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: Emperor. Tsar. Saint” international Symposium Igor Krasnov, Victoria, BC Canada The first Russian royal dynasty 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 Time of Troubles, a period known for its great famine, multiple civil uprisings and devastating war. Tsar Nicholas II belonged to the House of Romanov, the second and the last royal dynasty which reigned Russia 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 20th century 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 World War I. 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, Bolsheviks 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 Soviet 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 title 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 monarchism: “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.