|
3 members (theophan, 2 invisible),
90
guests, and
18
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,296
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712 |
Dear Anton, Yes. Hritzko PS: About 5 years ago I was invited to a black tie business dinner at the Royal Russian summer palace at Peterhoof, near St-Petersburg, Russia. Soon after the dinner I walked up to the Czar / Czarina's throne and sat on it (I have pictures to prove it) and declared: in the name of all the Ukrainian Cossaks on whose bones this palace and St-Petersburg were built, that should a monarch ever return to this summer palace in Russia, he or she would be Ukrainian and would rule from Ukraine. My dinner guests and friends had a good laugh, but at least one of the security guards was ready to put me on a one way train to Siberia. The people of St-Petersburg were warm, friendly, and in many ways much more sophisticated than those of Moscow. The Hermitage is well worth seeing. It rivals the best European museums. It was very cold by early October, so I would suggest you visit before then. Hritzko
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351 |
Dear Hritzko:
As far as I know the Russian Federation does not officially support one group over the other.
The Patriarch of Moscow is very public in his support of the Grand Duchess Maria.
I do not know if he has ever met Grand Duke Nicholas (which I doubt).
When they had the Burial Service for the remains of the Imperial family Grand Duchess Maria made it very plain that she would not attend.
The Grand Duke Nicholas on the other hand did attend and even gave a speech at the luncheon organized by the Saint Petersburg government.
The Grand Duchess Maria chose instead to attend the Canonization of the Imperial Passion Bearers in Moscow.
Both groups have their points of strength and weakness and issues of succession could only be resolved with the gathering of a Sobor of Nobles (which today would be almost impossible to summon).
No matter what the present situation is like the future may be worse.
As I understand, Grand Duke George, Maria's son, holds a German passport that identifies him as "His Royal Highness Prince George of Prussia".
His father is Prince Frederick of Prussia and his family name is von Hohenzollern.
If he were to also contract an unequal marriage where would that place him in the scheme of things?
Enquiring minds want to know.
defreitas
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Defreitas, One thing Maria has over the other Romanovs is her eagerness to get her son to be the next Tsar of Russia. Nicholas, on the other hand, has gone on public record saying, "I'm a republican, you know!"  He strongly believes that a more absolutistic monarch would be better for Russia . . . Tsar Paul I's rules of succession are there in place, that is true, but the current government could change them. When Tsar Paul himself was getting to be too much, the Russians changed him too . . . I understand they were going to ask him politely if he would kindly consider stepping down peacefully - that was just before they brutally murdered him in his own bedchamber. And I also understand that of those who killed him, no one had bothered to bring paper or pen or ink on which to write an act of abdication . . . So where there's a will, there is always a way! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by defreitas:
The situation becomes difficult under Grand Duke Vladimir who made, what was regarded by some, as an unequal marriage to a Georgian Princess of the Bagration Family, currently the Grand Duchess Leonida.
Since the exile of the Imperial family made contracting equal marriages very hard, most of the Romanovs married what is popularly called commoners (non-royal persons).
According to the succession laws enacted by Paul I the Crown is reserved exclusively to male rulers.
This law is nullified if the entire male line dies out.
Then and only then could a female ascend the throne.
T
Such codes and the attitudes they represent solidify my very non-monarchist position! I am interested however in the new Spanish social democratic government's manifesto pledge to introduce female succession to the Spanish throne
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351 |
Dear Brian:
Female succession to the Spanish throne is nothing new.
They have already had two Queens named "Isabella".
I think that the French Bourbons, when they became rulers of Spain, instituted male primogeniture.
The whole issue is basically against all Spanish custom and tradition.
Females have always been able to succeed to noble titles, and even pass them to their husbands (if a man marries a Duchess, he becomes a Duke).
When Isabella II, the last female ruler of Spain, became Queen in the early 19th century her accession ignited a series of violent civil wars.
These wars came to be known as the "Carlist Wars" after the Queen's Uncle Don Carlos who was the hereditary pretender.
Even Gen. Franco in the 30s still had Carlist elements under his command.
Hard to believe isn't it.
defreitas
P.S.
My apologies to all our friends on the forum for having hijacked this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 441
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 441 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 915 |
Originally posted by defreitas:
These wars came to be known as the "Carlist Wars" after the Queen's Uncle Don Carlos who was the hereditary pretender.
Even Gen. Franco in the 30s still had Carlist elements under his command.
Long live the Requet�!!! Viva los Carlistos!!! The Carlist Wars were about Catholicism, really. Isabel II was a secularist. Without the Carlists, Franco would never have been able to defeat the Reds in the Civil War. Nevertheless, he didn't treat them very well afterwards. The Carlists (also known as the Traditionalist Communion) believed in de-centralized government under a Catholic King, and were powerful enough (with their own military, etc.) that Franco felt the need to neutralize them. This he did by exiling Fal Cond�, and combining the Carlists with the very different Falange. Oh, well. Talk about "thread topics" . . . In Christ, LatinTrad the Carlist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779 |
After a Paschal absence I come back and read all of these posts about sergianism.
May I RESPECTFULLY point out to 'balaban' that this sergianism did not magically start when 'Patriarch' Sergius made his pact with Stalin, but was a living part of life within the Russian state Church in the time of the Tsars.
Ever since the disaster of the Russian schism at the end of the 17th century the state Church of Russia was enslaved to the organs of state, who controlled it ruthelessly - spilling the blood of Orthodox dissenters just as was done in the 20th century.
Many Russian Orthodox Traditionalists see the pre-revolutionary past through such rosy tinted spectacles, that they fail to see that the sergianism of the 20th century is simply an historical continuation of the exploitation and control of the Church by Peter the 'Great' and his successors, and of the refusal of the Church as an instituation to resist this trend.
If there had been no revolution in Russia and no rift between the Church and the state, what would the relationship between them be like today?
Would the Church be free, or would it be ruthelessly controlled by a 'Holy' Governing synod? Would it make its own decisions or be carefully steered like the pre-revolutionary Church? Would the bishops be the representatives of the laos - the people of God - or would they be state appointees and Tsarist civil servants?
If there was a Tsar on the throne of Russia, sergianism could well be alive and kicking, call it Byzantine symphonia... or whatever you like. At the end of the day, sergianism is a consequence of Byzantine Church/state policy and it was firmly established in Russia by Tsars/Emperors.
Ask an Old Believer when the policies of sergianism started and it won't be in the 1920's!!!
Khristos voskrese.
Mark, monk and sinner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Bless, Father Mark
XPUCTOC BOCKPECE!
How wonderful to see you here again!
I understand that St Athanasius of Siberia was, last year, glorified a Holy New Hieromartyr and that the semeyskie site now has a Canon in his honour!
Any news of future Old Believer glorifications?
We have a visiting Presbytera from Ukraine (who just found out she's pregnant). She had dinner with my family last night and she was very happy to see me with my lestovka!
Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779 |
Voistinu voskrese.
Dear Alex, can you post the address of the semeyskie site!
Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Bless, Father Mark! It is: http://semeyskie/narod.ru Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712 |
Religious Information Services of Ukraine (RISU) has a nice story about a Russian Old Believer's monastery in the Chernivtci (Ukraine) which is in dire need of repairs. It would appear that they are seeking funds to repair the only monestary this church has in the Ukraine and Russia.
Hritzko
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 527 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 527 Likes: 1 |
Voistinnu Voskrese! Dear Fr. Mark, While I certainly would agree with you about the Tsar Peter and his abolishment of the Patriarchate,I would observe that the last Tsar,Nicholas II, did in fact wish to have the Patriarchate reinstated, in fact he proposed himself as a candidate , which would have meant seperating from his wife and taking Monastic vows.Our first Metropolitan Anthony(Khrapovitsky), was not only in favour in reestablishing the Patriarchate, but he was also in favour of the Old Rite,i.e, in the reconciliation of Old Believers to the Russian church with the retention of the Old Rite.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779 |
Dear Fr.Al - otche blagoslovi!
I am well aware of the proposals of the last Tsar and that he was quite unlike many of his predecessors in turning to older models of Russian Orthodoxy. However, whilst there can be much conjecture about 'what ifs' - including my own - it remains that until the dawn of the revolution the precursor of the 'sergianstvo' still allowed the control of the Church by the organs of state.
I also appreciate the great efforts made by Metropolitan Antonii and othet bishops to end centuries of separation and persecution.
Pray for me a sinner.
Khristos voskrese!
Mark, unworthy monk.
|
|
|
|
|
