchy in Russia. In my article I lay out arguments for the monarchy as an effective, sound and God-pleasing way to govern a state, I examine the Biblical origins of a monarchy, what the contemporary science tells us about its benefits, what its common pitfalls are. I cite several unbiased witnesses to the amazing economic, political and cultural success of Tsarist Russia in the early 20th century and their projections for what Russia would have become had it remained a monarchy led by the Romanov House.

When commissars cruelly murdered Nicholas Romanov, his family and his servants during the late night of July 16, 1918 in Ekaterinburg they had more in mind than just punishing the “Bloody Nicholas” for the “crimes” which were completely made up by the Bolshevik propaganda. Let us recall that technically Nicholas had abdicated from the Russian throne a year before and he was not a monarch at the time of the murder. However, the commissar leaders had ordered this terrible deed, most probably because they realized that technicalities aside Nicholas Romanov remained a tsar in the eyes of the Russian people and the whole world. This was not just an inhumane crime. It was a murder of the Russian monarchy, and this murder was supposed to set the new order for both Russia and the world that had just seen the fall of many European monarchies at the end of . Afterwards, throughout the twentieth century the Soviets vehemently attacked monarchy as an obsolete institution, an atavistic and laughable form of government, they classified data on Tsarist Russia, banned everything that reminded Russians of their last and greatest monarch.

One might wonder, why so much hatred if monarchy was so atavistic and laughable? The logical way to emphasize the irrelevance of a monarchy would be to open the archives and to publicize the evidence. But, of course, could not do it because the evidence did not support their claims which were

1

indeed laughable. Even the claims themselves were contradicting each other, whether the propaganda referred to Nicholas II as tyrant “Bloody Nicholas”, or a “weak” ruler who was under his wife’s thumb and hesitated to make simplest decisions. Both extremes are, of course, nonsense and we are just now, one hundred years after Nicholas’s death, finding the truth about Nicholas II and his reign during which Russia did thrive richly. Even in my youth at the end of the USSR there were still lots of traces of how great the Tsar Russia had been, whether it was still reliable tools in my Granddad’s workshop, old but still functional and very beautiful furniture in his dacha, or even some pieces of clothes lovingly preserved in the family throughout the years of the Soviet “might”. Talking of these things my Granddad praised the “Tsar quality” adding that it was way superior to the “Soviet quality”.

So, it is crystal clear now that the real goals of the illegitimate power seizure that took place in October of 1917 were not “Bread to the People” or “Land to the Peasants” as Bolsheviks falsely claimed in their propaganda. Simply put, the Bolsheviks could not care less about Russia and its well-being. Shameful Brest-Litovsk peace treaty which ceded a lot of Russia-owned European land to Germany, mass purges, destruction of peasantry as a class, artificially caused famines and other adverse and grim Soviet realities were the actual proverbial fruit by which their order should be judged. What we now see clearer than ever is that the Bolsheviks wanted to replace the Christian Orthodox religion with their pie-in-the-sky communism ideas, they wanted to destroy the Russian monarchy suggesting their own sacred right to hold power in Russia instead, finally they wanted to completely erase monarchy as a way to govern a state from the collective human memory supporting various rebellious forces throughout the world. First two claims turned out to be unsustainable, the third is dwindling, but it did create a lot of tragedy in the 20th century, some of which still persists in such oppressive regimes as North Korea or Cuba fuelled at the inception by the Soviet resources and propaganda.

Fortunately, the monarchy has outlived the ideas of godless commissars, but this ancient power institution is surrounded with a lot of labeling, myths and misunderstanding. Let us now examine the truth and the myth behind the relations between the power and Christianity as is proposed in the of this work. I will try to prove that monarchic power is both mystically sacred and politically effective way to govern a contemporary state. I will also explain some common misunderstandings accompanying the notion of the sacredness of power.

The first mention of the king goes back to the Five Books of Moses. In Genesis 14, King Melchizedek prophetically acts out the first proto-Eucharist in Scripture, blessing Abraham with bread and wine. In Genesis 17, God promises to bless Abraham with kings for descendants. In Genesis 35, God promises to bless Jacob with kings for descendants. In Genesis 49, God promises that Israel’s kings will come from the tribe of Judah. In Deuteronomy 17, Moses lays out the blueprint for Israel to have godly kings.

So, the Bible introduces the key figure of a monarchy, a king, long before the monarchy is “invented” in the Middle Ages (1). For a Judeo-Christian person, monarchy is the institution introduced and preferred by God, and therefore, when it works due to a righteous king in place, it really works wonders. The Bible in both the Old and the New Testaments clearly acknowledges monarchy:

• “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” (I Peter 2:13-14). • “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king” (I Peter 2:17).

2

• ”I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (I Tim. 2:1-2). • Proverbs 24:21 supports the biblical argument for : “Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and meddle not with them that are given to change”. • Any Bible concordance proves that the word “King” is among the most popular words in the Bible. • Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the “King” and the “King of kings”. This fact becomes much more meaningful if we remember that in the New Testament society many people spoke Greek, and the entire Roman empire was deeply influenced by the Greek culture, which had already been aware of democracy for over 500 years. Yet Jesus and the apostles never suggest or even acknowledge democracies or any other form of government.

Now let us turn to I Samuel 8, as it is the best, if not the only passage, that provides rationale for something other than a monarchical government.

In the story, Samuel has led Israel, a theocratic state under specific laws from God, well for decades as a “judge,” not a king, but his sons are corrupt, and the Israel elders insist that Samuel install “a king to judge us like all the nations.” Samuel is displeased, he prays about it, and God tells him to do what they asked: “Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (I Sam. 8:7).

On its face, this passage seems to be anti-monarchic but in fact it is just the other way around. Firstly, it is strange for Israel to get rebuked for wanting a king when a few hundred years before Moses had laid out the rules for kings in Israel: “When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (Deut. 17:14-15).

Secondly, Israel wasn’t rebuked for wanting a king. They were rebuked for wanting a king “like all the nations”. The phrase “like all the nations” can mean not just a king, but one that acts like other nations’ kings or, in other words, one not tied to Moses’ Code of Laws.

It is never mentioned in the Bible that monarchy is the perfect way to govern a state. On the contrary, verses in both Deut. 17:16-17 and I Sam. 8:11-18 warn people against unrighteous kings multiplying horses (military machines), gold (heavy taxes), and wives (sensual pleasures and other excesses). Moses and Samuel both warn Israel that some kings can and will go in that direction and that the people would suffer as a result. The wisdom books of the Old Testament share same warning: “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as it were an error which proceedeth from the ruler: folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in a low place” (Ec. 10:5-6), or that “gold hath destroyed many, and perverted the hearts of kings” (Sir. 8:2). The wisdom books still remind us that “through the prudence of them which are in authority the city shall be inhabited” (Sir. 10:3) and advise us to “Keep the king's command” reminding that it should be “in regard of the oath of God” (Ec. 8:2) because “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness” (Prov. 16:12).

3

Fr. John Whiteford, an Orthodox priest in Texas (ROCOR), summarizes this discussion in his excellent article “The Right Government” (2): “So one could argue that the most ideal form of government is a theocracy, but as the history of Israel up to this point demonstrated, such a theocracy only worked out well for the people when they were zealous to obey God, which very often was not the case. So, monarchy is perhaps the second best system of government, but not one without problems … because for monarchy to work out well, you need a king that is pious”.

Since childhood we have heard a lot about how bad some monarchs were (just as predicted in the Bible), but rarely it has been pointed out that it is the monarchy that has brought the world to its current state of prosperity. Indeed, there were bad kings and queens but there were great kings and queens too! Whatever despotic the monarch was they upheld such order which protected and supported trade, religion, science and culture. The monarch would also represent the institution of the third-party trial, thus removing the violence from conflicting parties. It is safe to say that without the monarchy the lives of separate people would have always been “poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, and our history probably would not have made it to the current moment, especially with more destructive weapons being invented. So, historically, monarchy has been one of the keys to mankind’s survival. For a nation to forcefully reject a monarchy would always mean trouble: civil disorder, economic setback, famine, moral degradation, mass migration. Even monarchy at its worst, or tyranny, is not as violent as anarchy. While being unrighteous, tyrants are not being evil as they keep their dominions from chaos by maintaining some control over violence. As Judges famously ends: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jud. 21:25). It is implied here that the people of Israel were committing atrocities because the lack of monarchy implied anarchy to them.

The fact that this world has been saved by monarchies is well documented in contemporary science. Here is what Steven Pinker, the influential thinker and scientist, and by no means a monarchist or a religious person, writes in his “The Better Angels of Our Nature. Why Violence Has Declined” (2011): “Even in the [violent] late Middle Ages, Western Europe was far less violent than the unpacified nonstate societies and the Inuit... And from the 14th century on, the European homicide rank rate sank steadily” (p. 63). Pinker explains this decrease in violence with two major causes: the centralization of state control, or “Leviathan” as he puts it, and gentle commerce producing the positive-sum cooperation which “flourishes best inside a big tent presided over by Leviathan” (p.77). He describes the meaning of Leviathan so: “The first [trigger for the pacification process] was the consolidation of a genuine Leviathan after centuries of anarchy in Europe's feudal patchwork of baronies and fiefs. Centralized monarchies gained in strength, brought the warring knights under their control, and extended their tentacles into the outer reaches of their kingdoms” (p. 74). The two civilizing forces, monarchies and trade, then, reinforce each other and can be considered part of a single process: “The centralization of state control and its monopolization of violence, the growth of craft guilds and bureaucracies, the replacement of barter with money, the development of technology, the enhancement of trade, the growing webs of dependency among far-flung individuals, all fit into an organic whole. And to prosper within that whole, one had to cultivate faculties of empathy and self-control until they became... second nature” (p. 78). Thus, monarchy led to a specific human behavior, or, as Steven Pinker puts it in the title of his book, to the better angels of our nature.

The idea of a ruler being a “minister of God” expressed by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 13:1-4) often gets abused as a rationale for a tyrant to hold the power causing its subjects to suffer from tyranny. To explain these verses by St. Paul, we find multiple evidence in the Bible suggesting that even

4

an anointed king can fall out of God’s grace, and those denouncing such a ruler doing God-pleasing work. We can refer to Psalm 2 in the Old Testament: “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling” (Ps. 2:10-11), or to the New Testament in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5: 10) where the rulers that persecute the righteous are denounced, because the next line suggests persecutions by fellow-people (thus laying the foundation for Christian passion-bearing, the fate of Nicholas II and his family): “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake” (Mt. 5:11).

Interestingly, St. Paul never speaks of a “king”, as a person who holds the power. He actually speaks of “higher powers” and those who represent them: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:1-2). What it means is that the institute of centralized power is indeed sacred in the meaning it is “of God” and, therefore, it deserves great respect as it keeps the mankind from killing each other in vengeance wars. The kings, or the individuals who exercise centralized powers, represent this sacredness, and they should be treated with utmost respect by their subjects. They are also held under very close human and divine scrutiny for their deeds affecting the whole country. Thus, the righteous and responsible monarch is the first servant of the monarchy. Their most logical behavior is to be extremely cautious in their decisions putting country’s interests always ahead of their own as their main motivation. And Nicholas II was exactly such kind of a ruler.

To this point, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco in his sermon “The Sin of Regicide” contrasts the deaths of two anointed kings, King Saul and Tsar Nicholas II. As we know Saul had tried to kill his successor David and was David’s worst enemy. However, David “mourned, and wept, and fasted” (II Sam. 1:12). St. John points out that in contrast to Saul, who had turned away from God and in consequence had been abandoned by Him, Emperor Nicholas II was an example of piety and complete submission to the will of God: “Having received, not the old Testament pouring of oil on the head, but the grace-filled “seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” in the sacrament of Chrismation, Emperor Nicholas II was faithful to his high calling until the end of his life, aware of his responsibility before God. In his every action Emperor Nicholas II listened to his conscience; he always walked before the Lord God. In his days of earthly prosperity, “most pious” was not simply a title given him, but a statement of fact. In his time of trial he displayed patience like that of the righteous Job. Against such an Emperor did criminals raise their hands, when, like gold in the furnace, he had already been purified by the trials he had endured, so that he was an innocent victim in the full sense of the word... Such crimes do not go unpunished. They cry out to heaven and bring God’s wrath down upon the earth... Russia must bow down before its humiliated, slandered, and martyred Emperor, just as the people of Kiev once bowed down before the saintly Igor, whom they had martyred, and the people of Vladimir and Suzdal before the slain Andrew Bogolubsky! Then the passion-bearing Emperor will be bold before God, and his prayer will save the Russian land from distress which it had been enduring. Then the tsar-martyr and his fellow sufferers will become the new heavenly protectors of Holy Russia.”

There are many prospering nations today that rejected a monarchy, sometimes by a regicide act to become “democratic” (always with a lot of bloodshed and other human tragedy): the USA, France, Germany, Italy, etc. They think they have paid their price, but it is not over for them yet and it will never be. Every now and then a popular vote in “democratic” countries would produce a leader of, so to say,

5

questionable quality with dubious motives. The tragedy of such choice is that it is ultimate: new leader would become a new reference point for the whole nation; the stability and continuity get hurt in the process. The change can be so drastic that the “democracy” might simply kill itself giving way to an authoritarian regime, as is the case with charismatic and autocratic rulers dismantling democratic institutions in Russia or in Venezuela.

Contemporary monarchies are not just the beacons of charity, tradition and good old-time quality. The hereditary royal powers stand above the four-year election cycle and sometimes they might take on an important and active role in situations of the “Judgement of Solomon” type, after an Old Testament famous king. Assuming that the readers are familiar with this story (3 Kings 3:16-28), it should be mentioned that King Solomon represented third-party wisdom and impartiality faced with a very heated discussion that would have not been resolved wisely from within. Such impartial judgement served well recently in 2011 in Great Britain when Queen Elizabeth II visited Ireland in order to help calm the political turbulence, or in 2016 when Queen’s representative in Canadian British Columbia avoided one leader’s call for another costly election by asking the tied leader to be the new premier.

Monarchy is something that fills a society with sprit, a strong and unique identity. It’s like the soul of a person. And like the soul of a person, the monarch can be good or bad. Nicholas was a very good monarch, righteous, and responsible to the end, and his country was flourishing with him as a result. While the economic growth was steady in Russia under the Romanovs, it was under Nicholas II when a colossal economic leap took place in Russia (3). The famous Trans-Siberian Railway, the longest railway network in the world connecting Central Russia with Siberia and the Russian Far East was built 1891- 1916 and is still in use now. Textile, electro-technical, chemical, mining, mechanical engineering, ship- making factories were built. There were over 400 huge factories in Russia in 1910s. Russian economy was the fourth biggest in the world after American, British, and German. The typical thing about it (and quite different from Russia today) was that it was not mainly based on extraction of raw materials, like grain, oil, coal, iron, or wood, although trading in these commodities was an important source of revenue. Russian economy was mostly of a more developed, manufacturing type as it was producing a finished, usable product and was heavily involved in construction.

Nicholas II reforms included creation of completely new branches of economy: electrical engineering, radio-frequency engineering, chemical engineering, aircraft engineering. They were based on scientific advances of the last quarter of the 19th century. Many of those factories were actively working during the Stalin times to produce the Soviet “industrialization miracle”, while in fact they were the results of Nicholas II strategic plans. The country made giant strides with Nicholas because God was with him and Russia.

I am personally biased towards Nicholas II and restoration of the monarchy in Russia, but for the sake of presenting a balanced view of the Tsar Russia, would like to turn to the voices of such Nicholas’ contemporaries who hardly had any bias towards Russia. For this presentation I have compiled a list of quotes that correspondents of the American National Geographic magazine published in their articles about Russia at the time of Nicholas’ reign, between 1900 to 1914. These correspondents had differing views on the personality of the Russian Tsar and the results of his work, but nevertheless many comments, even critical ones, are striking.

Here is an illustration of the political climate of Russia under late Tsar Nicholas, found in the article “The Revolution in Russia” (May 1907, by William Eleroy Curtis): “Three times during the Douma [the sitting

6

of the Russian Parliament] he [the Tsar] offered the Liberals the opportunity to form a ministry, and if the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic party had possessed a particle of common sense, they would have met him half way and accepted his olive branches. The first time he offered them the administration of the government they rejected his overtures in the most contemptuous manner they could devise. The second time they gave the matter serious reflection and discussed it for several days. Finally, they agreed to accept, but adopted a program so preposterous and absurd that their reply was not worthy of attention. They would not be content with gradual reform; they insisted that everything should be done in an instant... The leaders of the first Russian parliament, had they been willing to allow a gradual development of democratic ideas and liberal forms of administration, might have had the opportunity to guide and control the regeneration of Russia; but they would not listen to reason; they demanded all or nothing”.

A tsar with such inflexible opponents should indeed proceed with a lot of caution ruling the country. No wonder the correspondent writes that “[Nicholas II] had a vacillating [mild, indecisive] way to rule Russia and was being “the continual victim of misrepresentation and bad advice” but also noted that “Nicholas II has a very gentle disposition, a kind heart, and a desire to promote the welfare of his subjects... He has a deep vein of religious sentiment.”

Most of reports from Russia are very supportive of Nicholas’ work. Take for example this quote from “The Growth of Russia”, May 1900, by Edwin A. Grosvenor praising Russian Tsar for his famous peacekeeping initiative. As is known from history, on 24 August 1898, at their weekly reception at the Foreign Office in St. Petersburg, the ambassadors and ministers of the major nations accredited to the Russian Court were presented a written statement to be forwarded to their respective governments. In it, the Tsar invited the governments to join an international conference on peace and disarmament. According to the Tsar, he thought it would be better for the prosperity and progress of mankind if governments sat down and talked and concluded agreements instead of being divided and hostile towards one another. About this manifesto Edwin A. Grosvenor wrote: “How far the peace manifesto of Nicholas II was prompted by philanthropy or by profound but selfish statecraft it is impossible to know. If philanthropy, that manifesto remains the noblest and most memorable document ever issued by a Christian monarch; if political sagacity, that manifesto is in appreciation of the future, the astutest utterance ever made by the occupant of the Russian throne. But it is unbecoming to question the hidden motives of a deed in itself sublime. History will record no more than this: that at the close of a century more crowded with bloodshed and war than any other since time began, Russia through the voice of her autocratic Czar put forth a plea to all mankind in favor of universal brotherhood and peace”.

I’d like to emphasise that E. Grosvenor writes about 19th century in his article calling it “a century more crowded with bloodshed and war than any other since time began”. He obviously had no idea about what 20th century would be like. It’s important to note here that many thinkers at the time seriously believed the Great War of 1914 would be the last in the history of humanity. It might well have been the case had Nicholas II been able to finish the Great War triumphantly and to establish international rules for the eternal peace. But he was tricked into abdication, and his victory and peace initiative were overturned. The Manifesto was the precursor of what is now known the United Nations established only in 1945, after another terrible war and the introduction of nuclear weapons. Now instead of the Peace Manifesto great wars are restrained with mass destruction weapons, not my best choice of international security. This is another proof of how much better off Russia and the world would have been had the Russian monarchy survived.

7

Another amazing victory of the Tsar, this time on the internal front, of which we know quite poorly, is documented in November, 1914 issue by Gilbert H. Grosvenor, National Geographic editor: “The abolition of the sale of intoxicants in Russia represents the greatest prohibition victory of the age. With one dash of the pen one-sixth of the earth's surface and one-tenth of its population went “dry”. Heretofore vodka-drinking has been the curse of the Russian masses. Being a government monopoly, the officials of the government encouraged the sale of vodka, and the constantly and rapidly growing revenues from that source showed that they did so with success... Over night hundreds of thousands of government dram shops were closed. The response of the Russian people to this order was one of the surprises of Russian history. Everywhere it was received with acclaim, and there were such widespread and universal evidence of the approval of the government's stand in the matter that it soon became evident to the Tsar that what he had intended as a temporary measure could be made permanent…”

This achievement was completely lost during the Soviet times, and unfortunately today Russia is among the most drinking countries in the world. But we can and should study this forgotten Tsar initiative and learn from its lessons. It deserves close attention and deep research by today’s historians.

In “Russia” by Charles Emory Smith (Formerly minister to Russia and Ex-Postmaster General), Feb. 1905, the author explains the reason for the failures that took place during the Russian-Japanese war of 1904- 1905: “The present Czar is conscientious and devoted in public purpose and amiable and exemplary in personal life. He has been surrounded by conflicting influences, and each of the opposing forces has appeared at one time or another to be dominant. The Czar’s disposition and tendency have been liberal, as was indicated in the noble impulse which convoked the Hague Conference. If at times there has been a backward movement it was because reactionary elements outside of the throne gained a temporary ascendancy, and if lamentable errors plunged the empire into a war for which she was so ill-prepared, it was because irregular influences, outside of the ministry, that were mistakenly trusted, gave evil counsels”. To understand the failures of the Russian-Japanese war we should keep in mind that Nicholas II became the Tsar only in 1894, at 26, and he was just learning to rule the huge Russia, while at the same time being under strong influence from his internal and external advisors, some of who had poor judgement (Nicholas’s uncles on his Father’s side) or unclear motives (German Emperor, King of Prussia and Nicholas’s uncle on ’s side Kaizer Wilhelm II).

In the article under the telling title “Young Russia: The Land of Unlimited Possibilities” (Nov., 1914, by Gilbert H. Grosvenor, National Geographic editor) the author praises the way the immense potential of Russia is being tapped by wise state policies which were pursued by Tsar Nicholas II: “This land of Orient and Occident boasts countless people, mineral wealth, timber, and burgeoning agriculture, but until recent years Russia has had little opportunity to fulfill her immense potential… If the Russians had not been one of the most prolific races the world has ever known, they would have been obliterated in those bitter years. Only a race of extraordinary vitality, of extraordinary tenacity could have survived what they suffered… The of were shrewd and patient, their people the most enduring and prolific in history… [T]he present dynasty [of the Romanovs] brought stability, immense growth, and enormous power to Russia...

When stern old Alexander [III] gave orders to the tutors to the then heir to the throne [Tsarevich Nicholas], he said to them: “Neglect nothing that can make my son truly a man”.

But with all the ignorance and poverty of the masses in Russia in the past, the leaven of national intelligence has begun to work. The progress of the time has also brought the moving picture and the

8

telephone and the railroad into a thousand remote communities, and has set to work forces that inevitably will spell the doom of illiteracy and ignorance and make Russia in fact the land of unlimited possibilities”.

One of the most enduring myths about the Tsar Russia says that the Russian population was vastly ignorant, and the country was “backwater” and underdeveloped. G. Grosvenor points out that by 1914 when he wrote his article things had already changed for the better. There is a lot of evidence to this effect from other subjective and statistical sources, like the book by A. Borisiuk “The Which They Have Told You to Forget” and others.

Special attention deserves the following quote from this article: “[Russia’s] 172.000.000 people are the most fecund on earth. During the 40 years from 1872 to 1912 European Russia... doubled her population and the larger ratio of that growth was toward the end rather than toward the beginning of that period. Assuming that the same ration will keep up, at the end of the present [20th] century Russia will have over six hundred million people – enough to offset the present population of all the continents except Asia”.

Open statistical resources allow us to quickly check that the population of Russia at the end of the 20th century was around 146 million people – as opposed to 600 million projected by Gilbert Grosvenor. Even if we add the population of all 14 independent now republics that were part of Russia under the Soviets as well as Finland which was also with Russia at the time of the writing of this National Geographic article, we would get roughly 300 million people. That’s 300 million people short of the projected estimate based on the ration proposed by Grosvenor. In other words, in rejecting the monarchy and in trying to build an artificial Soviet state, 300 million people, or half of Russian population, were not born. This is the real result of the most destructive “democratic” experiment in the Russian, and probably, in the world history.

Nicholas II was one of the most righteous kings ever. With him Russia was flourishing making giant economical, cultural, spiritual strides. The tragedy that followed his reign emphasizes just how high the country had risen prior to it. The shadows are the darkest when the sun is brightest. The sun of Nicholas’ reign was among the brightest in Russian history. Nicholas II laid out very firm and fertile foundation for the economic, cultural and religious development of the country which flourished under his rule. Russia was still behind some world powers, but this lag was only temporary. With his son and heir to the Russian throne Alexei being all Nicholas II hoped for in terms of intellect, character, faith – he was also very sympathetic for those who suffer and those who care for the suffering, due to his medical condition of hemophilia – in the 20th century monarchic Russia would have soared as an economic, political, scientific, cultural and spiritual leader of the world. It would have become the country demonstrating both might and highest moral principles and ideals, setting the mark of responsible political behavior at such high levels that are nowhere seen at the real moment. The Russian monarchy would have become the glorious kingdom, emulating the mystical Kingdom as close as it is physically possible in this world.

So, why did this glorious kingdom so easily give way to the godless, grim and short-lived Soviet rule? How to make sense of what happened to Russia in the 20th century? How did God in His Wisdom make it happen? The answer is obvious: the world was simply not ready for this bright kingdom that Russia would have become, and God in His Wisdom made it impossible – for the moment. However, He certainly succeeded in emphasizing the godlessness and inhumanness that was taking place under the

9

Soviets. St. Alexandra, Nicholas’s wife, wrote to one of her friends during their Ekaterinburg exile in another display of deepest humility typical of the Tsar Nicholas’s family: “Really, dear, don’t worry about us. My heart is broken only when I think about Russia – what they did to it in just a year! But God let it happen, and then it should be so, to make people see the lies around.”

On a higher, more universal scale St. Paul wrote it in his Epistle: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.” (1Cor. 1:21). In other words, for the reason of our faulty nature, it is hard for people to accept goodness on its face value, it is easier for us to make the mistake of pursuing foolishness if we want to grow. To paraphrase it, people learn best when they learn something the hard way. Let us now also recall that the Royal Passion Bearers emulated in their martyrdom God’s Own Son, who died for the good of the mankind on the Cross being completely innocent of the crimes He had been accused of. His suffering should not have happened by any reasonable account – but it did, so that mankind could learn from it. For the same good of the Russian people the Royal Passion Bearers accepted their martyrdom. And they would not have chosen any other fate because their martyrdom was the best way to make Russia learn from its dangerous infatuation with rebellious ideas. As St. John of Shanghai and San- Francisco put it: “The innocent blood [of the royal martyrs] that was shed will bring about the rebirth of Russia and cause it to shine with new glory!”

However, we can celebrate today a fair number of monarchies ruled by righteous and responsible rulers. And true to their rule being righteous, they are among the most successful and prosperous states in the world. Many of them have close blood ties to the Romanovs. We can list here our host country Great Britain with all the Commonwealth realms (Canada, Australia, etc.), Spain, which successfully returned to monarchy in 1975, thriving Scandinavian monarchies (, the Netherlands, Norway), East Asian constitutional monarchies (Bhutan, Japan, Thailand) and other monarchies.

As a consoling call to our American and other “democratic” audiences we can state that while democracy may not be an ideal form of a Christian government, since its citizens have the right to vote, they should exercise what influence for good they can, and assert their rights, as often Roman citizen St. Paul did, the author of the Epistle to the Romans, in which he stated that the “powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1).

Referenced Sources:

1. I base my discussion of the Biblical roots of monarchism on writings by an American Christian Orthodox thinker and writer Dean W. Arnold in his blog “The Soul of the East”: https://souloftheeast.org/2016/06/20/is-it-time-for-kings-to-replace-democracy-four- arguments-from-a-christian-viewpoint/, accessed on 2018-08-08. 2. https://stseraphimboise.org/load.php?pageid=576, accessed on 2018-08-08. 3. This discussion is based on the Russian-language article “100 Years Without the Tsar. Lessons of Economic Development of Russia” by D. Saprykin, available at http://www.pravoslavie.ru/105134.html, accessed on 2018-08-28.

10